ben's blog

Mission requires sectarianism

"...the only way to be missional is to be a sectarian, indeed it is the only way to love the world.  For the church’s faithfulness, it seems that sectarianism is required."

That's Halden's conclusion. Read the article, what do you think?

"Felt-needs" ministry

This post (forgot to link earlier - oops!) explains really well why starting or running a church based on the "felt-needs" of a community is a self-defeating endeavor, and the difference between marketing a church and simply serving people as a natural extension of the demonstrating and proclaiming the gospel.

"The gospel calls us to surrender our desires, take up our cross, and follow Christ. How can a church effectively invite people to 'die to self' while constantly appealing to their self-interests?"

It can't.

The author bases this on the practice of Jesus (a good place to start), quoting N.T. Wright in the process: "Jesus never performed mighty works simply to impress." Jesus didn't perform healings to "get people to hear the message." Jesus' healings were the same thing as the message, the healings accomplished the same thing as his preaching: restoring exiled sinners to God. He proclaimed and demonstrated the kingdom, in speech and action. Telling a parable about the kingdom or telling a lame man to get up and walk were an organic whole for Jesus. He didn't heal to "market" his preaching. His healing proclaimed the kingdom, his preaching proclaimed the kingdom: two facets of a holistic message.

So Heartland is having something called Community Day on July 27th. We're going to offer a free meal to the people of our neighborhood, an afternoon of fun, and free school supplies for families in need. But it's not a clever way to "market" our church to the neighborhood, it's a way of demonstrating the gospel. That subtle difference of motivation makes all the difference in the world.

Truncated gospel, truncated spirituality, truncated mission

I am convinced that the gospel must be preached differently than it has been by evangelicals for the past few hundred years or so.

I believe this because I believe the message that has been preached has been predominantly a truncated gospel message. I learned the "gospel" as something along these lines:

You have fallen short of God's glory, and because God is just, you must pay for this crime by going to hell when you die. But instead of just giving you what you deserve, God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die on a Roman cross to pay the penalty for those sins. If you confess your sins and "accept" Jesus' sacrifice for you, you will receive a "pass" so you can go to heaven when you die.

That is, I have come to believe, a terribly truncated account of the gospel. (This isn't to say the message hasn't done a lot of good - very many people became Christians because of it, and God still uses it to bring people into his kingdom. However, it remains a truncated account of the biblical gospel that the New Testament speaks of. It's not the whole kit and caboodle.) And because the gospel is truncated, the spirituality and mission that flow from it also become truncated.

For example, if the above message is all there is to the gospel ("accept" Jesus and go to heaven when you die), what in the world (literally) are we supposed to do in the meantime? There is simply no impetus for holiness or anything else the New Testament advocates if the gospel is simply a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

Participating in the missio Dei (mission of God) also makes no sense if one believes a truncated gospel. If the goal is "going to heaven when you die" then why spend time advocating for justice for the poor here and now? Let's just save their "souls" for heaven and who gives a rip about anything else. Why prop up a place we're just going to end up leaving anyway?

Or so the logic goes... showing that the kind of Christian life that flows from a gospel that only focuses on solving the problem of individual sin and sees the end result as simply "going to heaven when you die" is  shriveled, limping, and confused; a life where spirituality and mission are truncated and cut down to the same size as the gospel that was believed in the first place, eventually convincing people that their job now as Christians is to generally be nice not get into too much trouble, just to make sure the heaven thing is still going to work out.

So what does a fuller gospel look like? How does our evangelism need to change? It needs to change in terms of the problem it claims to solve (more than just individual sin), and the end result it expects to acheive (WAY more than just heaven when you die). More to come...

God is a Chooser and a Lover

I posted a quote yesterday from Robert Jenson pointing to the first of two themes that emerge from his reading of the Genesis creation narrative, that of God creating by speaking.

Today a quote and thought on the second theme: It is by valuing that God creates.

"God, according to Scripture, is the great Chooser and Lover. That he creates, means that he decides something other than himself is 'very good.' In Hebrew as in English, 'good' - Hebrew 'tov' - means good for something. God has purpose, and therefore there is a world. Moreover, - and astonishingly! - we know what his purpose is, since he has told us: the great 'determinate counsel and purpose' of God made before all ages, is the death and Resurrection of Jesus to fulfill his love for us, to fulfill his determination that we are 'very good.' As Luther put it in his Large Catechism, God created us in order to redeem us. You and I are here to play roles in Jesus' story; and all the universe provides the stage and props." (Robert Jenson, A Large Catechism, 20).

The culture in which we live (late modern capitalism) encourages us to think of ourselves as independent, as those who have "rights," as those who are "free" (meaning everyone gets to be their own tyrant). Our culture tells us that we're each writing our own stories, and we should have the "freedom" to write as we please, without interference from others.

The gospel shatters such illusions, and proclaims that we were not created to be our own tyrants, but to glorify God by receiving salvation. The gospel proclaims that the story of Jesus Christ is the true story of the world, and that in welcoming the gospel, we are freed from the tyranny of writing our own stories and are graciously and organically woven into the story of Jesus.

In other words, our highest calling is never to assert ourselves or claim our "rights," but, because God is the great Chooser, to simply accept that he has chosen us, and because he is the great Lover, to simply receive his love. Because we are creatures, our role is always a response to what the Creator has done.

The God of personal address

Robert Jenson, in his Large Catechism, points out two predominant themes from the Genesis creation narrative.

The first is that God creates by speaking. Which seems obvious, but the implications are profound:

"'And God said..., and it was so.' God, according to all the Scriptures, is above all the great Speaker; he is his own Word, and never relates to others by mere force, but always by personal address. That he creates something new, means that he expands the field of his conversation: he refers, e.g., to an earth, and just so there is an earth for him to refer to. For how could God lie? Indeed, God as the triune God is in himself a great Coversation. That he creates, means that Father, Son and Sprit among themselves mention others than themselves: they speak together of, e.g., the great sea beasts, and so there are great sea beasts for them to discuss. God converses the world into being." (19)

My favorite sentence:

God never relates to others by mere force, but always by personal address.

One could profitably meditate on that thought for some time, it seems to me. In my relationships, how do I resort to the use of "mere force" to get things done? Are there ways I attempt to bypass the mess and vulnerability of addressing others, of asking instead of demanding? In my speaking with other people, do I really take the time to address them and listen to them, or do I look for the fastest way to get what I want out of people?

Bright spots in worship songwriting

Those of you who pop onto my blog now and then know that my last post was a brief, strongly-worded rant on what is wrong with Christian radio. And while I still maintain that Jesus is not a hamburger, and I still won't listen to Christian radio, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I don't think there is good music out there being made by Christians. Thus I want to highlight a couple people I think are doing a great job at the specific job of writing songs for congregational worship. (See? I can be positive!!)

In the realm of songwriting for worship, there are a few bright spots amidst a sea of blah. This paragraph from a recent novel is painfully accurate regarding modern worship songs. The protagonist is a semi-atheist who has planted a church to make him rich and famous (funny plotline already). Up until now they've been just taking normal pop songs and changing a few words. But then they discover that there are people who write music for specifically for worship. Katherine, the "pastor's" wife, has looked into this and is reporting to the worship band (also not Christians) about this newfound piece of information:

"... almost all of the songs were essentially about three things. The first: how great-awesome-incredible-powerful-majestic Jesus/God is/was/and forever will be. The second: how much we love-thank-adore-worship-bow down to Jesus/God. The third: how happy-touched-amazed and pumped up we were that Jesus/God saved us. That was pretty much it. There were thousands of these types of songs, yet so many of the lyrics were nearly identical. It was almost as if a songwriter could take one song, change five or six words, and then have an all-new song." (ht: marko)

Admit it! Sometimes you've thought that when singing a new worship song, haven't you?

Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of mediocre stuff out there, but there are people writing great music for worship out there. Music that forms us as disciples instead of consumers, music that inspires instead of sugar-coats. Music that has us singing faithful words of worship, that doesn't resort to sentimentality or pendantry.

Two people who come to mind immediately are Matt Redman and Stuart Townend. Most of you know about Matt Redman, but perhaps fewer know about Stuart. Mr. Townend wrote the incredibly faithful (and popular) hymn "In Christ Alone", as well as "Beautiful Savior." And tomorrow morning I plan to lead the Heartland congregation in one of his newer songs (cowritten with Aaron Keyes) called Psalm 62 (based on Psalm 62, strangely).

The lyrics are below, but when you hear the melody, this thing really takes off. And it's not just that it's a good song, but it's a faithful song, a song that calls us into its description of God, that pulls us further into the life of God, that forms us as the people of God. It's a song you can sing loudly, confidently, because it faithfully reflects the character and ways of the Living God.

PSALM 62
Stuart Townend and Aaron Keyes

VERSE 1:
My soul finds rest in God alone, My Rock and my salvation,
A fortress strong against my foes, And I will not be shaken.
Though lips may bless and hearts may curse, And lies like arrows pierce me,
I’ll fix my heart on righteousness, I’ll look to Him who hears me.

CHORUS:
O praise Him, hallelujah, My Delight and my Reward;
Everlasting, never failing, My Redeemer, my God.

VERSE 2:
Find rest, my soul, in God alone amid the world’s temptations;
When evil seeks to take a hold I’ll cling to my salvation.
Though riches come and riches go, Don’t set your heart upon them;
The fields of hope in which I sow are harvested in heaven.

VERSE 3:
I’ll set my gaze on God alone, and trust in Him completely;
With every day pour out my soul, and He will prove His mercy.
Though life is but a fleeting breath, a sigh too brief to measure,
My King has crushed the curse of death and I am His forever.

What's wrong with Christian radio

There's a post up at a blog called Out of Ur that almost completely encapsulates what I think is wrong with Christian radio, and why I never listen to it. Most Christian radio presents Christianity as sappy sentimentality, and in a world where things very often are difficult, the relentless barrage of "uplifting" music and trite, sugary, "encouraging" commentary rings hollow. I recommend you read it, and tell me what you think.

My favorite paragraph:

"After all, salvation and spiritual growth are not commodities that can be produced, marketed, promoted, and perfected for mass satisfaction. Jesus is not a hamburger, a snappy set of sandals, or an iPhone. Discipleship is a committed relationship with Jesus that gradually forms us into the likeness of our Creator. We must take care in how we present the gospel, lest Christ come off as a product we consume instead of the Lord we obey. While more people may buy into a Jesus who makes us happy, we are called to preach a Jesus who makes us holy."

The limits of relevance

Matt Stone has a great post up about the reasons people take offense to the Christian teaching of Jesus' resurrection.

At its core the gospel of Jesus is an offense to those who would champion consumer choice as the ultimate good. The exclusive claims of the gospel and the resurrection grate on those who want Christ to be "one among many." This is the core of the gospel that cannot be "edited out" for relevance's sake. While we certainly can engage in conversation respectfully (i.e. we don't have to be jerks when talking about the gospel), the content of the gospel remains a pretty big stumbling block to many people, and to try to make it more palatable by editing out the offense is to turn the gospel into a non-gospel.

Stone's article ends with the inevitable conclusion (and a killer quote):
"Christian integrity is more important than Christian influence."

The gospel according to Over the Rhine

I love Over the Rhine. I saw them in Fort Wayne a few years ago, just the two of them, in a smallish room with maybe a hundred people, and was blown away by the weight of their presence on stage. Anyway, I found the lyrics to a song off their new album (which I don't have) here, and found it to be a wonderfully creative way of speaking the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thoughts?

The trumpet child will blow his horn
Will blast the sky till it’s reborn
With Gabriel’s power and Satchmo’s* grace
He will surprise the human race

The trumpet he will use to blow
Is being fashioned out of fire
The mouthpiece is a glowing coal
The bell a burst of wild desire

The trumpet child will riff on love
Thelonious** notes from up above
He’ll improvise a kingdom come
Accompanied by a different drum

The trumpet child will banquet here
Until the lost are truly found
A thousand days, a thousand years
Nobody knows for sure how long

The rich forget about their gold
The meek and mild are strangely bold
A lion lies beside a lamb
And licks a murderer’s outstretched hand

The trumpet child will lift a glass
His bride now leaning in at last
His final aim to fill with joy
The earth that man all but destroyed

- “The Trumpet Child” by Over the Rhine from their latest album, The Trumpet Child

* “Satchmo” was a nickname for Louis Armstrong

** “Thelonious” is a reference to the innovative, improvising Jazz musician Thelonious Monk

Discipleship as "joining up"

"Jesus did not come urging us to think about him, or to feel deeply about him. When he called disciples, he did not come seeking our disembodied individual spirits. Jesus came inviting us to join up with his kingdom. When we see him healing people, casting out demons, we are to know that 'the kingdom of God has come upon you.' ...

"Seeing the the kingdom at hand necessitates a response, a decision. We call this repentance. Will we be part of this kingdom or not? In saying 'Your kingdom come,' we are acknowledging that faith in Jesus is not simply an idea or an emotion. It is a concrete reality in which we are to become part of else appear to be out of step with the way things are now that God has come into the world in Jesus. When the kingdom comes, we are 'to repent [i.e. change, let go of our citizenship in the old kingdoms] and believe the good news [i.e., join up, become part of the revolution].'"

- Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, Lord Teach Us, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996, pp. 50-51.

That "letting go of old citizenships" and "joining up" with the kingdom revolution demands some careful thought, methinks, in our current cultural climate. What citizenships and allegiances do we need to give up in order to follow Jesus?