I have always wrestled with this: I know that as Christians, we should help poor people, because it’s the “right thing to do.” Yet, helping the poor is something that everyone feels obligated to do–Christian or not. I often resist focusing in on it, as it often makes Christianity appear to be a “works-based” religion, when I know that salvation comes by God’s grace, not our works. In addition, it seems that in Christian circles, liberal/mainline Christians fixate on helping the poor or other social issues, and as a result sideline what I see as the core of the faith: salvation through Christ from eternal punishment for us sinners and new spiritual rebirth. So it baffled me every time I read in Galatians when Paul recounts how he was appealing to the leaders of the Church to recognize that the Gentiles could also become Christians without having to follow the Law (become circumcised, etc), and at the end how the leaders decide that indeed Paul is right. But according to Paul in Galatians, they give him this one instruction: All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. Why does this keep coming up in Scripture and in Jesus’ words? Why does Jesus tell people to sell all their possessions and give to the poor? Why is this so important? Aren’t we saved by God’s grace, and not by good works, such as this? I would like to throw out something that I’ve been thinking recently: I have been realizing recently that I don’t really trust Jesus to save me from my sins, even though I’ve thought otherwise. I keep coming back to this question: How can I say that I trust Jesus to save me from an eternal hell and wash away all my sins, but I can’t seem to trust Him with the things of this earthly life? It seems to me that giving all our possessions to help the poor isn’t so much about earning our way to heaven, as it is a test to see whether we really do trust Jesus. In actuality, all of us trust in the power of money. We know...

I’ve always said yes. Why? Because not everyone can recall a “crisis” moment of salvation where they can point back and say, “That’s when I became born again.” That’s because humans don’t usually make instantaneous decisions–the vast majority of our decisions come about through various lengthy processes. Unfortunately, I realize more fully today that I have often equated conversion as merely “when a person makes their decision to surrender to Christ,” and that is why I’ve considered the conversion of a soul to sometimes transpire as a process. But that’s because I’ve been one of those Arminians Gone Wild who often finds themselves reducing conversion to the un-supernatural realm of persons merely making a decision. And it’s true, many decisions we make in life are indeed not “crisis” decisions–many happen more as a process. So if we focus on conversion simply as a decision humans make to believe in Jesus, it’s obvious that we will conclude that conversion often happens over time as a process, with no definable crisis moment. Yet, today I’m reminded that conversion isn’t defined by a decision we humans make, so I must qualify my answer. According to the Bible, when we are born again, we become inhabited by the Holy Spirit. This is something God miraculously does–He converts us by giving us His Holy Spirit, we don’t slowly convert ourselves as we make this decision over time. There is no other way to understand God’s part in this process, except that it should occur in a precise moment in time–where at some specific moment, the Holy Spirit inhabits us and we become spiritually reborn. At any point in time, either we have the Holy Spirit or we haven’t received Him yet. There is no “halfway” having the Spirit or being “halfway” alive to God–or God is “in the process of” placing the Holy Spirit inside of me, and He’ll be finished getting Him in there in a couple of weeks. Ha! While we may not be able ourselves to pinpoint the exact moment when God made such a change take place (since there may have been quite a lengthy process in our hearts/minds leading up to the point where we were open to God’s...

Audra thinks I’m being too mean to Andy Stanley. She’s probably right. Actually, I don’t so much have a problem with Andy Stanley, as I do with the general state of the modern church that thinks that we must all strive to be a “success” as we see his church. It bothers me greatly that this is the picture in our mind of “success,” when that looks very different from what I see the Bible emphasizing when it comes to the important things about church. For example, everyone thinks it’s important to have a great worship band, an attractive children’s ministry, a great facility, etc in order to have a thriving church. It’s like we put the weight on the totally wrong things. While it’s great to have a strong organization (no one likes a failing organization), etc…is this really where are deepest issues as a church lie? I’ve been part of churches that try to focus on these things, but have seen how quickly and easily we can neglect the more important things such as: 1. is the music appealing to unchurched people vs. does the average person here really understand what worship is really all about and who we are worshipping right now? 2. is the sermon engaging vs. is the sermon flowing from the pastor’s personal communion with Christ and are we truly communicating His salvation and the call of Christ? 3. is every aspect of our service flowing from one element to the other vs. are we actively seeking the presence of Christ with everything within us? 4. are we attracting visitors vs. are people’s lives really being changed by the Gospel like our mission statement says? 5. do people enjoy our worship services vs. are our people abandoning everything in their lives for the sake of Christ? 6. do we have great programs vs. are the people in our congregations living according to God’s Word when they’re not in our building? …just to name a few. I’m afraid many churches pour their energy/resources into the first part of each question, and just hope that the second part of each question somehow happens as a result of their efforts making the first part of the...

That’s kinda the imagery I think of when I consider seeker-driven churches. It’s this mindset that we have to do and spend all we can to convince/attract/appeal to the unchurched to come to church/God. It’s like our theology of free will propels us to do all we can to get people to choose to come to church or to come to God. It’s why in the past, when we didn’t have problems getting people into church, but had plenty difficulty getting them to make a decision for Christ, we Arminians worked hard to make altar calls as dramatic and compelling as possible. And why in the present (since that’s not effective anymore) we are now looking for the next thing that will be effective at getting people to walk in our church doors, because they’re just not coming anymore. I don’t think this mindset is always a bad thing, except that it seems like we Arminians have concluded that the Holy Spirit really isn’t that effective at drawing people to Christ, so we have to use lots of money, talent, professionalism, entertainment to make up the slack. I know what the rebuttal would be: perhaps the Holy Spirit is using these very things to draw people to God? I think in some churches He is, no doubt. But I question this assertion as a given, as I see that church has become simply a business model that has proven to be effective at growing one’s church organization. In other words, GE can grow a successful and profitable business without the Holy Spirit, and churches can do the same thing, if they view themselves as similar to a business like GE. The product is the Gospel. It’s the ultimate product, because it’s of eternal value. It needs to be advertised, which costs a lot of money these days. And the whole point of marketing is to convince people that they really need something that they don’t currently believe they need, so that they’ll buy in. The unchurched are those people who are not yet customers whom we are trying to hook in. Those who are already reached have hopefully become our investors, and we constantly appeal to them to invest...

So now that I laid the groundwork for my disagreements in the last post, I’ll get into the disagreements themselves. In summary, I believe the best way to fulfill the Great Commission isn’t by doing all you can to get the unchurched to show up at church, but rather to get the churched to go out to the unchurched. Andy Stanley says that if your church really is passionate about the Great Commission, everything at your church will be centered around making the unchurched feel at home, rather than making the churched feel at home. While I agree with him that church should not be about keeping churched people happy–and that this is what so many churches do–it is equally wrong to make everything about church for the unchurched. That would be like saying that we are trying to attract as many children into our home as possible who need adoption, but once they get here, we don’t care about them any longer, nor do we care if they feel at home or not. We’re just constantly looking for more children to adopt, so we’re going to make our family as appealing as we can to outside children who have yet to be adopted. This is the problem I see with churches like Andy Stanley’s at North Point or Bill Hybel’s at Willow Creek. In the end, you really can’t be like that. (And I’m guessing their churches in reality aren’t.) You’ve got to acknowledge that we’re not about attracting seekers to Christ, but making disciples of Christ. Part of this process is reaching the lost, obviously. Yet I question how much these “seekers” really are seeking after God, if it requires so much effort and money to get them into our doors. We have moved from trying to reach the lost into trying to attract the lost. What I mean is this: I’m afraid what “seekers” are really seeking after is solutions to the problems in their lives, not God himself. So these churches have determined that they will do all they can and spend all the money they can to convince people that they need to come to church to find the answers to their problems. As...

At least, that’s my opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I admit that mine could be wrong. But I don’t think it is… 🙂 Last post, I reflected on how many Methodists approve of Andy Stanley’s methods for church growth, yet reject his message. I, on the other hand, agree with Andy Stanley’s message, but disagree with his methods. Here’s the cool thing–it’s ok if we disagree about methods; we can still work together in ministry as part of God’s family and team. In fact, maybe it takes all kinds of methods to reach all kinds of people. This shouldn’t separate us as brothers and sisters. All of us have different opinions on what methods to use to reach lost people. For example, at my last church, we had disagreements on methods, and that will probably always be the case wherever I find myself, because we all have different opinions. Regardless of these differing opinions on methods, it’s ok as long as we remain united in message. In fact, that’s the mantra of the “contemporary churches” out there: We’re changing the methods, not the message. Even though it can be difficult to work in an environment where there are differing opinions on methods, it’s definitely possible–and even rewarding, from my experience. We learn from each other and begin thinking harder about why we do what we do. We are challenged to test whether our methods are Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy. Sometimes conflicting methods can both be just as Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy–it’s just a matter of deciding what methods we want to utilize in our local setting. Sometimes that’s not the case, and we discover a better way to “do ministry” that is more Scriptural, practical, effective, and/or healthy. Either way, I have found it invigorating and healthy to be involved in a setting where there isn’t always agreement on the methods. But what happens when we’re not changing just the methods, but also the message? That’s when unity can no longer happen. It’s why even though I disagree with Andy Stanley, and think he’s mistaken, it’s only on the methods–not his message, and I’m ok with that. It’s why I was originally happy...

Ok, so that’s really a lie. That is, unless you’re a Methodist and you are convinced that you’re a Baptist if you believe that everyone has an eternal destination in heaven or hell, and that it’s the Church’s responsibility to reach the unchurched so that they don’t go to hell–well, then that makes Andy Stanley a Baptist. Because that’s emphatically what he believes and is the sole reason why his church is 100% devoted to reaching the unchurched instead of worrying about trying to keep those who are already unchurched. That’s what he shared in his sermon yesterday. I’m afraid that this is a devastating blow to all Methodists out there who are trying their hardest not to be Baptist, and as a result don’t want to affirm that people go to hell if they aren’t reached with the Gospel. Now Methodists everywhere must make a decision–do I still want to model myself after a preacher whose church is modeled the way it is because he believes people are going to hell? Now they must abandon Andy Stanley–where else can they turn to for a model of ministry? They had to abandon their founder, John Wesley, long ago because he clearly was Baptist as well, as he also believed that the world is going to hell, unless they come to faith in Christ by believing the Gospel. Dear Methodists, Salvation, the Gospel, eternity in heaven and hell–these are NOT Baptist ideas. They are central to the Christian faith. If you indeed choose to continue modeling your church after North Point, don’t just model after the method–which is least important. Model yourself after the message. It’s the whole reason why North Point does what it does. To ignore this defeats the whole point of modeling yourself after his paradigm. If people really aren’t going to hell if they aren’t reached by the church, his church model is clearly pointless. P.S. I know that not all Methodists feel this way. But quite a few do. This post is an example of...