Two Approaches to Christianity

There are two different practical approaches to being a Christian in today's world. The first approach is the most common and considers the Christian faith as a means by which one gets through this life. This approach generally manifests itself in the view that life is life and the Christian faith helps one get through it with utmost help. There are varieties to this approach. Some choose to follow Christianity but believe it is not so much different than any other religion. They generally follow Christianity because they are culturally conditioned to do so. Other varieties of people truly believe that Christianity is the one true faith, ordained by the creator of the universe, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Nevertheless, these same people still perceive Christianity as a faith that helps them get through life. For them, Christianity is either a form of "self-help" psychotherapy or a means of "health and wealth" creation. The second approach is radically different. This approach considers the Christian faith as life itself and that the believer is definitively called into a life- and world-changing mission to advance the Kingdom of God and work towards New Creation. The first approach is about improving the self for the purposes of the self. The second approach is about denying the self for the purposes of the overall mission of God in Christ. The first approach is about reading a story. The second approach is about being a character in the story.

What Hinders Baptism?

I read this line in a Baptist Press article. I've highlighted my point of interest.

"Because the seminary is not a church and does not have the authority to baptize, SBTC President Jim Richards said the baptismal pool will provide a place for churches that do not have a baptismal and a place for students to practice the ordinance before entering formal full-time pastoral ministry."

Why doesn't the seminary have the authority to baptize? Do not all believers have the authority to baptize? Did not Christ himself give all believers the authority to baptize?

Actually, HE was given the authority and then commanded us to baptize.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

I wonder if only churches have the authority to make disciples and teach. If that is so, then the seminary will have to close down.

And we are baptized into Christ, not the Church.

Sure, we are often bapitzed IN a church building. And we often become members of a church when baptized (providing all the proper forms have been filled out and are accurate, though sometimes such red tape can be done retroactively depending upon the individual situation).

I am quite partial to the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip teaches the Ethiopian and then he baptizes the Ethiopian. No "church" in site (Intended joke). [For another great joke, see The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5]

In fact, when wanting to be baptized, the Ethopian asked one of my favorite questions in the Bible: "What hinders me from being baptized?" (v. 36)

Really, what does hinder baptism?

"Deacons" for "Elders", "Ministers" for "Elderess"

It is a well-known fact that many Southerns Baptist churches have a leadership structure in which “deacons” effectively perform the function of “elders”. Such churches do not recognize "elders" as such and do not use the term in any sense. This interchangeability of terms rarely causes a problem in churches. Neither English term is actually found in the New Testament Greek Bible.

Of course, the New Testament Greek terms for “pastor” (poimen), “overseer” (episkopos), and “elder” (presbyteros) are virtually synonymous (Acts 20:17, 28). The term “elder” (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) can refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the Church.

The title itself suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9). Therefore, an “elder” is a believer whose has the Christian maturity (the fruit) to mentor another Christian. Women are called to this function (1 Tim 5:2) just as men are (1 Tim 5:2).

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul refers to both “elder” (presbytero) and “elderess” (presbyteras). In Titus 2, Paul uses a slightly different word for “elder” (presbytas) and “elderess” (presbytidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both in the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it appears obvious that Paul is speaking of the same function. This conforms to the Biblical support for female prophets (Ex 15:20, 21; Jud 4:4, 5; 2 Kin 22:12-20; Is. 8:1-3; Joel 2:28; Lk 2:36; Ac 21:9; I Cor 11) and female apostles (Roman 16:7).

Nevertheless, I believe that individuals are called by God and that ordination is the church’s recognition of what the Holy Spirit has already done in the life and ministry of an individual believer. The Church does not always accurately discern the Holy Spirit in this matter and, thus, some Christians are ordained who have not been called and others who have been called have not been ordained. I do not believe that a church’s error in such a case invalidates the call. An individual can still perform the function of a deacon and pastor whether or not they are formally recognized as such.

Therefore, since almost every Southern Baptist church not only permits but encourages spiritually mature women to be involved in evangelizing, encouraging, discipling, worshipping, serving, admonishing, praying, and setting a faithful witness to what God has done in their lives through Christ, I am quite content to let the Holy Spirit work out this issue in his own time. Within the local church, I prefer to remain silent on the contentious subject.

Apparently, many Southern Baptist churches have adopted the same approach. Instead, of a woman serving as "Administrative Pastor" or "Children's Pastor", we have women serving as "Minister of Administration" or "Children's Minister" and, one that I recently noticed, "Director of Administration" and "Director of Children's Ministry".

Think about it: Minister, Director, Manager, Executive, Administrator, Supervisor, Advisor, Principal, Superintendent, Officer, Controller ...

Just so long as a church doesn't use a term found in an English Bible Southern Baptists will not be able to exclude them for having a female functioning as a "pastor".

This is how we know the egalitarians are going to win!

Aren't All Religions the Same?

My church recently had an unusual Sunday morning service.

Instead of a sermon by the pastor, we engaged in a dialogue with representatives of several different religions. Thus we had a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian.

I was a bit anxious at first about the event but it actually went off very well. The basic premise was to question of whether all religions are the same or not. All the panelists and everyone in attendance was quite respectful, which was good considering the church members were encouraged to bring friends, family, and co-workers who might think that all religions are the same.

The event was quite controlled; the pastor asked a question and each of the four religions gave their answer.

What is the basic worldview of your religion?

Who is God?

What are your holy books or scriptures?

What happens when you die?

How does one “get into heaven”?

Who is Jesus?


Here is a link to the video.

I thought it was quite brave for the other 3 panelists to come into a conservative evangelical Christian church on Sunday morning to make their case for their religious beliefs. And they did it for both Sunday morning services.

A few thoughts:

1) I thought that the Rabbi did the best. He really had his knowledge down and presented it in a highly affective manner. I could tell that he had a really good grasp on Judaism and the “Old Testament” as one might expect, but I believe he also had a great grasp of Christianity and Islam as well. He appeared to understand Pauline theology very well.

2) The Buddhist and the Muslim did not fair nearly as well. Their presentation was off and they really did not make a good case for their beliefs. The main problem was that they too often used Hindu and Arabic terms and made little if any explanation of what these terms meant. The Rabbi did this occasionally but, more often than not, he explained such terms to the non-Jewish audience.

3) The Christian gave a good basic presentation of what the overwhelming majority of conservative evangelical Christians believe … even if some of these beliefs are incorrect. For example:

a. Penal Substitutionary Atonement – This may be a teaching of the Church but it is not a teaching of the Bible. Quite the opposite really! The apostles go out of their way to make it clear that God was not punishing Christ for anyone’s sins.

b. Jesus was present at Creation - This might seem nit-picky but its actually an important point. Jesus was not present at the creation of the world. One say that God the Son was present, one can say the Word was present, I’ll even allow one to say that the Christ was present, but Jesus was not there. Jesus did not yet exist. Jesus of Nazareth is the “offspring” of Mary and the Holy Spirit. He is the unique creation that came into existence in 6 to 4 BCE. God made the world through Christ and for Christ and all things will one day be summed up in Christ.

c. Heaven and Hell are Literal Places – The truth or falsehood of this statement greatly depends upon what one means by “heave”, “hell”, “literal”, and “place” (We’re all clear on “and” and “are”, are we not?) Yes, “heaven” is a realm of being that we could call a place but it is not really the place where one goes at death. The death of all individuals leads to a return to the dust from which one originally came. At the resurrection, believers will be brought back to life into a physical but glorified body. Against the predominant view of evangelicals and our Platonic-soaked theologies, the soul is not immortal and the spirit cannot be separated from the body. The “afterlife” is not an existence in heaven but an eternal existence in a transformed and glorified Earth (an probably a glorified “heaven”).

The issue of “Hell” is not as tricky as that of “heaven” but is still considered a more controversial issue. “Hell” is the English translation (and interpretation) of two separate Greek words, hades and gehenna.

Hades refers to the abode the dead regardless of whether they are believers or unbelievers. It is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Sheol which, again, refers to the abode the dead regardless of whether they are believers or unbelievers. For the Israelites and other Semitic and Canaanite cultures, Sheol was a mythological representation of the grave. If we are to understand the nature of Hades/Sheol in modern terms, we should describe it as the ground in which the dead deteriorates into dust and dirt.

Gehenna refers to the final abode of unbelievers. This is the place of punishment for all those who are not resurrected into physical, glorified bodies. If we are to understand the nature of Gehenna in modern terms, we should identify it with Hades/Sheol except with absence of believers.

So we can then say that both the “good” and the “wicked” are put into Hades at death. At the resurrection the “good” are resurrected from Hades and the “wicked” are not. Thus, Hades for the unbeliever is also Gehenna.

So this is why someone like me can truthfully state that he believes in a literal place called “heaven” and a literal place called “hell”. However, I would not be able to say that I hold to the incorrect view that “hell” is a place of “eternal conscious torment”. Such a view is unscriptural.

With specific regards to the Christian panelist, the context suggested that he favored the false but traditional view of “hell”.

Of course when you realize that the Christian is wrong on a few points about his religion, one then wonders whether or not the other panelists are wrong on a few points of their respective religion.

Nevertheless, the Christian panelist unintentionally said something that nearly had me rolling in the aisles:

“Christians believe in a literal place called heaven and a literal place called hell. Where those places are is immaterial.” And then he went on.

That was so funny, I almost had to get up and leave!

I may be the only person who caught that unintentional line but, by God, I am sure gonna use it from now on!

But all-in-all the event went very well. I had the opportunity to tell one of the pastors how well I thought it went. (Please, if the pastoral staff at your church tries something new and it works well, please tell them so. Church staffs need such encouragement.)

Apparently, the church has been overwhelmed by the positive feedback from the dialogue. They have also received questions from people who would like to explore the matter further. The church is responding to this need by providing forums on Sunday where people can bring questions and discover more about how Christianity is unique among the world's religions.

It Was Good For Bach and Mozart ...

I’ve noticed that far too many critics of contemporary praise and worship music will dismiss such music as being far too repetitive. As someone who dislikes most of both traditional and contemporary Christian music, allow me to defend contemporary praise and worship music.

I suggest that you traditionalists read Psalms 136 and 150.

Also, I would recommend that you traditionalist critics of contemporary Christian music who argue that repetitive praise and worship songs are bad

Also the Baptist Hymnal standard song which continually repeats the word “Alleluia” as its lyrics.

Honestly, I do not know how you traditionalists can stand those old gospel hymns. The music and lyrics are so dull, somber and simplistic. It speaks to the world of a uncomplicated God, a creator with little imagination and an unsophisticated manner by which to worship him.

Do you not think that God deserves better worship music than Southern American gospel hymns? Or is any old music good enough so long as you like it?

Aren’t the classical pieces by Bach, Mozart and Handel better than those of George Beverly Shea, Cliff Barrow, and Bill Gaither? Of course it is. But if you don’t think it is right to give God your best then that is between you and hell.

Here’s another one:

Why do we in traditional churches sing 150 year old gospel hymns? Because people 150 years ago did not want to sing 200 year old songs.

Therefore, those of you in the traditionalist worship crowd who are mad that your musical movement is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo should take comfort. In 20 to 30 years, today’s contemporary worship promoters will be just as mad that their traditionally “contemporary” music is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo.

A Sabbath with Soap

The missus, Dakota and I had a wonderful Easter Weekend. We spent much of Friday evening and Saturday looking for various items for Dakota’s baby needs (rockers, baby wipe warmers and that sort of thing). We also spent time organizing her room and others. I finally got one of our Fibber McGees organized. It looks nice. Also, we took time to hang up various pictures in the library, particularly my framed Oxford Pub Crawl Poster which I purchased in Oxford, England nearly three years ago (Hi, Dr. Y!). I don’t know: there is something slightly Zen about nailing a poster of Oxford pubs up during Easter. Ya know watta mean?

We were planning to attend Fellowship’s 8:30am Sunrise Easter Service but the morning flurries suggested that Fellowship probably would have that service in doors. Therefore, we decided to give ourselves an extra hour of sleep and go to the 10am service. Again, it’s quiet interesting to decide to SLEEP-IN on Easter morning.

Not that I didn’t work. I had to be there around 9am to work. Oh, yes! We were quite busy that morning. Most churches are rather busy on Easter Sunday. Even more so for Fellowship. Filled to the brim. Work, work, work. I guess being in a ministerial family I learned early on that a Sabbath rest on Sunday did not apply to ministers even in conservative churches. It will never cease to amaze me when “Bible-believing” conservative Christians will walk up to another Christian and tell him or her that they should not be working or exerting on the Sabbath. ... Have they not read the NT? Or is that a silly question? Nah, I’m not going to soapbox my Sabbath issues; I have other soap to sell.

Regardless, the Fellowship Easter Service that we attended was very good. Pastor Young gave a good evangelistic message. I suppose with all the family members visiting church members and all the “once-a-year” church goers there, an evangelistic sermon is appropriate.

The missus and I invited two friends (who are looking to move to Euless) to the Fellowship service. Both of these individuals are graduated seminary students. I must tell you that they loved the service. They were ecstatic! The missus wanted to tell them they did something special for the Easter service but that wasn’t the case. In fact, the service was somewhat subdued compared with most.

I really wish more seminary students (or more Southern Baptists for that matter) would attend a few services at Fellowship Church. Pastor Ed Young and Fellowship (like Rick Warren and Saddleback) are one of the top ministries in the country to be criticized by evangelicals.

Why shouldn’t they be criticized?

-They have a highly effective ministry
-They are great equippers of pastors and ministers
-They have an extremely high level of Baptisms (from un-churched people and families!)
-They are highly professional
-They are quite loving and merciful
-They are reaching the “lowest” sections of society (“ladies of ill repute” and their “bosses”)
-They are reaching youth at enormous levels
-They use their facilities and resources to assist other ministers and ministries
-They provide deep, mature and hardcore discipleship (those who think it is fluff are ignorant!)
-They are very conservative theologically

And most importantly ...

-They are having tremendous success by using methods that other Christians (who are not having “success”) claim to be ineffective!

It’s this last one which really gets the traditionalists. They believe that only the methods they first learned as children in their culture work and that contemporary methods are not only ineffective but dangerous to Christendom. Therefore, when evidence of the opposite is produced they must claim that Warren and Young “convert people to the Christian by Satan” (cf. Luke 11:14-23).

The irony of the matter is that while many traditionalists look at contemporary churches as bowing to the cultural world, it is actually the traditionalists who are bowing to the cultural world – their own! No, the first way of “doing church” that you experienced is not a method that goes back to the New Testament. It probably goes only as far back as your parent’s generation or, at most, the generation of the oldest person in the church.

The vast majority of those who desire to contemporize the methods of the Church and the spread of the gospel are doing so in order to fulfill the Great Commissions.

Don’t burden the lost world with translatory obstacles. Communicate the Gospel through their culture and not your own.

It’s sort of like trying to disciple people through the Scriptures by first teaching them how to read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. To translate the Bible into English would be considered bowing to the English cultural world (cf. the Latin Vulgate and the Roman Catholic Church pre-1965).

Do you recall the song, “Gimme that Old Time Religion”? Remember the line, “It was good for Paul and Silas”? Well, here is some news for you: it wasn’t.

Don’t make an “idol” out of your methodological preference.

Now do traditional methods not work? Of course not! If a church has a traditional crowd living in a traditional community then the worse thing a church could do is to contemporize. Hey, I dislike it when particular ministers want to force everyone to contemporize just as much as I dislike attempts to force everyone to traditionalize. That’s just as much of an idolatry as its opposite. Of course, there are far fewer forced contemporizings than forced traditionalizings. Obvious reason for this is that contemporizers often don’t have to force others; they can simply wait patiently for the inevitable. If the Holy Spirit wants it it’s gonna happen.

If you do not believe me, go to a Saturday night service at Fellowship.

Now how about some soap?

ONLY WARREN CAN GO TO NORTH KOREA

The spokesperson told Associated Baptist Press that Warren is expected to speak during the summer of 2007.
Warren acknowledged his trip could be used by the Korean government for propaganda or further persecution, but he said it is worth the risks.
He also asked church members to pray for him in his travels.
According to a Religion News Service report, North Korean leaders will allow Warren to preach in a stadium that will seat 15,000 people. Warren may preach in a larger venue if he can fill the seats, he said.
Saddleback members celebrated the news as a victory for religious freedom. But some critics said it will only bolster North Korea's oppressive regime.
Ingrid Schlueter, producer and co-host of a Christian talk show on the VCY America Radio Network, called Warren’s visit a “massive propaganda event in promotion of the world's most brutal and oppressive regime." In a July 4 column for the right-wing Christian Worldview Network website, Schlueter said Warren won't "call the communist faithful to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" because he preaches a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.”
“Not for a moment do these leaders worry that they will have a Christian revival on their hands by letting Mr. Warren speak," she said. "Rick Warren is loved and feted because his message is absent the cross and Christ's call to die. That's why he is popular and politically useful.”
Schlueter also compared Warren’s trip to Billy Graham’s visit to communist Russia in 1982, during which Graham "became a shill for the Communist Party in Russia."
Warren had told his congregants that he called Graham to ask for advice on his trip, since Graham traveled on a brief, tightly controlled tour of North Korea in 1992.
Warren acknowledged North Korean leaders may exploit his trip. "I know they're going to use me, so I'm going to use them," Warren told reporters.

A few points of comment:

- Because North Korea is a closed, poor and backwards society in relation to the rest of the world, I question the awareness of the North Korean people to the nuclear issue that is otherwise known throughout the rest of the world.

- Warren is correct: this is a great opportunity (from God!) to preach the Gospel message to the people of North Korea at a time when the threat of nuclear war is growing in that region. To not go would be unchristian.

- For the last fifteen years (after the fall of European communism), the remaining Communist countries (Asia and Central America) have been slowly adopting an approach of “religious glasnost”. The Spirit is moving in these societies and the communist leaders are attempting to deal with it. Part of their response is to allow some greater freedom of religious expression. Hence, Billy Graham to North Korea, Pope John Paul II to Cuba, and Warren to North Korea. But just like the economic glasnost of the Soviet Union, such a policy, I believe, will ultimately lead to the downfall of these communist regimes. I have considered the possibility that perhaps the current communist regimes no longer see Christianity as the threat it once did. However, if so, they are quite blind and let’s let them continue to be so.

- Christianity has a great track record of helping to liberate people from communist societies. Examples:

o The ministry of Pope John Paul II in Eastern Europe
o The writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
o The underground Christian movement in Romania
o The ministry of Billy Graham
o Christianity’s general opposition to the Soviet Union in Europe

- In many respects, this is the modern equivalent of Paul going to Rome.

- In most respects, Rick Warren is our generation’s Billy Graham. I say that quite seriously with not any aspect of hyperbole.

- I am anxious to hear Warren’s message.

I myself considered a scenario in which I was given such an opportunity in order to state what my message would be. Naturally, in an actual event, I would precede such considerations with copious days of prayer and fasting, but for this exercise I did not seem necessary.

Certainly, the sermon would be a presentation of the THE Gospel message. Of course, the focus of the sermon would be JESUS. I note that the critic cited in this article Ms. Ingrid Schlueter, labeled any message that Warren would give as a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.” I do believe this person is ignorant either of Warren’s message or the message of the Gospel. I am always intrigued by those who deem another persons gospel message or theology as “man-centered”. Usually (though I do not know in her case), the person making such a statement prefers a “God-centered” gospel and theology. In my own exploration of the gospel and theology, I have always seen both the positives and negatives of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies. To this end (in the great tradition of Protestantism, neo-orthodoxy, “moderate” Baptist theology, and basically what I believe to be the approach most obviously advocated in the NT), I have a adopted a Christ-centered gospel and theology. One plus to such an approach is that it has all the benefits of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies with none of the drawbacks. Therefore, I would preach Christ. I will always preach Christ. The day that I decide not to preach Christ in a message is the day I hope that God “calls me home”.

In this vein, here are my hypothetical N. Korean sermon topics:

• Christ
• The Gospel
• Man made in the image of God
• The Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments
• NT Ethics in General
• Soul competency
• Priesthood of the believer (equality)
• Peace, love of enemies, etc.
• God loves them.
• “End of the Spear” as illustration
• Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ


Given enough time, I would weave all of these topics and points together to make one grand presentation of the Gospel message of Christ in their context and what their appropriate response should be. But that is just me.

I am sure that Warren will give a good message which I am anxious to hear. Really, what an opportunity! I do believe that every Christian should pray for Warren and his message during this missionary visit. I am sure (given Saddleback’s modus operandi) that they will have people praying constantly (Billy Graham does a similar thing during his crusades). Nevertheless, I would like to see very many Christians praying for this mission. One would hope that “pastor envy” will not get in the way of an individual’s desire to see the Gospel preached – though I know it does.

I do have one question, though: will Bibles written in Korean be allowed? I would certainly hope that Warren and company will be able to distribute Bibles to the people. In a communist country it may not be allowed. Or it might be allowed in order to easily find and persecute believers. Again, it is a risk to take in order to preach the gospel.