Superhero Films and Human Longing

I was nearly eight years of age when I rose early on a Saturday morning to watch the premiere of  Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. My Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fascination was coming to a close and I needed a new fix. The Red Ranger was the fearless leader, and my friends and I would argue over who would pretend to be him and who would get stuck as the nerdy Blue Ranger. (Of course, back in my day, we went outside to play!) On top of that, I loved superhero comics and television/film incarnations, especially those starring Batman. Let's not forget that Emmitt Smith was a superhero in his own right, seemingly invincible on the football field. I was a boy's boy, not much different than your average boy today. But is this superhero fixation merely a boyhood fantasy? Shouldn't we grow out of this?

The Transcendency of Superhero Worship

In the past decade, superhero worship has been revived largely due to the plethora of films starring such characters as Batman, Superman, The Avengers and related characters, and Spider-Man. Since Spider-Man dominated the box office in 2002, superhero movies have amassed double-digit billions in ticket sales. Most recently, The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises have combined to gross $1 billion in just three months and are not near finished. These crowds have not consisted of only forty-something comic book junkies and young children. These spandex-clad giants of the big screen have transcended gender, age, race, religion, and socioeconomic status. At the midnight showing of Dark Knight Rises, I saw a black man wearing a Batman costume and a high school girl dressed as Joker. I witnessed a family including children and elderly saving seats for the corporate affair. There we were, all over the map demographically, begging Bruce Wayne to convince us how "anyone can be Batman."

Beyond the action, comedy, and cinematic wonderment exists a much more telling indictment of the human condition. There is a reason that the intrigue of superhuman ability surpasses all demographic boundaries.

The fantasy world of superheroes acts as a window to the soul. Mankind, made in the image of God and given the keys to creation, has not scratched the surface of its original design. Even at our highest, we will always crash into the ceiling of reality in a broken world. We claw and scratch for that which we cannot be. We make idols out of anything that brings us self-worth or offers a glimpse into an otherworldly opportunity for perfection and unyielding power. We intrinsically know that we are feeble, unable to repair the most base-level fractures in life. Should we be surprised that the first appearance of Superman was during the Great Depression?

What Shall We Say Then?

The skeptic may argue that Christians exalting Jesus is no different than any other infatuation with the uncanny. It is certainly true that the person and work of Christ is an appealing story to fallen mankind. Not only did he do the impossible in so many ways, but he presents us with an opportunity to join him in glorification. He offers hope beyond the depravity of the world around us. Indeed, Tim Keller might say that Christ is the true and better superhero. However, beyond archaeological and scientific apologetics that can be used as foundational proof for belief in Christ (as they justifiably should be), we must believe in our hearts and confess with our lips that God did in fact write a much more exceptional storyline than Christopher Nolan could ever conjure up in all his worldly genius. Faith takes us beyond the delusion. In light of this, we must exhibit this habitually in the fruit of our character and on the mission field of life.

Let's be clear, watching and enjoying superhero films is not wrong or sinful; what is wrong and sinful is believing that you can accomplish any feat that matters for eternity apart from Christ. You see, where superheroes fail is that they all have weaknesses and baggage that they carry along with them into any mission. The people of God, on the other hand, carry with them the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. With God, not only can "anyone be Batman" - anyone can make Batman look like a schoolgirl. Christians have the ability to accomplish that which no man can do on their own. Christ has conquered sin and death, the greatest foes that have or will ever exist. Through him we have the opportunity - the obligation - to be his ambassadors to this world; to bring restoration.

As Christians engage the world, we must understand the fundamental contamination that exists. The human heart will quickly incline toward Superman's ability to fly or Batman and Iron Man's fortune-funded gadgets. Beyond the screen, Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and offers real escape from death and the limitations of our battered minds and bodies. May we leave behind all apparitions of potential completeness and hook ourselves to the anchor of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ.

And above all, may we share this truth with a society clamoring for a world outside of themselves.

The Intertwining of Theology, Gospel, Mission

Theology. Gospel. Mission. Let’s be honest. These words have not only been heard by many, but also defined by many. Trying to get 10 people in a room to agree to a definition of these would be like trying to get Obama and Bush to throw a birthday party for Ralph Nader. That’s right, I figured out a way to mention Ralph Nader in a post on theology, gospel, and mission.

I am not going to try and negate other definitions of these things but, rather, give insight on how I work these three terms out in my life on a daily basis.

When we think of these terms, it might be helpful to see them in this light:

1. Theology: Who is God?
2. Gospel: What has he done? Who are we?
3. Mission: What do we do?

When we can break these terms out in this way, it creates for us an umbrella that is easier to work out the understandings and intertwining of each with the other.

Theology: Who is God?

To work out the understanding of the gospel or mission, we need to first understand the character of God and who he is. God isn’t who he is because of what he does, but he just is who he is and out of his being comes his doing. This is exactly what he told Moses: “Tell the Egyptians, I am who I am.”

We learn who God is by the story he has written for us. We see over and over again in the story how he is defined. He is defined as love, a provider, a shield, a rock, wisdom, infinite, powerful, etc.

Many people like to overcomplicate theology and make it far more difficult than needed. I am not saying that there will not be some great debates in theology, but if more and more people immersed themselves in the overall story of God shown to us in the Bible, it gets far less complicated.

The more and more we understand who God is, the more and more we can see those things that are consistent with what he does.

I was recently talking to a young man who is my intern. He asked why something in his life was not working out how that he wanted. He didn’t know why God was allowing this trial to happen. I directed him back to the understanding of who God is. We know he is trustworthy, we know he is infinite, we know he is loving, we know he is our Dad, we know he is in control of all things. If this is true, can we trust that even though we are going through a trial, that God has it handled and he is one whom we can trust and submit to? He agreed, and went back to his Dad to pray that his faith would be increased.

If you don’t understand who God is first and jump right into what he does/has done, it won’t make sense. Plus, you can then attribute things to him that are outside of his character and blame God instead of trust him.  If this young man didn’t understand who God is, or I didn’t point him to those facts, then we can just come to the conclusion that God is mean and vindictive because we base God’s character on what we see… not what he’s told us.

The Gospel: What has God done?

If we understand who God is, then we can see clearly what he’s done.  The big mistake for most “evangelists” is they hand out the Gospel of John, without any reference to the reality of who God is (the entirety of the Scriptures… specifically the Old Testament).

If we know that God is love, wise, perfect, infinite, trustworthy, all powerful, etc. then we can move on to what he does out of his character. When we keep reading in the Scriptures that because God is love he is always pursuing his people (even though they are continually sinning), forgiving his people, disciplining his people and in a relationship with his people, we can then understand even further the good news, called the gospel.

When we learn that we are sinners, separated from God in need of a Savior to live a life on our behalf, die on our behalf, and raise to new life so we can be given the Spirit, it comes as no surprise when we learn that God sent his Son on our behalf. (I know there is a lot more to this story, but we want to be brief)

Why are we not surprised? Because it is completely consistent with his character and how he has always operated.  Not only that, but we can see how our Savior Jesus is the fulfillment of the shadows given in the stories previous to his coming. Again… consistent.

It is paramount that we know the story, and continually rehearse the story to ourselves and others in our community. Because the fact is, the gospel isn’t something that merely happens to us when we check a box, walk the aisle, and get dunked in tub with cheers and photographs. It happens the next day when we fall into sin and again, needing a Savior constantly.

When we realize who God is and the fact of what he’s done, we can see that our God is going to keep pursuing us, forgiving us, disciplining us and desires to have a relationship with us… because that’s how he has always operated.

The Gospel: Who are we?

We can’t skip over this important understanding. If God is who he is because of who he is and out of that is what he does, and we are made in his image, we need to realize we are the same way.

Out of our being, comes our doing.

Like my friend Caesar Kalinowski says, “We are human beings, not human doings.”

The fact is, that because of who God is and what he has done, we are now made new. We are now children of God, heirs to the throne. This has nothing to do with what we’ve done, but entirely of what God has done on our behalf.  God gives us a new identity.  Now we are not enemies of God, but his disciples.

If this is true, then it cannot be taken and our worth will never be gauged by our activities. We will never be told who we are because of our failures or successes.  We have to realize that we are already God’s children and accepted by him.

What is great about this is that we don’t even have to muster up on our own the belief in these truths, but God has sent his Spirit to comfort us, to confirm us, and to give us his power as the down payment for the glorified time to come when we join our God in Heaven.

Sure, fruit will flow from this, but we are never proven by our efforts, they are just an outflow of who God has now made us through his power, love, pursuit, and wisdom.

This is why it is so easy for Paul to say that he is the chief of all sinners, yet an adopted son of God. To live is Christ, to die is gain.

The Mission: What do we do?

After realizing who we are – changed, renewed, and made a child of God by his power – our first question in light of this is, “What should we now do?”

It’s quite obvious if one looks to what we have deemed “The Great Commission”:

Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!

Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:16-20

Notice some things before we get into the commission. First, they worshiped, but some still doubted! This gives me great comfort. Even though they had just seen with their eyes the risen Jesus, they still doubted. This did not remove them from God’s love, forgiveness, family, or mission though… Jesus just continues to tell them in the midst of their doubts that HE has been given all authority, NOT us. Not only this, but in Acts 1:8 Jesus repeats himself that the Spirit will give us power to be his witnesses to make disciples, not us.

So, not only is our identity all based on the works of Jesus, but so is our mission. This means that if we “fail” or we “succeed” (I put these terms in quotes because we all have our definition of these terms in everyday life, that might be defined different by an infinite God) God still accepts us and sends us out again for the mission.

What is the mission? This isn’t hard. Our mission is to make disciples of Jesus who then make disciples of Jesus. Everything the church does should always be asking, “How does this make disciples and are we doing it in the most effective way that is making disciples of Jesus, not us?”

We need to be asking ourselves how we can show people who Jesus is through our/their head, heart, and hands. Meaning, how can we teach them how to understand with their mind, change their hearts to know him, and then go and do likewise with their feet to all nations?

We should always be looking at the life of the church and simply ask:

• What are we doing to make disciples of Jesus?
• What are we doing that is not making disciples of Jesus? Get rid of it
• What should we be doing to make disciples of Jesus? Add this to our lives

Are we doing things that are transferable so that disciples can then make more disciples? If it’s not easily transferable to “non-pastors” then we need to simplify it or rework it so that it becomes transferable.

So, one can see that as you look at theology, gospel, and mission they are very intertwined and cannot be separated.  When one lacks, the family of God lacks.

We need to consistently be in a community that will always be evaluating if we:

1. Know who God is
2. Know what God has done and know who we now are
3. Know what we must do

And we must always be putting to the forefront the understanding that these are all by grace, by the power of God for his glory… and his glory alone.

Yes, And vs. No, Because

Last August on vacation I read Tina Fey’s Bossypants and I’m not ashamed to say that I loved it. I laughed a lot but was also challenged by the leadership lessons that she expressed and learned through her career and from Lorne Michaels. I started to read it and think about how these lessons could shape the church and the way Christians approach God. One of the lessons she highlights is from her years of improv and specifically the rules of improv, which we used when I participated in Man Question and it changed the whole dynamic of relational interaction. She says this…

The first rule of improvisation is AGREE. Always agree and SAY YES. When you’re improvising and I say, “Freeze, I have a gun,” and you say “That’s not a gun. It’s your finger. You’re pointing your finger at me,” our improvised scene has ground to a halt. But if I say, “Freeze, I have a gun!” and you say, “The gun I gave you for Christmas! You bastard!” then we have started a scene because we have AGREED that my finger is in fact a Christmas gun.

Now, obviously in real life you’re not always going to agree with evertthing everyone says. But the Rule of Agreement reminds you to “respect what your partner has created” and to at least start from an open-minded place. Start with a YES and see where that takes you.

The second rule of improvisation is not only to say yes, but YES, AND. You are supposed to agree and then add something of your own…To me YES, AND means don’t be afraid to contribute. It’s your responsibility to contribute. Always make sure you’re adding something to the discussion. Your initiations are worthwhile.

When I look at the alternative of YES, AND, it’s NO, BECAUSE which is really the beginning of an argument if you think about it. If someone presents an idea and it’s immediately met with “No, because…” how deflating is that? While Yes, And invites opportunity and creative thinking, No, Because invites debate and to follow the status quo.

She talks about how this plays out in life.

As an improviser, I always find it jarring when I meet someone in real life whose first answer is no. “No, we can’t do that.” “No, that’s not in the budget.” “No, I will not hold your hand for a dollar.” What kind of way is that to live?

But as I read it, I really started to think about the difference between church plants and established churches, which is directly related to start-ups and established companies.

Yes, And vs. No, Because in the Church

A church plant approaches everything with Yes, And. The possibilities are endless, but an established church has a No, Because filter that it runs everything through based on traditions, denominations, or “that’s just the way we do it” mentalities.

Now, I’m not suggesting we take a Yes, And approach with theology, but I am saying we do so with the way we approach “doing church” and how the church carries out the mission of God to love and serve your neighbor as yourself. In that realm, the possibilities are endless unless you have a No, Because culture.

The problem is that a No, Because culture kills any chance of creating an innovative environment for methodology. It sees new missional methodologies as challenging your “right way” instead of being open to adopting a new way of doing things that may enable you and your church to bless your neighborhood and thrive as a community that loves one another.

Cultivating a Yes, And culture where it’s “your responsibility to contribute” provides the opportunity to be open to new ideas and even new people speaking into the way things are done. It invites the voices of everyone to take ownership of the outcome.

Even when the And presents a potential contradiction to the initial idea, you are creating a collaborative environment where everyone is engaged and looking to contribute to the solution rather than maintain the status quo.

This is what happened in Man Question discussing masculinity with straight, gay, and bisexual men. The ideas eventually contradicted themselves, but the Yes, And rules provided the environment where everyone was willing to share their ideas and give credence to listen and process the ideas of others. This led to greater and deeper conversations because of the willingness to let an idea run its course with somewhat competing ideas.

When a church adopts a No, Because mentality with its methods, it is beginning the process of dying as a church. It becomes a nostalgic organization looking to keep things the way they were or maintain the current way, instead of seeing the church community do greater things than they’ve ever done.

A church should never abandon the Yes, And with methods.

Yes, And vs. No, Because with God

These thoughts have been bouncing around in my head since August and I mainly thought of them in terms of church until I went to the Brooklyn Tabernacle Prayer Meeting.

As I stood with thousands of others praying to God for healing, for reconciliation of marriages, for children to be set free from drugs, I was so challenged that my prayer life was being hindered by a No, Because mentality with God. Instead of asking God to do great things, I was saying “No, God won’t listen to that because there are more important things.” “No, I can’t pray that because I’m had a rough week with too many mistakes in my life.”

Even my theology presented a No, Because roadblock in prayer, saying “No, God doesn’t seem to do the same thing He did in the book of Acts in the Bible so I shouldn’t ask for those things.”

I began to sense that I was living in the No, Because mentality with God that I disliked seeing in the church.

Adopting the Yes, And mentality has changed the way I sit in church meetings discussing our community groups, how we equip families, how we empower people to be great at their jobs, secure in their singleness, pursuing covenant marriage at the right time.

It’s also changed how I pray, coming to talk with God with an open-mindedness that He may want to do something outside my theological box I like to put God in so I can manage my relationship with Him.

As the end of the year approaches, we all look back at what we want to change and do differently in the coming year. Adopting a Yes, And mentality may be the best thing you do for your life, your job, your ministry, and your relationship with God.

-

Cross-posted from Gentrified.

On the Trinity, Gospel, Local Church, and More

What is the value of church history?  I attempt to answer this very important question here in a video interview with Christianity.com conducted at the 2011 national conference of The Gospel Coalition.  I reference the doctrine of the Trinity–currently a hot-button issue due to the matter of modalism raised in light of the Elephant Room video series–to show that while historical theology does not create truth, it certainly allows Christians to put together biblical insights, to systematize doctrine for the flourishing of God’s people and the defense of God’s name.  (That’s Athanasius, Trinitarian theologian par excellence, to the root, by the way.) You can watch the featured Christianity.com video here.  Here is a list of other videos that I did for this organization, which is committed to putting out rich doctrinal content to aid Christians in their walk with Christ.  I’m thankful for the chance to have made a small contribution and hope that these videos stimulate thought and learning.  They were very fun to do.  Most are between 2-3 minutes.

Here are the topics I talked about in bite-size pieces:

• How should we interpret 1 Timothy 2:12?
• What was God doing before He created the world? (fun question!)
• What is the gospel?
• What church history books should every Christian read? (Marsden!)
• Why should every Christian belong to a local church?
• Who are the Puritans and what can we learn from them? (bunch of kill-joys)
• Why should a busy pastor study theology?

-

Cross-posted from Owen's personal blog.

Church Discipline Wasn't Just a New Testament Thing

Oddly enough, I've been doing a lot of research and reading on church discipline lately. Don't worry though, I was researching a blog post for one of my bosses, and there was also a new B&H release on the subject—Those Who Must Give an Account. That was all last week. Then this morning's Bible reading (using the 4+1 plan from Read the Bible for Life) dropped me into Numbers 5.

The Lord instructed Moses: “Command the Israelites to send away anyone from the camp who is afflicted with a skin disease, anyone who has a bodily discharge, or anyone who is defiled because of a corpse. You must send away both male or female; send them outside the camp, so that they will not defile their camps where I dwell among them.” The Israelites did this, sending them outside the camp. The Israelites did as the Lord instructed Moses.

Sure does look familiar. Those who were members of God's family were put out of the flock when they were found to be unclean.

Leprosy, now specifically known as Hansen's disease, was akin to death in Biblical times. There was no way back into fellowship with God's people unless you had been cleansed by God and inspected by the priest (see Leviticus 13). If one had leprosy, one was basically living as though dead.

While interesting to study and debate at times, Church discipline is never enjoyable in its application. For if one takes joy in exercising discipline over unrepentant sin, there are greater issues at hand.

The same could be said for those cast out due to leprosy. Family members and friends would no doubt be devastated by the news. They would likely cry out in desperation for healing.

Our response to Church discipline should be similar. It should be marked with brokenness for those who are unrepentant. We should cry out for their spiritual healing. And if/when they return, we should welcome them with open arms, ecstatic that they are once again in fellowship with the community.

—

Jonathan Howe serves as Director of Strategic Initiatives at LifeWay Christian Resources, the host and producer of Rainer on Leadership and SBC This Week. Jonathan writes weekly at ThomRainer.com on topics ranging from social media to websites and church communications.

Spiritual Strength Training - Part One

(Editor's note: Here's Spiritual Strength Training - Part Two.)

Most pastoral problems, such as burnout, backsliding, depression, begin with neglect of the body.

Let me say that again in a different way. From what I’ve seen and experienced, most pastoral soul-care problems begin with neglect of the body, a lack of strength training. Soul-care problems do not usually begin with channel-surfing or with a click of the mouse, nor with wandering eyes or hands, nor with shortening or missing private devotions. They begin by neglecting the body, by denying or ignoring its many varied needs. The other problems inevitably and inexorably follow.

Theological Problem

This question of spiritual strength training is not merely a practical problem or a physical issue. This is also theological problem, a problem that’s associated with a wrong view of God. And it’s not just a slightly wrong view. Its error is fundamental and foundational because it concerns the fundamental and foundational truth that God is our Creator.

That’s the very first truth that’s revealed to us in Scripture. And it’s first for a reason. It’s because if we go wrong there, we run a great risk of going wrong everywhere else. Now some of you are thinking, “Don’t insult me, man. I believe in God as Creator. I defend God as Creator. I fight those who deny God as Creator. I can even prove God is Creator. How can you say that my soul-care problems arise from denying God as Creator?" Well, maybe we are not denying God as Creator with our lips, but some of us are with our lives.

Creationists living like Evolutionists

There are lots of people who call God “Lord” but don’t live as His servants. And there are lots of people – yes, even pastors - who call God Creator and preach God as Creator, but who live like evolutionists. Some pastors give the impression that the ministry is about the survival of the fittest! (OR THE FATTEST!)

God’s Creatorhood has massive implications for the way we live and the way we do ministry. Although we usually skim over that chapter in our Systematic Theologies and rush on to more “gospel-centered” material, I’ve become increasingly convinced that we cannot be gospel-centered unless we are also Creator-centered. We cannot live as zealous saints unless we first of all live as dependent creatures. The soul and body are so intertwined and inter-connected that we will make no progress in soul-care unless we start with, and go on with body-care.

Our Maker’s Instructions

How would you feel if you built a remote control model car for your children, only to come back home a few days later to hear that they had broken it by trying to use it as a plane? You’d say, “I gave you instructions, why didn’t you follow them?” Similarly, God has given us instructions about how to live as creatures. To some of us God may be saying, “Why are you trying to live as angels or as disembodied spirits? Why aren’t you following my instructions?”

God publishes his instruction in various places in His Word, but also, especially in this subject area, in his World. Increasingly he is allowing scientists and researchers to discover how the body functions best. For example, yesterday I saw research that was headlined, “The more you sit, the sooner you will die!” That made me sit up! In fact it made me stand up!! That’s my loving Creator’s instructions coming to me via reliable research, which I read through the spectacles of Scripture. We ignore such gracious instruction at our peril.

The body is a complicated mix of physical material and physical forces: electricity, chemistry, physics, biology, plumbing, gasses, pumps, siphons, lubrication, buttons, switches, receptors, etc. Then there’s the soul, way more complex than the body and completely inaccessible to empirical research methods. Although we have some Biblical data to mine and research, yielding us some basics about the soul’s capacities and abilities, so much about the soul remains a mystery. Then you put complex body and complex soul together and what do you get – multiple complexities!  How do they relate, how do they interact? How do problems in the body affect the soul and vice versa?

Biblical Link

The Bible confirms a link between distorted thoughts or emotions and many of our bodily ailments: “A merry heart does good like a medicine: but a broken spirit dries the bones” (Prov. 17:22).  Guilt also damages the body (Psalm 32:3–4).

And what about feelings and thoughts? Where do they originate? What do they influence and impact? What do they link with and overlap with? How come when our body is sick, even with a common cold or allergy, that our thoughts, feelings, and even our spiritual life are impacted? Does that go the other way as well? It seems to. When our spiritual life is damaged, it often seems to impact our bodies as well. When our emotions are depressed, so many things go wrong with our bodies as well.  Doctors call this psychosomatic (mind/body) illness.

Layers of Complexity

Then throw on top of all that the conscience and the will? Do they operate independently or are they simply part of the soul? Are they affected by the body and/or just the soul? Analysis of the mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual contributions to each situation is so difficult. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote:

Christians don’t understand how physical, psychological, and spiritual realms interrelate because Satan muddies the boundaries. Many of our troubles are caused because we think a problem is spiritual when it is physical or we think a problem is physical when it is emotional or spiritual.

The complexity and interconnectivity of human nature, means that the health of the body effects the health of the soul and vice versa. And it also means that it’s not easy to figure out the contribution of each to our problems! One thing is for sure, we cannot neglect one realm and expect the other not to suffer the consequences.

Creatures, by definition, are less than their Creator. He is infinite; we are finite. He is unlimited; we are limited. Hopefully none of us really think that we are unlimited. However most of us think we are less limited than we actually are. We certainly vastly over-estimate our physical strength, emotional stamina, moral courage, spiritual maturity, volitional muscle, and conscience steel.

Crashing and Burning

Underestimating our limitations and over-estimating our abilities can only have one outcome – weakness, fraying, and eventually breaking. Try it with anything – your car engine, a towrope, your computer, etc. Underestimate the limitations and over-estimate the abilities and you will eventually blow the engine, break the rope, and crash the computer.

Why do we think it’s any different with ourselves? Some people may break after two weeks or two years. Others may take much longer. It’s these people who especially need to be careful because their habits have become so engrained that they no longer pay attention to any warning signs. It’s like the elastic band. Better it snap before you pull it too tight, because the stronger the band - the further you can stretch it - the more forceful and damaging the eventual snap.

Changing and Challenging Limits

Our limitations also change through the years and seasons of life. Hormones and brain chemistry change, our responsibilities increase as marriage and children come along, “events” come along, stressful and painful providences that stretch and strain us.

Some initially do very well under huge stress. I’ve seen people pass through multiple horrendous troubles, and everyone’s amazed at their fortitude and perseverance. Then, maybe something smaller comes along years later, and they fall apart. They break down. Everyone looks on in amazement, “How can they not cope with this?” But the stress on our bodies and minds is cumulative. The straw that broke the camels back came after years of beating with a very heavy club! Everyone has limits.

Isn’t it strange that we very rarely take health advice for ourselves until we lose our health!? Health advice is for others isn’t it? We must find out our limits – physical, spiritual, emotional, moral, etc. – and we may need someone objective to help us with this. And when we find them, we must accept and work within them.

Men and women with very high limits must not impose them on those with lower limits. And those with lower limits must not impose that on those with higher limits. Let not the lower limit people be jealous of the higher limit people. Let not the higher limit people despise the lower. Let those that think they stand, take heed lest they fall. God has his way of humbling us and showing us our limitations.

We are Dependent Creatures

Even before the Fall, Adam and Eve were dependent upon their Creator. That’s how they were made. They leaned upon him, sought help from him, and sought to live in a way that pleased him. Independence did not cross their minds…until they heard, “You shall be as gods…You won’t need God. You can do without God. You can be god yourself. You can depend on yourself, on your own wisdom and strength.” And what a disaster ensued!

Many of us are theologically dependent but experientially independent. We depend on God with our lips but not with our lives. We say we lean on him for everything, but he rarely feels our weight. And disaster is often the result.

Imagine you’re in New York City with your family. Your two-year-old is just learning to walk and decides to experiment when you get to Times Square. He hops out the pushchair and starts walking away from you. You call out, “Come back, stay with me!” No answer. You run after him and try to grab his hand. He pulls away and keeps going toward the crowds and the cars. And all the while he’s saying, “Daddy, I love you!”

Some of us are living like this. Our Creator’s name is on our lips, but we are not living in dependence upon him. We say we love him but we never lean on him. And that puts us in far greater danger – physical, moral, and spiritual danger – than the two-year-old in Times Square!

Two-way Protection

God has not just made our souls to protect our bodies, but our bodies to protect our souls. If we are sleeping well, resting well, exercising well, eating well, our minds are clearer, our wills are stronger, and our defenses are higher. It’s easier to pray, to discipline ourselves, to read the Bible, to serve. A good conscience is greatly helped by a sharp mind and strong will.

Remember: most pastoral problems - burnout, backsliding, depression - begin with a neglect of the body. The most basic Christian experience is dependence. If we don’t live as dependent creatures we are not worshipping our Creator. By our independence, we are worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.

We are not just creatures, not just complex creatures, not just limited creatures, and not just dependent creatures, but we are also fallen creatures! As part of the curse upon us for our first parent’s first sin, death entered the creation and even the greatest creature – humanity. Death entered into our bodies, our souls, our minds, our wills, and our emotions. Death is at work in the youngest baby. As soon as conception occurs and life begins, so does dying and death. If you thought we were complex before, we are even more complex now.

A Complex Mess

Like all anglers, I’m fatally attracted by the latest “guaranteed” fish-catching reel. And of course, as we all know, the more complicated (and expensive) a reel is, the more likely it is to catch fish. Right?!  Now complicated reels are great when they are working well, but when they break down, they make a much bigger mess than standard reels.

That’s why humanity is in a much worse state than any other creature; the more complex the creature the more mess when they break. And that’s why nature films focus on animals rather than humanity. Who wants to look at ugly human creatures in all their brokenness when you can see much more residual beauty in the animal kingdom!

Welcome to humanity! What a mess – our bodies, our minds, our organs, our members, our chemistry, our physics, our plumbing, everything is in such a mess – each part of our humanity on its own and especially each part as it interacts with other parts.

Spiritual Strength Training

But the best news is that our gracious and powerful Creator is in the business of re-creating. Our Creator has come down into our fallen world and lived as a creature to save His creatures and begin the process of making all things new.

However, that renewing requires our cooperation. We will hinder the process of re-creation as creative creatures if we do not live within our creaturely limits and if we do not respect how God created us. And that includes regular rest – healthy daily sleep patterns and a weekly Sabbath – recreation, relaxation, routine.

Let me encourage you further along the road  to spiritual strength training with this fact: Creativity research has shown that the most creative people find most of their creativity insights and breakthroughs in down-time. Eureka moments - breakthroughs in thought, design, engineering - usually come when the mind and body are resting.

Creative Creatures (and Preachers)

To put it bluntly, tired pastors produce tired sermons. If we want fresh sermons we need to refresh and be fresh ourselves. If we don’t live as creatures, we will not be creative! As the 19^th century pastor, William Blaikie wrote:

But even where there is no positive disease, there may be a physical languor that reflects itself in feebleness of voice, dullness of tone, stiffness of manner, and a general want of lively and attractive power. It may be difficult to persuade some preachers that physical causes have to do with this, but the connection is beyond all reasonable doubt. And the fact that such symptoms are the effect of some transgression of the laws of health makes it incumbent upon the student to attend to the condition of his outer man.

---

David Murray was a pastor in Scotland for 13 years before accepting a call in 2007 to be Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology in Puritan Reformed Seminary. He continues to preach most Sundays in Grand Rapids and the surrounding area. He is the author of Christians Get Depressed Too and How Sermons Work. He is also President of HeadHeartHand Media, a small Christian film company. David is married to Shona and they have four children ranging from 8 to 16. You can read his blog at HeadHeartHand.org/blog or follow him on Twitter @davidpmurray.

---

For more in-depth resources for pastors, check out Tony Merida's Proclaiming Jesus.

For more free articles for pastors, read: Winfield Bevins' What is Gospel-Centered Ministry, JR Vassar's Domain of Influence, Jared Wilson's Five Ways to Keep Church Discipline from Seeming Weird.

Inerrancy and Worldview - Excerpt

Religious Gullibility

Let us now consider one more challenge to the Bible, namely, skepticism about religion. Some skeptics consider religious belief to be a symptom of gullibility or psychological weakness. The skeptics might say that people have religious beliefs either because they do not ask critical questions about religious claims or because they are psychologically weak and feel a need for a crutch. They want the support and comfort of religious belief, which imparts meaning to their lives.

If this principle of gullibility holds for religious belief in general, the skeptic maintains that it also holds for Christian belief and for the religious claims made in the Bible. Skeptics conclude that the Bible is bogus.

What do we say about this skepticism toward religious beliefs? Skepticism with respect to the distinctive claims of any one religion over against the others makes it natural for people to wonder about all religions together.

The Materialist Explanation of Religious Belief

In addition, a materialistic worldview may exert an influence. Materialism says that either God does not exist or he is essentially irrelevant. It thereby debunks religion because most religions claim that God or gods are vitally relevant. Moreover, since materialism rejects the idea of direct divine interaction with human beings, it looks for purely material causes for religious belief. Beliefs must arise from some structures in the brain, structures that in the end are a product of a long process of evolution. Materialists hope that eventually scientific research will show how such structures can all be associated with some practical, life-enhancing function. General intelligence, for example, helps human beings to get food, protect themselves from harm, and survive to the next generation. Religious belief, like shared beliefs of other kinds, can enhance the unity of a human social group, and that in turn may help the group to act cooperatively and so survive to the next generation. The materialist concludes that religious beliefs are not true, but arise merely because they have been pragmatically useful in the evolutionary struggle for survival. They are a kind of accidental by-product of structures in the brain that natural selection favored for other, unrelated reasons.

This kind of materialistic explanation of religious belief has a considerable plausibility in our time because materialism itself is widespread and lends its support. In addition, materialism carries with it some of the prestige of natural science. But the debunking explanation based on materialism has a notable flaw: it can easily prove too much. A similar argument can be used against all beliefs whatsoever. If beliefs are the product merely of chance evolution, they exist because they are useful for survival,not because they are true. They are a product of our brain structures, not ultimately a product of weighty evidence in favor of their truth. When this principle is followed consistently, it leads to the conclusion that beliefs in general must be debunked. And that includes belief in materialism, belief in evolution, and belief in brain structures. The debunker ends up with no grounds on which to stand to do his debunking.

Gullibility

Skepticism about religious belief should, nevertheless, not be dismissed too quickly. It is a counterfeit, which means that it is close to the truth. It has seen some things to which we do well to pay attention.

Why are some people so gullible about religion? If we like, we can expand the category of religious belief to include not only traditional religions but also “spirituality.” People go to fortune-tellers, or they try to contact the spirits of the dead, or they try to establish spiritual communion with the trees. Why do people do such things? We can find people today who in ordinary issues show themselves to be sensible, but who have weird ideas about spirituality.

The ancient societies around the Bible showed similar symptoms. Why did the ancient Greeks believe in their gods? The Greek legends told of immoral activities among the gods, and Socrates could challenge the validity of the legends merely by pointing out the obvious fact that the alleged immoralities were unworthy of real gods.

People often seem to be more gullible in spiritual matters than elsewhere. They are more gullible about the gods than they would be if a seller tried to cheat them in the marketplace or their child tried to lie his way out of a tight spot.

Deep Personal Needs

At least three characteristics of fallen human nature help to explain this gullibility. We long for deep significance, for safety, and for assurance, particularly when it comes to the big questions of life. These longings go back to creation. God created human beings in his image. He designed that they would have fellowship with him. God met with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. According to this plan, God himself gave them significance not only by creating them, but also by giving his personal love to each of them. This fellowship would have continued if Adam and Eve had not rebelled. God would have had fellowship with each person. God would have provided safety partly by holding out for the long-range future the promise of eternal life in his presence. But in the world before the fall of mankind, he would also have given short-range protection. He committed himself to work for their good, which would include making sure that they had food, work, joy, and physical well-being. Finally, he gave assurance by his instruction to them and by the fact that he was a trustworthy God.

Human beings nevertheless rebelled against God. And ever since we have been looking for substitutes for God. The gods of ancient Greece were one form of counterfeit. Counterfeits must be close enough to the truth to lure people in.

Significance

They lure people in first of all by supplying a counterfeit answer for the longing for significance You are significant when you are connected to something bigger than yourself, particularly if you have a key role to play in that bigger whole. God’s plan was for each person to be significant by being loved by God and loving God in return. In knowing and loving God who is infinite, each person would find supreme satisfaction and supreme meaning for his own life.

A false god offers a substitute for the true God. It claims to answer our longing for meaning by being big enough to give meaning, and by being interested enough in a person to allow him to participate. The longing in people is so strong because it is a corrupt form of longing for God himself. We were created to have fellowship with God, so that the longing originally was a longing for God. But it is corrupted into a longing that people hope to have fulfilled by a false god. Anything that promises to fill their longing—whether an idea, another person, or an idol—may be received gullibly. A person believes and receives because he desperately wants to believe and receive. This kind of longing creates much more tension for many people than cases where the stakes are not as high. Longing for ultimate meaning is more profound than longing for an ice-cream cone.

Or in a scientific investigation, for example, we might want to test whether pumpkin seeds are more likely to sprout and grow well when in contact with pure water or sugar water or water mixed with soil. We may have our opinion, but we are not desperate to have the experiment come out in one particular way. By contrast, when we are dealing with religion and spirituality, we are desperate. The desperation makes us gullible.

Care for Our Situation

A second potential source for gullibility arises not merely from our longings but also from our circumstances. How do we secure safe shelter, good crops, adequate food, a safe sea voyage, healthy children, and so on? Before the fall, God committed himself to bless mankind. But after the fall our situation is mixed. God does supply food (Acts 14:17), but on occasion he may also bring famine (Gen. 41:30–32; Deut. 28:18). People want their situation to be good. They may therefore look to magic, fortune-telling, gods, and religious manipulation of various kinds.

Now and then people may get some favorable result after they have invoked a religious procedure. Perhaps a particular instance of fortune-telling seems to work out. This favorable result seems to them to validate their religious procedure. They long to have some way of controlling their environment. So they persist in religious observance as long as it seems to bring them benefit. According to Greek religion, Poseidon is the god of the sea. So the ancient Greek citizen reasoned that maybe if Poseidon is bribed, he can help with a sea voyage. Aphrodite is the goddess of love, so she can help with love. Ares is the god of war, so he can help win battles. And so on.

The incentive here is to practice religion because it brings tangible benefits. Sure, the practitioner admits, it may not always work, but sometimes it works. And the “sometimes” offers enough incentive to keep up the practice. In fact, when a practice appears not to work, it may become an incentive to redouble one’s efforts. The practitioner thinks, “I need more devotion, bigger sacrifices, more impressive ceremony.” The redoubling of efforts may also include the suppression of doubts. Maybe a particular god can see into one’s mind and he is not pleased with doubts. Even if he is not a mindreader, he can overhear verbal expressions of doubts. And he certainly will not be pleased if the doubts cause someone to slacken in his routine of religious ceremonies. The needs of the situation therefore put pressure on people to be more gullible than usual.

Ultimate Commitments

Finally, people want assurance. They want not just assurance about little things, but assurance from some ultimate rock on which to stand. This rock would be the ultimate commitment that unifies a person’s life. We are designed so that God will be this rock, this ultimate commitment. God designed us in order that we might be committed to him, to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5).

When we forsake the true God, we make commitments to ultimates that become substitutes for the true God. In other words, we commit ourselves to counterfeits. We worship them. Worship is an expression of ultimate commitment. The Greeks had their gods whom they worshiped. Modern people may worship money, or sex, or power.

Whatever is ultimate cannot, in the very nature of the case, be weighed against some criterion that would be still more ultimate. If God is ultimate, he is the standard for testing truth, both in matters of religion and in everywhere else. When we rebel against God, we still must wrestle with issues of truth and certainty. We get nowhere without some criteria. The best criteria derive from the most ultimate allegiance. So the allegiance itself remains unquestioned. People then become gullible in the standards that they use to sift truth and to sift evidence with respect to their ultimate commitment.

If the Greek god Zeus is ultimate, the Greeks as human beings have no right to doubt him or to bring objections against him. Zeus gets a kind of “free ride” in comparison to the normal ways that Greeks might use to sift evidence in lesser issues.

An ultimate commitment of the wrong kind can easily corrupt truth. Some religions have explicitly allowed their adherents to lie whenever a lie would promote their religion. The religion, as ultimate commitment, takes precedence over normal standards for telling the truth. Even when a religion does not say so explicitly, lying becomes a temptation to those who care deeply about their religion. What does a little lie matter when the cause is right—the cause of promoting what the individual thinks is the true religion? And what about bending or concealing truth? For example, high-ranking officials among the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have tried to bury uncomfortable facts about failed prophecies that came from the lips of their authorities of past generations.

Money as an Example of Ultimate Commitment

Or consider the modern person who worships money. Let us say that he is a successful businessman.He pours his life into making his business successful because, in a sense, that is his life, driven by greed for more and more money,  and more and more success. With this goal in mind, he may be very critical and careful and sound in the way he inspects and evaluates the processes and products and sales within his business. He is not at all gullible. He will not be taken in by a vendor who makes glowing promises but has a reputation for not delivering the goods. He is a very sensible businessman because he is committed to sensibility for the sake of a larger goal, the worship of money. Money is his ultimate commitment.

But does he ever ask himself whether his ultimate commitment is worth it? Does he ask himself whether money is a worthy object of worship, and how he came to have the devotion that he now holds? Probably not.

If our businessman began to ask too many uncomfortable questions of this sort, he would already show that he was setting sail and shifting his ultimate commitments. Typically, people only wake up to this sort of question when their false god is already failing them so obviously that they can no longer ignore it. The stock market crashes, and the man’s business crashes with it. Or his wife is fed up with his workaholism and files for divorce. Or his teenage son gets into trouble with drugs, and his wife accuses him of not being there for his son. Or he achieves so much success that he realizes he ought to be satisfied and yet is not. Money does not actually give deep satisfaction in his heart. Until questionings of this kind arise, a person who worships money can be gullible about his ultimate commitment.

Did the same sort of gullibility arise with the ultimate commitments of people in the ancient world? What about the people who worshiped the gods of ancient Greece or ancient Babylon? Of course they too may have fallen into gullibility. It is in the nature of things; it is in the nature of human beings as finite creatures who have the capacity for personal commitment. Ultimate commitments are, after all, ultimate.

---

Vern Sheridan Poythress is professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he has taught for 33 years. He has six earned degrees, including a PhD from Harvard University and a ThD from the University of Stellenbosch. He is the author of numerous books on biblical interpretation, language, and science.

(Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible by Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress available on Crossway. It appears here with the permission of the author and publisher.) 

What is Gospel Centered Ministry?

The theological foundation of the church is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Churches fall into error whenever they move away from the gospel as their foundation. Alan Hirsch reminds us that, “Discipleship, becoming like Jesus our Lord and Founder, lies at the epicenter of the church’s task. It means that Christology must define all that we do and say...It will mean taking the Gospels seriously as the primary texts that define us.” Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ that saves individuals is also the gospel that grows individuals through discipleship in the church. Man-Centered Ministry

One of the major problems in many churches is bad ecclesiology and a man-centered view of ministry. The recent development of trends in North America such as mega-churches, seeker churches, and emerging churches has brought the issue of ecclesiology to the forefront of debate/discussion for church leaders. Many churches in North American have a pragmatic approach to ecclesiology that focuses on church growth more than church health and on cultural accommodation rather than biblical faithfulness.

The result is that many churches produce consumers and not radical disciples of Jesus Christ. Contemporary churches are being shaped more by contemporary trends than by the biblical ecclesiology. Some churches have either adopted a hierarchal structure that resembles a corporate business structure or they simply have no church structure at all. The truth is that church structure is extremely important for the overall health of a local church and the discipleship process.

Understanding the Gospel

Discipleship begins with understanding the gospel. Many Christians have a watered down, man-centered version of the gospel. The result of not having a solid grasp on the gospel is a dysfunctional and fragmented faith. C.J. Mahaney warns that three things result when we move away from the gospel: legalism, condemnation, and subjectivism.[i] There is a need for a clear understanding and a rediscovery of the gospel in the 21st century. Jerry Bridges writes, “The gospel is not the most important message in history; it is the only essential message in all of history. Yet we allow thousands of professing Christians to live their entire lives without clearly understanding it and experience the joy of living their lives by it.”[ii]

What is the gospel?

The gospel is the declaration of the good news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for our sins on the cross of cavalry. Simply put, there is no gospel without the sinless life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Tim Keller beautifully describes the gospel as, “The person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.” [iii]

Doctrines of Grace

To be gospel-centered requires that one knows the doctrines of grace. Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin fought to bring a reformation to the church that would put faith back into the hands of the people. Arising out of the period of the Protestant Reformation were five foundations which summarized in part what the Reformers were trying to do. These banners were known as the "Five Solas" (Latin for 'only' or 'alone') of the Reformation: the authority of scripture, salvation in Christ alone, by Grace alone, through faith alone, and to God Alone Be Glory. These five solas of the faith are as important now as they were then.[iv]

A gospel-centered view of salvation is completely Christocentric. Christianity begins and ends with Jesus Christ. The word Christian literally means “Christ-like.” Therefore, a proper Christology is the place to start if we are really going to talk about salvation. Gospel-centered theology distinguishes between man-centered and God-centered views of salvation.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole person and is freely offered to all who repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. By His blood, Jesus has obtained eternal redemption for every believer. We are “saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, salvation is the work of God from beginning to end. Salvation is wholly dependent upon the work of God's grace. God credits His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, thereby justifying them in His sight.

Applying the Gospel

The gospel has implications for every Christian believer that reach far beyond salvation. Christians should live gospel-centered lives. Believers are saved by the gospel and called to live by the gospel. The gospel is for all of life. Not only should every Christian have a clear understanding of the gospel, but we should also apply it to every area of our lives.

The gospel is to be applied to every area of thinking, feeling, relating, working, and behaving.[v] Christians must never move beyond the gospel. C.J. Mahaney writes that believers should memorize the gospel, pray the gospel, sing the gospel, review how the gospel has changed our lives, and finally we should continually study the gospel.[vi] This is the reason why the gospel is the foundation for discipleship.

Gospel-Centered Ministry

There is an important connection between the gospel, ministry, and discipleship. Our theology has a direct effect on our ministry and discipleship. In many ways, our discipleship is the fruit of our theology. Sadly, many church leaders use church growth principles to add people to the church; however, only the gospel can grow people into disciples of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, a Gospel-centered church does not only preach the gospel. The gospel is not an addition to our ministry or even a beginning point; rather, the gospel must saturate every part of our church’s life. Each stage of our discipleship process should also be gospel-centered. From assimilation, to preaching and teaching, to counseling, to leadership development, the gospel must be central. Even our worship should be gospel-centered.

The church should reach lost people with the gospel through community outreaches, personal evangelism, and missional living. The church should develop and grow disciples with the gospel through small groups, Bible study, service, and the teaching of spiritual disciplines. It should seek to reproduce disciples grounded in the gospel through leadership development and the mentoring of godly men who will become elders and deacons. Let the gospel be the heart of your church from beginning to end.

---

[i] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing. Sisters, OR: Multnoma Books, 2002. 23.

[ii] Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace. Colorado Springs, CO: Nav Press, 1994. 46.

[iii] Tim Keller, “The Gospel in All Its Forms.” Leadership Journal. Spring, 2008.

[iv] Micheal Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Who Does What in Salvation? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994. See introduction.

[v] Tim Keller, “The Centrality of the Gospel.” www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf.

[vi] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing. Sisters, OR: Multnoma Books, 2002. See 53-71.

---

Dr. Winfield Bevins serves as lead pastor of Church of the Outer Banks, which he founded in 2005.  His life’s passion in ministry is discipleship and helping start new churches. He lives in the beautiful beach community of the Outer Banks with his wife Kay and two daughters where he loves to surf and spend time at the beach with his family and friends. Twitter: @winfieldbevins

5 Ways to Keep Church Discipline from Seeming Weird

Recently, the subject of church discipline has hit the radar in many circles due to some high profile controversies and scandals.  The way some churches appear to poorly exercise church discipline is as distressing as the way many Christians reacted to the concept. There has been a collective incredulity about church discipline as some kind of “strange fire” in the evangelical world. I can’t help but think that this aversion is partly because, as God has built his church, his church leaders have not always kept up with what makes a church a church. So even to mention the idea of a church disciplining its members strikes tenderhearted and undereducated Christians as weird, mean, and legalistic. How do we work at keeping church discipline from seeming weird? Here are 5 ways:

1. Make disciples.

Many local churches have simply becoming keepers of a fish tank. A surface level of fellowship is often in place, but the central mission of the church - to make disciples - has been neglected. Instead, churches are structured around providing religious goods and services, offering education or even entertainment options for their congregational consumers. People aren’t being trained in the context of ongoing disciple relationships. But this largely what “church discipline” is - training.

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. Matthew 18:15 

In discipling relationships, we are always disciplining one another, not chiefly or only in the fight against sin but largely in our encouragement of each other, edifying one another, teaching one another, and sharing one another’s burdens. In short, disciples know each other. And so Matthew 18:15 might be happening all the time, perhaps weekly within loving relationships where there is no imminent danger of somebody being kicked out of the church but rather a constant iron sharpening of iron.

In churches with healthy discipleship cultures, church discipline is going on all the time in helpful, informal, everyday ways. When the more formal processes of church discipline become necessary, they are much less likely to be carried out too harshly or received strangely. The church will already have a positive training context for knowing that discipleship requires obedience, correction, perseverance, and mutual submission.

2. Create clarity about church membership.

In many churches, there is no church membership structure at all. But even in churches that maintain formal church membership, the expectations and processes are unclear. Prospective church members need to provide more info than merely their profession of faith, previous church membership, and the area of service they are interested in. They need to know what the body is promising to them and what they are promising the body.  If church membership is a Christ-centered covenant relationship - and it is - their needs to be a clear, mutual promise between all invested parties that their yes will be yes and their no will be no, so that there can be no surprise when someone’s yes to sin is received with a no from the church.

3. Teach the process.

I remember a church meeting once upon a time where elders were sharing the grounds for dismissal of the lead pastor. The evidence was extensive and serious, and there was plenty of testimony about the elders having for years seeking the pastor’s repentance and his getting counseling to no avail. One woman, visibly upset, shouted, “Where is the grace?!” The whole idea seemed weird and unchristian to her. She did not have the biblical framework to know that the last several years’ of seeking the pastor’s repentance was a tremendous act of grace, and that indeed, even his dismissal was a severe mercy, a last and regrettable resort in seeking to startle him into Godly sorrow over his sin. But churches aren’t accustomed to thinking of discipline that way; they think of grace as comfort and niceness. This is because we don’t teach them well.

For some, church discipline will always be objectionable because it seems outdated and unnecessary. But for many, their objection is a reflection of simply not knowing what the Bible teaches on the matter. If a church never broaches the subject until a church’s response to someone’s unrepentant sin must be made public, church discipline will always seem alien. “What are you doing bringing all this law into a place that should be filled with grace?” And the like. So we have to preach the relevant texts.

One word of caution, however: Some churches love teaching the process of church discipline out of all proportion; they love it too much. In some church environments, church discipline is mainly equated with the nuclear option of excommunication and the leadership of the church is not known for its patience but for its itchy trigger finger. Teaching the process of church discipline is not about filling the church with a sense of dread and covering the floor with eggshells. It’s about providing enough visibility about the guardrails and expectations that people can actually breathe more freely, not less. Church discipline - rightly exercised - is motivated by real, sorrowful love and concern.

4. Follow the process.

Once again, we fail our congregations when we don’t begin church discipline until we feel pressed to remove someone from membership and refuse them the Lord’s Supper. It’s as if there aren’t previous, patient, hopeful steps in Matthew 18. Even the context of Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 5:13 appears to demonstrate excommunication is the final straw, not the only one. If we will follow the biblical process of church discipline, beginning with confidential and humble rebuke of a brother’s or sister's sin, if unrepentance persists and the circle of visibility widens, expulsion will be seen as a regrettable and sorrowful necessity, and as something intended for a person’s repentance and restoration, not for their punishment.

5. Practice gospel-centeredness.

God will get the glory and our churches will give him glory when church discipline is practiced in the context of a grace-driven culture. You can expect church discipline to seem unnecessary and legalistic in churches where the gospel has not had any noticeable effect on the spirit of the people. But in churches where God’s free grace in Christ is regularly preached and believed, church leaders will be regularly setting aside their egos and narcissistic needs and the laity will be bearing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things, and believing all things (1 Corinthians 13:7), including that while no discipline feels pleasant at the time, in the end it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (Hebrews 12:11).

---

Jared C. Wilson (@jaredcwilson) is Becky's husband and Macy and Grace's daddy, and also the pastor of Middletown Springs Community Church in Middletown Springs, Vermont and the author of the books Gospel Wakefulness, Your Jesus is Too Safe, Abide, Seven Daily Sins, and the forthcoming Gospel Deeps. He blogs almost daily at The Gospel-Driven Church.

How to Respond to Religious Pluralism

Is Jesus the only way to God? I'm often asked this question. If the answer is, “Yes, Jesus is the only way to God,” a line is drawn where we would sometimes rather things remain fuzzy. Why would we prefer this particular claim to remain fuzzy? In many cities there are arrays of religious beliefs: Mysticism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity, to name a few. The presence of so many different religions in cities leads people (Christians included) to conclude that all religious paths lead to God. Why does this happen in cities? In urban areas, we are more likely to develop relationships with people from various religions. When we realize that they are kind and sincere because of their religious beliefs, it seems arrogant to insist their beliefs are wrong. After all, their religion appears to have made them very likable, respectable people. I have met secularists and Buddhists who are more generous and sacrificial than many Christians I know. How, then, should we respond to this array of religions with the claim that Jesus offers the one, true way to God?

Answering the Question Socially

When people of other faiths rival Christian character, we face a tendency to affirm all religions as valid ways to God. We make a theological decision based on social experience. Rather than investigate the answer to one of the most important questions, we prefer to glaze the question with inch-deep reflections upon the character of people we meet. Understandable but not wise.

What if we became known for not only posing great questions but also grappling deeply and sincerely with great answers? Many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the only way to God. Others insist there are many ways to God, a view popularly called religious pluralism (academic religious pluralism advocates inter religious dialog not that all religions lead to the same God. Here we will deal with religious pluralism in its popular form). Let’s examine the claims of religious pluralism.

Over the past five years in Austin, Texas (a case study city for Harvard’s Pluralism Project), I have had the opportunity to meet, know, and talk with both Christian and non-Christian pluralists. As I have reflected on these conversations, it seems that there are at least three reasons people embrace religious pluralism. They believe it to be more enlightened, humble, and tolerant. Let’s examine each of these reasons more closely.

Is Religious Pluralism Enlightened?

Is the belief that all religious paths lead to the same God more enlightened or educated? Comparatively, each religion teaches very different things about who God is and how humans reach the divine. In fact, there is a lot of disagreement between the religions regarding the nature of God. Buddhism, for example, doesn’t believe in God. Islam teaches an impersonal monotheism, Allah. The Koran states that God reveals His will, but not His person. Christianity teaches a personal trinitarianism, where God is three persons in relationship, Father-Son-Spirit that can be known and enjoyed. Hinduism varies on this question, ranging from polytheism to atheism. This is due to the absence of definitive revelation to clarify Hindu “theology.” Instead, Hinduism has multiple sources of revelation (Upanishads, Vedas, etc.)  Contrary to Islam, Hinduism has no presuppositions about the nature of God. In short, religious views of God differ. If so, it would seem far from “enlightened” to claim that all religions lead to the same God, when their views of God are, in fact, radically different. This claim of religious pluralism contradicts the tenants of the religions themselves.

Religions not only teach different things about who God is but also how we “reach him.” Buddhism suggests the 8-fold Noble Path, Islam the 5 Pillars (Shahadah, Prayer, Fasting, Charity, Pilgrimage) and Christianity the gospel of Jesus. Therefore, to say that all religions lead to God is not only unenlightened it is inaccurate. This is the thesis of Stephen Prothero, Boston College professor, in his book God is not One. He writes:

And it is comforting to pretend that the great religions make up one big, happy family. But this sentiment, however well-intentioned, is neither accurate nor ethically responsible. God is not one.

Prothero goes on to point out that just as God is not one, so also all religions are not one. They are distinct and make very different claims about God and how to reach him. In light of what we have observed regarding what religions teach about the nature of God and how to reach him, religious pluralism must be reconsidered. Subscribing to religious pluralism because it is more enlightened or a more “educated” view of world religions is not only unenlightened but also inaccurate.

Is Religious Pluralism More Humble?

Despite very clear differences on the nature of God and human access to the divine, religious pluralists continue to insist that there are many ways to God. Why would educated people persist in an inaccurate view of other religions? One major reason is because they believe it to be an act of humility and love. Very often I hear people say: “Who am I to judge someone else’s religion, to tell them that they are wrong?” This implies, of course, that maintaining Jesus is the only way to God is arrogant. I’ll be the first to admit there are arrogant Christians who rudely insist that Jesus is the only way to God. I’d like to apologize for those kinds of Christians. Arrogant insistence on your beliefs actually runs counter to the life and teachings of Jesus. However, just because someone is arrogant doesn’t make him or her wrong.

People are arrogantly right about all kinds of things—Math, Science, Religion. You probably work with someone like this. (Dwight Schrute?) The arrogantly right person always talk down to others with an air of arrogance because they have the right answer. It might not be nice, but it doesn’t mean they are wrong.

For all the Christians who are arrogant about Jesus’ exclusive claims, there are many more who have ardently searched religions, compared their claims, and humbly come the conclusion that Jesus was telling the truth, that personal faith in the Messiah is the only way to God. This doesn’t make them arrogant; it makes them authentic. They are willing to stand by what they discovered to be true. Insisting on what is true doesn’t automatically make you arrogant. There are both humble and arrogant ways to insist on Jesus’ claim that he is the only way to God. After all, it is Jesus who said it, and Jesus was quintessentially humble, especially if he is who he said he was. By contrast, religious pluralism exclusively insists that its view—all ways lead to God—is true while all other religions are false in their exclusive teachings.

When religious pluralism claims that there are many ways to God, it is not humble. It actually carries an air of arrogance about it. How? Religious pluralism insists that its view—all ways lead to God—is true while all other religions are false in their exclusive teachings. Religious pluralism dogmatically insists on its exclusive claim, namely that all roads lead to God. The problem, as we have seen, is that this claim directly contradicts many religions like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity. The claim of the religious pluralist is arrogant because it enforces its own belief on others. It says to other religions: “You must believe what I believe, not what you believe. Your way isn’t right, in fact all of your ways are wrong and my way is right. There isn’t just one way to God (insert your religion); there are many ways. You are wrong and I am right.” This can be incredibly arrogant, particularly if the person saying this hasn’t studied all the world religions in depth and makes a blind assertion. Upon what basis can the religious pluralist make this exclusive claim? Where is the proof that this is true? To what ancient Scriptures, traditions, and careful reasoning can they point? The lack of historical and rational support for religious pluralism makes it a highly untenable view of the world and its religions.

Is Religious Pluralism Truly Tolerant?

Very often people hold to religious pluralism because they think it is more tolerant than Christianity. I’ll be the first to say that we need tolerance, but what does it mean to be tolerant? To be tolerant is to accommodate differences, which can be very noble. I believe that Christians should be some of the most accommodating kinds of people, giving everyone the dignity to believe whatever they want and not enforcing their beliefs on others. We should winsomely tolerate different beliefs. Interestingly, religious pluralism doesn’t really allow for this kind of tolerance. Instead of accommodating spiritual differences, religious pluralism blunts them. Let me explain.

The claim that all paths lead to the same God actually minimizes other religions by asserting a new religious claim. When someone says all paths lead to the same God, they blunt the distinctions between religions, throwing them all in one pot, saying: “See, they all get us to God so the differences don’t really matter.” This isn’t tolerance; it’s a power play. When asserting all religions lead to God, the distinctive and very different views of God and how to reach the divine in Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are brushed aside in one powerful swoop. The Eightfold Noble Path, the 5 Pillars of Islam, and the Gospel of Christ are not tolerated but told they must submit to a new religious claim–religious pluralism–despite the fact that this isn’t what those religions teach. When it does this, religious pluralism places itself on top of all other religions.

The Religion of Religious Pluralism

People spend years studying and practicing their religious distinctions. To say they don’t really matter is highly intolerant! The very notion of religious tolerance assumes there are differences to tolerate, but pluralism is intolerant of those very differences! In this sense, religious pluralism is a religion of its own. It has its own religious absolute—all paths lead to the same God—and requires people of other faiths to embrace this absolute, without any religious backing at all. This is highly evangelistic. Religious pluralism  is preachy but under the guise of tolerance. In the end, it is a step of faith to say there are many paths to God. Says who? The idea that all paths lead to the same God is not a self-evident fact; it is a leap of faith. It isn’t even an educated leap, nor is it as humble and tolerant as it might appear.

Here is Stephen Prothero’s response to this tenant of religious pluralism:

Faith in the unity of religions is just that—faith (perhaps even a kind of fundamentalism). And the leap that gets us there is an act of the hyperactive imagination.

As it turns out, each of the reasons for subscribing to religious pluralism—enlightenment, humility, and tolerance—all backfire. They don’t carry through. Religious pluralism isn’t enlightened, it’s inaccurate; it isn’t humble, it’s fiercely dogmatic; and it isn’t really all that tolerant because it intolerantly blunts religious distinctions. In the end, religious pluralism is a religion, a leap of faith, based on contradiction and is highly untenable. Christianity, on the other hand, respects and honors the various distinctions of other religions, comparing them, and honoring their differing principles–Karma (Hinduism), Enlightenment (Buddhism), Submission (Islam), and Grace (Christianity). As we conclude, let’s explore Jesus’ exclusive claim that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life as well as the charge that his teachings in Christianity are arrogant, unenlightened, and intolerant. In particular, we will examine the unique principle of grace.

Christ Teaches Us Humility

First, Jesus is the Way. What does this mean? Does it mean that Jesus is our trailblazer, clearing the other religious options aside so we can hike our way to heaven through spiritual or moral improvement. If I keep the Ten Commandments, if I serve the poor and love my neighbor, if I pray and read the Bible enough, then God will accept me. No. As the way, Jesus doesn’t create a path for us to hike. We can never make it—do enough spiritual, moral, or social good to impress God. Much less love him with all our soul, mind, and strength. We can’t make it up the path. We all fail to love and serve the infinitely admirable and lovable God. In fact, we love other things more, that’s a crime of infinite proportions. It’s against an infinite God. The sentence for our crime must be carried out.

When Jesus takes the arduous hike for us he goes down into the valley where the criminals die. He hikes down into our sin, our rebellion, our failures and he heaps them all on his back and climbs on a cross, where he is punished for our crime, a bloody gruesome death. The innocent punished for the guilty. If he doesn’t take our punishment, then we must endure it—forever separation from God. If you reject Jesus, then you will pay the infinite consequences. However, if you embrace Jesus in his sin-absorbing death you get forgiveness, and Jesus hikes not only through the valley but up the mountain to carry your forgiveness to God, where he pleads our innocence (Hebrews 10). This is what it means for Jesus to be the way. He hikes into the valley of our just punishment and up the mountain for our forgiveness. He is the redemptive way. He takes our place. This understanding of Jesus as the way should make us incredibly humble not arrogant. We realize how undeserving we are and how much mercy we have been shown.

Christ Enlightens Us

Jesus is also the Truth. What does that mean? In John chapter 1, we are told that God became flesh and was full of grace and truth in Jesus. The truth is that God is Jesus. Christianity is the only religion where God is born as a man, becomes fully human. This is the height of enlightenment. All other religions teach that humans must work their way toward divinity. The truth is Jesus. The truth is a person who dies in our place, for our crimes, and in turn gives us his life. The truth is that God works his way down to humanity and dies for us. That’s grace. See, the truth isn’t a special prayer or code word we say at the pearly gates. In Christianity, the truth is essentially revealed in a Person, Jesus, full of grace and humility. All other religions God is impersonal, but in Christianity we meet God in Jesus. The truth is a Person who dies for us. Wonderfully enlightened, moving.

Christ Guides Us to Persuasive Tolerance

Finally, Jesus is the Life. As if it wasn’t enough to be our way, incredibly humbling, and the truth, truly enlightening, Jesus caps it off by offering us not just his death but his life. What life? Later on in John, Jesus says he is the resurrection and the life, and that whoever believes in him, though he die yet he will live (11:25). He goes down into the valley to take our death, and rises up from the dead to up the other side of the valley where he prepares a new place for us to enjoy life with him forever. The hope of Christ’s life should break into the lives of Christians today, making us persuasively tolerant. We tolerantly extend people the dignity of their own beliefs. We don’t minimize the differences between religions. We honor them. The life of Christ produces in us true humility. But it also produces in us true enlightenment. We’ve come to grasp grace, that God works his way down to us, dies for our moral and religious failures, and offers us life. If this is true, we must lovingly, humbly try to persuade others to believe in Jesus—who alone offers the wonderful promise of the way to God, the truth of God, and life of God.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how nice or moral a person is because there is not enough niceness or morality to pay for our rejection of God. Either we must be rejected or we turn to Jesus who was rejected for us. This is the heart of the gospel. Jesus lays down his own life for those who reject him, for his enemies, for those who don’t believe in him, and offers them forgiveness. Why would we reject such a man?—such a God? Jesus’ claims are better than the claims of religious pluralism. Christianity delivers where pluralism cannot. Instead of being unenlightened, Jesus is truly enlightening. He is God—full of grace and truth. Instead of being arrogant, Jesus should make us incredibly humble. He created the way to God for us at the expense of his own death. Finally, instead of being intolerant, Jesus should make us persuasively tolerant, granting people the dignity of unbelief but pleading with them to accept true life!

We all have a choice—where to place our faith. Will we place it in unenlightened, dogmatic, and intolerant pluralism? Or will we place it in Jesus, who is the incredibly humbling way, the enlightening truth, and the persuasively tolerant life? Both require faith. In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Leslie Newbigin wrote: “Doubt is not autonomous.” We can’t rely on doubt alone. We can’t doubt one thing without placing our faith in another. We can doubt Jesus and trust pluralism, or we can trust Jesus and doubt pluralism. We cannot say, “I believe Jesus is the only way,” and also say, “I believe all religions lead to God.” Ask yourself, will you place faith in Jesus who is the way, truth, and life? Or, will you place your faith in religious pluralism?

---

Jonathan Dodson (M.Div, Th.M) is happy husband to Robie, and proud father to Owen, Ellie & Rosamund. He is also the lead pastor of Austin City Life church and directional leader for PlantR and Gospel Centered Discipleship.com. Jonathan is also the author of Gospel-Centered Discipleship (Crossway, 2012). He blogs at jonathandodson.org, enjoys listening to M. Ward, watching sci-fi, and following Jesus. You can find him on Twitter @Jonathan_Dodson.

Church Planting, Confessions, and Catechism

What do church planting, confessions, and catechisms have in common?  The answer is a lot.  Christians have used confessions and catechism to teach the essentials of the faith for centuries.  Many of the great confessions and catechism were originally discipleship tools for new churches during the time of the Reformation.

One of the biggest challenges church planters face is teaching new believers the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.  Many of the people who come to a new church know little if any about the basic doctrines.

What is a Catechism?

You may be wondering, “What is a catechism?”  When I was a new believer, I had no idea what a catechism was.  For those of us who were not raised in the church, words like catechism, creed, or confessions sound like something you would learn in a catholic school.

So what is a catechism?  A catechism is the process of instructing believers both young and old in the basics of the Christian faith.  The Greek word for "instruct" or "teach" is katecheo from which we get our English word "catechize".

Catechisms provide basic summaries of the church’s teachings to ensure that all members of the church understand the essentials of the faith for themselves.  Most catechisms generally have questions and answers accompanied by Biblical support and explanations.

Brief History of Catechisms and Confessions

As early as the Middle Ages, the Church required new believers to learn the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Ten Commandments.  During the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers compiled many catechisms to help train new believers.

Donald Van Dyken says, “The great leaders of the Reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, attacked the colossal ignorance they met in Germany, Geneva, and Scotland by making catechisms and by catechizing.”[i] Among these Reformed documents were The Augsburg Confession in 1530 and the Heidelberg Catechism written in 1562.

Martin Luther whole-heartedly believed in using them.  He said, “In the catechism, we have a very exact, direct, and short way to the whole Christian religion.  For God himself gave the ten commandments, Christ himself penned and taught the Lord's Prayer, the Holy Ghost brought together the articles of faith.”[ii]

The Puritans later developed catechisms, including the Westminster Confession and Catechisms in the 1640’s.  For many Protestant Christians everywhere, the Westminster Catechisms are the most important and influential of all the catechisms.  The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms where written in the 1647 by English and Scottish divines.  These documents were written to provide children, new believers, and church members alike a short but comprehensive summary of the Reformed church’s doctrines.

Evangelicals on the Catechism Trail

Today, there is a misconception that only non-evangelical liturgical churches use catechisms and confessions.  However, many evangelicals such as Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists have used them for a long time.  Some may be surprised to know that the Southern Baptists have a rich confessional history.

Tom Nettles remarks, “Many contemporaries have a deep―seated suspicion of catechisms.  In our own Baptist denomination, many would consider the words "Baptist catechism" as mutually exclusive.”  However he goes on to say, “Baptists, including Southern Baptists, produced scores of catechisms for use in this variety of ways.”[iii]

Spurgeon on Catechisms

Standing in this tradition, the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon developed his own catechism from the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.  He believed that a good catechism was essential in training the faithful.  He said:

“I am persuaded that the use of a good Catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times, and therefore I have compiled this little manual from the Westminster Assembly's and Baptist Catechisms, for the use of my own church and congregation.  Those who use it in their families or classes must labour to explain the sense; but the words should be carefully learned by heart, for they will be understood better as years pass.”[iv]

Using the Confessions and Catechism

Many evangelicals are rediscovering the benefit of a good catechism.  Both new and existing churches can benefit from using catechisms.  A catechism can be used as an individual study, times of family worship, or in small groups.  Catechisms are not a pass or fail fill-in-the-blank test, but an invitation to learn the doctrines of grace.  This invitation involves vital learning, ongoing reflection, and discussion within the community of faith.

They are still as useful and as needed today.  Ponder each doctrine and let them speak to your head and your heart.  Share them with your children or your spouse.

Here is a sample of the First Catechism for beginners that you can use in your church, with your family, or in times of study.

1. Who made you? God.
2. What else did God make? God made all things.
3. Why did God make you and all things? For his own glory.
4. How can you glorify God? By loving him and doing what he commands.
5. Why are you to glorify God? Because he made me and takes care of me.
6. Is there more than one true God? No. There is only one true God.
7. In how many Persons does this one God exist? In three Persons.
8. Name these three Persons. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
9. What is God? God is a Spirit and does not have a body like men.
10. Where is God? God is everywhere.
11. Can you see God? No. I cannot see God, but he always sees me.
12. Does God know all things? Yes. Nothing can be hidden from God.
13. Can God do all things? Yes. God can do all his holy will.
14. Where do you learn how to love and obey God? In the Bible alone.
15. Who wrote the Bible? Chosen men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.[v]
    

    ---

[i] Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism. New Jersey: P&R publishing. 2000. 14.

[ii] Martin Luther, Table Talk.

[iii] Tom Nettles,  An Encouragement to Use Catechisms. Founders Journal.

[iv] Charles Surgeon, A Puritans Catechism.

[v] First Catechism. Great Commission Publications, Inc. 2003.

---

Dr. Winfield Bevins serves as lead pastor of Church of the Outer Banks, which he founded in 2005.  His life’s passion in ministry is discipleship and helping start new churches. He lives in the beautiful beach community of the Outer Banks with his wife Kay and two daughters where he loves to surf and spend time at the beach with his family and friends. Twitter: @winfieldbevins

Discipling the Disillusioned

They are lingering around the margins of our ministries. Some of them have been shoved from the pews to the periphery, but most of them have withdrawn on their own. Cynics.

Disillusioned with the people of God and often with God himself, these jaded souls are licking their ecclesial wounds while lobbing criticisms from a safe distance. Haunting the fringes and taunting those in the center, their audacity in asking the hard questions threatens to spread skepticism. It would be easier if the cynics would just step back into line and slip back into the pew. It would be easier if they would just repent of the gloomy naysaying and try some cheery optimism. Maybe it would be even easier if they just fled the fringes and left the church altogether.

But we need them. Desperately.

The church is in dire need of the disillusioned. Pop-theology and idealistic slogans are rife among God’s people today. But as a society committed to truth, the church can harbor no illusory notions about God or itself. Dis-illusionment is the dispersal of illusions. Those whose rose-colored glasses have been crushed under the foot of grim realities are powerful resources in an age of spin and empty promises. Cynics have powerful insights the church needs.

What we do not need, of course, is their cynicism.

So how do we embrace the cynics and not their disposition? How do we disciple the disillusioned? Reports abound that disenfranchised young people are leaving the church en masse. The future of the church hinges on whether or not we can engage and minister to the cynics hovering dangerously close to the edges of the church. Here are some suggestions.

Show Compassion The dispersal of illusions is often painful. Truth hurts. The caricature of cynics above may capture our perspective toward them, but it fails to comprehend that a great deal of jarring pain may have landed cynics on the church fringes in the first place. Legions of us are harboring deep wounds from severe disappointments in regard to our faith. The pastor had an affair. The church split. The small group leaked our confession. Even more painful are the wounds that seem to be inflicted by God himself. The miracle never came. He refused to heal our loved one. He seemed content to permit tragedy. He hid himself in our grief. Some cynics delight in being ornery irritants in the church. But so many of them—so many of us—have had our hopes brutally dashed and we are simply wounded souls. When the spiritual wounds begin to fester, the brokenness turns to bitterness.

For healing to come, cynics need compassion more than they need ostracism that reinforces their assumptions about church-folk.  Not the drippy sort of compassion that looks more like self-righteous pity—cynics can smell this from a long way off. The sort of compassion required is a sincere concern seeped in the sobering awareness of another’s pain.

Debunk Idealism The reason many of us are disillusioned is because we espouse happy ideals about our faith which are simply incompatible with ex-Eden reality. We make all sorts of promises and platitudes that are not only unsustainable in a fallen world but contrary to the worldview found in Scripture. Powerful hopes are certainly found in those holy pages, astonishing hopes that seem too good to be true. But there is an eschatological sensibility to the bold promises of the Bible. God is certainly working wonders in the here and now. He rips open seas for the deliverance of his people. He heals and restores to life. But the prophets, Evangelists and apostles encourage us to orient our hopes toward the future. That future has been displaced a bit, parts of it taking place in the present through the work of Christ (see below), but the grim realities of a sin-wrecked realm still abound. To ignore those realities is to promote a faith on sand which will eventually shift and sink.

Lament Worship befitting a holy people amidst a sinful world includes lament. Injured souls cannot sing in a major key. So when we ask with a big smile that the congregation stand to sing some cheerful tune, we instantly marginalize the hurting among us. When the worship selections are upbeat and full of merry optimism, the inadvertent messages are that the church cannot accommodate pain, that the church is the last place you turn if you have problems. Even worse—when worship is always happy, the messages are that God himself wants nothing to do with our suffering, that God is the last person we turn to in distress.

Lament poetry makes up roughly a third of the Psalter. Right in the middle of our Bibles are the gut-wrenching pleas, the bellowing cries, and the haunting groans of the disillusioned. These laments make up the largest genre of psalms in the worship book of Israel.

Weeping can be worship.

The lament songs give voice to the jaded and disenchanted, conveying that God is indeed the one to whom we turn when our souls are shredded to pieces. The wounds of a cynic cannot heal on the margins. But the cynic will not march back into the pews to a soundtrack of perky praise music. When we recover the worship of lament, we will offer downcast souls biblically sanctioned language suitable for addressing God in their frustration and misery.

Preach a God of Biblical Proportions “God will never give you more than you can handle.” This theological sentiment has almost become sloganized. But say it to Job while you pat him on the back and see what he says in response. Tell it to Paul and his companions while they endured that mysterious affliction in Asia and felt “so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself” (2 Cor 1:8).

Cynics have been failed by shallow, sentimentalized pop-theology. When God does not live up to our expectations, we feel betrayed. But maybe the betrayal is sourced in the church’s proclamation of false expectations.

An idealized God is an idolized god.

But when we are presented with the mystifying God of Scripture, all the theological categories are rocked. The theological boxes are exploded. In a theology of biblical proportions we encounter a God dense enough and high enough to mystify and astound, but also to comfort and console. Such a theology presents a King both lowly and exalted, a Deity both tender and terrifying, a cosmic Lord in whom nails were found. No other vision of God will do for those who have faced harsh realities for which their limited theology failed to suffice.

Proclaim Resurrection  Rather than idealism or cynicism, our call is to “hopeful realism.” This is a perspective that acknowledges and grieves ex-Eden miseries while recognizing and awaiting Eden’s restoration. As we have noted, God will make all things new and restore paradise (Rev 21-22). But the Resurrection of Jesus signifies that new creation has already begun. When Jesus climbed out of his tomb, a cosmic interruption took place. New life from the Age to Come leapt into the present sphere. And that Resurrection power infuses our own existence (Rom 6:4). The empty tomb of Jesus is a hole in the system, the system of Death, the system of all that makes us cynical. Hopeful realism groans in the suffering of this present age, but rejoices in the inevitable collapse of sin’s power. Resurrection makes cynicism obsolete.

Truth hurts…but it also heals. Disillusionment is actually a gift that leads to new life. Can our churches and ministries accommodate the dispersal of illusions and the resulting new life? Can we welcome redeemed cynics into our midst and gladly heed their insights? The future of the church in the Western world may indeed depend on whether or not we can answer such questions in the affirmative. An exodus is underway, and it is leading in the wrong direction…

This article is adapted from Andrew Byers's book, Faith Without Illusions: Following Jesus as a Cynic-Saint.

---

After a decade of pastoral ministry, Andrew Byers is working on a PhD in New Testament at Durham University (England).  He is the author of Faith Without Illusions: Following Jesus as a Cynic-Saint (IVP) and his blog is Hopeful Realism.