Just Because

The Smallest Church in America

Our family spent Saturday together on Jekyll Island, GA. On our way home we decided to stop off at what I'd heard was called The Smallest Church in America. I'd seen the name on a sign and figured it was referring to a really small building as opposed to a small group of some kind.

You can see the building in the photos above. It's a structure that seats about twelve people and is still used for weddings. When we arrived, no one was there but the door was unlocked. I couldn't resist getting behind the pulpit. Just like old times!

It turns out that this really isn't the smallest church in America. It's not a big disappointment; it's not as if we had anything emotionally invested in this short venture. We spent all of fifteen minutes there.

The building has morphed into what amounts to a shrine of some sort. Lots of Roman Catholic paraphernalia was spread about the inside. As a side note, it appears that Jesus in the stained glass window is blessing my efforts (sarcasm alert).

I post this as a reminder that buildings are just buildings. They matter not a bit in the Kingdom of God. The church is a wondrous thing created and sustained by God. It is His people.

A more accurate title for the above place would be The Nearly Smallest Church Building, Shrine, and Tourist Stop in America.

Not a Virgin?

I love it when God provides opportunities to testify about His truth.

This week a young man approached me at work to ask a question. I've talked with him previously, but never about matters of much substance. Out of the blue, he asked me what I thought about Jesus being born of a virgin. Another man in his specific work area had been saying that Jesus wasn't actually virgin-born because the word used in the OT just meant a young woman of marriageable age.

I was asked this question while on break, so we were able to talk for about ten minutes. I was able to explain several reasons for why I believe Mary was, in fact, a virgin. I'm thankful that this young man had already heard almost all of the arguments I made. Therefore, I wasn't really telling him anything new, but was rather helping cement what he already believed.

This was not a conversation I pursued in any way. God gave the opportunity, and I praise Him for it. Sometimes I go through the day wondering if I'll ever have chances to speak of Christ. Then I'm reminded by God that He provides the opportunities. We just have to be open to them.

I don't know what will come from this conversation I had. If I was able to help a brother a little bit then I'm pleased. Thank you Lord.

Missions in I Peter

The book of I Peter teaches us much about living as exiles in this world. Not surprisingly, the apostle deals with the theme of suffering several times in this epistle. What about missions? Does Peter write anything that will help us share the gospel more effectively? The answer is yes. Peter gives us valuable information to share about the church. Specifically, the church is a priesthood (to read the first post in this series, click here).

In order to fully share the good news of Jesus Christ, we must tell what the church is and does. Although this is secondary to what Christ has accomplished for us, it is still critical. The reason is that anyone who accepts Christ is also immediately ushered into the church. The new believer needs to know what this thing is that he is a part of.

Peter writes the following short but key passages:

"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." I Peter 2:4-5

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." I Peter 2:9

In these passages Peter says that the church is a "holy priesthood" and a "royal priesthood." We are told that we are able to "offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God" and "proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

Priests have direct access to God. Priests have a relationship with Him. Priests are active. Priests offer acceptable sacrifices. New believers need to know that God expects them to be active in their relationship with Him, in their relationships with other believers, and in their proclamation of the gospel to the world.

A problem with much missions and evangelism today is that it offers no biblical definition of what the church should be and do. Instead, new Christians quickly learn through observation that they are expected to attend Sunday School, attend worship services, listen to sermons, join a church, put money in the offering plate, attend Wednesday evening activities, etc., etc., etc. These expectations create passive new believers.

Thanks to Peter we have a biblical way of teaching new Jesus-followers what it is to actively live for Jesus. Let's make sure that they understand that they are priests with all the responsibilities and privileges that carries.


To read any or all posts in this series on missions, click here.

Missions in James

The book of James is a tough one. It's full of short sentences containing many commands. This epistle is sort of like taking an advanced class in sanctification. James shouts to his readers that true salvation in Christ shows evidence in godly living. In the midst of all this, what can we learn about missions? (For the first post in this series, click here).

The primary theme of James, that faith is accompanied by works, is extremely important for missions. The reason for this is simple: people generally believe what they see much more than what they simply hear. The gospel shared and lived is much more effective than just shared. The adage "I'll believe it when I see it holds true."

James tells us in 1:22, "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." Later in 2:14-17, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

The world takes notice when the church does things such as taking care of the physical needs of the poor.

In James 1:27 we read, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." In general the church makes an attempt, to varying degrees, to live holy lives. However, we for the most part fail in doing things like visiting widows and orphans.

James teaches us that good works matter. They matter because they honor God. They matter because they prove that our salvation is real. They matter because they usually relieve suffering on someone else's part. Finally, as it pertains to missions, good works show that there is substance to Jesus-followers. When the world sees this substance, it takes notice. This, in turn, leads to more people being willing to hear about Jesus.

Let's live out our faith by showing the world our works.


To read any or all posts in this series, click here.

Biblical Evidence for Beards

A few examples of beards in scripture:

Leviticus 19:27, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard."

Leviticus 21:5, "They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body."

II Samuel 10:4-5, "So Hanun took David's servants and shaved off half the beard of each and cut off their garments in the middle, at their hips, and sent them away. When it was told David, he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, 'Remain at Jericho until your beards have grown and then return.'"

Psalm 133:2, "It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes!"

Of course, the above verses in no way stipulate that all men must have beards. However, if you want to look manly you will probably do so.

Interestingly, there is infinitely more evidence for having a beard than there is for church buildings, salaried clergy, and worship services. Just thought I would point that out.

Finally, this is too good  not to post:

Done Arguing

That's not me in the photo. I just like the tape effect.

Anyway, I'm done arguing. Specifically, I'm done arguing about theology in general and the church specifically. I've had enough. It's pointless, goes nowhere, and accomplishes nothing. Like the guy in the photo, I'm not arguing (of course, he can't talk at all, but that's his problem).

I've managed to avoid arguing about the church in person for quite a while now. If people want to know what I think, I tell them. If they object, I just leave it at that. No more arguing. I have a young Christian co-worker who believes many things about the church that I do not. Fine. I've avoided arguing with him. "It takes two to tango," so to speak. I'm not tangoing on this topic.

I've decided to avoid all arguing on other websites. It's all too easy to go to blogs by men such as Kevin DeYoung and Justin Taylor and stir the pot. They are firmly entrenched inside the institution as are most of their commenters. I have attempted to argue on these types of blogs for biblical church principles. It is to no avail. Defenders of the institution, who wrongly think they are defending the church, will not listen and only become angry. Nothing good comes of it. I'm done.

I will continue to blog about (what I think are) important issues related to the church. I hope for engaging, lively debate and discussion here on this blog. It may border from time to time on argumentation, but that's as far as I'll let it go. No more arguing.

This is somewhat of a revelation and relief for me. You may have already reached this point. I hope so for your sake.

"We Ought to Support People Like These"

"Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth." 3 John 5-8 (emphasis mine)

The letter of 3 John doesn't get much attention. However, we can learn a good deal about the importance of hospitality by reading through its fifteen verses. As our home fellowship recently was discussing this epistle, I noticed something I had not seen before. John makes a strong statement about Christians the church should support.

John specifically says, "we ought to support people like these." Who is the apostle talking about? The answer is those "who have gone out" and who are "on their journey." John is describing traveling Christian workers, probably apostles, prophets, and evangelists.

The recipients of this letter had already shown hospitality to these Christians. John is now calling upon them to support them. Since they receive no financial assistance from the Gentiles (non-Christians), John is exhorting those who received this epistle to help these folks.

Why did the traveling Christian workers, who we might call missionaries, need financial assistance? Since they traveled from place to place, they would have been unable to hold down a regular job. This would have made earning a regular income a difficult task.

We see the theme of financial support for traveling workers in a few other places in the NT. For example, in Philippians 4:10-20 we read Paul's commendation of the church in Philippi for the financial support they gave him. Paul was a traveling Christian worker.

Also, in I Corinthians 9:8-14 Paul writes, "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." The context is strictly that of traveling Christian workers (note: not elders or pastors). Although Paul did not accept any financial support from the church in Corinth, this seems to have been due to the numerous problems there. Based on what we see in both 3 John and Philippians, it was generally a good thing for churches to financially support those who traveled from place to place sharing the gospel.

One additional note: while these passages speak of financial support, they say nothing of salaries. Most likely, these churches sent love gifts from time to time. The workers probably all had some sort of skill to help provide for their own needs (such as tentmaking).

We Christ-followers should be giving people. We must also be wise. The scriptures provide us with models for who needs financial help. We read repeatedly of the importance of helping the poor. We see that widows are generally worthy of our assistance. And, as we see in 3 John, we have a responsibility to help those who travel about spreading the gospel.

I'll admit that it is not always easy to know specifically who we should help and exactly how we should do so. Despite this, we can be sure that God is pleased when we give to those who go.

The 10 Commandments Tell How Long a Day Is

A final short note on creation:

Much of the debate in the church about the world's beginnings centers on how long a day is. Genesis chapters 1-2 use the word "day" repeatedly. A straightforward reading indicates that the author meant a 24 hour period. Despite this, some Christians claim that the days in Genesis actually refer to periods of millions of years. Which is it?

God has told us in Exodus how long a day is. In fact, He did so right in the middle of the 10 Commandments so that there would be absolutely no confusion about the issue. Exodus 20:8-11 says the following:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The main focus of the above paragraph is obviously the Sabbath. However, look at what Moses writes in the next to last sentence. He says, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." Right in the middle of the context of the Hebrew Sabbath, which was clearly a 24 hour period, Moses mentions the creation account. He describes the two as having a one-to-one correspondence. As God created in six days and rested the seventh, the Israelites were to do the same.

Interestingly, I never hear theistic evolutionists claim that the Sabbath language in Exodus 20 refers to millions of years. If that was the case, I suppose the Hebrews would still be resting somewhere in the desert in the Sinai Peninsula.

The same language for "day" is used in both Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20. This, combined with the language of the Exodus 20 Sabbath paragraph, shows that God clearly meant a 24 hour period in Genesis 1-2.

No one is confused about the length of the OT Sabbath. As it was 24 hours in Exodus 20, it is also 24 hours in Genesis 1-2.  That's because a day is 24 hours.

But What About the Food Adam and Eve Ate?

A short post today to close out this creation series:

I made the claim yesterday that death comes from sin. No death existed in God's good creation until after Adam and Eve sinned.

One counter to this claim is to ask about the food that Adam and Eve ate. The question/reasoning goes something like this, "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree. This is the killing of plant life. Therefore, death did come before sin. So why do you say that death only came after sin?"

At first this question seems to have some merit. However, a closer look shows that it simply does not. The question makes a claim itself: that eating fruit is killing. But is it?

I like apples. I eat one almost every day. In doing this, am I killing? I would be if I was killing the plant. However, the plant is just fine. That's because the plant is the tree. When we eat of the fruit of the tree or vine we are not killing because the plant itself remains as healthy as ever. In fact, it probably continues to produce more fruit.

Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They did not eat entire trees. We get no sense that they even had to prepare food of any kind. Instead, they just walked over to the plant, picked whatever fruit they desired, and partook (there was that unfortunate incident with one specific tree, but that's another topic).

No killing involved whatsoever.

For illustration purposes, do we consider ourselves to have killed when we get a haircut? Of course not. The reason is that even though the hair is trimmed, the roots remain. They probably even benefit from a little trim.

We can see, then, that Adam and Eve did not kill plants. Therefore, their eating habits did not in any way bring about death. Why is this? The reason is that in God's sovereign wisdom, death is a consequence of sin. This means that death has to come after sin.

Again pointing to Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." (ESV).

Death Before Sin?

This is a re-post, with some minor changes, from 2009. My thoughts have not changed on this topic in the past three years:

With this being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, there will undoubtedly be much discussion this year of his impact upon society. Since 2009 is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin will be difficult to ignore.

It does not surprise me that secularists in general and atheists in particular believe that the world came about through evolutionary processes. It makes sense that people who do not know Jesus Christ will also hold faulty views about the beginnings of the universe.

It does surprise and trouble me that some Christians believe that God used evolutionary methods to bring His creation into existence. I've heard this many times from people who I have no doubt are followers of Jesus Christ. I believe that these Christians mean well.

Despite their good intentions, Christians who believe in some sort of evolution (macroevolution, not microevolution) have a big theological problem on their hands. The big problem is this: in their view, death must come before sin. If plants and animals existed for millions of years prior to the first humans, then there must have been a great deal of death before any humans walked the earth.

However, the bible tells us that death is a consequence of sin. Death comes from sin and after sin. This is what we see when we give a literal reading to Genesis 1-2. Years later Paul writes, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." (Romans 5:12, ESV)

A related problem for Christians who hold to evolutionary beginnings is this: if death comes before sin in Genesis 1-2, then to be consistent death must still exist in Revelation 21-22. Is the Christian/evolutionist ready to say that death will exist after sin is done away with by Christ? We certainly can't believe that this will be the case. Revelation 20:14 even says, "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." Death will be done away with forever by Christ.

It saddens me that many Christians are willing to sacrifice theological truth on the altar of secular scientific theory. Christians must realize that evolution today is pushed and promoted by secularists. It is secular scientists who are trying to force their beliefs on our culture. On the other hand, many scientists who are also Christians believe that the objective scientific data corresponds closely with a literal reading of Genesis 1-2.

It is a great biblical truth that death only came after sin. We also know that after sin is gone, death will be gone as well.

I have never once heard a good answer from a Christian/evolutionist as to how death can come before sin.

I'm still waiting.

Evolution is a Slippery Word

(I include the above photo simply for fun.)

The word "evolution" is a slippery one. I'm referring to the fact that it is used in a variety of ways by various people. This often leads to lack of actual communication and accompanying consternation/frustration for everyone involved.

In general "evolution" means change. We've all seen change, both good and bad, occur in almost uncountable ways in our lives. For example, the technological evolution just during the past thirty years is immense. I can remember when we bought our first microwave oven. Nowadays we can't live without the internet. These are significant changes.

When it comes to the world's beginnings, we must be clear in what we are talking about. Darwinian evolutionists demand that macro evolution occurs through processes of natural selection, mutation, and random chance. They state unequivocally that no higher intelligence is behind it. No discussion/debate on the issue is tolerated (especially within secular universities).

This is fascinating because the positive changes we've experienced in this world occur through much planning and intelligence. The evolution we have seen in technology has come from many smart techno-folks logging long hours to create software, computers, cell phones, flat screens, etc. None of these types of changes have happened through people simply sitting around waiting for something to happen by chance.

Evolution, when simply meaning change, can be a positive thing only when intelligence is behind it. On the other hand, evolution apart from intelligence and planning leads only to a big mess or worse. A great example of this is the state of my kids' bedrooms. I've blogged about this before, so I'll simply say here that order does not stem from chance. Their bedrooms only become clean through much effort and planning.

This is not to say that God controlled evolutionary processes to bring this world into existence. That is simply not the case. Genesis 1-2 makes it clear that God crafted this world in a highly organized, step-by-step process.

Changes do, however, occur in this world. Evolution, meaning simply change, even happens within species over time. However, it never happens at the macro level. Species tend to remain the same, not change from one to another.

Let's be careful in our definitions. Statements such as "I don't believe in evolution" are not helpful because they are not precise enough. In order to have intelligent conversation on this issue, we must define what we are talking about.

There was no evolution in the creation process.

There is evolution (meaning simply change) in the world as we know it. Positive change only stems from intelligence and planning.

Changes that come from lack of order or planning are only negative ones. Order never comes as a result of disorder.

As followers of Jesus we must be clear in what we are talking about as we engage the world on these issues.

Scary Implications for Interpretation

The bible is a book of truth and facts. It is also literature. In light of these things, we must put forth effort to interpret and understand it correctly. Ultimately, our goal is to accurately comprehend what God means through the scriptures. No sane person reads the bible, or any other book for that matter, while hoping to misunderstand it.

One aspect to correct interpretation is consistency. This means that when we look at the same types of literature, we interpret them using the same methods. Since the bible has various types of literature within it, we must be thoughtful in our approach. However, when looking at the same types of writing, we must take meaning in the same way.

The bible is written for our understanding. Most of it was penned in a manner that is extremely straightforward. For example, when we read the gospels we see an account about the life of a real man in a real place doing real things. There is no reason to do anything but interpret this literally.

The same can be said of Genesis chapters 1-11. Specifically concerning Genesis chapter one, we see a real God speaking a real planet into a real existence. God does this in space and time. As with the gospel accounts, there is no reason to understand it in any way other than literally. We do not have the right to pick and choose how we interpret the bible. God has given it to us according to His standards.

When scripture is our ultimate authority, we never have to allow outside influences to affect how we understand it. It is to be interpreted on its own merits. This applies to all information in the bible, including the creation narrative.

However, if scripture is not the starting point for thinking about this world's beginnings and some type of theistic evolution is embraced, then a big issue immediately surfaces. That issue is how to interpret Genesis chapters 1-2.

A fair reading of Genesis 1-2 indicates six 24 hour days. This is what happens when the passage is treated as being literal.

Those who adhere to theistic evolution must, therefore, interpret it in some other way than literally. Many think of it as an allegory or fictional story of some type. The specifics are explained away by saying that it is only meant to give us the idea that God is in charge of creation. They claim chapters 1-2 are not intended to provide any actual scientific data.

The scary aspect of this is that it smacks of subjectivity and relativism. Who has given them the right to treat Genesis 1-2 as if it is not to be taken literally?

The only reason the theistic evolutionists do this is because it doesn't fit their worldview (which stems from secular scientific naturalism).

If they interpret Genesis 1-2 as being non-literal, then why do they interpret any passages in a literal fashion? What is their reasoning for thinking (as many do), for example, that Adam and Eve did not exist but that Jesus did?

More specifically, why do they believe in a literal gospel message? Why do they think God literally came to earth, lived, died, rose again, and ascended? Why think any of the miracles in scripture literally occurred?

Every true Christian by definition believes in a literal Jesus. However, those who hold to a non-literal rendering of Genesis 1-2 are in a scary position. Their choice for what is to be taken literally and what is not appears to be simply that: an utterly subjective choice.

There are two consistent positions when it comes to Genesis 1-2. The first is to take it literally and accept it. The second is to treat it as fanciful and reject it wholesale (as most secular scientists do). The untenable position is the one that tries to find the middle of the road. That's what we see with theistic evolution.

Their inconsistency and subjectivity is scary for what it says about their understanding of the rest of the biblical message.

Starting in the Right Place

I'm writing about creation this week because I'm concerned about the rising influence of Biologos within the church. Biologos is an organization that promotes theistic evolution.

I'm going to be relatively short and to the point in this post. Christians who hold to theistic evolution are starting in the wrong place. Specifically, their authority is wrong when it comes to creation.

When the bible is the place we begin, and we read Genesis 1-2 in a straightforward manner, we can see that God created this world in six 24 hour days. Interestingly, the facts of science support this.

When Christians begin with secular scientific findings, they end up with evolution. This puts them in a pickle. What can they do? Answer: they force Darwinian theory upon scripture and come up with theistic evolution. This theory basically says that God controlled evolution to bring about this world.

This is not a science versus bible issue. Rather, it is a secular atheism versus Christian theism issue. The problem with theistic evolutionists is that they have surrendered authority on the issue to the secular academy. They have bought into secular theories about the world's beginnings in the hope of being accepted by secular scientists.

Scripture makes it clear that as followers of Jesus we will be outcasts in society. Our view of how the world began is part of this. We reject Darwinian theory in favor of what God has done. In His grace, God has shown us what He did. He's given us plenty of details in Genesis 1-2, and, more broadly in Genesis 1-11.

This is not a core gospel issue (theistic evolutionists can be saved). However, it does have theological and interpretive consequences. As an example, scripture tells us that we all fell when Adam fell. Because of this, all can be redeemed through faith in Christ. If evolution is true, then all did not come from Adam. Various humans would have evolved from different sources. This being the case, how are those saved who did not come from Adam? Theistic evolution lends itself to all sorts of theological problems.

The worldview of scientific naturalism wages war against biblical Christianity. We must not accept it in any way. We have to have the correct starting point for our beliefs. The bible must be the place we start. If we begin in the right place, we have a great chance of drawing the right conclusions. A correct beginning leads to a correct ending.

All scripture has been breathed out by God. When Paul writes this in II Timothy he is talking about the Old Testament. This includes Genesis 1-2. While the bible is divinely inspired and free of error, science is imperfect at best. Even Christian scientists are imperfect people looking at imperfect data in an imperfect world. Science has flaws.

When we look to scripture as our authority, we will have an accurate understanding of this world and its beginnings. True scientific data will only support what we have already read in the bible. A great example of this is the fossil record. It corresponds perfectly to the global flood account.

Let's begin with the bible.

Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is insight."

Top Ten Reasons to Grow a Beard

This is my new look. I've had a beard before, but not for quite a while. The grayish-white hair on the chin is a new feature. Anyway, this inspired me to compile a list of the top ten reasons for men to grow beards. Enjoy:

10. Beards mean you don't have to shave every day.

9. Beards and (at least the appearance of) wisdom go hand-in-hand.

8. Beards feel excellent.

7. Many great theologians have had beards.

6. You don't have to shave every day.

5. Beards are masculine.

4. You can witness to Muslims more easily with a beard.

3. You don't have to shave every day.

2. Jesus probably had a beard.

1. Beards are cool.

Two Different Directions

One fascinating change that's occurring in the American church has to do with size. A consistent trend exists today for churches becoming either bigger or smaller. They are moving in two different directions.

We're all aware of the modern phenomenon that is the rise of the mega church. Click here for a prime example. We also have seen many Christians moving toward smaller groupings. This usually takes some form of simple/organic/house church life.

As groups become either bigger or smaller, it is the congregational size churches that either are or will be facing great challenges. These churches typically run 100-300 people. As time goes on and folks leave congregational churches for either much bigger or much smaller groups, the 100-300 size church will gradually die out. This is not to say that these medium size churches will no longer exist, but that they will no longer be the dominant model of church life.

(As an aside, I write from an American perspective here. I admit to ignorance when it comes to what is happening in the church in other countries. If you reside in another part of the world, I'd love to hear what is occurring where you are.)

These size changes lead to a question for us: How can we in small churches work with those in large churches to make disciples?

It is painfully obvious for all involved that those of us in simple church life reject almost all of the shenanigans that go on in the mega church. However, there are many Christians in mega churches who want to make disciples just as much as we do. Therefore, we have a challenge of working with them while at the same time not working under the constraints of their large institutional framework. How can we do this?

First, we must always remember that it is Jesus Christ who unites us, not our view of the church. This is a great challenge since our understanding of the church is so different from that of most Christians in the institution. Since our unity is in Christ, we must look to His call for unity in His church. Unity has no loopholes.

Second, we must avoid the trap of isolating ourselves from believers in mega churches. If we know other Christians in the workplace, neighborhood, etc., let's see how we can work together instead of avoiding them.

Third, one of the positives of the rise of the mega church is the corresponding rise of the small group. Mega churches, at least to some degree, understand that community is necessary in the body. This cannot come through their large gatherings, so they have small groups of one type or another. Some of these groups function somewhat like simple churches. We can draw on these commonalities as we work together.

Fourth, working together to make disciples can often be a simple process. Much can be done in homes or coffee shops. The mega church institution does not even have to be involved. Staying away from the mega church structure is not as difficult as it may seem.

Finally, we must remember that disciple making is the mission of the church. We cannot push it to the back burner. Additionally, Jesus did not tell His followers to only work together with those they agreed with on church issues. They were all to come together for the cause of the Great Commission. By extension, we have this same commission. We must find ways to work with those in mega churches to make disciples.

As church size continues to change in this country, we need to be ready to work with our brothers and sisters in mega churches. This does not require us to accept all they believe about church. However, it does require us to focus on unity and find ways to come together despite our obvious differences.

A Theology of Pen and Ink

"I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink." 3 John 13

We must be careful in how we interpret scripture. Our goal should always be to determine what the original author meant. We do not bring our own meaning to the text; rather, we strive to know what the Holy Spirit inspired through the person who penned it. There is one meaning. We must find it.

It is possible to make mistakes in this process. One classic way of coming to the wrong conclusion about a text is to look at only one verse at a time devoid of context. Meaning in the bible comes from the paragraph and/or entire book. Single verses certainly carry meaning, but if we look at them in isolation we run a great risk of drawing conclusions that the original author never intended.

Let's look at a silly example for the purposes of illustration. In the epistle of 3 John, the apostle writes, "I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink."

Taken alone we could draw the following erroneous conclusions:

1. John generally preferred not to write with pen and ink.
2. Writing with pen and ink is a sin.
3. We must not write with pen and ink.
4. Writing with pen or ink is fine, but avoid the two together.
5. Writing with something else like pencil is better and safer.

Ridiculous and absurd. However, if we are to look solely at 3 John 13, then these are at least semi-legitimate conclusions. It is only in the broader context that we see how silly they are.

Let's remember that context is always, without fail, key to correctly understanding any bible verse. Even if a single verse supports a doctrine that we hold dear, we cannot yank it out of context for our own selfish purposes. The verse must remain firmly entrenched in the wider paragraph. Only then do we have a chance at accurate interpretation.

Missions in Hebrews

"For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured." Hebrews 13:11-13

The book of Hebrews appears to be a series of sermons/teachings that exhorts early Jewish Christians not to fall away from the faith. The consistent message is, "Jesus is better than anything else." In the midst of these exhortations to remain steadfast, can we learn anything about missions? As always, the answer is yes (to read the first post in this series, click here).

Some NT books tell us much about how to do missions work. Hebrews is not one of them. However, this epistle does give us much helpful information as to the content of what we should be sharing. In the face of this world's pleasures, the author of Hebrews informs us that Jesus is better than anything else, including all the world has to offer. That is the big picture of this book.

It is always a challenge to select a "most important" passage for missions in any book of the bible. I admit that in some ways it is artificial. Therefore, I'll just say that Hebrews 13:11-13 is very important for a full presentation of the gospel. This passage is a reminder that Jesus is worth suffering for.

These verses at first point back to the sacrificial system of the OT. The bodies of the animals used for the sin offering on the Day of Atonement were burned outside the camp. They were completely rejected, not to be consumed by the priests. Like the rejected animal bodies, Jesus (our atonement) was rejected outside the camp. He was crucified outside the city walls at Calvary.

Verse 13 is the tipping point. All believers are called upon to go to Jesus outside the gate. This is speaking of rejecting the pleasures and comforts of this world in favor of Christ. This decision will have consequences that usually include suffering.

One problem with much witnessing, at least in the Western world, is that the gospel presentation does not include a counting of the cost. We must forthrightly tell non-believers that a life with Christ may very well be a life of suffering. Despite this, it is a much better life. Only when they understand that following Christ goes hand-in-hand with suffering do they have a full understanding of the gospel.

Let's be faithful in sharing that the Christian life takes place outside the gate with Jesus.


To read any or all posts in this series, please click here.

Buying a House or Living in a House?

I love the atonement of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus died in my place at Calvary is an astounding thing. My favorite bible verse is II Corinthians 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Apart from His sacrifice on the cross, we would have no hope, no salvation, no eternal life.

Here's a related question: Is it possible that we spend too much time talking/thinking about the atonement of Christ and not enough time abiding in Christ?

I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy of sorts here. Of course we should both ponder/cherish the atoning work of Jesus and enjoy abiding in Him moment-by-moment. I just wonder if we spend so much time on the former that we are losing out on the latter.

Some of this stems back to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers in general were concerned with having a biblical understanding of salvation. I am deeply grateful to men like Luther and Calvin for the work they did in this area. Those of us coming from Protestant backgrounds have been taught again and again about the transaction that took place on the cross. Jesus purchased our salvation by taking our place. This is the substitutionary atonement.

My concern is that, coming from a Protestant background, I (and maybe you too) have my priorities askew just a bit. Could my focus be off a little? Could I look more at the transaction that Christ purchased than at Christ himself?

This is sort of like the difference between purchasing a house and living in a house. The purchasing is certainly important. Without it there would be no living in the house. However, once we buy a house we do not spend most of our time thinking about the day we bought it. Instead, we simply enjoy the daily living in the house. In our relationships with Christ, it seems that we would benefit from more time basking in the presence of Christ in the here-and-now, and less time focusing on what He bought for us so long ago (I realize the above house analogy breaks down at several points. I simply include it as an illustration).

It is correct to say that we cannot and should not separate Christ from the cross. However, if we stare too intently at the cross, we may treat Christ as someone who mostly functioned in the past. He is alive and well today! We are called upon to abide in Him in the present. In the book of I John, the apostle repeatedly refers to our abiding in Christ. For example, John writes:

"And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming." I John 2:28

"Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us." I John 3:24

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." I John 4:15-16

Click here for a complete list of John's uses of "abide" in I John.

When we read the bible we see a real person named Jesus Christ. He lived, died, and was resurrected. These things truly happened in space and time. Praise the Lord for this! These truths are necessary for our faith. If any fail (which they cannot), then we are without hope.

That said, Jesus lives today. He is doing very well and sitting at the right hand of His Father. John calls upon us to abide in Him. Abiding is a second-by-second communing with Jesus Christ. It is truly living with Him in every sense of that word. His death on the cross enables our abiding, but it is not the same thing as our abiding.

Let's not spend so much time thinking on the Christ of the past that we lose out on the joy of the Christ of the present.

Me as a Young, Hip Mega-Church Pastor

Last year I wrote a post outlining the three required characteristics for young, hip mega-church pastors: gelled hair, funky glasses, and facial hair of some sort. Well, I was recently inspired to act out the role myself. In these photos you can see all three characteristics in place (I'll admit to lacking in the "young" department). As a bonus, I'm even wearing the right kind of shirt. Now where's my resume?