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...

I had a conversation with Audra’s brother a few days ago, in which he said that he couldn’t understand what the point is for a church to exist if it’s not evangelical. I agreed with him. It quickly turns into merely a social institution (and a rather unimpressive one to the world at that). I suspect by the term “evangelical,” he meant a church that takes the Bible literally. At least, that’s my simple definition, although it’s a little more complex than that. By and large, however, evangelical churches tend to view the Bible more literally than mainline or liberal churches. That’s why they evangelize. Yet with words like “evangelical” or “literal,” pretty soon words like “conservative” or “liberal” start coming up, and it starts to sound political. And general lay-folk start to check out as the discussion starts to sound divisive or unimportant. That’s why I’m thinking that in order to avoid such language (which can be misleading or confusing), I propose that we start talking about how “seriously” a person or a church takes the Bible. After all, some parts of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally–they are written in a genre of figurative language, etc. Yet, even parts of the Bible that aren’t supposed to be taken literally–even these passages must be taken very seriously. For example, when Jesus says that it would be better to gouge your right eye if it causes you to sin, so that you go to heaven with one eye instead of hell with two eyes….there are very few people, evangelical or not, who would take this passage literally and walk around with only one eye in their sockets. Yet, this passage surely should be taken seriously. Jesus, while speaking in hyperbole, intends for his audience to take him very seriously. Unfortunately, many churches have decided that the Bible shouldn’t be taken too seriously. For example, they marvel at the beautiful language of the prophets, but they don’t realize that the whole point of the prophets speaking is that the nation of Israel wasn’t taking God’s Word seriously. They felt it wasn’t necessary to follow Scripture, but just to appreciate its existence. The prophets declared, “Since you won’t take...

Yes, you heard that right. I’m blown away that I got a flat tire on my car today. Why would I be praising God for this? Read on… I should have replaced the tires on my car a long time ago. They’ve been bald for at least a few months now. The problem is, we haven’t had the money to buy new tires, so I’ve been literally praying everyday I drive my car that none of the tires would blow out. To make matters even more risky, my job requires that I regularly drive across the state (probably at least once a week). We have two cars, but the other car is used for taking Naomi to school and picking her up everyday, so we couldn’t downsize to one car. So I’ve been praying everyday that I drive my car for work that God would let it hold up until Naomi gets out of school for the summer. At that point, we don’t need to use two cars anymore. Well, my last job assignment was last week in Huntsville all week, and that was Naomi’s last week of school. This week, she’s home for the summer. Today, Audra was taking the minivan to get the brakes fixed, and I got in my car to follow her there so we could come home while the brakes were getting fixed. As I pulled out of our driveway, my tire was blown out! This is a miracle on two counts: 1. My prayers were answered literally and perfectly, as the tire blew out the very first week Naomi was out of school for the summer. This totally blows me away. Just as much as what I wrote a few months before about how God is taking care of us during this time of financially lean times. God couldn’t have answered my prayer more clearly. My first job assignment after Naomi is out of school occurs tomorrow. Just in time for us to be able to downsize to one car! Wow!!! 2. The blow out took place in my garage–not on the interstate that I travel everyday for work. I’ve never been more stoked about a flat tire in my life ever before!...

A few posts ago, I linked to an article from christianpost.com about First Baptist Church’s (Dallas, TX) mega-building campaign. In contrast, read this other article from the same site, spotlighting the Church At Brook Hills here in Birmingham, AL. Linkaroo I especially like what David Platt had to say about measuring the effectiveness/success of a local church. Isn’t this a better approach for measuring success vs. how great of a building you can build or how many people attend worship? Sadly, too many churches tend to evaluate success based on how much money comes in, how many people attend, and how cool the building is. All of a church’s energy goes into increasing the Three B’s: Building, Bucks, and Butts. I’m afraid that so many church leaders today (I’m referring to pastors in particular) are lost on this one. Rather than try to convince them otherwise, maybe a better approach is to invest in upcoming leaders who are younger and aren’t so set in their ways. After all, when you try to reason with those who have this disposition and have already been in leadership for awhile, it quickly becomes apparent that the argument is going to go nowhere. Oftentimes, the response one will hear back goes something along these lines: “You’re too idealistic. That will never work. We can’t risk losing members or money toward our budget.” or “Easy for you to say–why don’t you try those sort of things as the pastor.” Funny, no one seems to be willing to step aside and let me try. 🙂 Seriously though, if someone isn’t willing to try themselves, why not make room for up-and-coming leaders who will? Many pastors later in life worry about ruining their career–those who are up-and-coming have little to lose and are more willing to risk losing church members or donations, etc. I do think if pastors’ careers weren’t tied to church giving, they’d take more risks to see their church live out the Gospel more faithfully. Today, David Platt twittered a link to an article he recently published regarding loyalty to one’s denomination vs. loyalty to Christ and the Great Commission. You can find it here. I’m not sure what the report is that...

Or have we moved beyond such depravity as a species? Today’s way of thinking immediately dismisses the notion of people being evil. We think mass murderers/pedophiles can simply be redeemed. Actually, I agree with that. My understanding of evil includes the possibility of redemption (which is why I am a Christian), but I believe that this redemption cannot be achieved by human effort, but only by a supernatural change initiated and empowered by the Creator himself. Outside of the Creator’s intervention in a person’s life, we are woefully evil. I think this is harder to see these days. We seem more civilized than ages past. We are in the process of eliminating slavery from the face of the earth–a blight on our species that has been around for all recorded history. I could give many other examples along these lines. As a result, we are easily blinded to our evilness. It is much more subtle today. For example, would anyone say that today’s Western world is filled with savage, blood-thirsty, murdering masses of people running around everywhere, chopping innocent people’s heads off whenever they please? Yet, how many unborn children are legally killed in this era for no good reason? Might the number surpass the Holocaust we so easily despise? Another way to look at it: I tend to think of men typically as the gender that is known for being perpetrators of murder. Yet in a more subtle way, women are just as guilty when you factor in abortion. Men aren’t more evil than women, although I tend to think of men as being more evil. Another example we could point to that shows the subtlety of our evil today is racial discrimination. Fifty or sixty years ago, black people were publicly discriminated against for the world to see in America. There was no hiding it. Today, it’s still around, just much more hidden. In one church I’ve served in, the senior pastor refused to consider a black candidate for a ministerial position, even though he was highly capable of serving in the position. This same church refused to reach out to the neighborhood that was right next to the church, because as the pastor put it: “Those...

I see two different types of controversies in the Bible: Passages that are controversial when you compare them to other passages in the Bible. Passages that are controversial when you compare them to today’s culture. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the difference between these two types of controversial passages. With the first type of controversial passages, we might have opinions one way or another on how to interpret such passages (even strong opinions), but in the end, we must realize that these passages are interpreted several different ways by scholars who all appreciate the authority of Scripture. As a result, when we discuss such passages, we should make room for disagreements and maintain a “think and let think” attitude toward those who might disagree with us. Such verses deal with issues like: Calvinism vs. Arminianism Eschatology (pre/post/a-millennial, pre/post/mid-tribulation, etc.) Roles of men/women in ministry How charismatic gifts operate today Often, people have strong opinions on these matters, which isn’t bad at all. However, we should all recognize that many strong, Bible-believing Christians may disagree with us. These disagreements shouldn’t prevent us from having fellowship with one another. Some people think it is best to avoid discussions/sermons on such issues because of the divisiveness it brings. Personally, I don’t shy away from controversy. I’d rather provide my audience with all the different viewpoints out there, and also give my own opinion in the matter. Then I leave it up to the audience to make up their own mind. I think this is better than avoiding these issues, because I think that does us a disfavor. Ignorance isn’t bliss. People have a right to delve deep into these issues if they so desire. However, I understand the idea to avoid such discussions, and I don’t think that’s a wrong strategy to have–I just personally don’t gravitate toward that method. However, that second category of Bible passages which are controversial to today’s culture–we would be gravely mistaken if we treat them the same way as the first category of controversial passages. These passages aren’t controversial because other verses in the Bible question their validity–it is today’s fallen society that questions their validity. The following issues aren’t controversial within Scripture itself, but are...