Excellent House Church Sites

If you are interested in the house church concept, then I encourage you to visit these excellent sites:

New Testament Reformation Fellowship

*my favorite

House Church Network

House-church.org

Do you know of any others I should add to this list?

"Text-Driven Preaching"

Much that passes for preaching today is at best humanistic drivel and at worst nonsense. The reason for this is that the bible is often essentially ignored while the "preaching" takes place.

If we want God's truths to permeate preaching, then we need the preaching to be driven by the biblical text. Text-Driven Preaching is a book that deals directly with this issue. The book contains eleven chapters that are separated into three main sections. These sections deal with the preacher, the preparation, and the preaching.

I bought this book for the second section (I've read enough books on the other two topics). The reason for this is that I have not found books that deal well with sermon preparation from the biblical text. This section would be beneficial for anyone to read because the principles from it apply to all sorts of biblical teaching, not preaching alone.

In particular, I wanted to read Dave Black's chapter entitled, "Exegesis and the Text-Driven Sermon." Simply put, this chapter was worth the price of the book. Black focuses on issues of historical analysis, literary analysis, textual analysis, lexical analysis, syntatical analysis, structural analysis, rhetorical analysis, tradition analysis, theological analysis, and homiletical analysis. That may sound a bit dull in this blog post, but it isn't. Rather, it's fascinating.

Black continues by walking through the above steps while focusing on Hebrews 12:1-2, finishing with a sermon title, theme, and outline.

I'll admit that I only read a few chapters of the book. They all dealt with sermon preparation.

If you are interested in how to begin with a biblical text and move to a teaching/preaching outline, then Black's chapter will be a big help to you. If you don't want to spend the money just to read one or a couple of chapters, then at least try to find it in your local library.

Order it here.

Nice Remake of "And Can It Be?"

Embracing the Sufficiency of Scripture

As was growing up in the evangelical world, I was taught that the bible was inspired, authoritative, infallible, and inerrant. I'm sure those exact words weren't always used, but the concepts behind them were ingrained in me. There was never any doubt that the bible was a different kind of book. It was very special. It was given by God to us to instruct us in what He has done for us and how we should live in light of this. These truths were drilled into me. I'm glad they were.

There is another truth about the bible that I was never taught about as a child or teen. In fact, I never really thought about it until the last decade or so. The truth I'm talking about is the sufficiency of scripture. Frankly, I only began thinking seriously about this issue when I went to seminary. I suppose that's because our chapel speakers preached about it a lot.

What we are talking about is whether or not the bible tells us all we need to know about what we as Christians should believe and how we should live this out. In other words, is the bible enough or do we need other things?

This got me asking what the bible has to say about itself in this area. Does the bible tell us that it is sufficient?

Below are a few verses that I believe do tell us that scripture is sufficient for us:

Acts 17:25, "...nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." (emphasis mine)

II Timothy 3:14-17, "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (emphasis mine)

II Peter 1:3, "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue." (emphasis mine)

These passages seem to tell us that the bible is, in fact, sufficient for us in knowing what we must believe and how we must live.

As I have mentioned before, Protestant churches in this country have been terribly inconsistent in their view of the sufficiency of scripture. These churches typically hold to sufficiency when it comes to issues of salvation, but reject sufficiency when it comes to the practice of the church. They may not admit this, but any quick look at the modern, institutional church will show that it doesn't look much like what we see in the bible. (I've written previously about sufficiency as it relates specifically to the church).

As I look at my own life, I realize that I've been inconsistent, too. My beliefs (virgin birth, deity of Christ, Jesus' literal bodily resurrection, second coming, heaven and hell, etc.) line up nicely with scripture. As far as I know, what I believe suggests that the bible is sufficient.

Like the church in general, where I fall short of sufficiency is in how I live my life. In other words, I live in a way that is not consistent with the teachings of scripture. Let me list for you some verses just from the Sermon on the Mount that I quite simply have not been living out:

Matthew 5:38-44, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."

Matthew 6:31-33, "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

Matthew 7:12, "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

These above verses are very convicting to me because I haven't been living them out. I need to do so.

There is a direct connection between the sufficiency of scripture and obedience.

If we say we believe that scripture is sufficient, but we don't live according to this, then we either haven't thought things through or we are just disobeying (or both).

What then should we do?

I'm determined to embrace the sufficiency of the bible. I won't have to alter much of what I believe about the great doctrines of the faith. However, I do need to make some changes in how I treat other people. I know that I need to love others much more than I do now - and that with sacrificial, self-giving love.

As for church practice, I'm determined to look to the scriptures alone as well. These changes aren't so easy to make because they involve more people than just me. It will undoubtedly lead to some interesting conversations.

To sum up, I'm tired of substituting man's ideas into my life in place of God's truths. This applies to how I live individually and as part of the church.

I'm determined to embrace the sufficiency of scripture in a real way. What about you?

You've Probably Already Read This...

This has been circulating for about a day, but if you have not read it please do so.

Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written an excellent response to the politically-conservative-revival-type-thing that happened this weekend in Washington, D.C. The post is entitled, "God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck."

Moore concludes his piece by saying, "It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish...And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer."

Read the entire piece here.

Strawman Argument: Free-for-All Gatherings

This is the final installment in this series on strawman arguments against house churches. The previous post titles are:

Strawman Arguments and House Churches

Strawman Argument: Doctrinal Dangers

Strawman Argument: No Growth

Strawman Argument: No Elders / No Leadership / No Authority

I waited until Sunday to post this one because most of us gather with church families today. We will all be doing something today as we come together.

This strawman argument goes like this, "House church gatherings are similar to a free-for-all."

The primary problem with this argument is simple: it isn't true.

We must remember that those who make this strawman argument have almost always spent their entire lives in traditional churches. When traditional churches come together, what happens is carefully scripted. Certain people ("worship leader," pastor, ushers, etc.) all do certain things. It is planned out beforehand. There is little deviation from the script. This is one of the reasons there is a bulletin. What people experience each week in the big church gathering borders on a performance. There is certainly a ceremonial quality to it.

When a person thinks that what I have just described is normal and "the way it should be," then a more spontaneous, free-flowing, participatory church meeting might seem like a free-for-all. But remember, the problem is with the expectation that the traditional church meeting is normal.

What is fascinating about all this is that we as Protestant Christians rarely ask what the bible models for us about the church gathering. By far the longest and most extensive discussion of the church gathering occurs in I Corinthians chapters 11-14. As Paul deals with various issues, he makes mention of the church gathering again and again.

In I Corinthians 14:26, Paul writes, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." It is clear that the Corinthian church gatherings were participatory and at least somewhat spontaneous. It is interesting that Paul told the Corinthian church to change many things, but he never told them to stop meeting in this manner. He just wanted to make sure that everything was done for the edification of the church family.

House churches desire to follow this model as they gather. What is important to recognize is that what Paul describes in I Corinthians 14 is orderly. For example, speaking in tongues was regulated. If there was no interpretation, it was not to happen at all. Prophecy was regulated. Only one person was to speak at a time. No women were to judge the prophets.

If house churches attempt to follow what we see in I Corinthians 14, then they are simply following the broader biblical model. For example, Hebrews 10:24-25 says, "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." What we read of is group participation.

So we see that there are actually two main problems with this strawman argument. First, it's simply not true. Second, it is based on the traditionalist understanding of what a church gathering should look like. He has based this not on scripture but on his own tradition of a "worship service" where there is little deviation from the script and where no freedom of expression exists.

We must look to the scriptural model for all things. The bible is sufficient for us. Let's strive to emulate what the apostolic writers wanted when they described church gatherings. When we do this, we are in a position for real edification of the entire body to take place.

Strawman Argument: No Growth

Another strawman argument against house churches can be summed up this way, "House churches either do not grow or do not grow enough." This is referring to numerical growth, not spiritual growth.

I'm sure this is true of some house churches. If no one new comes to the house church for an extended period of time, this is most likely a big problem.

However, there are also many, many traditional churches that are not growing. In fact, in this country right now well over 50% of all churches - most of which are traditional - have plateaued or are decreasing in size.

The sad reality is that many Christians do not share their face in Christ regardless of what type of churches they are a part of.

One of the primary goals of traditional churches is to grow numerically. They want to get bigger. They want their sanctuaries to be full. In this country, bigger is almost always better; this thinking has infiltrated many churches as well.

House churches often appear to not be growing when in fact they are. Because they gather in homes, they can only get so big before something has to happen. They obviously are not going to build a new building, so they divide in the good sense. Some of the people begin to gather in another home. In this method, instead of having hundreds of people concentrated in a large, expensive facility, many small churches that don't require special buildings can spread across an entire city.

So the claim that house churches do not grow or do not grow enough is absurd. It does not correspond to the reality of the situation. Traditional churches tend to grow in one place - if they grow at all. House churches grow and divide; therefore, they grow in many places.

Which would be more beneficial to a city? Many Christians in one place or many Christians in many places? The answer seems obvious.

Fair Cautions to House Churches

Yesterday I linked to what I believe is a fair post about house churches. In that post, John Armstrong discussed why he believes house churches will continue to grow in this country. Today, Armstrong has posted (again fairly I believe) about possible cautions/problems that those involved in house churches need to be aware of. Read it here.

Drive-Through Church

This is for fun, but there may be some truth in it. Ouch.

Strawman Argument: Doctrinal Dangers

A second strawman argument against house churches goes like this, "House churches are dangerous because they are susceptible to doctrinal problems."

The problem with the above argument is that it's basically a comparison statement without clearly stating the comparison. What is really being claimed is that house churches are in more danger of falling into doctrinal problems than are traditional churches.

My question in response is simply, "What evidence is there for the claim that house churches are in more danger than traditional churches of having doctrinal problems?"

My guess is that some people who do not like and/or are not comfortable with the house church movement have heard of some house churches that have had doctrinal problems. I don't doubt that the problems exist. When we look in the New Testament in particular, we see many warnings about the problem of false doctrine. It is a sad reality.

The problem with the above strawman argument is that traditional churches also sometimes have doctrinal problems. As with house churches, this often happens when someone with a forceful, charismatic personality starts teaching false doctrine and leads others astray.

This can occur in house churches and it can happen in traditional churches.

One benefit of house churches is that everyone gets to participate in doctrinal discussions. The elders/pastors do not dominate the conversations. Therefore, there are more voices involved to act as a check-and-balance against any false teaching. Since no one person is elevated as the primary teacher, people are less likely to follow that teacher into falsehood if he strays in that direction.

In the traditional church, everything is doctrinally fine as long as the elders/pastors remain solid. We can be thankful that this is usually the case. However, if the pastors begin teaching falsely, many people are likely to follow them down that dangerous path.

Regardless of what type of church we are a part of, we must all be vigilant in our stance against false doctrine.

To summarize: Is it correct to say that house churches sometimes have doctrinal problems? The answer is yes. Is it correct to say that house churches are in more danger than traditional churches of having doctrinal problems? The answer is no. In fact, I'd like to challenge anyone to provide data to show otherwise.

Additionally, the model of the house church actually acts against false doctrine because no one person is elevated to a position where he will be able to easily lead others astray.

In the end, the argument that house churches more easily fall into false doctrine is simply false.

Vote Now for Your Favorite All-Star Pastor!

(WARNING: This post is satirical. Please don't actually vote.)


In light of our obsession with all-stars in this culture, you can now vote for your favorite all-star pastor! Why should the athletes and actors get all the headlines? Vote now to promote those who do the most for Jesus!

There are a few simple rules to follow:

1. The person has to be living (I'm sorry if Jonathan Edwards is your homeboy. You're not allowed to vote for dead people).

2. You can vote for anyone who is a pastor, theologian, seminary president, seminary professor, etc. Don't worry - their theology doesn't matter.

3. You may only vote one time for one person.

4. As in basketball, the top five vote-getters will compose the "starting five." The next seven will make up the "bench."

5. You can vote by calling this toll-free number: 1-888-BEST-PASTOR.

6. Vote for any of the following or feel free to vote for someone not on the list:

Thabiti Anyabwile

Voddie Baucham

Alistair Begg

Rob Bell

D.A. Carson

Francis Chan

Chuck Colson

Mark Dever

James Dobson

Mark Driscoll

Sinclair Ferguson

Norman Geisler

Billy Graham

Franklin Graham

Wayne Grudem

Josh Harris

Johnny Hunt

Bill Hybels

T.D. Jakes

David Jeremiah

Tim Keller

Tim Lahaye

John MacArthur

C.J. Mahaney

Brian McLaren

Joyce Meyer

Albert Mohler

Joel Osteen

J.I. Packer

John Piper

R.C. Sproul

John Stott

Jerry Vines

Frank Viola

Rick Warren

N.T. Wright

Philip Yancey
Ravi Zacharias

Call Now! Let them know how much you love and admire them. Tell them through your vote how much you want to be like them!

If you vote right now, you have a really good shot at receiving a free copy of a hand-autographed book written by your favorite person. Don't wait! Vote now!

Results will be provided in a few days. Thanks.

(Reminder: This post is satirical. Please don't actually vote. Thanks.)

A Fair Post on House Churches

Since I'm thinking about house churches quite a bit these days, I'd like to point to a fair blog post focusing on the home church movement. John Armstrong provides nine cogent reasons why he believes this movement will continue to grow in the USA in the years to come. Read it here.

Strawman Arguments and House Churches

The above icon pretty well describes what a strawman argument is.

The more I study house churches, the more I hear and read strawman arguments against them. Rarely have I heard anyone accurately describe house churches and then have something negative to say about what they really are. Rather, what I read and hear are people inaccurately describing house churches and then attacking their own false descriptions.

Over the next few days I'm going to be pointing out five strawman arguments that I have recently read or heard that go against house churches. I believe these are all unfair characterizations of what house churches generally are. Of course, like with all churches, differences exist between any churches. Therefore, I'm going to be dealing with generalities.

The first strawman argument I've heard/read goes something like this: "House churches are not consistent. They say churches today should look like churches of the New Testament, but today's house churches fail to do this."

The above strawman argument says that house church proponents believe that all churches should look exactly like New Testament churches, including cultural norms. I've heard those writing against house churches say things like, "Why aren't they wearing togas? Why aren't their bibles in scrolls? Why do they have air conditioning?"

The reality of the situation is that house churches do not expect churches to function exactly like those in New Testament times. Of course there will be cultural differences. House churches recognize this.

House churches are not striving to reinvent first century culture. House churches, rather, are trying to follow the biblical model of church life. For example, nowhere in the N.T. is it suggested that wearing togas is important. The issue of scrolls is never mentioned as important. Obviously, air conditioning/temperature in the house wasn't of significance.

What is important to house churches is to be consistent in what matters. So, what matters? What matters is following the practices stated in the N.T. for how churches should function. The reason for this is that since the bible is inspired by God, authoritative, and sufficient, then in order to be consistent, we should follow what we see in scripture.

What is important is things like having participatory church gatherings, celebrating the Lord's supper as a full meal, gathering in homes (or at least places that allow for real community), maintaining non-hierarchical church leadership, keeping families together, and striving for congregational consensus. We can find all of these modeled for us in scripture. Therefore, they are important.

Remember, the strawman argument mentioned above is the claim that house churches are inconsistent because they say churches should look like churches of the N.T., but fail to do so. The reality is that house churches believe that today's churches should adopt the practices of the N.T. church that are seen as important by the apostolic writers. House churches do not believe that all cultural norms must be adopted.

House churches want to be biblical, not first century, in nature. There is an important difference.

What is the Bible Basically About?

Thanks Mike.

Dumpster Diving (Almost)

Isn't it great when God gives us obvious opportunities to serve others? Yesterday I had one of these.

On Monday night we had a Boy Scout awards program at our church building. Yesterday morning (Tuesday) I received a telephone call from a distraught mother of a scout. She had lost her camera's SD memory card. It contained 1,500 photos that had not been backed up anywhere. This mom thought that maybe she had left the memory card at the church and that it had ended up being thrown away into the dumpster.

Yuck.

I quickly figured out that some dumpster diving was probably in order (that's not me in the above photo, but I feared I was facing something like it). I quickly drove to the church building to rescue the trash from the dumpster before the trash truck could come and take it all away. I was very pleased that I only had to reach into the dumpster. No diving was required. Whew.

One reason that I wanted to help this lady is that she is not a Christian but seems fairly open to the gospel. My hope is that by helping her in this way, she will be more open to talking about Jesus later.

After carting about five gross trash bags into the church's fellowship hall, five or six of us picked through the trash together (a family from the church came to help us - kids and all). Looking for an SD card in trash bags full of discarded food is something like looking for a needle in a haystack. We were actually hoping we wouldn't find it because if we had, it would most likely have been ruined by various disgusting liquids.

As we were going through the bags and the smells were permeating my clothing, I was reminded that service is rarely easy. It is often dirty and tiring. However, it is always rewarding.

In the end we didn't find the memory card. We are all hoping she finds it in her house or car (her other guesses). This mom was very thankful to us for the help. I think she saw, whether she realized it or not, the love of Christ in action. We are hoping for future opportunities to share the good news of Christ with her and her family.

The Lord is good to give us opportunities to serve. I need to keep my eyes more open for them.

A Key Verse for the Life of the Church

When we look near the end of I Corinthians chapter 14, we find a key verse for the life of the church. I Corinthians 14:37 says, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

I Corinthians is a letter in which the apostle Paul deals with a wide range of issues. He discusses unity, wisdom, immorality, marriage, lawsuits, liberty, idolatry, and several other important topics. Paul also spends a good deal of time speaking about the gathering of the church. It's a shame for the Corinthian church that they had so many problems. However, it is a benefit to us because we see how Paul instructed them to deal with these struggles.

In I Corinthians chapters 11-14, Paul talks in various ways about how the Corinthian church should think and act as they come together. In chapter 11, Paul talks about head coverings and conduct during the Lord's Supper. In chapter 12, Paul writes about spiritual gifts. Chapter 13 is the famous love chapter, in which Paul encourages the church to exercise these spiritual gifts in love. Chapter 14 deals specifically with prophecy/tongues, church order, and edification.

At the end of chapter 14, Paul challenges/rebukes the Corinthians for gathering together in ways that are not God-honoring. He writes in 14:36, "Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?" They had been coming together with attitudes and actions that were outside of the word of God.

Paul then writes the key verse in 14:37, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

Paul is telling the Corinthians and us that what he has written in this letter, and certainly in chapters 11-14 (since that is the context), "are a command of the Lord." Notice the word "command." What the apostle describes for us in these chapters are then commands of God to us for how our church gatherings should look. Certainly we are not expected to do what the Corinthians did incorrectly; rather, Paul expects us to live according to what he has written about what they should be doing.

When we look at our churches today, the gatherings generally don't look much like what we see described in I Corinthians chapters 11-14. This would be fine if what Paul had written was optional. We often seem to act as if Paul wrote in 14:37, "...the things I am writing to you are an option from the Lord." We clearly see, however, that Paul wrote the word "command." This means that we must, out of obedience, do our best to follow the model set forth in chapters 11-14.

I realize that different Christians will probably have different interpretations about what some aspects of chapters 11-14 mean. For example, what are head coverings? What does it mean for women to be silent? Those are not easy issues.

However, we should do our best to faithfully interpret the passages and then live them out. They are commanded. We have no option in this. Now the question is whether or not we will be obedient.

If You Challenge the Status Quo...

Whenever you challenge the status quo, you will receive mixed reactions. Some people will support what you are doing, while others will not. The norm is that those who have the most prestige and/or power in the present will not want things to change. Also, those who feel very comfortable with how things are will not like anyone who "rocks the boat." We certainly know that Jesus was not in favor of the status quo, and the religious leaders wanted Him dead for it.

I'm not equating Christ's death with challenging the status quo in the church. However, we can learn from the hatred Christ faced that when we begin asking difficult questions and pointing out inconsistencies, we will face resistance (I'll also say that the attitude we take in striving for change in the church will help matters immensely).

If you open your bibles and then look at your church, you will most likely see some inconsistencies. In some churches there are few; in others there are almost too many to count. When you point these things out, the following ten things will happen from at least some people:

-You will not be welcomed.

-You will be scorned.

-You will be talked about behind your back.

-You will be ignored.

-It will be labeled divisive.

-You won't be trusted anymore.

-You will face rejection.

-You will be told that you just don't understand.

-You will be told to trust those in authority.

-You will be told that it was that way then, but it is this way now.

I apologize if this post seems negative in tone. I really don't want it to sound that way. It's just that most churches in this country need very significant changes to take place. If we encourage change, we will face resistance in a very significant way. We must be prepared for this. May we be gracious when the time comes.

Cling to the Cross! A Message for Muslims

Thanks to James White for this video. Although this is directed to Muslims in particular, it really is a message for all people. It is the good news of Jesus Christ.

On the Proposed NYC Mosque

I have hesitated thus far to weigh in on the proposed Ground Zero Mosque (or whatever it is called) in Manhattan. However, since I've heard a great deal of bluster about it, I thought this would be a good time.

I am writing as a follower of Jesus Christ to other followers of Jesus Christ.

I'll be honest: the political side of this carries no interest for me. As is typical, political conservatives are generally against the mosque, while liberals are generally for it. No surprise there.

The problem is that many, many Christians have lashed themselves to the Republican party, which at least claims to be conservative. The outcome is predictable. Most Christians at least appear to be against the mosque being located near the World Trade Center site.

What is fascinating, sad, and also predictable is that when Christians state why they are against it, their arguments are based on pragmatic reasoning, emotions, and/or political party affiliation. Their reasons are not constitutional or, more importantly, biblical.

I have yet to hear a Christian provide a coherent, biblical reason for why this mosque should not be located in Manhattan.

As followers of Jesus Christ, we are called to sacrificially love all people. Christ expects us to love as He loved. Because of this, we must love even those who want to kill us. We should expect to be hated and despised by the world. Why would the world love or even tolerate us when it killed our Lord?

Conservative Americans have been giving the Muslim world the message that we despise them. If we stand against this mosque, this will simply add to this message. If our goal is to love Muslims and share the good news of Christ with them, then let's welcome them into our neighborhoods. Let's invite them over for dinner. Let's show them what real, Christlike love is.

Why should a mosque be a threat to us? Are we afraid that we will convert to Islam? I would hope not.

Are we scared that Sharia law might take hold in this country? We shouldn't fear what man can do to us. The worst that can happen is that we get killed, and Paul has told us that to die is gain.

Are we afraid that lost people will increasingly turn to Islam? If that is the case, then we should start sharing the gospel more urgently and passionately.

One key question we need to ask ourselves is whether we are going to be driven in our decision making by American citizenship or heavenly citizenship. Which matters more to us?

In general, we have failed to make the active distinction between being Christians and being Americans. One clear sign of this is the American flags that hang all over our church buildings in this country. We too often try to mix the two. We even still refer to the USA as a "Christian nation."

This is not a Christian nation - whatever that is. We live in a secular state that will always have political arguments.

Jesus Christ did not call us to political involvement. He called us to radical, sacrificial discipleship and servanthood. He called us to love others even unto death. After all, that's what He did for us.

We should be asking how God would have us think of this mosque. Quite honestly, I don't think God cares much about another building. I do think He cares about the Muslims who might attend the mosque. God's plan to reach them is for us followers of Christ to love them, build relationships with them, and share the good news of Christ with them.

They won't see our love if we spend our time protesting against their mosque. As Christians we have better things to do than spend lots of energy on politics. Instead, let's stop worrying about a building, and start figuring out how we can love the Muslims in our communities.

"Fear Not!"

In our pluralistic society there are many, many different views on what happens when we die. In part because of this diversity (and in part because of biblical ignorance), Christians hold wide-ranging views on what we can expect in death and the life after. Ligon Duncan has written a short book to help clear up this mess of beliefs.

In Fear Not! Death and the Afterlife from a Christian Perspective, Duncan addresses five key questions related to death and eternal life. He deals with these in chapters entitled:

1. What is Death?

2. What Happens After Death?

3. What Happens When Christ Returns?

4. What is the Final Judgment?

5. What is Heaven?

This book is ideal for folks who are confused about what the bible has to say about these issues. Duncan deals strictly with what we can know from scripture. He does not delve into more speculative issues such as the timing of the rapture, the meaning of the 1,000 years, etc. Because of this, Fear Not! is easy to understand for all Christians.

I recommend this book. It is excellent for anyone to read to make sure that what he believes lines up with what scripture teaches. If, however, you are looking for an in-depth study of eschatology, this is not the book for you.