Hi, this is a story written by our friend Jude Hill about us and published in Tell it in Colour it is a great article, hope you enjoy it.

Swapping Stories in North Belfast

They grew up in south America, worked in influential jobs within the media yet struggled to find their voices in the atmosphere created by two military regimes. Now they are partners in a new expression of church in north Belfast, where they long for people to find and raise their voices….

The paths of Dario Leal from Chile and Pablo Mandresa from Argentina only crossed in Belfast, yet their stories share some remarkable parallels.

As Dario explains: “We grew up without voicing our voices, we didn’t express our stories, because in the 80s over there you couldn’t say you were against the regime. But stories are the right of every individual.”

And now through the Living Room project, based in the Cliftonville Road area, these two men and their families are seeking to release people to tell their stories. “I guess we feel,” Dario explains, “that humanity has lost its dignity, there seems little hope, people are demoralized and discontented. It was never meant to be this way.”

North Belfast is one of the areas most scarred by the Troubles, experiencing some of the worst inter-communal violence and the shadow from that still holds sway. So, through a ministry of presence and serving, the Living Room aims to foster hope in this community.

“In the gospel we find the most amazing story of all,” says Dario. “There’s regeneration, restoring dignity - and that’s what we like to do. We want people to find wholeness in God and to give them back their dignity.”

It’s a model of church that many in Belfast are perhaps unfamiliar with - as these church planters seek to create a space where people can share stories and explore faith issues. As Dario says: “In a city full of history we want to start a small worshipping community that unites our stories with the story of Jesus…”

I read once that those in poverty are in double jeopardy because of their own sins and the fact they are sinned against.

Understanding poverty within our national context means first understanding that God is completely aware of the conditions that his creation exist in on a daily basis. Scripture points to the fact that God is aware and distributes to each person the level of their economic and social wealth. In 1 Chronicles 29:10, David acknowledges that in God's hand he distributes as he wills across the earth.

At the same time we find each man and woman has the responsibility to steward for what he or she has in their possession. The man with a small business has just as much responsibility for his employees, profits and resources as the man who owns a multi-national corporation. It is the same with those who have little food and those who have much.

What does this have to do with poverty?

First, there is a population of those in poverty who are there because of their misuse of resources. Where food is needed, money is used to buy large televisions, cigarettes or alcohol. When the rent is required to be paid, that same money is used for meth, gambling or other types of pleasures. This misuse of resources; not stewarding those resources properly results and keeps such persons in their impoverished conditions.

These are sins of the heart or idols that can only be appropriately addressed through the Gospel. We find that Christ calls us to turn from this way of living and appropriately view our resources as gifts from God to use for his glory. Christ's death and resurrection says to those in poverty, the use of your resources are not meant to enslave you but are precious gifts that are to be used in our freedom to display to others God's graciousness in our lives.

Secondly, those in poverty have to also deal with systemic sins. Job 24, speaks of the cries and groans that go up out of cities because of the oppression, theft and abuse that the weak and poor experience by those who are given wealth to liberate, provide and protect. There are systems in place in our cities, states, federal government and yes local churches that stand in the way of demonstrating the poor religion of God in Christ.

Those in power must look at how their systems are either addressing the alleviation of poverty or contributing to having persons remaining dependent on systems. The goal of the strong should be to come alongside those who are weak, walk with them and see them stand as men and women in the image of God contributing to their lives and the lives others.

What is the way ahead?

Local churches in their interactions with those in poverty must address heart issues with the Gospel. Contributing resources is only a band-aid to a larger problem. Secondly, let's examine how we go about addressing poverty and determine whether we are sinning against others by keeping them in their conditions or not doing anything at all.

Read more...

When I think of a movement, I think of family. There is no institution on earth like the family. Families are everywhere. Everything in society is a result of and to support the family. The grocery store, home building industry, banks, gas stations, auto industry and everything else is for the family. Without the family, there would be no need for any of the government agencies, industries, or institutions.

When our Father God wanted to fill the earth with humans, he created the family. When Jesus wanted to establish the kingdom he introduced the Father and the family of God. Paul summed it up in Ephesians when he said, "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (3:16). He also wrote about the "mystery of marriage" and how it reflects Christ and his church (Ephesians 5). Family is woven all throughout the Bible. The first time God saved the world, he chose Noah and his family.

When God released his plan to have a people to reveal himself through, he chose Abraham and told him, "All the families of the earth will be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:3, NLT). The nation of Israel was organized according to the sons of Jacob; each tribe was the descendants of one of the twelve sons. Even in the New Heaven, "The names of the twelve tribes of Israel were written on the gates" (Revelation 21:12, NLT). God's eternal purpose throughout the ages flows through the family.

The church is alive with transformed people who are a part of the Family of God. Jesus said that the X-factor that would hold the church together would be love. Contracts, incorporations, membership, bylaws and organization may be necessary and laws to follow and obey will vary from country to country. But that is not the church. If it becomes that, then it is not the church any longer; it is an institution.

I constantly read and hear the warnings that a movement becomes an institution then a monument and finally a museum. There is this fear in those who are a part of a movement if any organizational structure begins to develop. They get the scaffolding confused with the building. It is not that the structure is not important, it is. We continue to provide the structure that is necessary for the growing and multiplying family. But, family is at the heart of a Kingdom movement. As long as we understand this and we love and care for the family, then how we organize will flow and adapt to the needs of the family.

If you can view the church in the light of a healthy family that reproduces and multiplies families, you can see how we can "fill the earth" the same way that the human race multiplies. Structure is not the issue, relationship is. I will choose relationship over structure every time. My wife Janet and I have a relationship that has produced a family and now it has extended into two more families through our son and daughter. Our relationship with them is based upon love, not structure. We don't have "Neville Incorporated" but we do have a lifetime relationship of love and devotion. Jesus said that, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34, NIV). I believe this is what Jesus wants for his church. At the end of the day, I love and value "you" more than any structure or organization man can conceive.

This is the key to the church being his church in the world. Jesus said, "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35, NKJV). This is something that can't be manufactured in an organization, denomination or an institutional type church. Love can only happen in relationship and community. Jesus loved his disciples and so he could tell us to love each other, "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12, NKJV).

Last month, Trisha and I celebrated 15 years of marriage. We also celebrated our oldest son Micah's 14th birthday. Just typing that feels weird. We don't feel old enough to have a 14 year old.

It is a very interesting season of life, because our oldest son and our youngest son are 7 years apart in age, but look very much alike. As I watch my youngest son, I think about Micah at his age. Micah had some friends come over to celebrate his birthday on Sunday, and as I sat and watched them at the pool I thought to myself:

"How much of the journey did I miss because I was so focused on the destination?"

When Micah was 7, I was busy building a church. I've always been busy building something:a reputation, a student ministry, a bank account, an image, a fund raising plan, a leadership structure, an organization.

Here is the tricky thing: none of these things are bad. But the focus I had on what was next usually clouded my enjoyment of what was now.

As a husband, I wanted to figure out how to have a better job; how to have a bigger house; how to have a newer car; how to take better vacations; how to save more money; how to have more toys. Arriving was more important than becoming.

As a father, I was waiting for the boys to crawl; then walk; then talk; then get out of diapers; then get in a big boy bed; then go to school; then play sports.

As a pastor, my whole focus was on the destination. I can't wait until we have a building; I can't wait till we have 50 people; 100 people; 300 people; 500 people; 700 people; I can't wait until we go to two services; I can't wait until next Easter, its going to be bigger and better than this Easter.

There is nothing wrong with having goals. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being driven. I'm not suggesting that a person, a marriage, a family, a church, a business shouldn't grow and improve.

But when we pursue the destination more passionately than we do the journey, we often miss both altogether.

Focusing on the destination allows you to achieve some goals and experience some success, but there is always a cost.

Seeking the destination has:

* Cost me joy
* Robbed me of memories
* Caused me stress
* Made me ungrateful
* Left me discontent

What I have discovered is that God's presence finds me on the journey. He is more concerned with who I am becoming than where I am arriving. Oddly enough, so is my wife; so are my kids.

What I have realized (often the hard way) is:

* Intimacy grows on the journey
* Moments are created on the journey
* Contentment is found on the journey
* Gratitude is overwhelming on the journey
* Life is savored on the journey

Is there an area of your life that your focus on the destination has robbed you of joy in the journey?

"The Ministry Mind-Shift that Changes Everything"

The sub-title to book "The Trellis and the Vine" caught my attention because I live in an area of the Northeast that still struggles with provincialism. Actually it is struggling to maintain it at all cost. So to think that a need for change should be even be considered could result in opening the "rejection box" which is very painful.

So as I began to read about this so-called "ministry mind-shift," I found out rather quickly that I could not be lukewarm toward the issues raised because they were so deeply rooted in the New Testament church. This led to being really encouraged and moved rather deeply through simple yet profound statements like - "gospel partnership is normal christian life" (pg. 66); "it's interesting how little the N.T. talks about church growth, and how often it talks about 'gospel growth' or the increase of the 'word' (pg. 37). Another quote that struck a definite chord was this observation - "Sunday sermons are necessary but not sufficient" (pg. 102). That is really good stuff and has helped my thinking about the movement of the Spirit in slow moving ministries.

The challenge for ministries that battle provincialism in both their church and villages is to remember that the gospel confronts every established system and eventually conquers it. This includes the systems that are worshiped in church-life. So preach, pray, train and encourage gospel-growth. Perhaps the "Trellis/Vine" resource may prove to be an encouragement for you in the near future.

The word "movement" is often used to describe a kind of vital, dynamic human organization, in order to distinguish it from what are called "institutions." Both of these words can have broader meanings, but for the sake of this discussion let us define them in the following ways.

A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs. The content of the vision must be compelling and clear so that others can grasp it readily. It must not be so esoteric or difficult that only a handful of people can articulate it. Instead, it must be something that all members of the movement can understand and pass along to others. By contrast, "institutionalized" organizations are held together by rules, regulations, and procedures, not by a shared vision.

This unifying vision is so compelling that it takes pride of place. First, the vision leads to sacrificial commitment. Individuals put the vision ahead of their own interests and comfort. They are willing to work without high compensation, power, or perks. The satisfaction of realized goals is their main compensation. There is no more practical index of whether you have a movement or not. If the leader is making all the sacrifices, you don't.

Second, the vision leads to generous flexibility. Institutionalized organizations are very turf conscious. Members are suspicious of anyone encroaching on their area of responsibility. Positions and power have been hard-won and jealously guarded. This is done by slavish devotion to rules of procedure, accreditation, and tenure.  In movements, however, the accomplishment of the vision is more important than power and position. So people are willing to make allies, be flexible, and cooperate with anyone sharing the basic vision and values.

Third, the vision leads to innovativeness. Institutions are organized more vertically, where ideas from "below" are unwelcome. Movements are flatter because the commonly shared vision unifies and empowers. The vision is what matters - so anyone with a good idea about how to accomplish it is welcome to give it. Ideas flow out of the whole organization, top to bottom, which leads to greater creativity.

Finally, a movement is marked by spontaneous generativity. Spontaneous combustion means energy generated from within - a conflagration without the need for external ignition. A movement is able to generate its own resources, recruit its own new members and participants, and (especially) raise up its own new leaders. This does not mean that movements have no formal training programs. Rather, it means that first, the vision of the movement (especially as its content is disseminated) attracts people with leadership potential, and, secondly, that the work of the movement provides opportunities that reveal emerging leaders through real-life experience and then prepares them for the next level of leadership in the movement. Denominations or church networks that always have to recruit ministers and staff that were raised up in other environments, and that attract them mainly with good compensation, do not show signs of being a movement.

David Hurst, a Harvard scholar, summed up how movements become institutions this way - vision becomes strategy, roles become tasks, teams become structure, networks become organizations, recognition becomes compensation. It is wrong, however, to draw such a hard line between the two forms. It is typical in the Christian movement literature to be highly critical of "institutionalism," for good reason. But the impression is left that all authority, central control, and formal processes are bad for ministry. The reality is more complex.

It is natural for new churches and ministries to try very hard to stay informal, non-codified, and non-centralized. But part of what makes a movement dynamic is a unified vision, and that always requires some codification and control. As time goes on, to maintain the main engine of movement-dynamics - a unified vision - a ministry must adopt some of the aspects of institutions. A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a free-wheeling organism and a disciplined organization.  A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics - authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control - will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well. The job of the movement leader is to steer the ship safely between these two opposite perils.

Going through Genesis, Exodus, Luke, and Acts around the same time, a few things have struck me in a new way. Some of the topics are "fruitfulness, covenant and spiritual marriage, the image of God, and 'Who is Jesus?'." This first one is about God as creator and king and Jesus.

In a class on covenant and theophany I have been hearing and reading (God at Sinai by J. J. Niehaus) about parallels between Genesis 1 and second-millennium suzerain vassal treaties. God's relationship with us is analogous to the relationship between a suzerain or sovereign and his vassals.  My understanding of what it means to be sovereign or king is probably too shallow. Although it's easy enough to think of God as creator, I don't always connect the dots between creator and king, and moreover complete owner over everything.  I don't consider that my stuff or my own self belongs to God.

Understanding God as creator, therefore, king and owner of the universe helps make sense of Jesus behavior, which otherwise is seemingly incongruous, and often leaves me puzzled. On the one hand Jesus' mercy and grace seems so free. He welcomes, helps, and forgives the tax collectors, sinners, children, babies, sick women, outcasts, and men of importance. On the other hand, I see him making great demands, outrageous demands of people. He says, "Give me everything!" (The contrasting stories from Luke 18-19 provide some examples.) If this is God, then he is every bit as demanding as the "God of the Old Testament" who tested Abraham, "Give me your only son whom you love!" In fact I could see someone easily arguing that Jesus seems more terrible than the "God of the Old Testament".  Yahweh's come and he's every bit as demanding as we feared!

Jesus himself acknowledges the tension created by the illusion of independence and God's sovereign ownership. In Luke 19:22, 24, and 26 he says: "You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in and reaping what I did not sow...Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas...I tell you that to everyone who has more will be given, But as for the one who has nothing even what he has will be taken away." One morning a few weeks ago I awoke with these words spinning in my head, but it was as if I heard Jesus telling the story with comical contrast and acting out the different roles. It sounds like he is exposing our self-pity at having nothing of our own to do with what we please. It also shows that Jesus purpose is to call us back to the fruitfulness (Gen 1) for which God originally made us.

Seeing God as sovereign creator, and therefore owner of the universe is a truth that I need to get deep inside me so I know how to live life and what to do with my stuff. He is farmer of the cosmos and he's coming to reap from me.  I think I also realize that the ability to stomach this truth depends on my understanding of the generosity of God. When we see how fully God has given himself to us, then we will stop trying to use God just for benefits without committing to him. We will want to be spiritually married and united to him forever. We will want to give him everything.  When Jesus makes demands, he's calling us to be in a relationship with him. The one who says, "If your eye is causing you to sin, pull it out. It's better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven eyeless, than for you whole body to be cast into hell!" is also the one who didn't just loose a limb to resist sin but who with his whole body experienced hell and separation from God, so we could be with him for eternity.   

How does Christianity fare in the Ivy Cities?

Although there are some evangelical churches in my city of New Haven, a fair assessment would conclude that robust, reproducing, churches in New Haven that are effectively reaching nonbelievers (especially Yale students) are difficult to find. Indeed, there are precious few orthodox churches within walking distance of Yale's campus, and while all of them (including the one of which I am part) are doing their best, they all also have their own problems and challenges (in two instances, no permanent senior pastor/minister). My understanding is that the situation is similar in Princeton and Cambridge (although I am happy to be corrected on this point).

Due to the staggering influence of these cities and the educational institutions to which they are homes, they exemplify particularly well Tim Keller's oft repeated maxim that cities are disproportionately influential, and disproportionately underserved. I would love to see at least one church like Redeemer in all of these cities, and my burden (when I am back in New Haven) is to begin working with some friends and churches to see what can be done about the situation in New Haven. At the moment I would simply like to list a few strategic reasons for having very strong, evangelical, culturally engaged churches in New Haven (and other, similar cities). For even though these are not "global cities," in one sense, their significance and influence is undoubtedly global in scope.

First, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, among (or arguably) the most prestigious and influential educational institutions in the world, not only draw some of the best intellectuals and culture-creators from around the world, they also send these people out with the prestige of their names into universities and elite institutions the world-over, thereby sustaining, creating, and shaping some of the most significant intellectual, cultural, and power networks in our society. Thus Christians have a vested interest (as men like Os Guinness and James Davison Hunter have long understood) in having a 'faithful presence' in these cities and their educational institutions, not just in the form of parachurch ministries but also in the form of robustly evangelical, reproducing, culturally engaged, local churches.

Second, schools like Yale and its Divinity School (the only one to which I can speak from experience), are disproportionately influential not only in mainline circles (e.g. Presbyterians will sometimes come to YDS rather than to the PCUSA Princeton) but also in the denominations of the orthodox and evangelical students who attend such institutions. For a variety of reasons, I have noticed and heard of a pattern of orthodox students coming to YDS only to leave three years later either entirely liberal or deeply shaken, resulting in people who return to their churches (if they return at all) with a combination of cultural and intellectual power and decreased or wholly absent fidelity to the Gospel. Thus strategic importance is combined with a markedly negative effect on Christians who enter these contexts (obviously not without exceptions, but as a general trend this seems accurate), representing a particularly influential and tragic version of the "church trains them, college steals them" phenomenon that is widespread even evangelical churches. One of the primary reasons for thus (excluding the crucial issues of youth groups, family, etc.), I think, is lack of adequate support for such students, especially in the form of local churches analogous to Redeemer in their vision and impact. (I am grateful for parachurch organizations (like the Rivendell Institute, with whose leaders I am friends), but I know these organizations would usually be the first to admit that they cannot replace the local church.)

A final point, which combines the first two, is that cities like New Haven have a dramatic influence on the plausibility structures not just of the culture in general, but especially that of the elites and the institutions in which they exercise power (e.g. what Harvard does, almost every other US university will soon copy), and, as Hunter as recently shown, it is these elites and the cultural centers they inhabit and shape that dominate the rest of the culture, regardless of how numerically tiny they are. Thus, these university cities represent an intensified form of Tim Keller's arguments about cities, for by investing in planting effective churches here, and thus creating a kind of Northeast Evangelicalism, one would ipso facto invest in the entire intellectual and cultural environment of the US (and beyond). By helping gently to delegitimate certain assumptions about conservative Christianity held among elites in New Haven, for example, Christians in New Haven would be helping eventually to weaken those same assumptions among university professors and intellectuals across the country.

Moreover, just as the mere existence of reproducing, engaged, churches like Redeemer in Manhattan weakens the plausibility structure of people who think Christianity can't survive in a place like New York City, so too the mere existence of reproducing, engaged churches in cities like Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton would help open people to the Gospel.
These are only a few reasons I am burdened by the relative weaknesses of evangelical Christianity in the city of New Haven, and I hope that these points might help raise consciousness about the need for churches like Redeemer in these Ivy cities

In the long term, however, what we need are not just more churches, but an Eastcoast Evangelicalism, a movement of cooperative churches like Redeemer centered in the heart of elite culture. Long abandoned to liberalism, the Eastcoast is often closer to Western Europe than the rest of the US, and any long-term, culture-wide, intellectually as well as culturally powerful movement of Christianity will need to reckon with the secularism of the Eastcoast vis-a-vis the rest of the country, and the relative glut of Evangelicalism in the Westcoast, Midwest, and South. Can evangelical Christianity not only survive but flourish in the heart of America's most secular region? Or is the old story about secularization true, and are we just waiting for the fate of Western Europe, foreshadowed in the Northeast, to spread to America? I believe the question of Eastcoast Evangelicalism, the growth of a new Northeastern orthodoxy, is crucial if we are to address effectively these other, pressing questions.

Hay tres tipos de oración para las que trato de encontrar algún tiempo cada día -meditación (o contemplación), petición y arrepentimiento. Cada mañana me concentro en las dos primeras y la última es la que hago cada noche.

En realidad la meditación es un término medio o combinación entre la lectura bíblica y la oración. Me gusta emplear el método contemplativo de Lutero que él mismo delinea en su famosa carta sobre la oración a su barbero. Básicamente, el método consiste en - tomar una verdad espiritual y plantear tres preguntas. ¿Qué me enseña [este pasaje] acerca de Dios que debería llevarme a adorarle? ¿Qué cosas pone de manifiesto acerca de mí mismo que debiera confesar? ¿Qué necesidades muestra por las que deba rogar a Dios? Adoración, confesión y súplica. Lutero propone que ésta es la manera de meditar hasta sentir un calor en nuestros corazones y que estos se derritan al sentir la presencia real de Dios. Esto no suele pasar a menudo, pero no pasa nada. En ultimo término, no oramos para conseguir buenas sensaciones o respuestas, sino para honrar a Dios por quien es él en sí mismo.   

Hay dos tipos de lectura bíblica que trato de practicar. Cada mes leo los Salmos usando el Book of Common Prayer's daily office. También uso el calendario de lectura de Robert Murray M'Cheyne. Sigo la versión más relajada, que consiste en dos capítulos al día y que te lleva a través del Antiguo Testamento cada dos años y el Nuevo Testamento cada año. Por las mañanas hago el calendario de M'Cheyne y algunos Salmos, y por las noches leo más Salmos. Para concluir mis devocionales cada mañana, escojo una o dos cosas de los Salmos y  de M'Cheyne para meditar en ellas.

Además de las oraciones matutinas (M'Cheyne, Salmos, meditación y petición) y de la oración vespertina (Salmos y arrepentimiento) intento tomar, lo más a menudo posible, cinco minutos al mediodía para hacer un repaso espiritual, ya sea recordando las ideas más radioactivas espiritualmente [hablando] desde mi tiempo devocional, o bien echando un vistazo rápido a mis pecados e ídolos más recurrentes. Lo hago para ver lo lejos que he podido llegar abandonándome a malas actitudes como el orgullo, la frialdad y dureza de corazón, ansiedad y falta de amabilidad. Si veo que estoy yendo por mal camino, la oración del mediodía  me ayuda a rectificar. El problema con esta oración del mediodía es encontrar un tiempo para ella, pues cada día es distinto. Todo lo que necesito es quedarme a solas por unos minutos, pero eso a menudo es imposible, o más veces de las que quisiera, simplemente me olvido. De todos modos, llevo conmigo en la cartera una pequeña guía para la oración del mediodía que puedo usar [en cualquier lugar].

La última forma de oración que hago a diario es orar con mi esposa, Kathy. Unos nueve años atrás, Kathy y yo comentábamos el hecho de que en gran medida y con el transcurso de los años habíamos fallado a la hora de orar juntos. Entonces Kathy me exhortó diciendo: "¿Qué pasaría si nuestro medico nos dijera que tenemos una grave dolencia cardíaca que en el pasado siempre había resultado letal? Sin embargo, ahora existe una píldora que, si la tomásemos cada noche, nos mantendría vivos por muchos años. Si nuestro medico nos dijera eso y le creyésemos, nunca nos olvidaríamos de tomar la píldora. Nunca diríamos, 'oh, no me la he tomado.' Nos la tomaríamos, ¿verdad? Bien, si no oramos juntos cada noche, nos vamos a morir espiritualmente." Ella tenía razón. Y por alguna razón, todo encajó para los dos, y desde entonces no recordamos una sola noche en la que no hayamos orado juntos. Incluso si estamos lejos el uno del otro, siempre hay un teléfono [a mano]. Oramos de forma muy sencilla - solo un par de minutos. Oramos por cualquier cosa que más nos preocupe como pareja, cualquier persona o cualquier cosa que esté en nuestros corazones ese día. Y oramos sobre las necesidades de nuestra familia. Eso es todo. Tan sencillo, pero tan bueno.

No es fácil mantener este régimen, especialmente cuando estoy viajando. Pero cada cierto tiempo aparto un periodo de 40 días en el que me obligo a mí mismo a cumplir cada día cada uno de los tiempos de oración antes mencionados. Esto crea hábitos en la mente y en el corazón que permanecen conmigo de manera que, incluso cuando paso por alguna época de mucho trabajo, encuentro que puedo mantener algo de mis disciplinas y no me enfrío o endurezco en relación a Dios.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne tenía la fama de haberle dicho a los pastores, "lo que vuestra gente necesita más de vosotros es vuestra santidad personal."

* Puedes leer el original (en inglés) aquí 

Developing young men is a great blessing for me at this time in my life. I look back on my last ten years and see that God prepared me for these moments. It is one of the top five things I am passionate about in life.

One of the ways I have sought to develop young men is by asking questions rather than giving a straight forward answer.

It is too easy to just give an answer. It has its place but I have found for the most part, as I ask questions, I can see the wheels turning and there are glimpses of wrestling and maturing.

In those moments of answers, followed by more questions, there is growth occurring in both of us. I begin to grasp where someone is in their walk with Christ and what ultimately I believe is occurring in the life of the believer is that the Holy Spirit is teaching.

Those are moments of grace.

Jesus loved to pose questions to his disciples and it provoked them towards discovery. He could have easily told them the answer, which on many occasions he does, yet Jesus in the role of a rabbi gives his students questions in order that they would have a greater understanding.

The greatest instance was Jesus asking, "Who do people say that I am?"
Followed by - "Who do you say that I am?"

There is wrestling.

There is maturing as Peter states, "You are the Christ."

Leaders can best serve those they are discipling by asking questions that will spark both wrestling and maturity.
Read more...

There are three kinds of prayer I try to find time for every day - meditation (or contemplation), petition, and repentance. I concentrate on the first two every morning and do the last one in the evening.

Meditation is actually a middle ground or blend of Bible reading and prayer. I like to use Luther's contemplative method that he outlines in his famous letter on prayer that he wrote to his barber. The basic method is this - to take a Scriptural truth and ask three questions of it. How does this show me something about God to praise? How does this show me something about myself to confess? How does this show me something I need to ask God for? Adoration, confession, and supplication. Luther proposes that we keep meditating like this until our hearts begin to warm and melt under a sense of the reality of God. Often that doesn't happen. Fine. We aren't ultimately praying in order to get good feelings or answers, but in order to honor God for who he is in himself.

There are two kinds of Bible reading that I try to do. I read the psalms through every month using the Book of Common Prayer's daily office. I also read through the Bible using Robert Murray M'Cheyne's reading calendar. I take the more relaxed version - two chapters a day, which takes you through the Old Testament every two years and the New Testament every year. I do the M'Cheyne reading and some of the psalms in the morning, and read some Psalms in the evening. I choose one or two things from the psalms and M'Cheyne chapters to meditate on, to conclude my morning devotions.

Besides morning prayer (M'Cheyne, Psalms, meditation, and petition) and evening prayer (Psalms and repentance) I try as often as possible to take five minutes in the middle of the day to take a spiritual inventory, either by remembering the more spiritually radioactive ideas from my morning devotion, or by a quick look at my most besetting sins and idols. I do that to see whether so far that day I've given in to bad attitudes such as pride, coldness and hardness of heart, anxiety, and unkindness. If I see myself going wrong, the mid-day prayer can catch it. The problem with mid-day prayer is finding a time for it, since every day is different. All I need is to get alone for a few minutes, but that is often impossible, or more often than not I just forget.  However, I carry a little guide to mid-day prayer in my wallet which I can take out and use. 

The last form of prayer that I do daily is prayer with my wife, Kathy. About nine years ago Kathy and I were contemplating the fact that we had largely failed to pray together over the years. Then Kathy exhorted me like this. "What if our doctor told us that we had a serious heart condition that in the past was always fatal. However, now there was a pill which, if we took it every night, would keep us alive for years and years. But you could never miss a single night, or you would die. If our doctor told us this and we believed it, we would never miss. We would never say, 'oh I didn't get to it.' We would do it. Right? Well, if we don't pray together every night, we are going to spiritually die." I realized she was right. And for some reason, the penny dropped for us both, and we can't remember missing a night since. Even if we are far away from each other, there's always the phone. We pray very, very simply - just a couple of minutes. We pray for whatever we are most worried about as a couple, anyone or anything on our hearts that day. And we pray through the needs of our family. That's it. Simple, but so, so good.

It is very hard to stick with this regimen, especially when I'm traveling. But every so often I buckle down for a 40-day period in which I push myself to do every one of my stated times of prayer every day. This creates habits of mind and heart that stick with me, so that even when there are very busy times, I find I am able to stick with some of my disciplines, and I don't find myself getting cold and hard toward God.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne was reputed to have said to ministers, "what your people need most from you is your personal holiness."

En su sermón "Doctrina y Vida" en Walking with God: Studies in 1 John (Crossway, 1993), David Martyn Lloyd-Jones habla de la gente a la que no le gustan los énfasis doctrinales o de precisión teológica. [El argumento que suelen utilizar es el siguiente]:

Las ciudades americanas experimentaron veinte años de deterioro (1970-1990) y veinte años de resurgimiento (1990-2010). Pero las burbujas económicas que mayoritariamente incentivaron el crecimiento han desaparecido. Casi con toda seguridad, el renacimiento de las ciudades americanas durante los últimos 20 años ha llegado a su fin. Pero, ¿qué nos depara el futuro?

Hay varias tendencias que continuarán dándose, y algunas de ellas serán beneficiosas para las ciudades. En primer lugar, las ciudades americanas continuarán su proceso de globalización. Es decir, continuarán creciendo en conexión e influencia internacional, lo que ayudará a mantener en alza el valor de las viviendas, la creación de puestos de trabajo y que continúe aumentando la importancia y el estatus [de las ciudades]. El resultado será que las ciudades americanas serán cada vez más parecidas a otras ciudades de proyección mundial y se irán pareciendo cada vez menos, en términos culturales, a [otras zonas pobladas de] su propia región. En Segundo lugar, la planificación urbana continuará creando espacios compactos, mixtos en relación al tráfico y la incorporación de amplias zonas peatonales (con zonas residenciales, oficinas, negocios, educación, instituciones culturales y entretenimiento). El énfasis estará en las escuelas de barrio, calles con amplias aceras y paseos peatonales, carriles para bicicletas y demás. A esto se le llama "Nuevo Urbanismo" o "Crecimiento Inteligente." Viene motivado por muchos factores, incluyendo la toma de conciencia medioambiental, por lo tanto las ciudades continuarán su desarrollo como alternativa social de agrupación humana frente a los suburbios [o las urbanizaciones clásicas de la América más tradicional]. En tercer lugar, debido a que las leyes sobre la inmigración todavía no han cambiado de manera significativa, Estados Unidos continuará recibiendo inmigración procedente de todas partes del mundo. (¡Siempre hay algún otro lugar en el mundo donde la economía está peor que la nuestra!) Las ciudades que acojan esta inmigración se beneficiarán de la llegada tanto de trabajadores de la clase obrera como de profesionales llenos de energía y nuevas ideas. En cuarto lugar, hasta donde yo puedo ver, el postmodernismo que lleva a que los jóvenes prefieran la vida de la ciudad en lugar de la vida en los suburbios, es algo que todavía va a continuar por un tiempo. Todas estas tendencias están bien asentadas y van a ser las que sostendrán el crecimiento y continuo desarrollo de las ciudades.

Sin embargo, hay varios factores que van a jugar en contra de las ciudades. Primero, lo más seguro es que las ciudades se vean más afectadas por la disminución de los servicios sociales. Durante tiempos de dificultad económica, suele haber un notable aumento de gente que necesita servicios sociales, precisamente cuando la recaudación de impuestos es más baja.  Por ejemplo, un informe dice que en la actualidad hay un 34% más de gente durmiendo en las calles de Nueva York que hace sólo 12 meses atrás, y todo esto justo cuando la ciudad está haciendo todo tipo de recortes y despidos. Las escuelas, el transporte público - todos están haciendo frente a la crisis. Esto tendrá su efecto sobre la calidad de vida en las ciudades, y puede que nos lleve a un aumento del crimen. Segundo,  también están los que dicen que el apogeo de la tecnología hará que la "aglomeración" (es decir, que los beneficios sociales y económicos de tener a la gente en un mismo lugar) sea innecesaria. La tecnología hace que las relaciones sociales y la comunicación en el trabajo dependan cada vez menos de la proximidad física. Si a todo esto le añadimos el deterioro económico (como ya se argumenta), la gente simplemente no estará dispuesta a pagar los elevados costes que se derivan de vivir en una ciudad. Esto llevará a un descenso de la población urbana, o por lo menos a una "fuga de cerebros" - la pérdida de trabajadores altamente cualificados.

Entre los expertos no hay un consenso absoluto acerca del futuro de las ciudades. Algunas de las ciudades que [en la actualidad] tienen una situación más complicada que la del resto, como Detroit, tendrán que hacer cambios dramáticos, esencialmente reduciendo su área de extensión y rediseñándose a sí misma como una municipalidad más pequeña. Pero esa no será la norma en todo el país. Creo que la inmigración y otros factores culturales de carácter general harán que las ciudades todavía continúen siendo un destino preferencial para la gente más ambiciosa  e innovadora, y eso será un factor crucial para que no pare el apogeo de las ciudades.  En un fascinante artículo sobre la desaparición de las grandes empresas editoriales en Manhattan (ver aquí), David Carr escribe que "la economía de las grandes corporaciones mediáticas... ha hecho desaparecer componentes [realmente] significativos  del modelo de negocio que hace funcionar la empresa editorial tradicional." Y continúa diciendo que el mundo de las comunicaciones ha perdido 60.000 puestos de trabajo en Nueva York desde el año 2000. ¿Quiere decir esto que la gente joven que quiere trabajar en el mundo editorial y el de las empresas mediáticas ya no viene a Nueva York? De ninguna manera.

"Por cada joven que encuentro deambulando tratando de entrar por alguna puerta cerrada de la industria mediática, encuentro otro que es un cúmulo de ideas, energía y tiene un dominio absoluto de todo lo que tenga que ver con el mundo de la tecnología. La siguiente oleada [de jóvenes emprendedores] no se conforma con sólo llamar a las puertas, sino que las derriba.

"En algún lugar del distrito Flatiron, en Brooklyn, Queens o en Harlem, un puñado de jóvenes brillantes observa con un interés que va más allá de lo puramente académico toda esta fragmentación. Sus diminutos netbooks y iPhones, que sirven como portales de acceso para pasar en medio de toda esta neblina, contienen más "poder armamentistico" en términos de información, de lo que tan sólo dos décadas atrás podía ser contenido en toda una sala de redacción. Y [estos jóvenes] están extrayendo el contenido que la audiencia de estos medios genera a través del uso de las redes sociales o encontrando la manera de hacer más útil la información ambiente [que cada usuario genera en el ciberespacio y a la que se puede tener acceso si se tienen los conocimientos adecuados]. A estos jóvenes ya no les entusiasman demasiado las expectativas que se abren ante ellos [han dejado de ser ingenuos], pero todavía se muestran confiados en sus posibilidades, lo cual es un don de la edad que tienen.

"Para ellos, Nueva York no es una isla que se hunde, sino una que está justo en lo más alto de la cresta de una nueva y feroz ola" (David Carr, "The Fall and Rise of Media", New York Times, November 30, 2009.)

No sólo podemos estar tranquilos de que nos espera un buen futuro par alas ciudades de América, sino también una Buena oportunidad para el ministerio urbano. Si las ciudades sufren una gran carencia de los servicios sociales, esto significa que anuestras Iglesias se les abren las puertas para ayudar de tal manera que el vecindario se alegre de que estemos allí (1 Pedro 2:11-12). Ya sea que las ciudades estén en apogeo o en deterioro, el ministerio de la iglesia Cristiana en y hacia las ciudades puede y debe continuar creciendo.

___________________

* Puedes leer el artículo original (en ingles) aquí

'In his sermon "Doctrine and Life" in Walking with God: Studies in 1 John (Crossway, 1993), David Martyn Lloyd-Jones takes on people who do not like an emphasis on doctrine or theological precision. They say:

" 'We are not interested... in your various ideas and schools of thought with regard to the precise explanation of how the atonement of Christ works. These things are of no concern to us... so long as we are living a good life and producing good works, that is the only thing that matters.' " (p. 22)

This point of view is more prevalent than ever today. In both "liberal" and "conservative" churches, there is a resistance to an emphasis on doctrine. Often it is put this way: "We are not saved by assenting to propositions, but by obedient trust in God. What matters is being like Christ." Lloyd-Jones' response is, in my view, devastating: 

"'Whether you like it or not, to speak like that is, in and of itself, to speak in a doctrinal manner. To make statements along that line is, in actual practice, to commit yourself to a particular doctrine... the doctrine of works and, in a sense, of justification by works.' 'Ah, but' they reply, 'we are not interested in such a term as 'justification by works.'" But whether they are interested in such terminology of not, that is exactly what they are saying... In other words, whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid doctrine. ... There is no such thing as an irreligious person; everyone has his or her religion, if you mean by religion that ultimate philosophy or view of life by which people live." (p. 22-23)

So when you say, "I don't care about doctrine, it's how you live that matters," you are ironically promoting the doctrine of justification by works. You are proposing that what God really wants is a good life.  The response can be similar when someone claims that it doesn't matter which religion you belong to, because all religions are alike and no one should be held to a particular doctrine of God. Yet that assumes that God is not holy, and that he does not hold people responsible for how they live. In other words, to say, "no one should be held to a particular view of God" is to assume and promote a particular view of God. To say, "doctrine about God doesn't matter" is itself a statement of doctrine about God - and therefore it does matter! So Lloyd-Jones concludes: "It is no use your saying, 'We are not interested in doctrine; we are concerned about life'; if your doctrine is wrong, your life will be wrong." [italics mine] (p. 23)

However, whenever Lloyd-Jones takes up the importance of doctrine, he always points out that there is a danger on the other extreme. He speaks of some Christians and says "There is nothing they delight in more than arguing about theology" and they do this in "a party spirit" (p. 24). One of the signs of this group is that they are either dry and theoretical in their preaching, or they can be caustic and angry. They have "lost their tempers, forgetting that by so doing they were denying the very doctrine which they claimed to believe" (p. 24). In short, ministers who go to this extreme destroy the effectiveness of their preaching. What is the cause of this? Lloyd-Jones answers that they have made accurate doctrine an end in itself, instead of a means to honor God and grow in Christ-likeness. "Doctrine must never be considered in and of itself. Scripture must never be divorced from life" (p. 25).

If we maintain this balance, we will get criticism. In another sermon, Lloyd-Jones makes a rare observation about his own reputation. He was considered by the mainstream British listener to be highly doctrinal and orthodox, but many in more conservative churches felt he put too much emphasis on human experience.  He responded:

"It seems to me that we have a right to be fairly happy about ourselves as long as we have criticism from both sides... For myself, as long as I am charged by certain people with being nothing but a Pentecostalist and on the other hand charged by others with being an intellectual, a man who is always preaching doctrine, as long as the two criticisms come, I am very happy. But if one or the other of the two criticisms should ever cease, then, I say, is the time to be careful and to begin to examine the very foundations." (From "Test the Spirits" in The Love of God: Studies in 1 John, Crossway, 1993, p. 18.)

Dr. Lloyd-Jones was very far-sighted. This insight and balance has never been needed more than it is today.

In Philippians 2, Paul lays out that Jesus Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and hailing as the one in which all creation must bow is precipitated on the fact that he humbled himself to the point of death. Jesus emptied himself and set aside his prerogative to act upon his rights as God. Instead we understand that Christ the Savior submitted himself in a glorious and mysterious way to the Father and ministered in the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

Can we understand that on the cross, Christ triumphed over the powers of sin and death not through the exercise of power but love? John tells us that God is love and we understand this in Christ being the propitiation for our sins. The most universal changing event was brought about by love.

How does this inform those of us who consider ourselves leaders?

Jesus told his disciples that they were not to be like the surrounding culture in regards to their leadership but were to follow him the Son of Man and give their lives as a ransom. The motivation for their service was not power but through love that produced sacrifice.

Leaders in the local churches of America are very susceptible to adopting leadership practices produced from the culture of business, military and the like. These cultures are driven primarily by power, regulations and the bottom line, not by a love that is impacted by the resurrection. Consider your own governance in your local church, is it driven primarily by love or position and power?

The greatness of the resurrection is that leaders who are in the pursuit of Christ are walking in this newness of life that declares, leadership is driven by love, sacrifice and grace; not by titles, manmade authority and regulations.

Let us pursue love and not power among the flock of God.

Leading by power screams of oppression and lording over the flock of God.

Leading by love declares mutual submission and a display of Christ incarnation, death and resurrection.

       Church Planting is an entrepreneurial enterprise. It takes courage, vision, stubbornness, flexibility, and an ability to sell the project to pretty much everyone around you. The range of people that need to get onboard is endless - donors, colleagues, leaders above, volunteers below, non-Christians, launch team, prayer supporters, partner ministries - not to mention your spouse. Church planting starts with a firm invitation for people to be involved in something that does not yet exist. And, precisely for this cooperative quality, the new venture affects all of our relationships. 

       Take the financial challenge, for instance. If you plan to be a planter dedicated to the project full-time, the cost of starting a church will soon dawn upon you in a way that every church you once stepped into will receive a project proposal, grandma will donate part of her pension, and buddies will give even if it is from study loans and scholarships. Relationships get a financial facet added to them, though of course for a God-honouring purpose. And this sprawling, relationships-affecting quality of starting a church eventually affects our self-relation as well, to the point that our very identity becomes enlisted to the cause. 

       Or we get consumed, if one puts it harshly. Our role as a church planter becomes more visible before the mind's eye than our sense of self as Christians. Our worth as children of God gets fuzzy and forgotten besides the functional, getting-it-done personality eager to succeed. The plain, bare "me" can't keep up with the envisioned glories of me preaching to hundreds and charming people with my godliness. We prefer a functional identity, made valuable by our sweat, over the identity made valuable by Jesus' work. We let the self succumb to the activity it is performing. 

       Being consumed is a danger of church planting, maybe a danger of leadership too. When we dare lift up a cause we will life for we face the risk of adopting a cause we will indeed live for. It may engulf us. But if we are to be really good church planters we have to be able to also die to church planting. We cannot let it capture our identity. It mustn't undermine the self from which we minister. The mission depends on it. 

       Yet this does not mean giving up church planting. It is part of the calling by which Jesus sends us to the world, after all. But let's maybe just leave it for tomorrow. Let's maybe read a book which will not teach us how to plant a church, watch a movie that will not produce a sermon illustration, pray not for the project but for the welfare of kids in Tasmania. Church planting can wait for tomorrow - God is working at it with His might, we believe - yet its grand goal can happen right now, as a sinner-turned-saint by Christ's work enjoys his God in a serene, restful embrace.  

American cities saw twenty years of decline (1970-1990) and twenty years of resurgence (1990-2010). But the economic bubbles that largely fueled the growth of cities are over. Almost certainly, the renaissance of American cities over the past 20 years has come to an end. But what is the future?

There are a number of trends that will continue, and some will be in cities' favor. First, American cities will continue to globalize. That is, they will continue to increase international connections and influence, which will help to keep real estate values up, provide more jobs, and bring increased prominence and status. As a result, American cities will become more like other world cities and less like their own regions, culturally speaking. Second, urban planning will continue to create compact, transit-oriented, walkable mixed use developments (with residences, business, retail, education, cultural institutions, and entertainment all located in close proximity.) The emphasis will be on neighborhood schools, streets with sidewalks for pedestrians, lanes for bicyclists, and so on. This is sometimes called "the New Urbanism" or "Smart Growth." There are many factors driving this, including environmental concerns, and so cities will continue to develop as a desirable alternative to suburbs as a human social arrangement. Third, since immigration laws have not significantly changed at this point, there will continue to be immigration from around the world to the U.S. (There is always some place in the world where the economy is worse than ours!) The cities that receive immigration will benefit from the influx of both working class and professional energy and ideas. Fourth, as far as I can see, the postmodernism that leads young adults to prefer city life to suburban life is continuing. These trends are pretty well established, and they will sustain the growth and continued rise of cities.

However, there are several factors working against cities. First, there are likely to be greatly increased social service gaps in cities. During hard economic times there is a sharp increase in people needing services just at the time when tax revenues dry up. For example, one report says there are 34% more people sleeping on the streets in New York City than there were 12 months ago, at the same time that the city is having to make all kinds of cutbacks and layoffs. Schools, public transit - all of them are facing a crisis. This will have to have an impact on the quality of life in cities, and it may lead to a rise in crime. Second, there are those who say that the rise of technology will make "agglomeration" (that is, the economic and social benefits of many people being located in one place) unnecessary. Technology makes social networking and communication less dependent on physical proximity. Put this together with the economic downturn (it is argued) and people simply won't pay the higher costs of living in a city. This will lead to urban population decline, or at least to "bright flight" - the loss of the highly skilled workforce.

There is no complete consensus of experts about the future of cities. Some of the most troubled, such as Detroit, are going to have to make drastic changes, essentially shrinking their urban footprint deliberately and redesigning themselves as a smaller municipality. But that will not be the norm in the U.S. I believe that immigration and broader cultural factors still make cities highly desirable destinations for the most ambitious and innovative people, and that will be crucial in continuing the rise of cities. In a fascinating article about the demise of "big publishing" in Manhattan (see here), David Carr writes that "macromedia economics... have vaporized significant components of the business model that drives traditional publishing." He goes on to say that employment in communications in New York has lost 60,000 jobs since the year 2000. So does that mean young people who want to be in publishing and media have stopped coming to New York City? Not at all.

"For every kid that I bump into who is wandering the media industry looking for an entrance that closed some time ago, I come across another who is a bundle of ideas, energy and technological mastery. The next wave is not just knocking on doors, but seeking to knock them down.

"Somewhere down in the Flatiron, out in Brooklyn, over in Queens or up in Harlem, cabals of bright young things are watching all the disruption with more than an academic interest. Their tiny netbooks and iPhones, which serve as portals to the cloud, contain more informational firepower than entire newsrooms possessed just two decades ago. And they are ginning content from their audiences in the form of social media or finding ways of making ambient information more useful. They are jaded in the way youth requires, but have the confidence that is a gift of their age as well.

"For them, New York is not an island sinking, but one that is rising on a fresh, ferocious wave." (David Carr, "The Fall and Rise of Media", New York Times, November 30, 2009.)

Not only can we be confident of a good future for American cities, but also of good opportunity for urban ministry. If cities experience great gaps in social services, this only opens a door for our churches to help in such a way that their neighbors will rejoice that we are here (1 Peter 2:11-12). Whether or not cities are rising or falling, the Christian church's ministry in and to cities can and must continue to grow.

When our marriage melted down in 2005, Trisha and I thought that the things that we struggled with, the problems that we had and the issues we faced were unique to us. For the next year and a half, we spent a lot of time identifying our issues, talking about our problems and being honest and transparent about our struggles.

Over the course of the past three years, as we've talked to others, we've realized that the things that we deal with, everyone deals with. The problems we have, everyone has, or they lie about not having.

A few weeks ago, I was having lunch with a friend who was having some problems in his marriage. He began to walk me through their issues, and they weren't unique or different or unsolvable. They were real and they were serious, but not exclusive to their relationship. At one point in our conversation, I said to my friend, "What you need to do is you need to fight for your marriage. You are more willing to fight for your music career than you are committed to fight for your marriage." He said, "It's easier to fight with her, than it is to fight for her."

There is a relationship in your life right now that you need to fight for. Relationships don't just happen, relationships drift. You have to fight for it. What I have noticed about life is that it is so much easier for us to fight for other things, which matter so much less:

-Fight for better sermons

-Fight for a bigger congregation

-Fight for peoples' approval

-Fight for your status

-Fight for the perfect worship service

-Fight for one more meeting

We get so consumed with life; we spend the best hours of our day fighting for things that in the end don't matter. Somewhere along the way, the people that mean the most to us get the least amount of fight from us. We fight with them, but we stop fighting for them.

Your son needs you to fight for him. Your wife needs you to fight for her. Your daughter needs to know you'll fight for her; and she's more important than the church.

If you want a great friendship, you have to fight for it. If you want an intimate marriage, you have to fight for it. If you want to know your son or your daughter and be known by them, you have to fight for it. If you want to have a close relationship with God like you teach others to have, it won't just happen; you'll have to fight for it.

You will never spend too much time establishing relational trust with your neighbors. I was reminded of this last night in a very poignant way. There was a murder about a block from my house. A really terrible "gang torture," so the news has called it today. The neighbors had gathered at my place when I arrived home and we began to talk over the events of the day. My friend and partner in our core group (a white guy like me) decided to go down the street and ask around about what happened. No one would speak to him. My black neighbor, with whom I have a great relationship, simply said, "let me go down there." She came back with a conglomeration of many different stories. People couldn't stop talking to her.

Clearly there are a number of things at work here: race and class being the main issues. But here's what's interesting for the church planter. My neighbor, with whom I've cultivated a relationship over the past few years, was more than willing to tell me everything that she knew. She is black; we do not occupy the same "class." Yet we have a relationship of trust. The simple question is: why don't the people down the street trust me? The simple answer can come a few different ways: lack of proximity, lack of relational experience; but I think it's even simpler. Lack of time spent with them.

This is not to say that the church planter should drop everything else and commit himself to only spending time with as many people as possible. That's not feasible. The point is this; the time you spend with carefully selected people in meaningful interaction will be of more worth than almost anything else you do, especially if you're ministering cross-culturally. I think re-neighboring is the #1 most important aspect of ministering in cross-cultural, broken neighborhoods.  We must not be afraid to include this in our schedules, to list it as one of our "jobs," or to raise money in support of it.  We need time with our people to develop the kind of incarnational churches that can change the world for the glory of Jesus and his Kingdom.

By the way, the clearly middle class white UPS guy showed up during it all and asked me, in front of my kids, but aside so my black neighbors couldn't hear, "So when are you moving?" Class...race...UPS men. Oh my!

Lord help us.

Cada año leo la Biblia [con la ayuda del plan La Biblia en un Año]. Me averguenza tener que decir que no la leo cada día, pero soy bastante consistente. Normalmente suelo atrasarme uno o dos días. El otro día estaba estresado porque no había leído en los últimos tres días. Me senté y simplemente empecé a leer tratando de leer en 30 minutos lo que tenía que haber leido en 3 días. 

En aquél momento sentí como si Dios me hubiera preguntado: Justin, ¿crees que obtener información acerca de mí equivale a la transformación que yo deseo traer a tu vida?

Durante los últimos tres años, he leído la Biblia con el plan Lee la Biblia en un año, ¿pero amo más a quienes me rodean?, ¿tengo una mayor capacidad para perdonar? ¿Soy más paciente, amable y gentil hoy que hace tres años? ¿O simplemente estoy acumulando información como si ésta, por sí sola significase transformación? Sé bastante acerca de Jesús. Sé mucho sobre la Biblia. Sé un montón sobre lo que significa ser cristiano - ¿pero lo que sé me cambia?
Tenemos un mayor acceso a biblias y a sermones, a blogs y a devocionales, a conferencias y a retiros, a libros en formato papel, audio y electrónico, y a páginas web que cualquier otra generación a lo largo de la historia - pero acaso eso nos hace cambiar? ¿Es toda esta información algo que nos esté trasnformando a ti o a mí [personalmente]? 

Los discípulos tuvieron muy poca información [a su alcance]. De acuerdo a nuestros parámetros, no tenían muchas posibilidades de éxito. No tenían un manual de instrucciones ni tampoco un servicio al cliente online. Fueron a una montaña y Jesús empezó a flotar elevándose en dirección al cielo y les dijo: "Id por todo el mundo; enseñándoles que guarden todo lo que os he mandado; bautizad a la gente, discipularles; y yo estaré con vosotros -aunque sólo en Espíritu, pues ahora mismo subo al cielo."

Con tan poca información empezó toda una revolución. Pero esta revolución de la que quiero formar parte, ¿no ha resultado más en un ir adquiriendo información que en el deseo de ser transformado? Si soy honesto he de decir que sí. 

Estas son las cosas que debo recordar de hoy:

No necesito más información para tener un mejor matrimonio - Io que necesito es ser un esposo que ame más a su esposa. 

No necesito más información para dejar de ser una persona resentida - lo que necesito es escoger perdonar una y otra vez a quienes me ofenden. 

No necesito más información para crecer en fe - lo que necesito es ceder el control que se supone que yo tengo sobre mi propia vida. 

No necesito más información para tener amistades más profundas - lo que necesito es ser un mejor amigo para mis amigos. 

No necesito más información para conocer la voluntad de Dios - lo que necesito es aplicar a mi vida lo que ya conozco acerca de Dios. 

Cuando tú y yo cambiamos transformación por simple información, estamos limitándonos a una serie de cambios externos que aunque pueden darnos la sensación de estar acercándonos más a Dios, la verdad es que no están produciendo ningún cambio real en nosotros.

______________

Puedes leer el original (en inglés) aquí

It is so important to be on the lookout for young and old men whom God is raising up among a body of believers. How can you best serve these men to be gracious and humble servants among the people of God? The following are some things that I have learned as the Lord has brought men into my life to equip and serve for his glory.

1. Pray for them
A deep affection is developed as you pray for others. Praying for these young men means that you are spending time with them and are listening to their words of hope, their struggles and fears. What they say informs how you will pray for them. I use the word affection because you have an earnest desire to see the Lord work in their lives and see growth. Which leads to the second point.

2. Tell them about the grace you see in their lives
As surely as we must speak about the sin we may see in someone's life, we must even more so speak about the sanctifying work God is doing in the lives of the men you are discipling. Some wonderful things begin to happen. Those you are discipling begin to discern that you are not only paying attention to yourself but them as well. Your disciple begins to see that it is important for Christians to encourage one another in the Gospel.

3. Consistently remind them they are stewards of God's inheritance
Here is a big one. So many times we use language such as, "my church, my flock, and my people." We forget that the flock of God was purchased with the blood of His Son and so we are not owners but stewards. This presses a great sense of humility and eternal weight concerning the people in our midst. So constantly remind these young men they are faithful stewards over Christ most precious possession, his body.

4. Remind them of the Gospel
No time of discipling is complete without tying it to the Gospel. By reminding your hearers about Christ sufficient work for them on their behalf continues to stir within all of us the great work of God. So as you speak about humility, tie it to the Gospel. As you speak about teaching, or being a father or husband, tie these to the Gospel.

You know who I'm talking about: those hardcore, committed families who moved into the neighborhood with you, contributed to all the great ideas, have given of their time, talents, and treasure, supported all your dumb ideas; that's the group. Don't forget about them. I'm not talking about remembering to copy them in on emails or to remember to follow up on a conversation about a particular outreach. I'm talking about remembering that they are people who need Jesus. Don't forget that they need a shepherd.

I was inspired to write this at our last core group meeting, where the focus was strangely NOT on the community and its need for the gospel; instead it was on how tired people are; it was focused on all of their struggles and challenges with living where we live and trying to be passionate about the church plant in the midst of life's struggles. It was then that I realized that I had forgotten them. I hadn't forgotten about their assets, their commitment, their talents and gifts, their friendship...I had forgotten that they need a shepherd-someone to point them to the Shepherd of our souls.

We can receive this in one of two ways: we can be overwhelmed and respond with, "Man, I've got so much going on between this church plant and (fill in the blank-tentmaking job, family, etc), I just can't get motivated for this." Or we can respond with, "Jesus, I know this is right. Please help me. These people need you." I think the latter is where we want to be. Has your core group lost its "giddyap"? Are you at a really good spot and that group looks strong? Either way: Don't forget them.

I was further inspired to write this when I read Phillip Fletcher's post about letter writing. Go read that for more depth. But this is a challenge to me. How about sitting down and writing a pastoral letter to every member/couple in your core group? Whether you think they need it or not-assume that they need shepherding, encouragement, and maybe admonishment. If we do, then you know they do.

A lo largo de, aproximadamente, veinte años desde 1970 a 1990, las ciudades americanas sufrieron un marcado deterioro. La migración de población afroamericana del sur a las ciudades del norte provocó que muchos blancos salieran de las ciudades y se crearan guetos en el mismo corazón de la ciudad. A finales de los 70 y principios de los 80, hubieron largos periodos de recesión que hicieron disminuir la recaudación de impuestos tributarios y llevaron a algunas ciudades a la bancarrota virtual o incluso real. Mientras tanto, la planificación urbanística de mediados del s. XX privilegió el uso del automovil y la proliferación de grandes centros comerciales, estadios, un montón de garajes sin residentes y la construcción masiva de proyectos de vivienda para los más pobres. Todo esto llevó a que al atardecer, el centro de las ciudades fuera como una ciudad fantasma, y que los vecindarios estuvieran castigados por el crimen. La clase media huyó, llevandose consigo las pocas oportunidades de trabajo, dejando atrás a los pobres aún si cabe más pobres. Las ciudades se polarizaron, por un lado el centro de la ciudad era pobre y, generalmente, no blanco; por otro lado los ricos suburbios alrededor que, generalmente, eran blancos.

Sin embargo, durante los últimos veinte años, desde 1990, las ciudades americanas han experimentado un increible renacimiento. Durante este tiempo el declive de la población en muchas ciudades se ha invertido o por lo menos se ha relentizado. Una gran cantidad de gente empezó a volver a las ciudades y el centro de muchas ciudades empezó a regenerarse desde su misma esencia. ¿Por qué? Primero, durante este tiempo los Estados Unidos experimentaron un crecimiento económico formidable y lo que ahora llamamos una serie de "burbujas" económicas. Todo ello creó una gran cantidad de nueva riqueza y nuevos trabajos. Segundo, el crimen descendió en las ciudades, lo más probable es que fuera debido a las razones de las que tanto los liberales como los conservadores hablaban (creación de trabajo, aplicación de leyes más duras). Tercero, la tendencia cultural pasó a ser lo que ahora llamamos "post-modernismo", es decir una cultura que disfruta del eclecticismo, la mezcla de lo nuevo y lo viejo, la asimetría, [cierta] confusion y descontrol, la diversidad cultural y lo artístico. Todo esto son características más propias de la vida de ciudad que la de los suburbios, que suelen ser más controlados y homogéneos. Cuarto, y tal vez el más importante de todos, los cambios en la ley de inmigración en 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) abrieron la puerta a un gran flujo de gente procedente de naciones no europeas. Entre 1965 y 1970 la inmigración en los Estados Unidos se duplicó y de 1970 a 1990 se volvió a duplicar. La mayoría de esta ola de inmigrantes fue a parar a las ciudades americanas, renovando y diversificando muchos vecindarios. También cambió por completo la vieja y estancada dinámica bi-color de la política urbana que acostumbraba a dividir entre blanco y negro, a una situación multipolar mucho más compleja en la que se encuentran presente muchas más etnias y nacionalidades.

Como resultado de todo ello, muchas ciudades americanas empiezan a resurgir. Vecindarios de una nueva clase professional se desarrollan a la par de la clase obrera o incluso de los más pobres. Aveces el aburguesamiento [de determinados barrios] ha sido más bien destructivo y molesto para el tejido social, mientras que en otras ocasiones ha sido más beneficioso. El principal grupo de residentes en este resurgir incluía párejas maduras de la generación de la posguerra (Boomers) que volvían a la ciudad después de haber criado ya a sus hijos, jóvenes profesionales buscando vivir y trabajar en la ciudad y una ola de inmigrantes en vecindarios dentro de la ciudad y también suburbios que produjeron una generación de graduados universitarios que se trasladan para vivir y trabajar en el centro de la ciudad. Estos grupos se juntaron a las comunidades gays y de artistas que siempre han escogido vivir en comunidades urbanas. 

Nuestra iglesia fue fundada justo al principio de este renacimiento, en 1989. Por aquel tiempo, irse al centro de la ciudad para empezar una iglesia parecía algo sin sentido. El año que nos trasladamos a vivir a la ciudad de Nueva York, se publicó el resultado de una encuesta que indicaba que la mayoría de residentes de Nueva York si pudieran se irían a vivir a otra parte. ¡Eran malos tiempos! Pero, a los pocos años de nuestro inicio empecé a recibir llamadas de Iglesias, denominaciones y líderes que habían empezado a notar el renacimiento en ciudades a su alrededor. Empezaron a darse cuenta que era el momento de empezar a plantar Iglesias que alcanzasen a todas esas nuevas comunidades residenciales. 

Pero veinte años más tarde, hemos llegado al final de una era. Estamos bajo la Gran Recesión, incluso aunque oficialmente haya terminado -¿o tal vez no?- esperamos un prolongado periodo de elevadas tasas de desempleo y crecimiento económico intermitente y lento. El mismo clima económico en los 70 y en los 80 fue devastador par alas ciudades. La cuestión para nosotros ahora es, ¿qué futuro le espera a las ciudades americanas?

__________

Leer original (en inglés) aquí

During roughly twenty years from 1970 to 1990, American cities went into sharp decline. The migration of African-Americans from the south to northern cities resulted in white flight and the creation of inner city ghettoes. In the late '70s and early '80s there were protracted recessions that diminished tax revenues and drove some cities into virtual or actual bankruptcy. Meanwhile, urban planning in the mid-20th century privileged the automobile and big stores and stadiums and lots of parking and no residents and massive housing projects for the poor. All of this led to downtowns that were like ghost-towns after dark, and neighborhoods that were riddled with crime. The middle class fled along with many jobs, leaving the poor neighborhoods even poorer. Cities were polarized into poor non-white centers and affluent white suburbs.

However, for the last twenty years, since 1990, American cities have experienced an amazing renaissance. During this time many cities' population declines have reversed or at least slowed. People began moving back into cities in droves, and downtown/center cities began to regenerate at their cores. Why? First, during this time the U.S. experienced remarkable economic growth and what now is being called a series of economic "bubbles." This created a great deal of new wealth and new jobs. Second, crime went down in cities, probably for reasons both liberals and conservatives talked about (job creation, tougher law enforcement). Third, the cultural mood became what we now call "post-modern," that is a culture which enjoys eclecticism, a mixture of the old and new, asymmetry, messiness and unmanageability, cultural diversity, and the artistic. All of these are features of city-life rather than the suburbs, which are much more controlled and homogeneous. Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, changes in immigration law in 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) opened the door to an influx from non-European nations. Between 1965 and 1970 U.S. immigration doubled and then from 1970 to 1990 it doubled again. Most of this wave of immigrants went into America's cities, renewing and diversifying many neighborhoods. It also completely changed the older, gridlocked, binary black-white dynamic of urban politics to a far more complex, multi-polar situation of many ethnicities and nationalities.

As a result many American cities began to surge. New professional-class neighborhoods developed along with working class and poor ones. Sometimes the gentrification was more destructive and disruptive to the social fabric, while other times it was more healthy. The main new residents in this upsurge included empty-nest Boomers returning to cities, young professionals seeking cities to live and work in, and a wave of immigrants in inner city neighborhoods and inner suburbs that produced second-generation college graduates who moved in to the center city to live and work. These groups joined the communities of homosexuals and artists who have always chosen urban communities to live in.

Our church was founded at the very beginning of this renaissance, in 1989. At that time, moving into the center city to begin a church seemed to be a fool's errand. The year we moved to New York City, a survey came out indicating that most of the residents of NYC would move away if they could. Those were bad times! Yet, within a few years of our founding, I began to get calls from churches, denominations, and leaders who had begun to notice the renaissance in nearby cities. They realized that it was time to plant churches to reach all of these new residential communities.

But twenty years later, we have reached the end of an era. The Great Recession is upon us, and even if it has officially ended - or has it? - we expect a protracted time of high unemployment and fitful, sluggish economic growth. This same kind of economic environment in the 70s and 80s was destructive for cities. The question for us now is, what lies ahead for American cities?

So we've "endured" 16 Sundays... Our locations have been a posh (at least to my standards) hotel ballroom in Fort Lee, a beautifully renovated warehouse-to-worship center (thank you Grace Redeemer Church in Teaneck), and now finally our new home for the last four weeks, Fort Lee High School.

Projectors have malfunctioned; rain/windstorms have induced blackouts; computers have crashed; worship leaders have gotten sick (but they haven't puked on 'stage' yet); a dog has visited; preachers (mostly me) have told the congregants that they're not needed by the Church (and especially by God).  And yet our small, growing community of faith that desires to celebrate the transforming work of the Gospel of Jesus in our lives, as it takes its licking, just keeps on ticking.  All this only possible because of His steadfast love for us - therefore we will continue to hope in Him (Lamentations 3).

This past Sunday I preached a tough sermon on Ephesians 5:1-14 entitled, "Adoration in Actions & Associations."  I say tough for a couple of reasons:  1) my parents attend Maranatha and who the heck likes to talk about anything related to sex & sexuality when your parents are within earshot?! 2) ours is a hyper-sensual/sexual and hyper-consumeristic society.  And when you put those two 'hypers' together, you get a commodification of absolutely everything imaginable via the vehicle of sex.  Sex sells... it always has and always will.  But in the past, sex sold itself by offering self-gratification and pleasure at whatever rate the prostitute or pimp charged.  Nowadays, sex is utilized to sell everything from automobiles to Zippo lighters.

And while fully realizing that propriety may vary slightly from one society & culture to another, the overall hyper-sensuality/sexuality of society has created an environment that some refer to as ambient pornography--it's just all around and in the 'air' we breathe.  Sadly, our children are not being protected from the fallout and their lives are being emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, AND even physically affected.  When the onset of puberty for young girls is beginning earlier and earlier as they suffer the influences of the insanely risqué fashion fads that have invaded their television programs and pressured them to live up to the sexual fantasies of 'adultescent' male, 'kid-dults' who can't keep their eyes and hands off.

It is so sad to see the young affected in such harmful ways.  When the children of our generation in our society lose their modesty, their ability to blush, and most importantly their purity, it is a sad & tragic testimony.

We have been duped by the selfish, self-gratifying, self-indulgent, hyper-sensual ideals of hyper-consumerism and entitlement.  Our understanding of sexuality and application of it has been grossly distorted.  How so?  Well, turn on ESPN at 9pm and just watch commercial after commercial after commercial of Viagra and Cialis and hookup websites that promote the ideas that you are entitled to mind-blowing & mind-numbing, scintillating sex when and where and with whomever you want it.  We've come to harbor such unreasonable and ungodly expectations that deceive us and steal away our joy in our wives and husbands and lives.  Have you checked your spam folder lately?  Have you noticed who might be following you on Twitter?

So while 21st century America isn't much different at all from the pagan society of 1st century Ephesus in terms of the sexual immorality at the heart level, the dangers of our day & age arise in the immediate accessibility, availability, and anonymity of indulgence.  I can rip out my HTC Hero--and in a manner of seconds, I can access any porn-site in the galaxy.  That is frightening.

But it's certainly not contained to our own, U.S. of A.  The online pornography industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that reaches even into the darkest areas of the world.  The other, 'Christian' Korea, one of the most wired societies in the world, has skyrocketing rates of porn addiction--it is epidemic in proportions.  Sexual immorality has been the culprit for the disintegration of families in this tiny, peninsula nation that has become hyper-westernized at a rate much too hard to handle.  The divorce rate has been surging for some time now and now ranks among the world's highest.  The birthrate, on the other hand, has plummeted to the ranks of the worst in the world.  What's the story?  Well, there are a few factors to consider but to put it in a nutshell, whenever a nation experiences rapid global, economic growth there comes with it influences that seem to erode the moral foundations and fabric of said nation.  Not to say that South Korea was getting it all right before its economic rise to power, but the proof is in the pudding.  Korean women are pushing off marriage because Korean businessmen have been cheating on them for decades now--always known, just ignored.  But how does this result in women marrying later in life?  Well, Korean women are simply taking the measures to fend for themselves by establishing careers so that when their husbands cheat on them, they can seek divorces since they now can support themselves.  Hence, women marrying later in life limits the child-bearing years.  Moreover, in a society that has erected the idol of achievement & success in education into an artform, children are too expensive to be had.  A sad commentary on such a 'Christian' nation?

But let's get this straight, God is not anti-sex; the bible is not anti-sex.  Sex is what it is because God created it.  The Christian God is a God who loves more intimately then we can ever fathom.  And since we are made in His image, He has given us this gift of sexual intimacy to of course, procreate (but that isn't even such a given nowadays), but to also enjoy and treasure and guard.  So yes, the bible is extremely pro-sex - but within the confines of a covenant marriage relationship.  God desires for us to live in complete freedom from the temptation and deception of sexual immorality.  Society may disparage the Christian understanding of sexuality as repressive and archaic--too prude and obsolete to accomplish any good.  But many who have lived through the sexual revolution of the 60s & 70s will testify that a full-blown, no holds-barred approach to engaging in free, promiscuous sex will never satisfy.  Here are some choice quotes from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:

"Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues.  There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'  Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.  One or the other.  Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong" (p.90).

"Once critic said that if he found a country in which such strip-tease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving.  He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country.  If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one.  In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown.  But surely there is no evidence.  Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times.  Nor is the hypothesis of 'starvation' the only one we can imagine.  Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence.  Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations" (p.91).

"They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up.  But for the last twenty years it has not been hushed up.  It has been chattered about all day long.  Yet it is still in a mess.  If hushing it up had been the cause of the trouble, ventilation would have set it right.  But it has not.  I think it is the other way round.  I think the human race originally hushed it up because it had become such a mess" (p.92).

So right after I stepped away from the pulpit this past Sunday, as usual, my mind was immediately flooded with better ways I could've expounded the text and better points of application I didn't proffer and better illustrations to illustrate - God's way of keeping me humble!  Too bad preachers don't have DVR abilities...

So much more to be said... but in a nutshell, we are to put off sin & put on Christ, we are to put to death (mortification) & God brings to life (vivification) by the power of the Holy Spirit in the midst of a community united by the love & the power of the Gospel.

Back in March, my precious wife organized a surprise 39th for me and some folks from Maranatha blessed me with a collection of funds for a new MacBook.  Well, I decided to go PC simply for economic reasons... but I might reconsider.  Why?  Whoever thought that choosing between a PC and a Mac might have implications on sexual morality?!  This article by Dr. Mohler is a must read!

This is good and glorious and good for my jaunts into NYC.

We served the community the other week with bottled water and our hopes are to serve the greater Fort Lee area with Living Water...

En mis lecturas durante el mes pasado, he descubierto que Immanuel Kant argumentó la validez de una ética Cristiana sobre la sexualidad sin apelar a la Biblia ni a la teología. En "Deberes [morales] hacia el cuerpo en relación al impulso sexual" (Kant, Lecciones de Ética) Kant argumentó que el sexo fuera del matrimonio deshonra la dignidad humana. Su razonamiento era que cuando le pides a alguien tener relaciones sexuales sin darte por entero a esa otra persona en matrimonio ("personalmente, en cuerpo y alma, para lo bueno y para lo malo en todos los sentidos"), lo que haces es convertir a la otra persona en un objeto sexual, un simple medio para un fin egoísta, en lugar de un fin en sí mismo o en sí misma. El famoso "imperativo categórico" de Kant era que el ser humano nunca debe ser tratado como un medio, sino sólo como un fin. Sólo a partir de esta premisa, algo que mucha gente moderna intuye de por sí, Kant argumentaba que uno nunca debe tener sexo fuera del matrimonio. 

Comparé todo esto con lo escrito por Wendell Berry (en Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community y otros volúmenes), quien también elabora todo un razonamiento de ética sexual cristiana sin apelar a fuentes o argumentos abiertamente religiosos. Berry dice que el sexo fuera del matrimonio es sexo para la autogratificación del individuo, sin miras a contribuir o edificar la comunidad. Esto, argumenta Berry, es una aproximación que percibe el cuerpo humano como un [simple] producto de Mercado, desde una perspectiva individualista y consumista. Pero en lugar de ser así, insiste Berry, el sexo solo debería ser usado dentro del matrimonio porque es en ese contexto que se convierte en una disciplina que nutre y [ayuda] a establecer la comunidad, creando esa profunda estabilidad entre los padres que es tan necesaria para el crecimiento sano de los hijos. 

Lo que estos dos hombres tienen en común es que ambos empiezan con premisas que la mayoría de lectores (modernos y seculares), también comparten; pero lo que estos autores hacen es usar esas mismas premisas para elaborar una ética cristiana sobre la sexualidad, que es algo que la mayoría de la gente secular ya ha abandonado por completo. Todo esto lo hacen sin apelar a la Biblia o a otras fuentes de autoridad religiosa

¿Significa todo esto que es posible demostrar que la moral cristiana es verdad sin apelar a la Biblia? No lo creo. Aunque Kant creía que la razón es todo lo que necesitas para descubrir la verdad ética, su elevada percepción de la dignidad humana era en último término una creencia. No se trataba de una inevitable conclusión lógica o [el fin al que llegas tras una exhaustiva] investigación empírica. [Por otra parte], la apelación que hace Berry a lo importante que es la comunidad por encima de la libertad del individuo es, al fin y al cabo, también una visión del progreso de la humanidad que no puede ser probada racionalmente. Los argumentos de Kant y de Berry no pueden demostrar la ética cristiana sobre la sexualidad a alguien que no acepte sus premisas-creencias básicas. Pero cuando se comparten esas creencias básicas, entonces los argumentos que tanto uno como el otro nos presentan son bastante poderosos. 

Hay varias cosas que aprendo de Kant y de Berry. Primero, se puede argumentar en público a favor de algunos aspectos del progreso humano desde una perspectiva cristiana, sin tener que apelar directamente a textos bíblicos o a Dios. Por ejemplo, si soy un cristiano que me dedico a la política y estoy hablando a un grupo de gente que se sentirán identificados con la visión de Kant sobre la dignidad humana, o la visión de Berry sobre la comunidad, entonces es posible crear argumentos convincentes que promuevan practicas que tienen su raíz en la verdad [que afirma] el cristianismo. ¿Por qué? Porque aún la gente que no se declara abiertamente religiosa, todavía se aferra a creencias que son verdad [en términos bíblicos] acerca de la dignidad humana o sobre valores de la comunidad que, espiritualmente, están "allí" en el alma, porque han sido creados a imagen de Dios. Sin embargo, no deberíamos vivir bajo la ilusión de que podemos "demostrar" la verdad del cristianismo a un mundo secular. La naturaleza convincente de nuestro argumento se basa en descubrir las creencias fundamentales que un no-creyente todavía tiene y que coinciden con la verdad bíblica. Sólo en la medida que estas creencias todavía tengan alguna validez para [el no-creyente], entonces podremos construir el diálogo. 

Segundo, encuentro que al predicar puede ser de gran ayuda formular de forma breve el tipo de argumentos que nos presentan Kant, Berry y otros. ¿Por qué? El último fundamento de todo lo que creemos como cristianos es la autoridad de la Palabra de Dios, pero a menudo la gente a la que le predicamos no están convencidos de lo fiable que es la Biblia. Por ejemplo: En primer lugar presentolo que la Biblia dice acerca de la sexualidad. Luego, puedo elaborar brevemente un argumento kantiano (algo que C.S. Lewis también hace en Mero Cristianismo) sobre cómo el sexo fuera del matrimonio deshumaniza, o un argumento de Berry sobre cómo daña a la comunidad. Entonces puedo añadir, "Estos son solo algunos de los terrible resultados que ocurren cuando violamos el diseño que Dios para la sexualidad. Sin duda, hay muchos más." Este planteamiento honra tanto a la Biblia como autoridad última para nuestras vidas, como también atrae [la atención] de oyentes que, aún cuando no están seguros de la inspiración de la Biblia, comparten las premisas [básicas] de Kant, Berry, o de cualquier otro autor que queramos usar.

Creo que en nuestra sociedad contemporánea, lo que los cristianos creemos acerca del sexo y género será uno de los grandes puntos de conflicto con nuestra cultura. Tendremos que apropiarnos de alguno de los grandes temas o discursos que todavía sirven como referencia propia de la cultura (la importancia de la dignidad humana y la comunidad), todo ello con tal de que lo que creemos pueda ser escuchado.

_______________

Puedes leer el artículo orginal (en inglés) aquí

Yesterday I spent most of day in the Brickell area. I led a Bible study, met with a core group member, met with my staff, a local community group leader and a music industry executive. In between the meetings I shook hands with city counsel members, introduced myself to a few local professionals and checked on the local real estate.

When we set out to start the Brickell site a month and a half ago, I confess that the attitude was one of launching a campus that looked and moved exactly like our main Pinecrest location. A few weeks into the gig my wife and I looked at each other while driving our way up for the Sunday night gathering and, in an unspoken way agreed that we have seen this movie before. The movie title is "church planting strikes back." If counted as a plant, this will be our fourth experience. Which means that by now we should have learned that church planting in order to be effective needs to be (3 things).

1. Missional. It has to operate out of need. You and your people have to know this and constantly be reminded that a church in that location is crucial for that area's gospel transformation. You and your team have to be reminded of this during the hardships that a church will always face. Without it (this sense of need to be missional) discouragement can easily creep in and destroy the vision. You and your people have to have a larger sense of purpose for being there other than just to grow your "enterprise." So, mission comes first.

2. Incarnational. One of the "duh" moments for me lately has been the "- of course they are a different crowd!" A few weeks in I've noticed that the people that live in Brickell operate differently than our South Miami/ Pinecrest/ Kendall crowd and because this is true, they respond differently. I have been reminded that there's always a need to adjust to the group you're trying to reach. This is called contextualization, and contextualization always follows mission.

3. Personal/ Relational. Call it one these two. Yesterday I was reminded that my team and I have to spend more time in Brickell with the people of Brickell. It's only through face to face time that you're able to contextualize the ministry to the people you're trying to reach. Through introductions and conversations you will see, taste and hear the sounds of their spiritual groanings and moanings. First, it's necessary to assess in order for you to address.

None of what I'm reminding you of in this post comes out of leadership books or church planting manuals alone. Look at the meta-narrative of Scripture and you will see God moving to our rescue in this exact fashion. In it, we see that the need of redemption propelled Jesus to identify with us sinners and to accommodate the language of salvation in a way that sinners would understand and respond.

In my reading this past month, I discovered that Immanuel Kant made a case for a Christian sexual ethic but without using any appeal to the Bible or theology. In "Duties Toward the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse" (Kant, Lectures in Ethics) he argued that sex outside of marriage dishonors human dignity. He reasoned that when you ask for sex without giving your whole self to the other person in marriage ("person, body and soul, for good and ill and in every respect"), you turn the sex partner into an object, a mere means to a selfish end, instead of an end in him (or her) self. Kant's famous "categorical imperative" was that human beings should never be treated as means, but only as ends. Using only this belief, which is intuitive for many modern people, he argued that you should never have sex outside of marriage.

I compared this with Wendell Berry (in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community and other volumes) who also makes a case for the Christian sex ethic without appealing to overtly religious arguments or sources. Berry says that sex outside of marriage is sex for its own individual fulfillment rather than for building community. That, he argues, is a market-shaped, individualistic, consumerist approach to the human body. Instead, he insists, sex should be only used inside of marriage because there it becomes a nurturing discipline that establishes community, creating the deep stability between parents necessary for children to flourish.

What the two men have in common is that they both start with premises that most modern, secular readers share, but then they use those commonly held beliefs to drive them toward a Christian sex ethic, which has been largely abandoned by most secular people. They do this without appealing to the Bible or to other sources of religious authority.

Does this mean that it is possible to prove Christian morality is true without appealing to the Bible itself? No, I don't think so. Though Kant believed that reason was all you needed to discover ethical truth, his high view of human dignity still was ultimately a belief. It was not the inescapable conclusion of logic or empirical investigation. And Berry's appeal to the importance of community over individual freedom is also, in the end, a vision of human flourishing that can't be proved rationally. Berry's and Kant's arguments can't prove the Christian sex ethic to someone who doesn't accept their basic premise-beliefs. But if you share those beliefs, then their case is quite powerful.

Here's what I learn from Kant and Berry. First, there are ways to argue in public discourse for various features of the Christian account of human flourishing without directly appealing to Biblical texts or to God. For example, if I am a Christian in politics, and I am speaking to a body of people who I know will resonate to Kantian views of human dignity or Berryan views of community, then it is possible to make a compelling argument for practices that are rooted in Christian truth. Why? Because people without an overt religious profession still hold many true beliefs about human dignity or community that are spiritually "there" in their souls because they are created in the image of God. We should not be under the illusion that we can "prove" Christianity to secular people however. The compelling nature of our argument relies on discovering the underlying beliefs that a non-believer has that match up with Biblical truth. Only if they grant these beliefs can we make our case.

Second, I find it is often helpful even when preaching to briefly recapitulate arguments such as these from Kant, Berry, and others. Why? The ultimate foundation for what we believe as Christians is the authority of God's Word, but often the people we preach to are not convinced of the Bible's complete trustworthiness. Here is an example. I may first present what the Bible says about sexuality. Then I may briefly make a Kantian argument (which C.S. Lewis also makes in Mere Christianity) about how sex outside of marriage de-humanizes or a Berryan one about how it harms community. Then I can add, "These are only some of the terrible results that come from violating God's design for sexuality. There are certainly many others." This approach both honors the Bible as the final authority for our lives and draws in listeners who, while not yet sure about the Bible's inspiration, share the premises of Kant, Berry, or whomever else you use.

I think that in our contemporary society, Christians' beliefs about sex and gender will be one of the biggest points of conflict with our culture. We will need to co-opt some of our culture's own baseline narratives (the importance of human dignity and community) in order to gain any hearing at all for our beliefs.

There could be an unfortunate pun in our "Reformed".  You can work to remove some destructive build up only to have it "reform" so that it has to be removed again. One of the best solvents for removing the buildup of self-righteousness that reforms on Reformed churches is Tim's application of the doctrine of grace to evangelism, especially urban.  We of all Christians should listen to our own theology as it removes any thought that we are who we are because of some merit or goodness that God saw in us.  It is inherent to our presentation of the Good News that grace flows to whom it wills quite apart from our deserts.  Who more than we should EXPECT to see among our lost neighbors many with better characters: more honest, more loyal, more loving...?  I love Tim's pointing out that Peter learned as much from Cornelius as the other way around - and more recently in "Gospel in Life" - that we need the city more than the city needs us!

The New Testament is characterized by men who wrote letters. Besides speaking, it was the email, text message or tweet of the 1st century. Men like Paul, John and James wrote letters to fellow believers to exhort them, provide correction and encouragement. Their letters were saturated with language of grace, love, power and ultimately directing their readers to Christ.

In our age of texting, email and Facebook, there is something about receiving a letter from someone. I have found this to be very helpful as I serve in Oakwood. The majority of the people the Lord has brought into my life don't have Internet. So email, Facebook and Twitter are pretty much useless. The majority communicates through a Cricket phone but once the minutes are gone, they are gone. The lack of technology forces intimacy.

So I started writing what I call "Letters of Hope." It is not only pastorally helpful to those who receive the letter but also to your own soul. These letters are directly to an individual and I seek to address with Scripture and the Gospel what is going on in their lives. It is personal and touches that deep nerve of "I matter to someone." It is helpful to your own soul because it will cause you to dwell on Scripture and consider another persons needs.

It is an old way to build relationships around the Gospel. Is this strictly for someone who shepherds? No. I would hope you would take the time to sit and minister to whoever the Lord lays on your heart.

So take time and write a letter.

Each year I go through a One Year Bible. I'm ashamed to say that I don't read every single day, but I'm fairly consistent. I usually only fall a day or two behind. I was stressed the other day because I hadn't read in like 3 days. I sat down and just started reading trying to cram three days reading into a 30-minute setting.

In that moment I felt like God was asking me this question: Justin, do you equate information about Me for the transformation that I long to bring to your life?

I've read the one-year Bible three years in a row now, but do I love others more? Am I more forgiving? Do I have more patience, kindness and gentleness in my life now than I did three years ago? Or, am I just accumulating information and equating it with transformation? I know a bunch about Jesus. I know a ton about the Bible. I know a ton about being a Christian - but does what I know change me?

We have more access to Bibles and sermons and blogs and devotions and conferences and retreats and books and audio books and electronic books and web sites than any generation in human history - but is it changing us? Is all the information transforming me - transforming you?

The disciples had very little information. They were pretty much set up for failure by our standards. There was no handbook; there was no instruction manual, no online customer service. They go to a mountain, and Jesus starts floating up in the sky and He says: "go to the entire world; teach everything I've taught you; baptize people; disciple people; and I'm with you - in Spirit only cause I'm going to heaven."

With such little information a revolution was born. But has the revolution I long to be a part of sought to be informed more than its desired to be transformed? If I'm honest I say yes.

Here is what I am reminded of today:

I don't need more information to have a better marriage - I need to be a more loving husband.

I don't need more information to let go of resentment - I need to choose to forgive, then choose to forgive again, and again.

I don't need more information to grow in my faith - I need to surrender control.

I don't need more information to have deeper friendships - I need to be a better friend.

I don't need more information to know God's will - I need to apply what I know about God to my life.

When you and I trade transformation for just more information we are reduced to external changes in our lives that might make us appear closer to God, but really leave us unchanged.

Recently I read in an article which had a section called: "The Quest for the Christ of Faith." In response to the following quote I've articulated some thoughts, which, after hearing sermons pertaining to The Reason for God and reading the book, have been slow in forthcoming in my brain. Critical thinking that makes you consider your assumptions is not an everyday practice for many of us, that is me, but it is helpful and needed.

"The consistent voice of these theologians is that no ultimate and unique self-revelation of God was given to humans and the gospel is one of many salvific encounters with God. Regardless of the Christian claim that God revealed himself only through Jesus Christ, they argue that other religions have worshipped God and possess the name of God in their own way. Therefore Jesus Christ is only one of the many ways that God revealed himself and, in other religions, God made his self-religion in other ways. (Images, p. 177)"

The problem with saying that the world religions offer many vantage points from which we see God is that the world religions contradict each other. Are these theologians being good listeners? Perhaps theologians, like Aloysius Pieris, (whose writing I'm still trying to understand) would say that language is the problem, or that we talk about God differently, and we need to work through linguistic idioms to get to the core, which he seems confident that we will find to be the same. For example about Buddhism and Christianity he says: "Each is salvific in that each is a self-transcending experience that radically transforms the human experience." Yet, Pieris is defining salvation as an "experience that radically transforms the human experience." This is a very different definition of salvation than either Christianity or Buddhism. Would a Buddhist speak in terms of salvation? Thus, in an attempt to deny no one, he denies all. Pieris says, "Christianity alone can't define salvation, nor can Buddhism. They must forget their differences and subscribe to my definition of salvation." He is claiming that he has the true insight into religion and that, those who disagree with him are wrong. Behind Pieris heart is a desire for unity and peace. Others in the name of truth have used differences as an excuse for violence. This is not right, but theologians like Pieris, Hick, et al. are not resolving the problem. They are creating new religions, redefining religions. It's important to realize that they are making truth based claims about reality just like Christians and Buddhists.

One problem is that all religions are trying to say something about reality. Therefore they sound similar. One person may try to find how they all fit together. But he is assuming they all fit together. This is a faith assumption about the nature of reality. Another person may think all religions are false, but he is making a faith assumption about reality that he can?t prove. Therefore, he has a religious view as well. Another person may say I?m not sure which religious view is true. This is fair. He admits that we have religious world views, but that he is not sure which one is right. Then another person considers that it may be that no one?s religious view is right: ?We are all humans, we are imperfect, therefore, I?m skeptical that anyone has a right world view.? He may be on to something, but the skeptic though his feelings are based on evidence is still making assumptions he cannot prove about reality. The relationship between trust in one?s self and others is interesting. How can a skeptic, doubtful of people?s ability to discern reality trust his own discernments? Another person may say, ?Well, world views, thought, and sight are just developments of evolution, and based on our need to survive, or perhaps they were an accidental development.? Yet his view is also faith based. Moreover, according to his view, he believes his is untrustworthy. Why should he trust his view then? So we all have faith based assumptions about the reality. 

So look around at those claiming to testify on behalf of the truth. Who do you trust? What faith based assumptions do you make about reality?

These are my thoughts. I'm trying to sort them out and get a grasp on how to understand and compare people's world views-- maybe to grasp some philosophical  issues in the way we make truth claims.

Hace unos cuantos años, prediqué una serie a través del libro de Proverbios, y aprendí un par de cosas al respecto. Primero, los Proverbios nos desvelan su significado en un sentido acumulativo. Es decir, ningún proverbio [aislado] te proporciona una perspectiva completa. Si un proverbio dice, "a quienes son moralmente correctos la vida siempre les va bien" y más adelante otro proverbio dice, "a veces quienes son moralmente correctos sufren", pensamos que es una contradicción.  Esto es porque pensamos en cada proverbio como si se tratara de una promesa en sí mismo. Pero no lo son. Todos los proverbios acerca de un mismo tema deben ser leídos en conjunto, cada uno modificando a los demás del mismo modo que lo hacen entre sí los paralelismos. Uno te da información sobre un aspecto; después el siguiente da respuesta a las cuestiones que el primero haya podido plantear, o condiciona y acentúa una anterior declaración de tipo más genérica.   

Los capítulos 10-15  nos dicen que el trabajador tiene suficiente para comer y que el vago será pobre. Pero al inicio del capítulo 16, aparecen las excepciones a cómo funciona normalmente la vida. Hay un orden que Dios ha puesto en las cosas que debemos cumplir pero, por otro lado, no podemos verlo todo y por lo tanto debemos esperar que hayan excepciones. Un ejemplo de cómo obtenemos el significado de los proverbios en la medida que los vamos acumulando es el famoso proverbio 16:25  -- Hay camino que al hombre le parece derecho, pero su fin conduce a muerte. Nunca he escuchado que se cite este texto, a menos que lo que el predicador quiera decirle a sus oyentes sea "no te fíes de tus emociones." Pero antes [de esta declaración el mismo libro de] Proverbios dice repetidamente -- "El camino del necio es derecho en su opinión." Es decir, los necios son un desastre a la hora de hacer planes porque rechazan lo que es sabio (no buscan consejo,  no son humildes, no vigilan sus palabras o controlan sus emociones, etc). Pero entonces leemos que 16:25 nos dice -- "Pero el camino que lleva a la destrucción no sólo le puede parecer derecho al necio, sino que a veces también a cualquier hombre." Incluso aunque trates de seguir a pies juntillas el camino de la sabiduría y hagas lo mejor que puedas tus planes -- aún así a veces tu vida se desmonta! Este es un mundo roto. El sabio sabe que algunas veces [no importa el camino que cojas] las cosas pueden ir igual de mal.

Así [en lo que se refiere a los Proverbios], no podemos tocar fondo. Sólo vale la pena estudiarlos cuando tienes en mente todo el libro y comparas entre sí los pasajes. ¿Cuál es la mejor manera de hacerlo? ¡En comunidad!  Algunos comentaristas son de la opinión que el libro de Proverbios fue originalmente escrito como un manual para ser estudiado por una comunidad de hombres jóvenes que tenían como mentores a un grupo de hombres mayores -- a lo largo de unos cuantos años. Cada proverbio tenía que ser  discutido, considerado y comparado con los otros. Se compartían ejemplos de la vida [misma]. En otras palabras, es posible que Proverbios fuera escrito para ser la base de un profundo y comprehensivo proceso de crecimiento personal a través de una comunidad de mentores. Tocaba todas y cada una de las áreas de la vida.

Vale la pena también destacar que en Proverbios la sabiduría constantemente hace oír su voz en los espacios públicos de la ciudad -- el Mercado o el lugar de los negocios (donde convergen las rutas), las cortes de justicia (las puertas), etc. (Prov 1:20-21, 9:1-4). Durante años algo que me ha sorprendido es lo diferente que es discipular a la gente para que vivan con un llamado de fidelidad en sus vocaciones [o puestos de trabajo], que hacerlo en otros contextos de discipulado. Cuando trato de discipular a alguien para que trabaje en la iglesia, esto ocurre en una sola dirección o sentido (yo soy el experto en Biblia y el ministro) y [todo ocurre en base a una cierta información] (yo transfiero mi conocimiento). Pero, ¿cómo discipular a un cristiano que es actor para que piense [de una forma correcta] qué tipo de papeles puede o no aceptar? ¿O cómo discipular a un cristiano [que trabaja en el mundo de las finanzas] para que sepa cómo invertir [de una forma correcta y aún así] sacar beneficios? La Biblia no nos da tanto una serie de normas fijas, sino más bien proverbios que guían nuestras motivaciones, el fin [que buscamos] y nuestros valores, para que los apliquemos con sabiduría a las situaciones [que vivimos a diario] en el mundo. Y esa sabiduría tiene lugar más en el contexto de la reflexión de  la Escritura (especialmente de textos como Proverbios) en comunidad.

¿Cuál es la mejor manera de integrar nuestra fe y nuestro trabajo? Creo que necesitamos de más gente experimentada en determinadas áreas que sean capaces de encontrarse con gente más joven implicada también en esas mismas áreas y juntos trabajen en comunidad un libro como Proverbios, siempre aplicando el conocimiento adquirido al trabajo que realizan en el mundo.  

Leer original (en inglés) aquí

Some years ago I preached through the book of Proverbs, and I learned two things I hadn't known about it. First, the Proverbs only give up their meaning cumulatively. No one proverb gives you the whole picture. If one proverb says, "the morally good always have a good life" and a later proverb says, "sometimes the morally good suffer" we think it's a contradiction. That's because we think of each proverb as an individual stand-alone promise. But they are not. All the proverbs on a given subject are meant to be taken together, each one modifying the others like the parallel clauses do. One gives you information about a topic; then subsequent ones come along and answer questions raised by the first one, or they condition and nuance a more blanket statement made earlier.

Chapters 10-15 tell us that the hard-working have enough to eat and the lazy will be poor. But starting in chapter 16, the exceptions to the customary-way-life-works come along. There is an order God has put into things that we must abide by, but, on the other hand, we can't see it all and so must expect exceptions. An example of how the Proverbs only give up their meaning cumulatively is the famous Prov 16:25 -- There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way leads only unto death. I've never heard this invoked except when the speaker wants to say to the listeners "don't trust your feelings." But earlier Proverbs repeatedly said -- "The way to destruction appears right to the fool." That is, fools are terrible at making plans because they reject the way of wisdom (not getting counselors, not being humble, not watching your words or controlling your emotions, etc). But 16:25 comes along and says -- "But the way of destruction can appear right not just to a fool, but sometimes to anyone (to 'a man'.) Even if you follow the way of wisdom to the "T" and make your plans as well as can be -- sometimes your life can still blow up! This is a broken world. The wise know that sometimes all paths may run ill.

So Proverbs cannot be "dipped into". It only repays very long study in which you keep the whole book in your head and compare passage with passage. How is that best done? In a community! Some commentators argue that the book of Proverbs was originally written as a manual to be studied by a community of young men under the mentorship of older men -- for a number of years. Each proverb was to be discussed and considered and compared to the others. Examples from life were to be shared. In other words, Proverbs may have been written to be the basis for deep, comprehensive personal growth through mentoring in community. It touches on every area of life.

It is also noteworthy that in Proverbs wisdom constantly raises her voice in the city's public places -- the commerce/market (where the roads converge), the court/justice system (the gate), etc. (Prov 1:20-21; 9:1-4.) For years I have been struck by the fact that discipling people for faithful living in their vocation is different than other kinds of discipleship. When I try to disciple someone to do work in the church, it is more one-way (I am the expert in Bible and ministry) and information-driven (I download my knowledge.) But how do you disciple a Christian actor to think out what roles to take, or a Christian financier to think out how to invest and how to treat profits? The Bible does not give us so much hard and fast rules as 'proverbs' -- motives, goals, and values that have to be applied with wisdom to situations in the world. And that wisdom happens more through communal reflection on Scripture, especially a text like Proverbs.

How can we best integrate our faith with our work? I think we need more experienced people in a field meeting with younger persons in that field and working through a book like Proverbs in community, always applying its insights to the work they are doing in the world.

Most of us, if we're part of a church, are focused on the growth of that church. I've become increasingly convinced that we need to continue focusing on our individual churches, while also developing a concern for something much bigger. We need to develop a vision for a gospel movement within our area, and ultimately in our country as a whole

Let me give an example. I pastor in Toronto, and I have my hands full just trying to stay ahead of the challenges in my own church. But no matter how well my particular church does, it will never be able to have the kind of impact that's needed on the entire city. Toronto doesn't need one or even a dozen churches to do well. It needs all kinds of churches from all kinds of movements to revitalize existing churches and to start new ones. This means we need to be working together a lot more than we would if we're focused only on our own churches or our own movements

We all need to learn from others. We're used to learning from big and successful churches in other countries. It's much more effective to learn from good churches in our own contexts. That means that I can probably learn more about effective ministry in my city from other churches in my city, and places like it. The resources I need may not be found within my own movement, but within churches that belong to other movements.

We don't just need more and better churches. We need gospel movements in key areas of our countries. There are some steps we can take to get there.

We can all begin by praying for our own areas. Rather than praying for our own churches only, or even our own denominations, we really need to begin praying for the gospel to advance in our city or town. For instance, I'm hearing of groups in my city meeting to pray for the city as a whole, and all of the churches in it. This is very encouraging.

We can also begin to build networks outside of our own denominations. I've become friends with some key pastors in other denominations. Two are in new churches. Two are in churches that have relaunched. Two of us are from established churches. We have lots of minor differences, but are united by a common theological core and a concern for our city. We're beginning to look for ways to work together.

This group has helped me in ways I hadn't anticipated. We feed off each other's energy and vision for our area. This is good, but even this isn't enough.

As we began to look for ways to work together, we became aware of Tim Keller's teaching on gospel ecosystems. Keller envisions movements within cities that go beyond one leader or one denomination, in which the percentage of Christians is in the city is growing in relation to the growth of the population. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship teaches that when the Christians in a prison reach 10% of the population, the entire prison changes. The same is true, Keller says, in neighborhoods and in cities.

How do these movements get started? At the core, they begin with an effective, contextualized way of communicating the gospel to residents - particularly city-center residents in major cities. Around that core, Keller says, cities need a number of church planting movements from within various traditions. Finally, cities need a number of supporting systems and networks, such as specialty evangelistic and mercy and justice ministries. When these are in place, movements will hit a tipping point.

I was a little overwhelmed hearing what has to happen, but I think Keller's right. We definitely need to be thinking of kingdom growth rather than just church growth. We don't just need movements of people between churches; we need the percentage of Christians to grow in relation to the population. This will take our best thinking and efforts, and lots of learning on the way. We can all start by praying and networking and go from there. Let's start thinking about more than the growth of our individual churches. Let's pray, and work toward, a whole lot more.

When my wife Trisha and I first got married and entered ministry in 1995, I prided myself on being a person that was accountable. I was accountable in my choices: I wouldn't counsel with a woman behind a closed office door; I wouldn't give a teenage girl a ride home from church without another person in the car. I wouldn't do lunch with a female without my wife or another male at the lunch. At all costs I wanted to be accountable.

When we started the church in 2002, I knew that accountability would be of utmost importance. I sought out a guy in our core group and asked him if we could meet each Wednesday morning to "hold each other accountable." As a church planter, I had a church planting coach. He and I would meet every Thursday morning and he would ask me questions about my relationship with God. He would ask me questions about my marriage, my struggles, my weaknesses. He wanted to hold me accountable. I had a group of Elders that I met with once a month that were the spiritual leaders of our church, and I was accountable to them.

So with all of these boundaries and all of these safe guards and all of these great leaders and friends holding me accountable how could I ever be unfaithful to God and my wife? That's not possible right? But I was unfaithful, despite all of my accountability.

What I have discovered is accountability is useless.

Accountability is only as valuable as the transparency you and I offer in the context of that accountability.

We have a unique ability as humans to fool each other. It is easy for me to fake you out. It is easy for you to lie to my face. It is easy to pretend like your marriage is better than it really is. It is easy to offer just enough accountability to make yourself look spiritual. At the same time that partial accountability can be so dangerous because you are not only fooling me, you are fooling yourself.

The truth is you and I can meet every Wednesday and I can lie to you. The truth is that you can have several circles of accountability and unless you are 100% transparent in at least one of those circles, implosion is on the horizon.

I am not saying you should be 100% transparent with everyone, but I am saying you should be 100% transparent with someone. I have two people in my life that if I am asked a question I give 100% of the truth; I withhold nothing. I know if I am struggling or need to confess something, or am in a dark place, I can share that with these two people.

One of the biggest mistakes I made in my life, my marriage and my ministry is I substituted accountability for transparency. Accountability without transparency is useless. It is easier in the short term to offer accountability and it seems more spiritual - but you experience more of the grace and mercy and love of Christ when you offer transparency.

In fact, when you are willing to offer transparency, you will find you don't need to be "held accountable."

You can read more of our writing about marriage, ministry, failure, grace and restoration at RefineUs

There are a lot of church buildings and those who attend a gathering on Sundays and throughout the week here in Arkansas. When my family and I moved here three years ago, I was amazed at the number of large church buildings on our main drag that is called "Church Row." Being from and raised in Southern California, I was familiar with the numerous storefront churches on a city block that people had the opportunity to attend, yet there was no Gospel impact in the community.

While there are many church buildings and those who name themselves as Christians, religion also runs rampant in our city. Let me unpack this.

-There is the religion of attending a service once a week and then no desire to hear any aspect of the Gospel the other six days.
-There is the religion of attending a service, hearing a good, motivating and moral message with no aspect of the Gospel being preached or taught.
-There is the religion of finding a greater passion in aligning oneself with a particular expression of the church than aligning oneself with the Gospel.
-There is the religion of knowledge and academics as our city has three large colleges and knowledge resists a hearing of any message about a crucified and risen Savior.

While some may find this unsettling and lament the collapse of many local churches, I see it as a great opportunity for the Gospel of God to do great things in the state of Arkansas and the South as a whole.

The opportunities abound for faithful local churches to minister to those in need of greater depth about the impact of the Gospel in their lives. Current churches in the South that have adopted moral messages and message that are man-centered will never be able to answer sufficiently the issues of life that can only be confronted with the Gospel. There are a few small local churches in our city that give me hope and give hope to the South, as the Gospel is clearly and faithfully being proclaimed.

This will mean a continuing move from program based activities to true discipleship. Discipleship springs from the clear command of Christ for us to go forward and make disciples within our southern cities. I have met more young people and specifically college age individuals who are desperately yearning for a relationship with one or two other Christians who can hold them accountable, encourage them to walk in the gifts that God has given them and see their faith essentially come alive. It moves from a mindset of keeping people busy to being busy about people.

Finally, the fruit of this discipleship will most assuredly lead to the blossoming of local churches that are built around the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The manifold wisdom of God is displayed in the church and so I have great encouragement that God will have a witness of his glory here in the South.

The Gospel in the South will continue to surge from new expressions of the local church. God will be using new wineskin to bring a refreshing among the South that will be an enjoyment for those who relish in his word and for those in need of everlasting hope. Will this surge start with large congregations? Generally, I would argue no. I think what we will see, are smaller expressions, who are focused on building one another in the Gospel and seeing that wine, flow into the lives of others.

So continue to pray for Arkansas and the South as a whole. Knowing that God will be faithful to see his Son's glory continue to flow in our region of America.

How are you seeing the Gospel surge in your region?

I have preached through most of my life a one dimensional message of the Cross. It focused on the primary work of Jesus in His death, namely the forgiveness of my sin debt. Most of the application of that preaching has been to encourage, participate and instigate people toward personal evangelism.

Obviously I love this one dimension of the Cross. It is personal, real and the basis for my being in a relationship of peace with God. I love to tell this story in as many ways as possible - both in preaching and in private conversation - but it is still only one dimension of the work of Jesus at the Cross.

In Ephesians 3:10 Paul gives us another aspect of the Cross. Something that most churches really don't consider as part of their gospel-evangelism strategy. Mediate carefully - "so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places."

The first thing that jumps off at me is that the wisdom of God is multifaceted. It is like a rare diamond with layers of beauty that sparkle as it moves in the light of the sun. Like Professor Richard Lovelace exhorted us in his book "Dynamics of Spiritual Life" - "preach the cross to its fullest dimensions." Why? Because like the rarest of diamonds the Cross sparkles as it moves in the light of preaching.

Now here is the second thing that grabbed me as I thought of this verse. The church is to be announcing this manifold wisdom of God in Christ to "rulers and authorities in heavenly places." What???? You mean the gospel isn't just for individuals who need to be saved? Why would rulers and authorities in heavenly places need to have the manifold wisdom of God preached to them?

As I thought about the implications of this verse I was drawn to the strategy of making disciples employed by the apostolic church. I don't get the sense that the apostles went door to door or did city wide crusades or held seminars on personal evangelism methods. What I do read is that they came into a city and preached the gospel as they fed the hungry, healed the sick and sheltered the stranger. They practiced an evangelical hospitality - in terms of Hebrews 10:32-34.

Isn't this preaching the cross to its fullest dimensions? Isn't this the way that church announced to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places that the systems of injustice, oppression and bigotry were no longer in place - in fact they were willing to sacrifice and even die if necessary to bring the gospel to bear upon the lives of people.

My hope is that the church I pastor and the life I live would include this dimension of the cross. I not only want to be a faithful witness to the message of salvation for me personally but a faithful witness to the sufferings of Christ as I serve people - I want the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places who think they rule over the cities in my area that they are no longer in charge. The gospel has arrived and it is coming in its fullest dimensions.  

To follow up on my last post, I'd like to talk a little about what I'm learning about planting in a mid-sized city with a heavily invested local planting church. Our suburban "mother church" has been very invested in our community work in Rochester. A few families from the church have moved in to the neighborhood and we have set to the tasks of "re-neighboring" and of partnering with local nonprofits doing good work in the neighborhood. We have also built bridges for folks in our church to come alongside in these service "projects." For many this is very fulfilling.

Problem: it's fulfilling. The question, "where and why does a church plant come in?" comes up. Obviously, church planters can answer this question in our sleep. But for those in close support relationships, the means often become the ends if we are not clear about what we're trying to do. My sense is that in higher profile church plant situations (eg: metro cities), where support is broadly raised and raised from outside the community, it is simpler to "cast a vision" that people can buy into. Not ribbing on the big city guys; it just seems that the more accessible the community is to be "helped" by neighboring communities, the less apt churches are to see the need for a neighborhood-based expression of the gospel, eg: a church plant.

Communication Break Down

So, relative to my last post: we had a group of folks from our "mother church" in to talk about the ministry and we were surprised that we hadn't really done a great job communicating our goals and vision for what our church plant might look like in the future. Where we thought were talking about things like fostering relationships between neighbors and fixing broken relationships through the gospel, they were talking about tutoring sessions and ESL training, food service, and other tried and true forms of outreach. Which is fine...kind of. These things should obviously not be mutually exclusive. Yet for them, these things seemed to be the end-game in our conversation: "What are we going to DO and how are we going to DO it?" seemed to be the question of the night. Though we tried to keep bringing it back to a desire for church planting and a local/indigenous expression of the gospel in the neighborhood, the size and scope of the tasks associated with community outreach kept getting bigger and bigger. The reason for this is because we have not clearly articulated what we hope the church plant will look like or how we mainly intend to build it. I think.

So, we have all the support in the world, it would seem; but how do we utilize it? I'd have to say, that it starts with communicating a clear, clear as crystal, vision. This would seem like a no-brainer; but I'm the guy always saying, "We don't know exactly how the Lord is going to work here...we're just trying to be faithful." This is probably church planting 101, but that kind of language isn't gonna cut it. If you have experience incorporating the ministry of a local planting church into your urban church planting vision, please drop some comments.

Es sorprendente ver cómo David, el rey guerrero de Israel, escribe estas palabras del Salmo 131.

Señor, mi corazón no es orgulloso, ni son altivos mis ojos; no busco grandezas desmedidas, ni proezas que excedan a mis fuerzas. Todo lo contrario: he calmado y aquietado mis ansias. Soy como un niño recién amamantado en el regazo de su madre. ¡Mi alma es como un niño recién amamantado!

La metáfora que aquí se utiliza para la madurez espiritual es "niño recién amamantado." Por una parte, somos como un niño en el regazo de su madre, una imagen de total indefensión. Dependemos en todo de Dios. No podemos hacer nada sin él. Por otra parte, somos como un niño recién amamantado (lactante), una imagen de contentamiento. Los lactantes lloran en los brazos de sus madres, hasta que consiguen lo que quieren de ellas -- la leche. Sólo entonces se calman. Un lactante solo está satisfecho ante la presencia de su madre.

Aquí vemos un cuadro vívido y compacto de lo que Job tuvo que aprender a través de sus pruebas. Debemos amar a Dios sólo por él mismo, no por lo que pueda darnos. Esta la esencia de lo que para Jonathan Edwards, distinguía "la gracia verdadera" de "la experiencia de los demonios", quienes afirman la sana doctrina y aún así tiemblan ante Dios (Santiago 2:19). La gracia auténtica en el corazón nos lleva a ver "la belleza y el encanto de las cosas divinas, tal y como son en sí mismas" (tomado del sermón que lleva el mismo título en el volumen 25 de la edición de Yale de los trabajos de Edgard). Encontramos satisfacción en Dios mismo. Incluso su trascendente santidad es disfrutada como algo hermoso y magnífico, que llena el corazón para la contemplación, ¡aunque de hecho no saquemos nada de ello!

Si la gracia realmente ha cambiado nuestros corazones, en último término no nos importará demasiado si la vida no nos va como querríamos, en tanto que le tengamos a él. Los elogios, la riqueza y el poder [de este mundo] no son nada en comparación con la celebración, la riqueza y el poder eterno que tenemos en él. Un "lactante" no es solo quien sabe todo esto en principio, sino quien ha puesto por obra las verdades del evangelio en su vida y en su alma como palpables realidades espirituales. Interiormente, esto da paz de espíritu y [produce] profundo contentamiento y compostura. Externamente, significa humildad, la voluntad de aprender de otros y también de confiar en Dios. El creyente se da cuenta de que la razón por la que a menudo las acciones de Dios son opacas no es porque nosotros seamos más sabios que él, sino porque él es demasiado "grande" y "maravilloso" para nosotros.

Un cristiano jamás debería tener la actitud de preguntarle a Dios, "¿Qué es lo que has hecho por mí últimamente?" Spurgeon dijo acerca del Salmo 131 que era "uno de los salmos más cortos, pero uno de los que se tarda más en aprender."

Original (en inglés) aquí

It's remarkable to read David, the Warrior-King of Israel, writing these words from Psalm 131.

My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. But I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me.

The metaphor for spiritual maturity here is a "weaned child." On the one hand, we are a child at the mother's breast, an image of complete helplessness. We are completely dependent on God. Without him we can do nothing. On the other hand, we are a weaned child, an image of contentment. Unweaned children cry in mother's arms until they get something from mother -- her milk. Only then are they quiet. But a weaned child is satisfied just with mother herself, with her very presence.

Here we see depicted, vividly and compactly, what Job was taught through all his trials. We must love God for himself alone, not just for what he gives us. This is the essence of what, for Jonathan Edwards, distinguished "true grace" from "the experience of devils," who hold sound doctrine and tremble before God (James 2:19.) Real grace on the heart leads us to see the "beauty and comeliness of divine things, as they are in themselves" (from the sermon by the same name in volume 25 of the Yale edition of Edwards' works). We become satisfied with God himself. Even his transcendent holiness is enjoyed as a beautiful and magnificent thing, which fills the heart to contemplate, though we certainly get nothing out of it!

If grace has really changed our hearts, we don't ultimately care if life goes the way we want it, as long as we have him. The joys of acclaim, wealth, and power are nothing compared to the eternal acclaim, wealth, and power we have in him. A "weaned child" is not just someone who knows this in principle, but who has worked gospel truths into his or her soul as spiritually sensed realities. Internally, this quiets the soul into profound contentment and poise. Externally, it means humility, a willingness to learn from others and also to trust God. The believer realizes that the reason God's actions are often opaque is not because we are wise and he is foolish, but because he is too "great" and "wonderful" for us.

A Christian should never have the attitude toward God, "what have you done for me lately?" Spurgeon said about Psalm 131 that it was "one of the shortest psalms to read, but one of the longest to learn."

The context in which we serve here in Conway requires that we have solid relationships with those inside and outside the community. The building of relationships has been vital as the Lord works through these relationships to bring a larger Gospel witness to the community of Oakwood.

Inside the Community

Every community, like a tribe, has chiefs and solid communicators. The chiefs are those who have been in the community for some time, they are known by the people and have a great amount of influence. In the Gospels it would be someone like Nicodemus. In Acts it would have been someone like Cornelius or Lydia. In every community these persons exist and we as messengers of the Gospel must seek to build a healthy relationship with them. Why? It is our opportunity to demonstrate Christ to them by consistently speaking with them, eating with them and look into their eyes and communicate a desire to serve them as people for the glory of God.

Next are the solid communicators. Now these are not the people who are in the habit of spreading rumors or creating tall tales. These are men, women and sometimes children who have said things that are easily validated and truthful. (Yes there are unbelievers out there who speak truth). How are these people helpful? In a sense they are "evangelist." Not in the sense of spreading the Gospel, but will spread the word about what the ministry is doing. Yet once again this requires a development of relationships. Look at the many times that Jesus fame was spread throughout Israel just in the first few chapters of Mark. People were communicating what was going on with this man they were following and eating with. These solid communicators are more important than any flier or slick marketing because the people in the community already accept their word and therefore will move to see what they are speaking about.

Outside the community

Oakwood has a significant amount of crime and many police service calls that are reported. So we found it important to establish a relationship with the Chief of Police as well as other elected officials. This has been important for two reasons. One, every human being made in the image of God has at some level the desire for safety and security. When you live in a community where that is consistently challenged, you want to speak with people who can influence that for the better. Therefore the most loving thing we found to do was serve as a mediator for both the community and the police department. The second reason is to demonstrate to the surrounding community that the church wants to be seen as a help to the community and the overall city on a consistent basis. I would encourage local churches that are focused in a particular community to connect with the police department, the city council rep and other members as see how the church can best serve them.

Building relationships is vitally important in displaying the Gospel to our city and the people within that city. Prayerfully, the goal of establishing and building relationships with people within your ministering community and outside of it, is to display to them that we are loving ambassadors of an eternal community founded by Jesus Christ.

I'm a total geek when it comes to listening to and reading anything about urban church planting.  I'm a conference geek too.  Don't get to go to many-but I love that stuff.

Unfortunately, what I draw from much of this stimuli is a 30,000 ft view of urban/city ministry and very little about how to reach my mid-size, struggling, blue collar little city.  Many of the concepts are transferable, but many aren't: the booming arts communities, the massive population-per-sq-mile reports, the economic and relational affluence.  This is not Rochester.  All those things are represnted by fractions here.  The more defining characteristics are generational poverty and racism, arts neighborhoods struggling for safety and self-preservation, neighborhoods of affluence sharing fences with neighborhoods of despair, and entrenched local politicians who are very out of touch-but very much in control.  I'm hoping that by posting this, maybe there are some of you out there who struggle with the same kinds of things (and I know the metro cities have these struggles and more as well). 

We are on the cusp of planting a small church in Rochester, NY.  When I say "on the cusp," I mean everybody's pumped up, but nobody's necessarily happy with the pace.   We have some families that moved into the neighborhood and we have begun engaging our neighbors through "project" style outreaches.  But honestly, we're tired and need a boost.  Our current and "planting" church is suburban and has high interest in this work, which is very encouraging.  Tomorrow night, we have a meeting to which we've invited folks from the church who have 1) an interest in the neighborhood, 2) gifts that we feel they can share here.  We are looking to get them to "buy into" (literally and figuratively) the lease of a property through which we can do more effective outreach with more of aneighborhood presence.  We've been working out of our homes the past couple of years, but anyone doing urban ministry knows the complexity and potential disaster of having your home become a landing zone for everyone's felt needs in the neighborhood.

So here we are.  I'll report on the outcome of the meeting-maybe some of you have been in this spot?  maybe you're interested to see how it goes...

Every day as a pastor or church planter you will say yes to some opportunities and you will say no to others. The goal is to say yes to the right things and no to the wrong things. By saying yes to the right things you are making decisions that will move the church closer to its vision and by saying no you are eliminating things that will be distractions from accomplishing the vision.

I hope this reality is not a surprise to you. Effective leadership is saying yes to the right opportunities and no to the wrong opportunities that are presented to you every day. Where this gets tricky is when your decisions involve people. By nature as the church evolves you will need to move people to different seats on the train and in some cases people will exit the train and others will get on.

When a church starts, you begin with a coalition of the willing. The people around you are the early adopters of the vision. A key characteristic of this coalition is that people are willing to do any job you put before them. It's likely you will have people in charge of small groups or evangelism teams that are not cut out for that long term, but they are willing to give it a shot for the time being. There is no way you are starting a church without these people. They are the heart and soul of a church plant. They are putting their blood sweat and tears behind the vision in order to see it become a reality. As a leader you will always be indebted to these people.

On the flip side you will not be doing your job as a leader if you make decisions based on who is currently on the train. If you say yes to things simply because of the people around you, you are probably saying no to the over all vision God has for the church. This is tough. You want nothing more than to please the people around you because they have sacrificed so much, but it is in this moment you have to remember that the vision is bigger than any one person, including you.

So here is the deal, when you realize that saying yes to a strategic direction means saying no to a particular person, you need to:

1) Share the vision with them: In most cases, if the person is bought into the vision, they are seeing the same things you are seeing. They will understand that their gift mix does not fit into the long-term leadership structure of the church. In this case you can chart a course for their transition.

2) Be willing to give them all that you can: Since these people were around from the beginning, they have earned the right to be treated "extravagantly" on their way out. Meaning, you would do things for them that you would not do for other leaders. You may pay their insurance for a season or if the person is in a non-paid leadership role you may throw a big celebration for them. The principle here is to honor them.

3) Be unwavering: Once you are sure of the direction the church is going and you realize that a person does not fit into that long-term leadership plan, you need to let them know that very clearly. Do not lead them on. Don't let them think there might be a place for them. By being clear you are allowing them to start making plans for the next phase of their life and ministry.

4) Help them understand their role: In most cases there will be a place for this person somewhere on the train. It may not be in a paid role and it is definitely not their current role, but there is a place. It is your job to help them understand where that place is.

One of the important ways that our church is helping to integrate the gospel into the whole of a person's life is by spending time in our weekend worship services praying for God's kingdom to come in the various industry fields that dominate New York. We simply invite those who work in a particular field to stand, and we acknowledge them and what they do, while a person within that industry shares a brief testimony of how God is at work, then prays for all who are standing that represent that field in the city.

Here is an example of one of the prayers written and prayed by a member of our congregation in a weekend worship service. He works in advertising, and asked people to stand who work in advertising to receive grace and the Spirit's empowerment through this prayer.

Trinity Grace Prayer for the City - the Advertising and Marketing Industry

Lord, we come into your presence and pray for your hand to be felt mightily in this city. We lift up the industry systems in New York City which drive our culture and economy. Today we pray for the advertising and marketing industry, which weaves a fabric of messages and products encompassing the cultural environment of our lives. We pray for these culture making forces which are lined up on Madison Ave, in Soho, in Chelsea, and elsewhere to be transformed today for your kingdom.

We offer up to you the ad agencies, the PR firms, the media companies, the corporate marketing departments, the interactive shops, the design studios, and more to all be shaped according to your purpose. We pray for the range of consumer communications to have a positive impact on our society. We pray for the creation of inspired messages, visuals, and marketing plans to that can have an uplifting effect on the world, over those efforts which merely manipulate emotional desires and push corporate profits.

Father, we pray for all of the industry people who play a role in developing and producing brand communications. May our work paths be filled with integrity and a wise appropriation of the talents you've gifted us with. We pray for all in our church community - the account managers, media buyers, creatives, planners, managers, and sales people - who make up part of the small minority of believers in the industry. May we pursue a work life filled with character and your values amidst a work culture that can easily push us in other directions. May our identity be centered solidly on you as we strive for positions of influence and reputation within our industry. And in this rapidly shifting industry, may you open wide the right doors to align our career paths to support causes that will better the world. We pray for your hand to shape our work lives to fulfill our purpose in you, and for your presence to be felt in our lives in extraordinary, powerful ways this week.

We ask this in Jesus' holy and precious name,

Amen.

What these sort of prayers communicate to people in a congregation, is that they matter, their jobs matter, and that God is with them and for them as they seek to live for him all week. Holding this up every week as we gather to worship as God's people from across the city, sends a message that we are in the city, and that God is for the city, and that our church cares about the city as a whole.

Below is an email that someone in our church sent after we prayed for kingdom renewal amongst educators and education systems in New York.

"I just came back from the Chelsea service and I was really touched by the prayer for teachers. The guy that prayed at our service touched upon EVERYTHING that I was struggling with. I was amazed and encouraged by God's grace. Thank you for mentioning my name. I've really been struggling for a long time with teaching here in the city, especially this week. It's been tremendously rough. There's been lots of crying and I am not a cryer. It's caused me to doubt a lot of things and I've become so burdened, but this week God really pressed upon me "putting on the armor of God" and taking "every thought captive and making it obedient to Christ". Thank you for remembering me, you will never know how much it has encouraged me spiritually, physically, and emotionally. Have a wonderful week."

May God envision you to offer prayer for your city as a whole, bless those in your congregation who labor faithfully in it, and give us his heart so that we too love this great city.

Today is Easter Saturday 2010. In Latin America we call it "Sábado de Aleluia" which can be translated as Hallelujah Saturday.  Growing up I always questioned why they called it Hallelujah Saturday.  After all, if there was a sentiment that represented what Jesus' disciples were going through after the "raboni" was buried it would have to be despair. So, why not call it "Desperate Saturday"? That would go along better with what millions of Christians in Latin America have ritualized on this "Sábado de Aleluia": The lynching of Judas Iscariot.

It wasn't until recently that everything made sense to me.  The three days spent on accomplished salvation set the pace for salvation applied. Meaning, everything that Jesus went through in those three days to secure salvation for us should represent everything what we must go through in order to experience his salvation in us and for us. Here's the pattern his passion sets for us. Suffer - die - rest - be glorified.

On Thursday the Gospels tell us that Jesus grasped the deep reality of sin and sacrifice which brought him to despair. He wept, and sweat, and bled over our sins and then confessed his desire to Father to abandon the job last minute. At that moment, Jesus was taking sin very seriously.  So should we, if we are to receive the salvation God makes available to us in Jesus. Those to whom Jesus has secured salvation, will weep, and bleed, and experience despair over their hopeless condition. And most importantly, will confess their sins and see in Jesus the only possibility of rescue and absolution.

On Friday Jesus was crucified. He ascended the tree of Calvary to become the substitution for our sins. On the cross the Father's wrath brutally descended on the Son so that it would not descend on those to whom he was securing salvation for -- those he would latter call sons and daughters. As sun went down and the Son gave up his Spirit, we were justified and now able to be adopted into the family of the Trinity. Those to whom Jesus has secured salvation are called to look at the Cross and see their death vicariously lived out (or should I say died out) by Jesus. More importantly, they are called to die to self and to the sin that demanded their death.

Now we arrive on "Sábado de Alleluia". On Saturday there is silence in the text. In the soul there's despair and in the land there's rest. What an interesting tension huh? The disciples are observing the Shabbath while experiencing despair! Little did they know what "rabboni" had just done and was still doing for them. Jesus' body in the grave should represent REST for us. It should confront us with the anxieties that enslave us and the temptation that we have to still work for our absolution before God. Saturday is Hallelujah because it is a reminder that we can and should rest in Jesus. It's a reminder that there's nothing we can do. That is how we grow and are sanctified in the salvation he has accomplished for us. We are sanctified as we rest of our works (good ones) and as we stop looking for rest in other saviors.

Finally Sunday. The grave is empty and the master is walking in the garden beautiful and splendorous.  He has defeated our last enemy and for the next 40 days he gives us a preview of what life in kingdom will look like when "the glory of the Lord covers the earth as the waters covers the seas". It's what enables us to make sense of all that he did for us and unless there was resurrection there would be no sense in believing and living out this salvation. His salvation is accomplished at last and it is applied with hope.

So, suffer, die, rest and hope, because your glorification is coming.

Happy "Sábado de Alleluia".

Algunas personas me oyen hablar de la importancia del ministerio en la ciudad y piensan que lo que estoy diciendo es que todo cristiano (al menos quienes tienen una orientación hacia las misiones) debería acabar yendo a las ciudades. Pero no es eso lo que estoy diciendo. Lo que digo que es que muchas más agencias misioneras y muchos más cristianos de los que actualmente lo están haciendo, deberían desarrollar sus ministerios en las ciudades. ¿Por qué? Por la gran cantidad de gente que allí vive y por lo influyentes que las ciudades son en sus respectivas sociedades y culturas.

Así pues, se trata de una cuestión de énfasis -- en tanto que la iglesia no enfatiza lo suficiente el ministerio a la ciudad. Incluso en términos matemáticos, es obvio que las ciudades no son debidamente servidas por la iglesia. Por ejemplo, la población combinada de Georgia y Carolina del Sur es de unos 15 millones, mientras que sólo la ciudad de Nueva York y su área metropolitana tiene una población entre 18-19 millones de habitantes. Pregunta en cualquier denominación evangélica -- ¿Tenéis tantas iglesias en el área de Nueva York como en los estados de Georgia y Carolina del Sur combinados? Después pregunta por cifras. Pregunta entonces por qué dos estados con menor población tienen (en la mayoría de casos) muchas más iglesias que Nueva York. ¿Es eso justo? 

Al estudiar el libro de Proverbios, pude ver que un proverbio no es lo mismo que un mandamiento o una promesa. Proverbios dice cosas tales como, "En general, si te esfuerzas en el trabajo, no te faltará lo más básico, pero hay muchas excepciones. Por lo tanto, esfuérzate, pero no te sorprendas si las cosas van mal." Que las cosas irán bien a todo el que se esfuerce trabajando, no es una promesa o una garantía, tampoco un mandamiento. Es una declaración acerca de una manera sabia de actuar. Cuando digo que necesitamos poner más énfasis en el ministerio a la ciudad, hablo 'proverbialmente.' La Biblia y la historia nos muestran lo importante que son las ciudades como centros para desarrollar ministerio, y aún así la cantidad de esfuerzo que la iglesia invierte en las ciudades no es proporcional a la necesidad o la oportunidad [que estas representan]. 

Así que mi argumento es -- que muchas más iglesias, muchos más cristianos y muchas más misiones deberían dedicarse a alcanzar a las grandes ciudades del mundo. Esto no es lo mismo que decir que 'todo aquel que realmente está entregado a la misión de Jesús irá a las ciudades.'

________________

Original (en inglés) aquí

I started reading "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis.  I have to say it's pretty dense.  Not for the faint of heart.  The chapter titled "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism" seems crucial, but it is also one of the hardest texts to understand that I ever read (and re-read) in English. I am still trying. I think I understand the conclusion but how he arrives at it still escapes me.

However I wanted to share about another place in the book. In the chapter "A Further Difficulty in Naturalism" C.S. Lewis talks about how a Naturalist is happy to admit at times that "All ideas of good and evil are hallucinations - shadows cast on the outer world by the impulses which we have been conditioned to feel". But right after "you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionize, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race".

The funny part is right after I read this I go to look at the news and behold there is an article on CNN titled - "Philosopher: Why we should ditch religion". And the person saying how "people have to stop looking to religion to guide their moral compasses" and how "We should be talking about real problems, like nuclear proliferation and genocide and poverty and the crisis in education".

So this is a plug for "Miracles" and if anyone got insight on how our ability to reason points to Supernatural, which I think is the point of the chapter I mentioned first, I would love to hear your thoughts. 

\o/\o/\o/

Some people hear me speak about the importance of city ministry and think I'm saying that all Christians (at least all those missions-minded) should move into cities. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that many more mission agencies and many more Christians ought to minister in cities than are currently doing so. Why? Because of the sheer masses of people who live there and because of how influential cities are on their respective societies and cultures.

It is, then, a matter of emphasis -- as in, the church doesn't emphasize city ministry enough. Even mathematically, it is obvious that cities are woefully underserved by the church. For example, Georgia and South Carolina, combined, have an estimated population of 15 million, while the New York City metro area has a population of 18-19 million. Ask nearly any evangelical denomination -- do you have as many churches in the NYC area as you do in Georgia and South Carolina all together? Then ask for the numbers. Then ask why two states with a smaller population would have (in most cases) many times more churches than New York. Is that fair?

When I studied the book of Proverbs, I came to see that a proverb is not the same as a command or a promise. Proverbs say things like, "In general, if you work hard, you won't find yourself lacking the basics, but there are plenty of exceptions. So work hard, but don't be shocked if something goes wrong." That's not an iron-clad promise (that everyone who works hard will be well off) nor a command. It is a statement about a wise course of action. When I say that we need to put more emphasis on city ministry, I'm speaking 'proverbially.' The Bible and history shows us how important cities are as centers for ministry, yet the amount of effort the church puts into cities is not proportionate to the need or opportunity.

So my point is -- that far more churches, far more Christians, and far more missions should be dedicated to reaching the great cities of the world. That is not the same as saying 'anyone who is really sold out for Jesus' mission will go to cities.'

The latest issue of a popular magazine came out in France with this bold title on the cover: "The New Wars of Religion : How the New Clericalisms Are a Menace to the Planet".  The opening page of the article showed four pictures which were supposed to represent four examples of dangerous religious fanaticism.  One of the pictures showed Indonesian jihadists brandishing swords and daggers; another picture showed ultra-orthodox Jews throwing bricks and stones in the streets of Jerusalem; the third picture showed raging Hindu activists holding weapons.  The last picture was one of silent, praying, pro-life protesters in America.  For the French media, evangelicals who share their faith are likened to dangerous modern crusaders.  Against this type of prejudice, French churches and individual Christians have a very hard time showing the real face of Christianity, and the real nature of the Gospel.

(Photo Matt Banks)

It was an easy sell. My friend Dan, pastor of Grace Toronto, invited me to attend Redeemer North America Network meetings in Miami. The purpose of the meetings was to "discuss the possibility of putting together a North American Urban Center Church Planting Network." Because I've come to appreciate the work of Redeemer City to City, and because of what we dream of happening in Toronto, it didn't take long to decide to attend. It didn't hurt that the meetings were in Miami, and that Tim Keller would be speaking.

Most conferences leave you excited for a few days, but are forgotten pretty quickly. But this was no ordinary conference. There were 120 people there. Somebody attending the conference tweeted that they could learn from almost everybody there, and they were right. One of the highlights was meeting people from other cities and building connections, learning from their successes and mistakes. A lot of meetings took place outside of the main sessions, and some of them were pretty strategic. We took a walk with Mark Reynolds during lunch one day, and it was probably one of the best parts of the week for me. At dinner on Tuesday I made a number of new friends. If nothing else happened at these meetings, the networking alone would have been worth it.

But more did happen. The sessions were excellent. Tim Keller spoke on the challenge of North American cities and on creating gospel ecosystems. He also took part in a panel on the spiritual life of a church planter. There were lots of other panels and breakout sessions. We were sent home with a working document for the creation of a network.

I also noticed that the culture of the event was very different. I was struck by the combination of theology and strategy as I listened to conversations around me. These things aren't found together often enough, but they were brought together last week, and I appreciated it.

I came home feeling like I had been part of the start of something. I learned, but I was also challenged at a personal level by many of the conversations I enjoyed.

Most of pastoral ministry takes place at a pretty low level. For a week it felt like I got a bit of a picture of what God is doing across North America. I'm excited about what's happening, and grateful to have experienced a bit of it myself. I'm looking forward to more.

Darryl is pastor of Richview Baptist Church. He blogs at DashHouse.com.

The news of yet another marital implosion has come across my email. And this time I find myself in a front row seat to witness, weep, and hope as the drama unfolds. How I long for the play in front of me to conclude in a brilliant act of redemption. How I hope the curtain will not fall on one more tragedy. 

Of course the news of a failing marriage (and even more so, a string of failing marriages) makes us want to take a good look at our own marriages and wonder what shape they are truly in. Of course we hope to avoid the pain we witness, to do something to raise the odds of success for our own marriages.   

Many years ago, in the darkest hours of my marriage, I shared with a close friend where my husband and I happened to find ourselves. She kept asking, "How do you think you got here? Where do you think you went wrong?" I had no idea how we had gotten to the place we were, but I threw out a few things I imagined hadn't helped. My friend responded with sympathy and then added, "My husband and I need to watch for that in our marriage so we can make sure we never get to the place you guys are at."   

I understood my friend's reflex to take stock, strategize, and implement any possible measures to protect, preserve, and safeguard her marriage. But marriage is not that simple. There are no guarantees that carefully applied prevention, perseverance, or devoted energy will give us the outcome we desire.   

Are there ways to protect, heal, care for, and be mindful of our marriages? Absolutely. Is it within our power to safeguard our marriages enough to guarantee that they'll endure? Absolutely not. Even if you or I could manage our part flawlessly (wouldn't that be something!)--we still live with spouses who are free to make their own choices. And these choices include walking away from marriage.   

So what are we left with? A flimsy, "Let's all hope for the best?" No. We hope for something much greater. We hope for a God who meets us and provides for us and cares for us regardless of the circumstances or successes of our marriages.   

At one point my counselor looked at me and said, "You don't believe that if your husband isn't caring for you, you will still be cared for. You don't believe that if your husband doesn't love you, you will still be loved." I wanted to say, "Yeah, and your point is?" That's exactly what I believed. I had no idea what it would look like to find God's provision, comfort, and care apart from the thing I wanted so badly. I imagined God as nothing more than a feeble consolation prize if he didn't deliver the successful marriage I felt I needed in order to live.   

I had spent years doing everything I could to improve and heal my marriage. My last hope was that my husband would do the same (as if he hadn't also been trying for years), that he would do it well, and that his efforts and mine would add up to be just what our marriage needed. But it wasn't working.   

Wasn't it mature faith to believe God had this good thing for us? Isn't that one of the ways God brings glory to himself, by showcasing fabulous Christian marriages? I had devoted myself to a God who, I was sure, was going to redeem and heal my marriage. I had even come to a new place of willingness to be led through this dry, barren desert for longer than I felt I had originally agreed to, but with one stipulation--that my long and arduous journey would end with a romantic dinner at a table for two next to a cool, bubbling spring surrounded by giant trees offering bounteous shade.   

What I had done was drawn a line in the sand of my desert. This far and no further, I told God. I will trust you, follow you, and lean on you if you bring healing and new life to my marriage. But I cannot trust you if this ends, or worse yet, if it continues unchanged. How could this hope for my marriage not be reasonable? My hope was reasonable, but I had long ago moved from hope to demand. I might as well have pasted up my own ransom note to God. "Deliver this particular marriage to this particular spot at this particular time, or you'll never see my trusting heart again." And with that I had scratched my pitiful line in the sand, put my hand s on my hips, and stomped my little foot.  

I imagine you know what I am talking about. What are the lines you have drawn in the sand with God? Perhaps they are about the impact of your marriage on your ministry; you will let God work in your marriage, but not at any cost to your church. Or perhaps they are about the lengths you will allow God to go. Redemption? As long as it is this side of divorce. Or perhaps they involve your children. Are you determined to protect them from something you actually cannot shelter them from, or that God may indeed expose them to?   

What does God do with the tantrum lines we draw in the sand? He takes a deep breath and gently blows them away. Although these erasures feel like death itself, they are actually the life-breath of God's kindness. Not only does he begin to free us from the pitiful limitations of our scraggly lines, he refuses to be hemmed in as he does it. And he invites us to something we could never imagine.   

He dares us to gather up our "reasonable" plans, our essential ministries, and even our good hopes for the well-being of our children, and asks us to gamble it all on one sure thing: himself. Over time we realize this divine gamble actually becomes the one thing we cannot lose. 

He becomes our one sure thing.   

Here's the thing about God, he gives and he takes and he redeems. And we can never demand or guarantee what that will look like, except that in whatever we are given, and in whatever is taken from us, and in whatever we continue to long and hope for, he remains. And then one day we see and believe and rejoice that his acts of love and comfort and provision have outnumbered the grains of sand in the deserts we have so longed to escape. 

In the end, we do come to our oasis: a spring of living water, the plenteous shade of his presence, and a feast laid out just for us--his dearly beloved. 

(Note: Carrie Ott is part of Parakaleo, a ministry to church planter spouses and couples.)

A leader among God's flock is like a father who works in such a way as not to be a burden for those he cares for. As he shares his life and the Gospel, those around him should see a holy and blameless life. In the end this leads to exhorting those under our care to live a life that glorifies God because we live as a family in His kingdom.

God is a witness to how we serve his flock. Matthew Henry stated, "God witnesses our behavior in secret and down to the motivation of our service to others." This should be encouragement to serve with love, boldness and truth, not domination or compulsion. We must avoid walking in the footsteps of Diotrephes (3 John).

Regarding the flock of God, they should be observing our efforts not to be a burden to them. The church should hear from our lips words that press them to live for the glory of God. They should be encouraged to know that since God has called them, they can live a life that glorifies God. Finally they should hear from our lips, the charge and declaration to live a life that God is pleased with.

Servant leaders should live lives that are holy and blameless and these flow from the Gospel we proclaim. This holiness is not ours but Christ who living in us renews our mind and heart to serve the flock with our very lives.

Finally, servant leaders are to be loving fathers who exhort, encourage and charge the flock towards the glory of God because of their life and work in God. We are not to be absent fathers but fathers who share the life, tears, joy and triumphs of the flock of Christ.

Read more...

En mi tiempo diario de lectura bíblica durante el año pasado leí Probervios 3, un pasaje que he estudiado y predicado en numerosas ocasiones. Pero durante esta lectura, me di cuenta que entre los versículos del 3 al 12 tenemos todos los temas del resto del libro y, por lo tanto, una especie de mini-guía a una vida de fidelidad. Hay cinco cosas que constituyen un estilo de vida sabio y piadoso. Funcionan tanto como el medio para llegar a ser sabio y piadoso, así como también son signos que indican si uno está creciendo en ese estilo de vida:

1. Confia en lo más profundo de tu corazón en Dios y en su gracia. Recuérdate cada día a ti mismo de su pacto incondicional de amor por ti. No pongas tus esperanzas en ídolos o en lo que tú puedas hacer. 

Que nunca te abandonen el amor y la verdad: llévalos siempre alrededor de tu cuello y escríbelos en el libro de tu corazón. Contarás con el favor de Dios y tendrás buena fama entre la gente. Confía en el SEÑOR de todo corazón... (Prov 3:3-5a)

2. Sujeta toda tu mente a la Escritura. No pienses que sabes más que la palabra de Dios. Aplícalo en todas las áreas de tu vida. Sé una persona bajo autoridad. 

...y no [confíes] en tu propia inteligencia. Reconócelo en todos tus caminos, y él allanará tus sendas (Prov 3:5b-6). 

3. Sé humilde y déjate enseñar por otros. Perdona y sé comprensivo [con los demás] cuando lo que querrías es criticarles; disponte a aprender cuando otros sean críticos contigo. 

No seas sabio en tu propia opinión; más bien, teme al SEÑOR y huye del mal. Esto infundirá salud a tu cuerpo y fortalecerá tu ser (Prov 3:7-8).

4. Sé generoo con todas tus pertenencias, y apasionado por la justicia. Comparte tu tiempo, talento y lo que más valoras con quienes tienen menos. 

Honra al SEÑOR con tus riquezas y con los primeros frutos de tus cosechas. Así tus graneros se llenarán a reventar y tus bodegas rebosarán de vino nuevo (Prov 3:9-10)

5. Acepta y aprende de las dificultades y el sufrimiento. A través del evangelio, reconoce en ellos no un castigo, sino un camino par ir siendo refinado. 

Hijo mío, no desprecies la disciplina del SEÑOR, ni te ofendas por sus reprensiones. Porque el SEÑOR disciplina a los que ama, como corrige un padre a su hijo querido (Prov 3:11-12).

Al meditar en estos cinco elementos--arraigado en su gracia, obedeciendo y encontrando deleite en su Palabra, humilde ante otras personas, generosamente sacrificado en favor del prójimo, y firme en medio de la prueba-- [no puedo menos que pensar] en Jesús. El Nuevo Testamento nos dice que, de hecho, la 'sabiduría divina' personificada del Antiguo Testamento es Jesús (Mt 11:19). Y me he dado cuenta que a) el mostró una confianza y fidelidad absoluta a Dios al ir a la cruz [lo cuál también muestra su fidelidad hacia nosotros], b) su vida era una vida saturada y moldeada por la Escritura, c) era manso y humilde de corazón (Mt. 11:28-30), d) aún siendo rico, se hizo pobre por nosotros, e) y sobrellevó sus sufrimientos, por nosotros, sin levantar queja. Sólo podemos crecer en estas cinco áreas si sabemos que hemos sido salvados por una gracia costosa. Ello te mantiene apartado de los ídolos, de la auto-suficiencia y el orgullo, de ser egoísta con tus cosas, y de desmoronarte ante las dificultades. Jesús es la sabiduría personificada, y creer en su evangelio trae estas características a tu vida. 

A lo largo de unas cuantas semanas he pasado tiempo orando por estas cinco cosas para mi familia y los líderes de mi iglesia. No hay una mejor manera de infundir esto que es tan grande en tu propio corazón, que orar intensamente para que se den en la vida de aquellos a quienes amas. 

_________
Puedes leer original (en inglés) aquí

In my regular, daily Bible reading over the past year I read through Proverbs 3, a passage I've studied and preached through many times. But during this reading, I realized that in verses 3 through 12 we have all the themes of the rest of the book, and therefore a kind of mini-guide to faithful living. There are five things that comprise a wise, godly life. They function both as means to becoming wise and godly as well as signs that you are growing into such a life:

1. Put your heart's deepest trust in God and his grace. Every day remind yourself of his unconditioned, covenantal love for you. Do not instead put your hopes in idols or in your own performance.

Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all your heart (Prov 3:3-5a)

2. Submit your whole mind to the Scripture. Don't think you know better than God's word. Bring it to bear on every area of life. Become a person under authority.

Lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. (Prov 3:5b-6)

3. Be humble and teachable toward others. Be forgiving and understanding when you want to be critical of them; be ready to learn from others when they come to be critical of you.

Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones. (Prov 3:7-8)

4. Be generous with all your possessions, and passionate about justice. Share your time, talent, and treasure with those who have less.

Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the first fruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine. (Prov 3:9-10)

5. Accept and learn from difficulties and suffering. Through the gospel, recognize them as not punishment, but a way of refining you.

My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in. (Prov 3:11-12)

As I meditated on these five elements--rooted in his grace, obeying and delighting in his Word, humble before other people, sacrificially generous toward our neighbor, and steadfast in trials--I thought of Jesus. The New Testament tells us that the personified 'divine wisdom' of the Old Testament is actually Jesus (Mt 11:19.) And I realized that a) he showed the ultimate trust and faithfulness to God and to us by going to the cross, b) he was saturated with and shaped by Scripture, c) he was meek and lowly in heart (Mt. 11:28-30), d) he, though rich, became poor for us, e) and he bore his suffering, for us, without complaint. We can only grow in these five areas if you know you are saved by costly grace. That keeps you from idols, from self-sufficiency and pride, from selfishness with your things, and from crumbling under troubles. Jesus is wisdom personified, and believing his gospel brings these character qualities into your life.

For a number of weeks I have been spending time praying for these five things for my family and my church leaders. There's no better way to instill these great things in your own heart, than to pray intensely for them in the lives of those you love.

I'll admit it - I spent some formative years in the 70s. One of the songs that was popular in '72 was Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway's "Where is the love"? If you are dancing, it's one of those songs you are better off humming to your girlfriend instead of actually singing the words, because Roberta and Donny are two lovers who oh-so-smoothly hurl accusations at each other throughout the song.

In the last two weeks, as I've become aware of four extra-marital affairs among pastors in our near and distant community, I've thought of that song.

You read that right - four couples - all in vocational ministry and all in the span of two weeks. This seems to go way beyond the Tiger Woods headline du jour.

My reaction is complex - first, shock and disbelief. Then, sorrow, anger, confusion. Eventually I would like to get to - hope -, but honestly, I'm not there yet. I think of the spouses that have been left (both women and men). The kids that are now questioning. Their congregations, now wounded and grieved. I think of the time, courage and work it will take to recover.

Wouldn't this be a good time for cursing and railing in frustration at our brokenness?

In this kind of offense I am left pondering how this happens and, invariably, I think of myself. Perhaps because I've always been scared to death that this would happen to me - whether as offender or offendee, it doesn't matter.

For 28 years I've been known and loved by my wife, and I've prayed that I would never break my vow to her. But it seems to me, I've broken my vow over and over again by not loving her well, by being self-centered, by overworking and pouring myself into ministry; in short, by running from soul-intimacy with her and also by isolating myself from others. Because we've never suffered an outright "affair," it is easy to think we are somehow "better" than these other couples but we may not be - there is mystery here. I hear people pontificating about these couples: how the "signs were all there from the beginning," and "if only they had been confronted and received care earlier." To me, the words ring hollow; the solutions overly facile. I have known too many who DID have accountability and discipleship but they hid anyway. The temptations came upon them and they refused to stop hiding. Accountability, community, vulnerability can be a great gift, if you find Christ in it. But it doesn't change you on its own, and I propose that it's not enough to stop a soul that is moving toward a sexual partner outside of marriage.

May I suggest that, actually, infidelity has nothing to do with lack of discipleship, with sex or lust or the internet? In my experience, this issue revolves around a lack of intimacy, and also a loathing fear of it.

In the most atomized, individualistic society in world history, don't we long for true friendship - to be known, to belong, to know our place; even as that strikes fear in our deepest soul? Because "to be known" is to give another the power to see your shame and to despise you, just like you may despise yourself; or that intimacy can enable them to see the real you and walk with you toward the healing of shame and growth toward who God created you to be. Honestly, I know very few pastors who are engaging with others on this level.

Unfortunately, we complicate intimacy by always linking it with sex. This is apparent all the time in film, and I'm sure, you've observed this personally: someone in a crisis begins to open up to another. The other responds by becoming vulnerable as well. They share their real selves. Soon, they?re in each others' arms. Why? Well, we're told, isn't that what happens when souls touch? Sex is almost expected in that kind of situation, right? Not at all! That would make intimacy nothing more than foreplay. Intimacy itself is so much more.

Many guys that I know are longing for the "Band of Brothers" kind of connection; yet, they hold back, deathly afraid of same-sex intimacy, not to mention heterosexual intimacy. Why? You know why. When you read "same-sex intimacy," I bet you aren't thinking 'guy friendships' or "best friend" or "a significant, vulnerable relationship with my brother-in-Christ." It just sounds like a sexual relationship, right? We've been conditioned to think that intimacy demands a sexual expression.

Intimacy is what we're made for. (Seriously, how many times have you either said or heard that in a sermon?) We all say it, but how many of us recognize that a marriage is not big enough to bear the relational freight of our immortal souls? We don't need more sex. We need more beings with whom to be intimate friends. We need healthy vulnerability with people other than our marriage partner - with both our same gender and the opposite. "Doesn't that set you up for greater temptation?," you ask. "Aren't you just opening the door for a similar fall?" No. Actually I think you guard yourself against sexual temptation when you experience friendship-intimacy with the opposite sex outside of your marriage partner - with other men and women. If we were "made for intimacy" as we keep saying, doesn't it make sense that we would "act out" inappropriately when we that basic relational need isn't realized? With all the lonely and isolated pastors and spouses in the U.S., is it any wonder that we're seeing this problem?

As Christians begin to explore relational intimacy with people of both genders, as we learn to love others in more meaningful ways, and to separate that love from sexual expression, we will find that we experience stronger marriages, genuine loving intimacy among the non-married, and, as Francis Schaeffer used to insist, a more full expression of the "final apologetic" (love) of Christian faith to the world.

In 1970, Sidney Greidanus wrote a dissertation on the Dutch controversy "exemplary versus redemptive-historical preaching". This controversy started in the 1930s, when a number of men in the Reformed Churches raised objections to the usual practice of preaching, in which the preachers would display the person mentioned in historical texts as models to be imitated, drawing parallels between the experiences of the Bible saints and the struggles of believers today. This so called exemplary approach was set over against the redemptive-historical approach, in which the preacher interprets the meaning of every character and event in the Bible in connection to the one redemptive history and its central character, Jesus Christ. The controversy over preaching brought to light at least six dilemmas, which Greidanus in his dissertation sought to overcome.

 1. Overcoming the relevance-truth divide

The motive of proponents of the exemplary approach was a concern for relevance, while the motive of proponents of the redemptive historical-approach was a concern for sola Scriptura, the desire to preach the Word of God and that only. The objections raised by the exemplary side to redemptive-historical preaching is that it tends to lack relevance. The redemptive-historical side objected that, in his laudable attempt to be relevant, the exemplary preacher tends to be more about the man in the book and the man in the pew than about Christ. 

To overcome the divide, Greidanus asserts that historical texts are texts. Sermons must seek their point of departure not in the man in the pew nor in the history of redemption but in the historical text. One cannot detail the meaning of a particular text until one has listened attentively to that text. Because the exemplary method views the biblical stories as recorded to illustrate and depict concretely certain timeless "truths" that must be believed or certain timeless "ethics" which must be lived, it does not really need a preaching text form the Bible. But the redemptive-historical approach is liable to similar consequences in that it seeks to reach the facts behind the text to the detriment of the preaching-text. The text becomes a window through which to view the panorama of the upholding redemptive history. The text itself is no longer taken seriously.   

2. Overcoming the objective-subjective divide

The redemptive-historical side objected that the exemplary side is subjective in that the preaching tends to be more about the man in the pew than about Christ. The exemplary approach, on its turn, criticizes the redemptive-historical approach for turning every sermon into a lecture about the history of redemption and the objective work of Christ. Again, Greidanus observes that are wrong. The subjective preacher speaks about only one dogma: the order of salvation, the application of redemption to the individual; and so does the objective preacher, speaking only of the dogma of Christ. The way toward overcoming the objective-subjective dilemma is sought in the view that historical text are proclamation.   

We can overcome the defect of the objective-subjective scheme only when we fully recognize that preaching is a moment of living intercourse between the Lord and his people. Scripture is address, appeal, kerugma. Seen in this light, the sermon is not a piece of objective dogmatic or ethical truth, nor a subjective sketch of the condition of my soul, but a living word of the God who comes to his people in speaking his Word to them. Preaching is not merely a lecture about redemptive history, nor a lecture about the order of salvation, it's the presentation of the gospel, the making-present of Christ. It's not merely a narration of historical events, nor a description of what one has experienced, but a powerful happening which gains effect for good or ill. Whenever preaching takes place in accord with God's command, it becomes a redemptive event and the Kingdom of God moves forges ahead.

 3. Overcoming the explication-application divide

The redemptive-historical side objects to the exemplary side that it neglects the historical context in the interest of preaching in an applicatory way. The exemplary side objects that redemptive-historical preaching lacks application. The historical context of text is not to be neglected in the interest of preaching in an applicatory way. As a matter of fact, it is usually through the perception of a text's relevance in the past that it begins to speak all the more relevant in the present. Even the presentation of the past relevance of the text aims at disclosing its present relevance. In that sense the whole sermon is applicatory explication.  Besides, preaching is not just reproducing. Theocentric explication is the first step op application. The preacher's task is not to add application to the Word, but to proclaim that Word today in all its relevance - a relevance which is already contained in the theocentric application.

 4. Overcoming the believer-unbeliever divide

In trait preaching, a sub-form of exemplary preaching, the preacher focuses on the distinguishing marks by which a person may know whether or not he is in Christ. while the purpose of this form of preaching is to provide assurance for the child of God and to unmask the hypocrite in the congregation, the redemptive-historical side objects that, in fact, it may have just the opposite effect: the hypocrite may come to false assurance and the true believer may become disquieted. On a similar note, discerning preaching - preaching with separate applications for each of the different categories of people in the congregation - seeks to cause the objective truth to be subjectively appropriated by each of the different varieties of spiritual life present. Again the divide may be overcome by viewing the historical text as proclamation. Holwerda says, "Let the preacher preach the gospel to all! Only then does he swing the ax of Christ. Woe the preacher who presupposes divisions in the church and directs the word of the text to only one group. He must preach it to all and by that means Christ shall make the divisions... The stumbling block lies in the Gospel itself." (p. 100)

 5. Overcoming the head-heart divide

Another division is made between the faculties of man, the intellectual, the volitional and the emotional moment in the sermon. Through the proclamation of the gospel, God grip the heart of man. The Word of God that is preached is directed at the heart of man. The word is not addressed to a part of man. It calls man to serve the Lord with his heart. Preachers are not learned people who must convince others with their knowledge. They are not moralists who must try to elevate the virtues of man. They are heralds. They bring a message that does not call for a reflection, and "I'll think about it", it calls for the total man to respond at once. (p. 167)

 6. Overcoming the private-public divide

Through the proclamation of the gospel, God lays hold of life. It calls man to serve the Lord with his whole life. Preaching is not merely concerned with some internal sector of a person's life; on the contrary, through the heart the whole of a person's life comes into view. From the heart, rooted in Christ, reborn through the Spirit, our whole life is being renewed and the communion with God is extended into all the relationships and functions of life. The church is not in politics, it is not a clinic for marital problems. The preacher is not the expert on social and economic problems, but he preaches the Word and that Word has implications for all of life. Preaching does not mean that one can busy himself with spiritual things only. Preaching the gospel discloses to us the meaning of all things. The preacher who holds this broad view of preaching need not worry about relevance. Because God speaks to us in all our relationships and functions, the relevance of the Word is as broad as life itself. The relevance of the Word can come to expression in any area of life, for no area is off-limits to the renewing Word. (pp. 231-232)

When considering the rising 'urban class', we often bring up Nietzsche and Freud as people who have played a key role in determining their philosophical outlook on life. Yet, perhaps we are missing out other thinkers who need to get a look in, if our understanding is to become even more robust. For instance, few people could claim to represent the cynicism and mild (hedonistic) nihilism of the modern urbanite more than Oscar Wilde. Few people could claim to represent the restlessness of the modern urbanite more than Oscar Wilde.

Oscar Wilde was easily one of the finest brains ever to grace the British Isles. Not only was his mastery of the English language supreme, but his clarity of thought and ability to gauge the 'reasons behind the reasons' was second to none.

This post constitutes an attempt to rehabilitate Wilde, for I think that in many ways he may help us to understand our context far better than many Christian commentators are able to. So, on the one hand, even though he most certainly rejected the very ground that Christian belief stands on by building his tent solely on a self-referencing reality: "But whether it be faith or agnosticism, it must be nothing external to me. Its symbols must be of my own creating", I'm not so sure that Wilde's preferred vision of religion was so far removed from the kind of religion that Christ actually produced. Today I came upon this gem:

When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, where on an altar, on which no taper burned, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become a religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith. (De Profundis, letter written in 1905)

If we unpack this statement, it proves to be quite revealing. Let us examine each statement in turn and compare it to the religion imagined by Jesus

1) Wilde: "I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless"

Christianity: The basic prerequisite of a Christian is not someone who has accomplished something great by believing but someone who has failed to trust in God their whole life and has only come to Jesus when they realised how 'faithless' they really are. In Christianity, since faith is a gift given only to those who have realised just how faithless they really are, Wilde is basically - and uniquely - describing true Christianity. There is no other system that resembles Wilde's suggestion here apart from Christianity. Modern secularism is hardly a 'confraternity'; it is rather a selection of individuals who are united less by their system than by other factors.

2) Wilde: "on an altar, on which no taper burned"

Christianity: This is where it really starts to get interesting. The reason why Christianity does/should not have altars is because the fire has already been spent. On the cross, Jesus passed through the fire of God's judgement so that those who turn to him would not have to. The sacrifice has been offered on the altar that is the cross of Calvary. What this means is that, in stark contrast to every other religion, both secular and non, Christianity is the only religion where its followers are not in the business of the daily grind of justification. The altar and the sacrifice upon it denotes just this grind, where people are constantly engaged in the struggle to justify their existence, their actions, their place in this world. When Christ passed through that fire, he made it possible for his followers to have "an altar on which no taper is burned"

3) Wilde:: "a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling"

Christianity: Jesus is called the great High Priest in the letter to the Hebrews. This great High Priest, before going to the cross, states, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." Then, on the cross, he uttered a fateful cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." This, more than any other, was the cry of "a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling." On the cross, Jesus suffered the utter desolation and upheaval of his soul, so that peace everlasting could come into the hearts of those who trust in him. On the cross, he gave up his peace and perfect relationship with God the Father, so that it might be given to mankind as a free gift by faith. This is the religion Christ created, a religion whose great high priest became a man in whose heart peace had no dwelling.

4) Wilde:: "might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine"

Christianity: The only reason that a Christian believer has to celebrate is through the cursing of Christ, in his body, on the cross. Christ's body - the bread he speaks of - was the most "unblessed bread" in all of history. It was broken so that those who trust in him would be able to celebrate in the new creation with the blessed bodies that he won for them through the cursing of his own. The resurrection is confirmation that this was done in the power of God and that the power that warred against the body had been defeated. Similarly, the chalice of wine (symbolising God's judgement) is empty because Jesus drank it all on the cross - every last drop. The Christian is able to celebrate because the wine he or she drinks speaks of life when it should speak of death. We deserved to drink this chalice, but Christ drank it instead; that is why the chalice is 'in remembrance' and always pointing to Christ's sacrifice on the cross; not our own offering to God, but that which he offered in our place.

In the end, we see that Oscar Wilde's desired "alternative religion for the faithless" is actually a description of the Christian faith. When people reject Christianity in favour of a fleeting "alternative religion for the faithless", is is perhaps possible that what they have in mind is the very thing they are rejecting? The onus is on us to show this to them so that the Holy Spirit may convince them it is true.

1. La iglesia local tiene que apoyar la creación de cultura. La mayoría de jóvenes evangélicos interesados en integrar su fe con el arte cinematográfico, el periodismo, la financiación empresarial, etc., reciben apoyo e instrucción de redes de contacto informal u organizaciones para-eclesiales. El libro de Michael Lindsay Faith in the Halls of Power muestra cómo muchos cristianos que se encuentran en lugares desde los que se puede ejercer alguna influencia cultural, están alienados de la iglesia, porque en los mejores casos, no reciben apoyo de la iglesia por vivir su fe en el espacio público y, en el peor de los casos, lo que reciben es oposición.

A nivel teológico, la iglesia necesita ganar un mayor consenso sobre la manera de relacionar fe y cultura. Todavía existe bastante conflicto entre quienes quieren discipular a los cristianos para la vida pública, y quienes piensan que todo lo que sea "involucrarse en la cultura" al final conlleva su riesgo y [acaba por] distraer de la predicación del evangelio. Lo que hace [especialmente] difícil este debate es que ambas partes hacen una buena presentación de sus puntos de vista y presentan buenos argumentos.

A nivel práctico, incluso las iglesias que de entrada valoran la importancia de integrar fe y ocupación laboral, en realidad hacen muy poco a la hora de equipar a la gente para que ese sea el caso. A quienes estamos en el ministerio, el seminario sólo nos preparó para discipular a la gente sólo en la medida que los vayamos sacando fuera del mundo y metiéndolos cada vez más dentro de las paredes y ministerios de la iglesia. Así que, ¿cómo puede una iglesia ayudar realmente a sus miembros en esta área? Aquellos líderes que quieran empezar a trabajar en esta cuestión deberían echar un vistazo al Center for Faith and Work de Redeemer. 

2. Necesitamos renovar nuestra apologética.  En estos momentos hay una gran resistencia, por parte de líderes evangélicos más jóvenes, en contra de la apologética. Nos dicen que ya no necesitamos argumentos porque la gente [ya] no [sigue una lógica] racional. Lo que necesitamos es comunidad de amor. En mi opinión, éste es un planteamiento corto de miras por dos motivos.

Primero, los cristianos occidentales acabarán teniendo que hacer frente al reto que durante años muchos misioneros se han encontrado--cómo comunicar el evangelio a musulmanes, budistas, hindús y seguidores de otras tantas religiones populares.  Todos los líderes jóvenes deberían tomar cursos en y leer textos de las otras principales religiones del mundo. También deberían estudiar la presentación del evangelio escrita por misioneros que han estado interactuando con esas religiones. Una comunidad de amor será extremadamente  importante, tal y como siempre lo ha sido, para alcanzar a nuestros vecinos que tienen otras creencias; pero si han de venir a la iglesia, lo harán trayendo con ellos toda una serie de preguntas que un líder de hoy tiene que ser capaz de dar respuesta.

Segundo, existe un verdadero vacío en el pensamiento secular de occidente. Al morir Derrida, me sorprendió ver cuántos de sus antiguos alumnos admitían  que la Alta Teoría (lo que los evangélicos llamamos 'post-modernismo') es vista como un callejón sin salida, principalmente porque es tan relativista que no provee de ninguna base para la acción política. Y un importante intelectual británico como Terry Eagleton, en unas recientes conferencias en Yale (publicadas por Yale Press bajo el título Religion, Faith, and Revolution) no tuvo miramientos a la hora de cargar contra el viejo ateísmo científico de Dawkins y Hitchens al calificarlo también de estar en bancarrota. Eagleton sugiere que el optimismo de la Ilustración sobre el progreso de la ciencia y de la humanidad está muerto. No importa lo popular que sean los libros de Dawkins, pues el pensamiento occidental ya no va por esos caminos. Además, el postmodernismo no puede producir una base [sólida]  para los derechos humanos ni tampoco para la justicia. 

[Todo] esto es realmente una apertura, apologéticamente [hablando], para alcanzar a no-cristianos con inquietudes intelectuales, especialmente aquellos que son más jóvenes y que tienen conciencia social. Necesitamos pensar en nuevas maneras de entablar contacto, preguntar a la gente cómo pueden justificar sus inquietudes por los derechos humanos y por la justicia social. (Una excelente ilustración de este tipo de planteamiento se puede leer en  "Does Naturalism Warrant a Moral Belief in Universal Benevolence and Human Rights?" de Chris Smith en el recientemente publicado The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion(Oxford, 2009.)

Durante los últimos veinte años mi predicación y enseñanza se ha beneficiado mucho del esforzado trabajo de leer filosofía, especialmente la obra de viejos filósofos y eruditos cristianos (Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Mavrodes, Alston) y también de los más jóvenes. Un [predicador] tiene que ser capaz de escoger y dar unidad a varios argumentos [del pensamiento contemporáneo], presentándolo después de una manera que sea fácil de entender tanto al predicar como a la hora de evangelizar.

Estoy de acuerdo con los críticos que dicen que eI viejo racionalismo de las 'evidencias que exigente un veredicto' es algo que  hoy día no despierta el más mínimo interés. Pero ello no significa que la gente ya no haga uso de la razón o incluso construya argumentos. En estos momentos hay una gran grieta en la armadura del pensamiento occidental. La gente no quiere volver a la religión, todavía les asusta; pero tampoco le entusiasman tanto las implicaciones y los efectos de no-creer.

3. Necesitamos una gran variedad de modelos de iglesia. En su libro, Models of the Church Avery Dulles realiza un gran trabajo a la hora de delinear los varios modelos de iglesia [que se han dado] en occidente a lo largo de los siglos.  Después de dejar claro que estos son modelos que muy rara vez se dan en su forma más pura, nos presenta cinco modelos. Cada uno estresando o enfatizando: a) Doctrina, enseñanza y autoridad, o b) un profundo sentido de comunidad y vida compartida, o c) alabanza, sacramentos, música y arte, o d) evangelismo, proclamación, y predicación dinámica, o e) justicia social, servicio y compasión.

Muchos evangélicos hoy día, en su deseo de llevar a cabo su ministerio en una cultura occidental post-cristiana, se han decantado por uno o dos de estos modelos. De manera que los que, por ejemplo, creen en una aproximación del tipo 'encarnacional' más que la que [descansa en la capacidad de atracción de la iglesia], enfatizan el hecho de estar y de servir puertas afuera en medio del vecindario, la creación de pequeñas iglesias en casa y [experimentar] una comunidad más intimidad (una combinación de los modelos b y e que Dulles nos propone).  Por otro lado, muchos evangélicos que no se fían del liberalismo tan sutil de la iglesia emergente, lo que enfatizan es la combinación más tradicional de los modelos a y d. Cada uno de los bandos es bastante serio en cuanto a lo acertado de su modelo y procura hacer uso del mismo en todas partes. 

Creo que nuestra situación cultural es demasiado compleja como para tener una perspectiva tan genérica. Hay demasiados no-cristianos que nunca han ido a una iglesia. Árabes en Detroit, hmongs en Chicago, chinos y judíos en la ciudad de Nueva York, anglos en el Noroeste y el Noreste que han sido educados por padres seculares--algunos de ellos son artistas e innovadores, otros trabajan en el mundo empresarial. Todos estos son varios grupos de un creciente número de gente que no conoce lo que es la iglesia, y cada uno de estos grupos son muy diferentes entre sí. De manera que aunque no hay un modelo que pueda llegar a todos y cada uno de ellos por igual--al menos cada modelo  sí puede llegar a alguno de estos grupos.

4. Tenemos que mejorar nuestra teología del sufrimiento. Los miembros de las iglesias occidentales no saben cómo reaccionar ante el sufrimiento y la dificultad. Esto es un serio problema, especialmente [si tenemos en cuenta el tiempo de transición que vivimos y toda la incertidumbre que ello genera] --aunmento de la marginalización social--y tal vez más inestabilidad social y económica. Existen una gran cantidad de libros sobre '¿por qué Dios permite el mal?' pero su principal objetivo es sacar a Dios de en medio con la impaciencia [característica] del occidental que cree que la [única] ocupación de Dios es darle una vida [lo más segura posible]. La iglesia en occidente debe [ser capaz de superar este gran obstáculo], preparando a su gente para que sean capaces de hacer frente al sufrimiento y a la persecución.

En esta cuestión también podemos conectar con el Nuevo cristianismo global. Tendemos a pensar '¿qué podemos hacer por ellos?'. Pero en una cuestión como ésta es cuando podemos dejar que sean ellos los hagan algo por nosotros. Gran parte de la la iglesia en el resto del mundo está acostumbrada al sufrimiento y a la persecución. Ellos tienen un tipo de fe que no languidece, al contrario, crece cada vez más robusta frente a la amenaza. Necesitamos que nos instruyan en esta área. 

5.Necesitamos un gran número de iglesias en las ciudades más grandes del mundo.

¡Sé que siempre se espera de mí que diga esto! Pero no se trata simplemente de un añadido a las otras medidas para hacer frente a los grandes retos [que hemos ido mencionando]. De alguna manera, esta es la 'Gran Idea' que nos ayudará a ir avanzando en todos los frentes.

Si hubiera un rápido y vital crecimiento de varios movimientos de iglesias--de teología ortodoxa, ministerio integral y comprometido culturalmente--en las grandes ciudades globales, de manera que entre un 5% y un 10% de los habitantes de las 50 ciudades más influyentes fuesen creyentes, a) ejercería un gran impacto en la creación de cultura, b) ayudaría a que la iglesia aprendiera nuevas maneras de alcanzar a quienes nunca han tenido contacto con la iglesia (puesto que tienden a concentrarse en las ciudades), c) conectaría de una forma más inmediata a las iglesias occidentales con las nuevas iglesias del resto del mundo, d) uniría iglesias de diferentes tradiciones y modelos.

- Puedes leer original (en inglés) aquí

1. The local church has to support culture-making. Most of the young evangelicals interested in integrating their faith with film-making, journalism, corporate finance, etc, are getting their support and mentoring from informal networks or para-church groups. Michael Lindsay's book Faith in the Halls of Power shows that many Christians in places of influence in the culture are alienated from the church, because they get, at best, no church support for living their faith out in the public spheres, and, at worst, opposition.

At the theological level, the church needs to gain more consensus on how the church and Christian faith relate to culture. There is still a lot of conflict between those who want to disciple Christians for public life, and those who think all "engagement of culture" ultimately leads to compromise and distraction from the preaching of the gospel. What makes this debate difficult is that both sides make good points and have good arguments. 

At the practical level, even the churches that give lip-service to the importance of integrating faith and work do very little to actually equip people to do so. Seminary only trained us ministers to disciple people by pulling them more out of the world and inside the walls and ministries of the church. So how does a church actually help its members in this area? Leaders who want to get started should look at Redeemer's Center for Faith and Work.

2. We need a renewal of apologetics. There is a lot of resistance right now among younger evangelical leaders toward apologetics. We are told we don't need arguments any more because people aren't rational. We need loving community instead. But I think this is short-sighted for two reasons.

First, Christians in the West will finally be facing what missionaries around the world have faced for years--how to communicate the gospel to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and adherents of various folk religions. All young church leaders should take courses in and read the texts of the other major world religions. They should also study the gospel presentations written by missionaries engaging those religions. Loving community will be extremely important, as it always is, to reach out to neighbors of other faiths, but if they are going to come into the church, they will have many questions that church leaders today need to be able to answer.

Second, there a real vacuum in western secular thought. When Derrida died I was surprised how many of his former students admitted that High Theory (what evangelicals call 'post-modernism') is seen as a dead end, mainly because it is so relativistic that it provides no basis for political action. And a leading British intellectual like Terry Eagleton in recent lectures at Yale (published as Religion, Faith, and Revolution by Yale Press) savaged the older scientific atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens as equally bankrupt. Eagleton points out that the Enlightenment's optimism about science and human progress is dead. Serious western thought is not going back to that, no matter how popular Dawkins' books get. But postmodernism cannot produce a basis for human rights or justice either.

This is a real opening, apologetically, in reaching out to thoughtful non-Christians, especially the younger, socially conscious ones. We need to think of new ways to engage, asking people how they can justify their concerns for human rights and social justice. (For a great recent form of this approach, see Chris Smith's "Does Naturalism Warrant a Moral Belief in Universal Benevolence and Human Rights?" in The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (Oxford, 2009.)

Over the last twenty years my preaching and teaching has profited a great deal from doing the hard work of reading philosophy, especially the work of older Christian philosophers and scholars (Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Mavrodes, Alston) and the younger ones. Ministers need to be able to glean and put their arguments into easy to understand form, both in speaking and in evangelism.

I agree with the critics that say the old, rationalistic, 'evidence that demands a verdict' makes people's eyes glaze over today. But that doesn't mean that people don't still use reason and still make arguments. There is a big chink in the armor of western thought right now. People don't want to go back to religion, which still scares them, but they are not so sanguine about the implications and effects of non-belief.

3. We need a great variety of church-models. Avery Dulles' book Models of the Church does a good job of outlining the very different models of churches in the west over the centuries. After qualifying his analysis by saying these are seldom pure forms, he lays out five models. Each one stresses or emphasizes: a) Doctrine, teaching, and authority, or b) deep community and life together, or c) worship, sacraments, music and the arts, or d) evangelism, proclamation, and dynamic preaching, or e) social justice, service, and compassion.

Many evangelicals today have bought in to one or two of these models as the way to minister now in the post-Christendom west. So for example, those who believe in the 'incarnational' (vs. 'attractional' approach) emphasize being and serving out in the neighborhood, smaller house churches and intimate community (a combination of Dulles' b and e models.) Meanwhile, many evangelicals who are afraid of the 'liberal creep' of the emerging church, stress the traditional combination of a and d emphases. Each side is fairly moralistic about the rightness of its model and seeks to use it everywhere.

I feel that our cultural situation is too complex for such a sweeping way to look at things. There are too many kinds of 'never-churched-non-Christians'. There are Arabs in Detroit, Hmongs in Chicago, Chinese and Jews in New York City, Anglos in the Northwest and Northeast that were raised by secular parents--some are artists and creative types, some work in business. All of these are growing groups of never-churched, but they are very different from one another. No model can connect to them all--every model can connect to some.

4. We must develop a far better theology of suffering. Members of churches in the west are caught absolutely flat-footed by suffering and difficulty. This is a major problem, especially if we are facing greater 'liminality'--social marginalization--and maybe more economic and social instability. There are a great number of books on 'why does God allow evil?' but they mainly are aimed at getting God off the hook with impatient western people who believe God's job is to give them a safe life. The church in the west must mount a great new project--of producing a people who are prepared to endure in the face of suffering and persecution.

Here, too, is one of the ways we in the west can connect to the new, growing world Christianity. We tend to think about 'what we can do for them.' But here's how we let them do something for us. Many or most of the church in the rest of the world is used to suffering and persecution. They have a kind of faith that does not wilt, but rather grows stronger under threat. We need to become students of theirs in this area.

5. We need a critical mass of churches in the biggest cities of the world.

I know I'm always expected to say this! But this is not a mere tack-on to the other measures for addressing the Big Issues. In some ways, this is the 'Big Idea' that will help us move forward on all fronts.

If there were vital, fast-growing movements of churches--orthodox in theology, wholistic in ministry, and committed to culture-making--in the great global cities, so that 5-10% of the residents of the 50 most influential cities were gospel-believers, a) it would have a great impact on culture-making, b) it would help the church learn new ways of reaching the never-churched (since they concentrate in cities), c) it would connect western churches more readily to the new churches in the non-western world, d) it would unite churches across traditions and models.

My King came down and paid my debt I owed to Him. He came down as a servant to pay in His own blood the debt I owed to God because of my sins against Him and others. The debt was infinitely great. Even if I gave all I owned a millions times over and gave every good work a million times over, my debt would still be unpaid. So an infinite debt required an infinite payment. I am thankful for this servant who is also my King. I am thankful that Jesus in His grace has forgiven my debt and removed my guilt by giving Himself.

See forgiveness cost. It will either come at the expense of the one injured or the one who did the injuring. In death, on a Roman cross, my forgiveness was purchased at the cost of the one whose glory had been injured. Jesus Christ nailed my debt to the cross, forgave me of my sin and sent me free to rejoice in the gracious gift of life with others who have received the same.

This motivates Christian forgiveness. How great it is, that Jesus did not withhold this gift from those of us who are known by Him. With this knowledge of God?s work in our lives on the cross, the Holy Spirit prompts us to forgive those who have injured us in order that we would display the great work of God in Christ. In forgiving others, we pay the cost and take some measure of suffering. We will be bearing our cross and demonstrate to the world the power of the Gospel.

1. La oportunidad (por lo menos en los Estados Unidos) de influir en el devenir de la cultura. En una entrevista, el sociólogo Peter Berger opinaba que los evangélicos en los Estados Unidos están dando un giro, de ser mayoritariamente clase obrera a tener formación universitaria.

Su pregunta es-- Todos estos cristianos preparándose en letras, empresariales, política, medios de comunicación y artes escénicas a) ¿serán asimilados en la ya existente narrativa cultural, de manera que en sus puntos de vista y valores pasará a ser el mismo que el del resto de las elites y profesionales seculares? o b) ¿se encerrarán en sí mismos y harán de su fe un asunto privado [sin ingerencias en su trabajo], de manera que, a todos los efectos, no realicen su trabajo de una manera especialmente distintiva? o c) ¿trabajarán de forma lo suficientemente creativa desde una perspectiva cristiana en sus campos para que las cosas cambien? (Ver Peter Berger)

2. El avance del Islam. ¿Cómo se relacionan los cristianos con los musulmanes cuando les toca vivir codo con codo en una misma sociedad? ¡Lo datos que recogemos de lugares como África y Oriente Medio no son muy alentadores! Este es un problema que afecta más a la iglesia en Europa que a la iglesia en Estados Unidos, pero sin duda será una preocupación creciente también para América

¿De qué manera pueden los cristianos, en relación a los musulmanes, ser a) buenos vecinos, procurando su bienestar indistintamente de si se convierten o no, y aún así b) de forma atractiva y efectiva invitarles a considerar el evangelio?  

3. El nuevo cristianismo global no es occidental.  El centro de gravedad demográfico del cristianismo [a nivel mundial] ha girado, y ya no se encuentra en Occidente, sino en Asia, América Latina y África. Las iglesias urbanas que están despuntando en China podrían llegar a ser particularmente influyentes en el futuro. Aún así, Occidente todavía tiene las instituciones educativas, el dinero y un poder significativo

¿En qué términos debe desarrollarse la relación entre las antiguas iglesias occidentales y la nueva iglesia no occidental? ¿Cómo podemos utilizar nuestros bienes para servirles, de una manera que no sea paternalista? ¿Cómo podemos aprender de ellos más allá de lo superficial?

 4. El creciente distanciamiento cultural con respecto al evangelio.Los conceptos básicos del evangelio -- pecado, culpa y tener que rendir cuentas a Dios, el sacrificio de la cruz, la naturaleza humana, la vida después de la muerte -- están llegando a ser una rareza en nuestra cultura occidental por primera vez en 1500 años. Tal y como Lesslie Newbigin ha escrito, ahora es tiempo de 'pensar como misioneros'--para formular maneras de comunicar el evangelio que por un lado confronte, como también sepan conectar con nuestra crecientemente-descristianizada cultura occidental.

¿Cómo hacemos que el evangelio sea culturalmente accesible, sin poner en compromiso su integridad? ¿Cómo podemos comunicar el evangelio y vivirlo de manera que sea comprensible para gente que carece de la estructura mental básica para al menos ser capaces de entender las verdades esenciales de la Biblia?

5. ¿El fin de la prosperidad? Con la crisis económica, la cuestión que se nos plantea es -- ¿volverá a crecer el valor de las viviendas, seguros, comisiones, salarios e inversiones, al mismo ritmo que lo han hecho durante los últimos 25 años? O, por el contrario ¿el crecimiento será relativamente nulo por muchos años? Si es así, ¿de qué manera la iglesia occidental --que se ha acostumbrado a dar de unos activos que crecían a gran velocidad-- se ajustará en la manera en la que lleva a cabo el ministerio? Por ejemplo, el ministerio en los Estados Unidos hoy está altamente profesionalizado --los empleados de una iglesia son mucho más numerosos de lo que lo eran dos generaciones atrás, cuando de una iglesia de 1.000 se esperaba que quizá tuviera dos pastores y un par de trabajadores a medio tiempo. Hoy día esa misma iglesia seguramente tenga entre 8 y 10 trabajadores a tiempo completo.    

También a tener en cuenta, ¿cómo ajustamos el mensaje sobre la mayordomía? Si los activos se han reducido a la mitad, [nos encontramos con la paradoja de que] un ofrendar más sacrificado y con mayor riesgo será necesario para poder realizar menos ministerio del que hasta ahora hemos estado llevando a cabo.

Si, además de todo esto, sufrimos un atentado nuclear o de terrorismo biológico en los Estados Unidos o en Europa, podríamos tener que vernos obligados a dejar de un lado toda nuestra asunción más básica sobre el progreso social y económico que hemos ido construyendo durante los últimos 65 años. En la primera mitad del s. XX, tuvimos dos guerras mundiales y una depresión económica. ¿Está lista la iglesia para hacer frente a una situación similar? ¿De qué manera? ¿Qué puede significar todo esto?

 - Puedes leer original (en iglés) aquí

His question is--will Christians going into the arts, business, government, the media, and film a) assimilate to the existing baseline cultural narratives so they become in their views and values the same as other secular professionals and elites, or b) will they seal off and privatize their faith from their work so that, effectively, they do not do their work in any distinctive way, or c) will they do enough new Christian 'culture-making' in their fields to change things? (See http://www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR_Archives/AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf)

2. The rise of Islam. How do Christians relate to Muslims when we live side by side in the same society? The record in places like Africa and the Middle East is not encouraging! This is more of an issue for the western church in Europe than in the U.S., but it is going to be a growing concern in America as well.

How can Christians be at the very same time a) good neighbors, seeking their good whether they convert or not, and still b) attractively and effectively invite Muslims to consider the gospel?

3. The new non-western Global Christianity. The demographic center of Christian gravity has already shifted from the west to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The rising urban churches of China may be particularly influential in the future. But the west still has the educational institutions, the money, and a great deal of power.

What should the relationship of the older western churches be to the new non-western church? How can we use our assets to serve them in ways that are not paternalistic? How can we learn from them in more than perfunctory ways?

4. The growing cultural remoteness of the gospel. The basic concepts of the gospel -- sin, guilt and accountability before God, the sacrifice of the cross, human nature, afterlife -- are becoming culturally strange in the west for the first time in 1500 years. As Lesslie Newbigin has written, it is time now to 'think like a missionary'--to formulate ways of communicating the gospel that both confront and engage our increasingly non-Christian western culture.

How do we make the gospel culturally accessible without compromising it? How can we communicate it and live it in a way that is comprehensible to people who lack the basic 'mental furniture' to even understand the essential truths of the Bible?

5. The end of prosperity? With the economic meltdown, the question is -- will housing values, endowments, profits, salaries, and investments go back to growing at the same rates as they have for the last twenty-five years, or will growth be relatively flat for many years to come? If so, how does the western church, which has become habituated to giving out of fast-increasing assets, adjust in the way it carries out ministry? For example, American ministry is now highly professionalized--church staffs are far larger than they were two generations ago, when a church of 1,000 was only expected to have, perhaps, two pastors and a couple of other part-time staff. Today such a church would have probably eight to ten full-time staff members.

Also, how should the stewardship message adjust? If discretionary assets are one-half of what they were, more risky, sacrificial giving will be necessary to do even less ministry than we have been doing.

On top of this, if we experience even one significant act of nuclear or bio-terrorism in the U.S. or Europe, we may have to throw out all the basic assumptions about social and economic progress we have been working off for the last 65 years. In the first half of the 20th century, we had two World Wars and a Depression. Is the church ready for that? How could it be? What does that mean?

Take for example the shopping center 1.2 miles from my home where we do all of our grocery shopping. There is a Target, Barnes and Noble, Kroger, Caribou Coffee, Best Buy, Lowes, Rue Sans (Sushi), Wachovia (Bank), and a Smoothie King, not to mention several upscale ($200 or more a pair)shoe stores, shops, and boutiques. It possesses all of the qualities of the "rough" areas of Seattle, so by my general definition, it is no longer a depressed area - except, because of gentrification and trend changes, for this situation, my definition is blown, why? The liquor store three blocks from this shopping center was robbed, and the clerk was shot to death just two month's ago. Just this past Sunday, a shoot out between two vehicles occurred in that same shopping center just a few hours after my family and I finished buying groceries there.

The point to this discourse is that the dividing lines between rich and poor, safe and dangerous, hood and hip are no longer so clear. This is a changing landscape that as a Pastor to this city I am going to have to carefully examine to understand, so that we can most effectively and faithfully engage and reach this entire area that does not in anyway lend itself to homogeneous ministry, if we are being true to engaging the whole of the community. How we will reconcile our culture clashes, I do not fully have an answer to yet, but for anyone else seeking to move into and work for the welfare of any major city through Gospel transformation, this is a question that has to be answered.

"I just visit a different church each week, that"s what I do."   In her early 50's, the woman making this statement to me had a sweet smile and warm eyes.   She had come very early to find the location and made herself comfortable in a cushioned seating area.  I found her to be a very friendly person.

That was until I started to try to move some of the storage boxes with our church supplies.  You see, we meet in an off Broadway theater.  And like many churches that rent where they gather to worship, we use storage bins to hold the basic items that we need.  If you come early enough on a Sunday morning you'll walk into a room filled with large plastic bins of supplies for all of the assorted things that we do in a service.

Our friend had found the corner where most of the bins were stacked and promptly nestled herself behind them.  The moment that I began to move some of the bins to put them away prior to the service, her demeanor changed; she became agitated.  The agitation started graciously at first, "Oh no, you don't have to move these for me.  I don't mind them at all."  I was very gentle at first, explaining that it was no trouble at all.  She would be able to see the service if I moved the bins.

She countered, "Please don't move these bins.  I can see just fine."  In New York, space is a premium, so I had to explain to her that we would probably need the seating area as people arrived.  This did not deter her.  In fact, she actually became more adamant.  As I put my hands on one of the bins, she grabbed it to keep it in place.  I found myself playing a little tug-of-war with this sweet woman!  Except now, she wasn't looking so sweet.  Then it dawned upon me - she sat there so no one could get close to her.  I did have to move the bins and we were pretty full, but she had to let me take down those walls.  Fortunately, a young lady in our congregation came over to meet this woman.  The distraction was wonderfully helpful.

After the service I thought on this awhile.  Isn't this a story for all of us?  We are attracted to what God can do in community, yet we are scared to be known.  Like a moth attracted to a flame, we are made for relationships. Yet like this woman, we want community to be on our terms.  But community on our terms is not really community, it's manipulation.  We keep building our walls of plastic bins to try to control the very people who can help us.

I think about the plastic bins that I use to keep people away while I'm in the middle of community.  Busyness, position, there are a lot of ways that I create artificial divides between me and those directly around me.  To go from anonymity to relationships can be a terrifying process.

Yet that is where God constantly takes us.  Christianity has doctrine, but that doctrine is about a relationship with God.  The fountainhead of our faith is relationship.  Why would we be surprised that the Holy Spirit keeps taking us to expressions of community?  The church is not man's idea; it's mandated in Scripture as God's plan for the world.

I'm praying for my new found friend.  I pray that she comes back to Grace, but if she doesn't I'm praying for people around her who won't let her stay hidden behind plastic bins.  We all need people to come and take those walls down.  It may be terrifying at first, but it is ultimately liberating.

Isn't that what Jesus came to do?  To set us free so that we could be free indeed?

I went to Seattle recently to visit my boy's at Mars Hill and get my retrain on, and me and Mike Anderson had an interesting conversation. We were talking about crime, impoverished neighborhoods, and the gospel. He then told me about the ghetto in Seattle, and some of what are considered the rough areas. You may notice that I have placed both ghetto and rough in quotations, it is indeed to show sarcasm, because what I discovered in seeing these areas made me come to the conclusion that if these were the rough areas of Seattle, then Seattle truly had no ghetto.

You see, in true hood areas, there are things you find and things you don't. Banks, Grocery Stores, Coffee shops, Sushi Bars, Target, Barnes and Noble etc. you do not find in the ghetto why Because these businesses generally do not feel they can be profitable in depressed areas of the city. What you do find in depressed areas of metropolitan cities are Liquor Stores, Pawn Shops, Corner Stores (that charge 80 cents for one pack of Kool Aid, true story, a couple blocks from my house), Burned out or Abandoned Buildings, and masses of people standing on street corners. The rough areas of Seattle had all of the former and none of the latter.

Something interesting seems to be taking place in recent years though in some major cities. As Young Professionals, and Urban Hipsters are moving back into cities, and gentrification is happening in once depressed areas, we are starting to see some light and some severe culture clash. Example...I live in Grant Park (Downtown Atlanta) Atlanta's oldest and most historic neighborhood. I live off of MLK, and everyone I know who doesn't live here or isn't familiar with what has taken place here always asks me,you living in the hood now? Well technically, yes, but conventionally, no. I live in what was once an abandoned warehouse turned chic overpriced loft space, with gated parking. More directly, I am living in what I would consider a mostly gentrified neighborhood. And it is diverse by race, ethnicity, culture and class. It is amazing to me to see $40,000 BMW's drive past homeless guys pissing in the street, and yet, I see it everyday. We have what is now a culture clash, and it is starting to spill over in more severe ways.

to be continued

As more and more ministries and churches are pushing forward into serving their communities, I just wanted to highlight some practical lessons from my time in an urban context.

1. Christ must be primary. The Savior of the people is Jesus Christ and not us. In our efforts to help others who are in need, many times we can unintentionally put forth the perception we are here to save and the name of Christ can be obscured. So be intentional and look forward opportunities to graciously point people to Jesus Christ.

2. Communication with God. Prayer is the most invaluable privilege afforded to believers. There are many things that are unknown when you minister and so it is important that you go before the Lord in prayer. The Scriptures state, that the prayer of the righteous availeth much. The disciples prayed that the Lord would stretch forth His hand to do healing and signs and wonders. So take opportunities to walk the community and pray. Pray for the things that you see and don't see.

3. Compassion. Jesus saw the people and had compassion on them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd. I have found people who are desperate in life and chase after things that more than likely will be damaging to them. Now you could throw the Bible at them with all your Scriptures while they are in their drunkenness, smoking weed or absolute anger because their bicycle wheel was taken by the neighborhood trouble maker. Or you can walk in the compassion that Christ continually demonstrates. It really goes along way and it will speak so loud that eventually the one you have been compassionate towards will listen to what you have to say.

4. Courage. Let's be real. There are many areas that some people just can not go. Some areas in our city are just crime magnets and it takes a depth of wisdom and discernment to go into dangerous spots. At the same time, I have understood that Christ said He would never leave nor forsake and that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter who dwells within those who are born again. Armed with that knowledge, many of us have been equipped by God to be courageous and bring the hope of Christ into areas that are just not safe. Courage is not seen in the presence of safety but the absence of it.

5. Confidence in God who saves. There are a lot of cool things to catch people's attention. There are many cool ideas that we can come up with to serve the needs of people. The Psalms said, some trust in chariots, horses or princes but true confidence is found in the Lord God. Do we dismiss chariots, horses, community lunches or medical outreaches? No, because God has gifted many to use such things. But let us never forget our confidence must be in the Lord who saves and who heals and delivers for the sake of His name.

I was reflecting today on Jesus Christ being the Good Shepherd. Obviously a shepherd has a flock of sheep as Jesus says of Himself in John 10. The Gospel writers point out that Jesus saw the people as sheep not having a shepherd and He had compassion on them. Surely shepherds have the aroma of their sheep that they spend so much intimate time with. So my question to myself was how did Jesus smell? The second question I then had was how should shepherds (pastors) smell?

The Gospel writers point consistently to how Jesus Christ spent the majority of his time with sinners. This reality angered the religious folk of His day, as they tried to use this as an argument to discredit Jesus ministry. Jesus pointed out to them that it was the sick that needed a doctor. It was the unrighteous He was calling to repentance.

So what would tax collectors and sinners smell like? What is the aroma or odor of a prostitute? As He moved through the crowds and the woman with the issue of blood touched Him. Was her fragrance worthy of being bottled by Bath and Body Works? (She did have an awfully long menstrual cycle) The leper that Jesus touched, was his aroma fragrant like a rose or the aroma of decaying flesh? I wonder what Jesus smelled liked, as He went in and among the people that needed repentance and hope and then left them to travel to others?

Is it possible that Jesus wasn?t the fragrance of Cool Water, Nautica or Usher? Yes I know, he was anointed with the fragrance from an alabaster box, but up until that moment, that was ushering in the preparation for His death and resurrection, Jesus surely smelled liked the people He served, touched and ate with.

So my second question is this, ?How should we shepherds smell?? Have you ever walked away with the smell of beer on your clothes? Have you ever sat in a smoked filled room of marijuana or tobacco; walking away thinking you took part in the inhalation? Do you smell like the hidden issues that exist in marriages that are falling apart, children who are in need of their father?s attention or men who wrestle with their sexual identity? Should we not follow in the steps of our Great Shepherd?

While we may walk away with the fragrance of sins that are not our own, let us leave men and women with the aroma of Christ Jesus. The aroma of Christ is described as fragrant and sweet to the Father as He died on the Cross. The sweet smelling fragrance of Christ not only in death but in triumphant resurrection is the aroma we bring to men and women, leaving with their aroma on us, reminding us how to pray and care for those whom God has given us to shepherd.

Just today I was discussing how trials bring about our good with a friend of mine. After I got home I realized that James already wrote about this in an incredibly clear manner...

James 1:2-4 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

What a sweet and comforting truth! We are to count it all joy when we suffer because it produces steadfastness. The reasoning here is just awesome. James tells us to be joyful when we meet trials because we already know that when our faith is tested we become more steadfast. He is rooting this on previous knowledge and experience, hence him saying "for you know". The reason this can be said to any Christian is because every new convert goes through the trial of persecution. It does not necessarily have to be grievous persecution, but it will no doubt come. So from the very early days of our faith, we have been tried and our faith has grown and increased steadfastness is the result. So, Christian, fuel your joy with the knowledge that every trial has made you more steadfast. James concludes his thought on being steadfast in verse 12...

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

More emphasis on how remaining steadfast is linked to our joy. We will be blessed and receive the crown of life if we remain steadfast. Despair is a wild spiral down from this glorious truth, and joy is a lifted head of steadfast faith.

Algunas impresiones de Tim Keller sobre el best-seller La Cabaña de W. Paul Young:

Durante las vacaciones leí una buena (y devastadora) crítica de La Cabaña  de William P. (Paul) Young en la última edición impresa de Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010). Fue algo que me recordó que yo era una de las últimas personas en el mundo que no había leído el libro. Así que lo leí. ¿Por qué escribir un artículo al respecto? [El libro en cuestión] vendió 7.2 millones de copias en poco más de 2 años, a mediados de Junio de 2009. Con esas cifras, seguramente ejercerá alguna influencia en el imaginario popular de lo religioso. Así que exige una respuesta. Esto no es una reseña [o crítica literaria], simplemente algunas impresiones:

El libro es un noble esfuerzo, en forma de narración, de ayudar a la gente moderna a entender por qué Dios permite el sufrimiento. El gran argumento que Young presenta en varias partes del libro es el siguiente: Primero, el mal y el sufrimiento en el mundo es resultado de nuestro abuso del libre albedrío. Segundo, Dios no ha impedido el mal, para así alcanzar un bien mayor y más glorioso que ahora los seres humanos no podemos comprender. Tercero, cuando tenemos amargura hacia Dios por alguna tragedia en particular, nos sentamos en la silla del 'Juez y Dios del mundo', y no estamos cualificados para ese trabajo. Cuarto, debemos adquirir una 'perspectiva eterna' y ver a todo el pueblo de Dios [lleno] de gozo delante de su presencia por siempre. (Al padre en la historia le es dada una vision de su hija muerta viviendo en gozo en la presencia de Cristo, y [esta visión] cura su dolor.) Todo esto es una teología pastoral bastante standard y ortodoxa (aunque un tanto excesiva en su defensa del libre albedrío). [Todo ello] es bastante accesible al lector por el uso que hace de la narrativa. He escuchado muchos testimonios de medio-creyentes y de no-creyentes diciendo que este libro les había dado respuesta a sus mayores objeciones a la fe en Dios.

Sin embargo, a lo largo del libro [se puede ver cómo] la historia de Young mina unas cuantas doctrinas tradicionales del cristianismo. Muchos se han metido de llenos a debatir sobre las creencias teológicas de Young, y yo tengo mis propias reserves. Pero este es mi principal problema con el libro. Cualquiera que haya quedado influenciado por el imaginativo mundo de La Cabaña  no estará en absoluto preparado [para un encuentro] con el Dios, realmente mucho más multi-dimensional y complejo, de la Biblia. En los profetas el lector encontrará un Dios que constantemente condena y jura juicio sobre sus enemigos, mientras que las Personas del Dios-Trino de La Cabaña no paran de decir que el pecado no les es ninguna ofensa. El lector del Salmo 119 es lleno de entusiasmo por los estatutos, los decretos y las leyes de Dios, mientras que el Dios de La Cabaña insiste en que él no nos da ninguna norma o ni tan siquiera tiene ninguna expectativa de los seres humanos. Lo único que quiere es una relación. El lector de las vidas de Abraham, Jacob, Moisés e Isaías aprenderá que la santidad de Dios hace que su presencia [sin ningún tipo de mediación] sea peligrosa o incluso fatal para nosotros. Alguien podría argumentar (tal y como Young parece hacerlo en la página 192) que a causa de Jesús, Dios es ahora sólo un Dios de amor; lo que hace obsoleto cualquier discurso sobre santidad, ira y ley. Pero cuando Juan, uno de los amigos más íntimos de Jesús, ve mucho tiempo después de la crucifixión al Cristo resucitado en la isla de Patmos, 'cayó al suelo como muerto' (Apocalipsis 1:17). La Cabaña deconstruye de forma eficaz la santidad y la trascendencia de Dios, Simplemente no están presentes. En su lugar, simplemente, amor incondicional. El Dios de La Cabaña no tiene nada de la estabilidad y la complejidad del Dios bíblico. Un Dios a medias no es de ninguna manera Dios.

Existe otro libro moderno que [también] busca comunicar el carácter de Dios a través de una historia. [Este libro] también intentó 'encarnar' la doctrina bíblica de Dios de una forma imaginativa que pudiera trasmitir el corazón [mismo] del mensaje bíblico.  Aquella historia tenía una figura de Cristo llamada Aslan. Sin embargo, al contrario que el autor de La Cabaña, C.S. Lewis siempre se esmeraba en mantener la tensión bíblica entre el amor divino y su abrumadora santidad y esplendor. En la introducción a su libro El Problema del Dolor, Lewis citaba el ejemplo del libro infantil El Viento en los Sauces en el que dos personajes, Rata y Topo se acercan al divino. 

"¿Miedo?" Murmuró la Rata, con los ojos brillando de amor. "¡Miedo! ¿De él? ¡Nunca! Y, sin embargo... ¡Oh Topo, tengo miedo!"

Lewis buscó trasmitir esto a lo largo de sus historias de Narnia. Uno de los momentos más memorables es la descripción de Aslan.

"¿Seguros? ¿Quién dijo algo de estar seguros? Por su puesto que él no es seguro, pero él es bueno. Y es el Rey."   

Esto está mejor.

Over the holidays I read a good (and devastating) review of William P. (Paul) Young's The Shack in the most recent print edition of Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010.)  It was a reminder that I was one of the last people on the planet not to have read the book. So I did. So why write a blog post about it? It had sold 7.2 million copies in a little over 2 years, by June of 2009. With those kinds of numbers, the book will certainly exert some influence over the popular religious imagination. So it warrants a response. This is not a review, but just some impressions:

At the heart of the book is a noble effort -- to help modern people understand why God allows suffering, using a narrative form. The argument Young makes at various parts of the book is this. First, this world's evil and suffering is the result of our abuse of free will. Second, God has not prevented evil in order to accomplish some glorious, greater good that humans cannot now understand. Third, when we stay bitter at God for a particular tragedy we put ourselves in the seat of the 'Judge of the world and God', and we are unqualified for such a job. Fourth, we must get an 'eternal perspective' and see all God's people in joy in his presence forever. (The father in the story is given a vision of his deceased daughter living in the joy of Christ's presence, and it heals his grief.) This is all rather standard, orthodox, pastoral theology (though it's a bit too heavy on the 'free-will defense').  It is so accessible to readers because of its narrative form. I have heard many reports of semi-believers and non-believers claiming that this book gave them an answer to their biggest objections to faith in God.

However, sprinkled throughout the book, Young's story undermines a number of traditional Christian doctrines. Many have gotten involved in debates about Young's theological beliefs, and I have my own strong concerns. But here is my main problem with the book. Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible. In the prophets the reader will find a God who is constantly condemning and vowing judgment on his enemies, while the Persons of the Triune-God of The Shack repeatedly deny that sin is any offense to them. The reader of Psalm 119 is filled with delight at God's statutes, decrees, and laws, yet the God of The Shack insists that he doesn't give us any rules or even have any expectations of human beings. All he wants is relationship. The reader of the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah will learn that the holiness of God makes his immediate presence dangerous or fatal to us. Someone may counter (as Young seems to do, on p.192) that because of Jesus, God is now only a God of love, making all talk of holiness, wrath, and law obsolete. But when John, one of Jesus' closest friends, long after the crucifixion sees the risen Christ in person on the isle of Patmos, John 'fell at his feet as dead.' (Rev.1:17.) The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.

There is another modern text that sought to convey the character of God through story. It also tried to 'embody' the Biblical doctrine of God in an imaginative way that conveyed the heart of the Biblical message. That story contained a Christ-figure named Aslan. Unlike the author of The Shack, however, C.S. Lewis was always at pains to maintain the Biblical tension between the divine love and his overwhelming holiness and splendor. In the introduction to his book The Problem of Pain, Lewis cited the example from the children's text The Wind in the Willows where two characters, Rat and Mole approach divinity.

"Afraid?" murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. "Afraid? of Him? O, never, never. And yet -- and yet -- O Mole, I am afraid."

Lewis sought to get this across at many places through his Narnia tales. One of the most memorable is the description of Aslan.

"Safe?...Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

That's better.

Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not ignore him when he is naked? Do not pay him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect him outside where he is cold and ill-clad? He who said:"This is my body" is the same who said: "You saw me hungry and you gave me no food," and whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me. What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger? Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well. -John Chrysostom

This quote is from the 3rd century, and interestingly this quote seems to be addressing something the Church then was struggling with, and it seems it is not different from how she struggles now. There is this tendency we have to adorn the altar while the sick, hungry, and helpless remain that way all around us. To quote a modern poet and scholar/rapper, my friend Sho Baraka, "the churches gettin bigger, but the block don?t change."

Essentially these two men, from different era's, different centuries, different cultures, are saying the same thing. The Church, as a whole, is an internally focused hospital for the well while the sick and dying continue to be sick and die. Jesus said that he came for the sinner, that those who are well needed no physician. Jesus came making wrongs right, crooked straight, and broken whole. Healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, healing the broken hearted, and clothing the naked.

So what are the gospel implications? That the gospel is bigger than saving us from our sin sickness. There are social, ethical, and justice related indictments that are inherent in Christ' gospel, and if we are not involved in them, but our "alters" are covered with "gold" then we have failed to incarnate the Jesus of the bible, at least fully.

One of the challenges of pastoring people in a city center, is the amount of time people spend in their workplace. Unlike other parts of the country, people seem to live at their places of work. Rather than becoming frustrated that people are not available to serve in our church programs, we should see the time spent in a place of work as an opportunity to see the kingdom of God leave the confines of traditional church programming, come to the workplace, begin to do its work of industry and city renewal.

In order to move toward this vision, our church has been hosting industry roundtables for the last year for so. These roundtable discussions are designed to bring people from various industries together and help them form a theology of kingdom renewal for their respective career fields. Some of the questions we ask at these luncheons are...

What drew you to your industry?
What do you love about your industry?
What do you struggle with in your industry?
What ethical dilemmas do you often run into?
To what scripture do you turn to formulate a theology of your industry?
What are some of your doubts and uncertainties about how God could move in your industry?
What do wish that we as your pastors/leaders, knew about your industry?
How can the church help you live more missionally in your industry?
What is our church doing that is hindering you from being able to bring the kingdom of God to bear in your workplace?

I have been surprised and overwhelmed by the response of people in our church to these events. People have felt empowered, encouraged and have been given a new vision for what they do all week. Many of them now sense that it is making a vital difference in the world, and that it is important to God. I have also had several people comment on how good it is to hear that the church has a vision for something outside of itself, and how good it is to know that a pastor "gets" what they do Monday through Friday.

I have found that having an awareness of what it is people love, struggle with, are tempted by and need encouragement in, makes me a more effective pastor. My counseling is more empathetic, my preaching more informed, and the word of God more contextualized to do its work. I am not simply projecting my life and wishes onto their work-week, but am able to help bring the gospel to bear on the temptations, trials and joys they live in every day.

In order to really see a movement of the gospel through a city, it is going to take the equipping of our people to live and share the gospel where they spend most of their time: the workplace. Hosting an industry roundtable is a small step in that direction, but also an important one to see a local congregation begin this work.

Nuevo artículo de Tim Keller. En esta ocasión, el Dr. Keller nos habla de los motivos que han llevado a Redeemer a ser una iglesia de esas que se conocen como multi-sitio. Es decir, iglesias que se reúnen en múltiples localidades dentro de una determinada área geográfica; en este caso, tres vecindarios del distrito de Manhattan.

Hace poco Redeemer fue presentada ocupando un lugar prominente en un artículo de USA Today sobre [el fenómeno de las] iglesias multi-sitio. Aparte de mencionar el hecho de que Redeemer no utiliza la video conferencia,  [el artículo] no se refirió a las diferencias que existen entre nuestro enfoque y el de otros. Y en la consiguiente discusión online después del artículo, era evidente que a todas las iglesias multi-sitio se las ponía en un mismo montón [sin diferenciar unas de otras].  Para aclarar cualquier duda, puede que sea de alguna ayuda saber por qué y cómo Redeemer es una iglesia que se reúne en múltiples localidades.

1. Primero, no adoptamos el ser multi-sitio porque fuera más económico o más eficiente para nosotros. Cuando hace diez años empezamos a reunirnos en varias localidades, ya teníamos un culto por la mañana y otro por la tarde en un mismo local que era bastante grande. Hubiera sido menos costoso y a la vez efectivo simplemente incrementar los cultos, hasta cuatro o cinco, en ese mismo lugar. Trasladarnos a otro local significó un aumento considerable en gastos de alquiler, servicios de atención para niños, música y muchas otras cosas.

2. Segundo, no nos convertimos en multi-sitio para alcanzar más deprisa a más gente. El auditorio donde empezamos a reunirnos hace 10 años tiene capacidad para más de 2.000 personas sentadas, y otros espacios del mismo tamaño no están disponibles. Los lugares que hemos alquilado en otras partes de la ciudad son bastante más pequeños. Si hubiéramos continuado en aquél lugar y hubiéramos multiplicado allí mismo las reuniones, podríamos haber alcanzado a un número mayor de gente de forma más rápida.

Así pues, ¿qué nos llevó a adoptar el modelo del multi-sitio?

 1. Primero, extendemos nuestras reuniones a diferentes lugares para que la gente pueda celebrar el culto cerca de donde viven. La gente puede involucrarse mucho más en la comunidad e invitar a sus amigos [a la iglesia] con mucha más facilidad si los encuentros son en su vecindario. [En realidad esto lo hicimos a sabiendas que iba] en contra de la mentalidad típica de la mega-iglesia, puesto que las grandes iglesias generan un gran número de miembros que recorren grandes distancias para asistir a la iglesia. Nosotros queremos frenar esta tendencia y arraigar más a la gente en su contexto local.

2. Segundo, el modelo del multi-sitio es algo que hemos diseñado como una transición. Redeemer tiene un plan para convertir cada uno de los sitios en los que se reúne en una congregación o iglesia en sí misma para el vecindario en el que se encuentra, con su propio liderazgo pastoral. Yo he sido el predicador principal en todas las localidades, pero hace dos años pasamos de cuatro a tener cinco reuniones en tres lugares distintos, [con sus respectivas predicaciones], algo que resulta excesivo para mí en un solo domingo. Pero en lugar de proyectarme en video, decidimos que otros pastores en el equipo pastoral predicasen siempre al menos en esa quinta reunión. Cuando lleguemos a seis y a siete cultos, en unos dos años, en cada uno de los lugares habrá un pastor al frente que compartirá el peso de la predicación conmigo. 

Entonces pasaremos del modelo 'multi-sitio' al modelo 'colegiado'. Y aunque todavía continuaremos unidos bajo un mismo consejo de ancianos, cada iglesia tendrá su propio equipo pastoral, ancianos y líderes laicos. Otros modelos colegiados que podemos encontrar en nuestra denominación (PCA) serían Harbor Presbyterian en San Diego y Brooklyn Presbyterian también en la ciudad de Nueva York.

Durante la entrevista con el periodista de USA Today, me cuide mucho de no criticar a otras iglesias muIti-sitio. No sé qué es lo que motiva a otras iglesias a usar el modelo del multi-sitio, pero lo que aquí he expuesto es lo que nos motiva a nosotros.

___________

* Artículo original (en inglés) aquí

It has got to be the third person in the last two weeks that has asked me about the existence of God in light of the tragedy in Haiti. The last words I heard before I walked out of that Starbucks were "How can a good god exist and allow these things to happen, a god like that has no place in this world". As I reflected upon what I judge to be an honest angry statement I was reminded of another episode just last week. It happened here at my own church during a presbytery meeting.

At that meeting a Haitian movement leader updated us of the situation in Port Au Prince in the aftermath of the 7.2 earthquake. At the occasion he said that the situation was much worse than what has been reported by the American TV networks. Out of his own suffering he shared the fact that he had lost 10 of his pastors, all of their church buildings and many of their church members. He said that there was no food, scarcity of gas to transport whatever supplies they could gather from the DR or other immediate towns, tons of orphans roaming the streets and a lot of violence. But in the midst of all the destruction around them the church remained strong. He said that every single night sounds of prayers and songs are heard through out the desolated streets of the city. That in the midst of immense suffering people are turning to God more than they are turning to nations and to other human beings.

Interesting. Here we have one of the greatest catastrophes of history and then we have two kinds of people. Those who are mere spectators and those who are living in it. On one side you have those, like myself that can drive into a Stbx and pay $4 for a cup of coffee and then go home and watch what's going on on TV and then you have those who are actually there. A fool like the one I encountered today who can afford to have a comfortable life asks the question that the homeless, orphan, hungry, mutilated is not asking on the other side. They usually never do. On this side of the tragedy people are using what happened to run away from God while victims are desperately running to God. To me if someone had the right to ask the question; it would be the Haitian people. Except, they are not.

I've heard it say that "atheism ends at the grave" and I guess that's true for both types of people.

God raises up leaders to care for His flock. It is important to realize that the Church is God's flock and not the leaders. He purchased the flock, the Bride with His own blood. Out of this redemptive work, the Holy Spirit raises up leaders who care for His people.
This flock is extremely and infinitely precious because they were purchased with perfect and precious blood.

Matthew Henry stated, "the flock of God ought to be dear to us, for it is dear to him, because it cost him dear.."

Servant leadership calls also for an attentiveness to ourselves as well as the flock of God. Before we can care for others, we must bring ourselves into the presence of the Lord in order that He would renew our own minds and hearts first. Baxter stated, "it is easier to chide at sin, than to overcome it." So let us go to the Lord first and have Him deal with us gracefully. In doing so, leaders will serve the flock in the same manner. From there, the Holy Spirit actively works in our lives to wash the feet of the flock, feed the flock and protect the flock of God.

If you are a leader in your local church remember; the flock of God does not belong to you but to the Lord Jesus Christ. As well, the Holy Spirit has raised you up and so have a godly and humble jealously for the flock of Jesus Christ.
Read more...

"I heard my momma cry and heard her pray the night Chicago died...".

It was a decision made for me but not by me. Like many other Anglo Christians in the 1960's my parents fled the "difficulties" of the city for the safety of the suburbs. It is not my place to judge the reasons why but I do think the decision  came in part due to a lack of theological commitment Romans 3:23. It wasn't so much that they thought there wouldn't be any sin in the suburbs, but more that they thought they could control it and keep their three children from delving too far into it.

Unfortunately while they worked hard to keep us from long hair, dancing, rock music and the other cultural shifts there was a failure to look under the covers of our lives and see the hypocrisies of self righteous arrogance, loveless separation and those other things that Jesus would describe as dead men's bones. The whitewashed tomb looked good but not even the suburbs could keep us safe from the evil that lurked within.

As a parent I have tried to apply the truth of Romans 3:23 into the lives of my two sons. By God's choosing my wife and I have raised our family in a rural community in northern New York.  This is a vacation spot, a place people from the city come and assume would be great place to raise a family. In many respects it is and yet something lurks under the covers of rural America. Recently I was in a conversation with our county D.A. and asked him what the top three issues were that he had to deal with. The list he gave me sounded a whole lot like the reasons my parents gave as they fled Chicago and moved to the suburbs. His answer: Sexual crimes against children, Drugs and Alcohol abuse. If I have learned one thing in the twenty-two years of living in the country is this - sin may be more evident due to the density of the city but no place outside of the protection of the eternal fellowship will be safe from the effects of the curse.

As the movement of church planting grows in the city I pray that I may be able to make a return to the city of my birth. I love Chicago and will wait for God to open whatever doors may need to be opened if He desires me to join the effort. There is one thing for certain though - Theologically sound, Bible teaching, Gospel-holy-Gospel-missional churches are desperately needed in rural America.  I will end with this observation. I was speaking with a pastor in Georgia not too long ago. He told me that in the two adjoining counties (both rural) there were 83 baptist churches. I asked him about the spiritual impact. He regretfully stated that the place was as pagan as any other place. I wonder why? Perhaps someone needs to look under the covers.

What does God want us to be and do, and where does he want us to go? These are questions that every church (plant) has to answer for itself. The answers given constitute what I refer to as "the foundations of the church".

Various terms are used to described the elements of these foundations: identity, vision, mission, strategy, core values, core capacities, core competences. Whatever terms one would like to use, these concepts rank - together with leadership - as "one of the most observed but least understood" concepts in the area of ministry. Of course I don't have the final answer, but maybe I can get shed some light. Before discussing the question "which foundations?", let's look at the "why" and "what" of the foundations of the church.

The "why" of the foundations of the church
A few decades ago, you'd hardly ever hear someone about the "vision" or "mission" of his church. Today, however, every self-respecting church has at least one of these "statements." What happened? What changed?

First, there is an element of shifting paradigms. From time to time, changes in our environment and changes in our thinking lead to a fundamental paradigm shift. Within today's churches, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the paradigm of the inward-faced church, operating from a majority position in society. The church has to become dynamic, open, and mobile again. Such a new starting point compels us to reconceive and redefined everything we used to think and do. (David Bosch, Transforming Mission)

Second, confessions have lost their function of formulating at the local level why we are a church with these characteristics. The church needs something that makes it move, a shared commitment at the local level, a vision to which everyone in the church can contribute. The foundations of the church seek to recover this function of the confessions. (Cees Haak, Church in the 21st Century)

Third, the Reformed confessions have been written to defend the church against heresy. The reformers build a wall around the church, to keep falls teaching out. They did not develop build a bridge to the world, to invite lost people in. Today we are called to look at different aspects of the Scriptures and apply them to our times. We have to read the Bible through a different lens. (Cees Haak, Church in the 21st Century)

Fourth, there is an element of increased church size. In larger churches, the distinctive mission and vision of the church become increasingly important. "A key reason for being in a smaller church is relationships. A key reason for putting up with all the changes and difficulties of a larger church is to get mission done. People join the larger church because of the vision, so the particular mission needs to be clear." (Tim Keller, Leadership and Church Size Dynamics).

The "what" of the foundations of the church
People speaking about "vision" or "mission" are bound to add adjectives like "clear", "compelling" and "unique". But what's essential for the church when it comes to its foundations?

First, foundations have to biblical. That is, in their concept as well as in their content. Not all of the terms mentioned above (vision, core values etc.) are biblical terms, just like there is no biblical term for 'officer'. But that does not mean that the concept cannot be found in the Scriptures. The point is that, after defining the concept of 'vision', we need to develop a biblical understanding of 'vision' before we can seek to create a truly biblical 'vision'.

Second, foundations have to be contextual. Because (large) churches in (global) cities are much more like other urban churches much of the foundational framework developed by one church can be meaningfully transferred to another church. But - and that's the point - every church will still need to come to 'own' the framework and flesh it out with specifics.

Third, foundations have to be logical. That is, there must be a relation between the various elements and between the various parts of each element. This is crucial, but rather difficult. How do you get from belief to commitment? How do you translate a theological vision into a practical one?

The "which" of the foundations of the church
As mentioned above, there's a wide range of terms used to described the foundations of the church. Thus, the question arises, which terms should be used? To create a framework that is biblical, contextual and logical, I would suggest to start with the question: 'What is the gospel about?'.

First, the gospel is a message that has a cognitive content that must be understood (Mat. 13:13-15) and an affective referent that we must attach ourselves to (Marc. 10:17-22). One of the things Jesus sought to do was to redefine people's "vision" of what the kingdom is all about and reorient people's life toward the kingdom's "core values" ("the things of God"). He did so by telling stories revealing the kingdom's "identity" (the kingdom is like..).

Second, the gospel is a plan that we are called to participate in. It sends people on a "mission" and tells them which "strategies" to us (cf. Mat. 28:19-20).

Third, the gospel is something that must be lived according to (Phil. 1:27). It presents Jesus and his church as sharing a certain behavioral "profile", which we may conceptualize as their "core competences".

Thus, the gospel has a theological logic, an strategic logic and an ethical logic. Which terms we use to describe these logics is less important than knowing why we use them and how define them.

Last week I was able to hook up with an old friend of mine who happens to be a pastor as well. He's not a senior pastor, a youth pastor, a ministry pastor, a worship pastor nor a, family's pastor. He's an "Availability Pastor."  Have you heard of such thing? I hadn't 'till then.  When I first heard him state his new title I had two feelings. One of disturbance and another one of compassion. Let me try to flesh my reactions out.

Disturbance - It's quite disturbing to me at times that the Church of Jesus Christ has institutionalized to the point that ministers perform according to labels. If you're a worship pastor you sing - can't preach. If you're a senior pastor, you preach and so why would you want to visit with someone who's sick? It disturbed me that I've followed this flow and that the western American church has become so industrialized that ministry roles have been created according to an organizational system and a personal profile to the point of naming someone "Pastor of Availability." I've never found these labels while reading the New Testament. Plus, what's this guy supposed to do anyways?

Compassion - To me it sounded like they had created "the bench pastor position." Now, I know my friend and I know the church he has worked for for many years. He has been instrumental not only in my spiritual formation but in the life of many godly men and women to this day. My wife included. Why would you put someone like him on the bench? He's a strong player! Much stronger than some of the "starters" I know they have. That's how I felt. For a minute I felt sorry for the guy and sorry for his church.

But then it dawned on me that if there was a title to define who he was and what all pastors are supposed to be, that was it! - Pastor of Availability. While in the New Testament you can't find the titles we've created for pastors, you find that pastors were available to people and to whatever Jesus required of them at the time. If healing the sick was needed they were there, if preaching was required they were there, if counseling was required they were there. They ministered to children, to the youth, the elderly and to people in prison.They were not bound to a tittles except that one of availability. Which to me is one that communicates both humility and boldness. Humility because they existed to serve as Jesus served and boldness because no challenge was a challenge. I could never imagine Paul saying to Jesus: "-Lord, send John, he has the gift compassion. He's our outreach pastor!" Nope. They did whatever came their way. They faced demons, incredulity, diseases, conflicts and, crisis whenever and wherever needed.

So- what at first was source of disturbance and compassion latter became a source of fascination and reflection. I started to ask myself: why am I not a pastor of availability as well?  I know from my own experience that the title I have received has many times handicapped me to truly be what Jesus wants me to be. I recall myself saying "I won't see him. That's not my job!" or "I don't have time to sit with that couple, I have to sermonize." I know that there's always a risk of being distracted off of our focus/ responsibility but is it possible that sometimes Jesus wants us to be available to meet random needs of people? And is it possible that we have hidden behind titles and have used them as an excuse to minister spontaneously? I'll say yes. What about you?

Recently Redeemer was featured prominently in a USA Today article about multi-site churches. Outside of the fact that Redeemer doesn't 'do video,' the differences between our approach and others were not referred to. And in much discussion on line after the article, it was clear that all multi-site churches were being Lumped Together. Just for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful to know these facts about why and how Redeemer does the multi-site.

1. First, we did not go to multi-site because it was more economical or efficient for us. When we began meeting at multiple sites ten years ago, we were already holding a morning and an evening service at a single site that was quite large. It would have been much more cost-effective to multiply to four or five services in that single location. Moving to other sites meant greatly increased costs for rent, for children's ministries, for music and many other things.

2. Second, we did not go to multi-site to quickly reach more people. The auditorium where we began meeting 10 years ago seats over 2,000 people, and other spaces that size are not available. The spaces we have rented in other parts of the city are far smaller. If we had stayed in that space and multiplied services there, we would have reached greater numbers more swiftly.

So what were the reasons that we adopted the multi-site model?

1. First, we sent our services out into different locations so that people could worship closer to where they lived. People can become more deeply involved in the community and can more easily bring friends if they attend services in their neighborhood. This was an 'anti-mega-church' move, since huge churches create a large body of commuters who travel long distances to attend church. We wanted to resist this tendency and root people more in their locales.

2. Second, the multi-site model is a transition design for us. Redeemer has a timetable for turning each site into a congregation in its own neighborhood, with its own pastoral leadership. I was the main preacher at all sites, but two years ago we went from four to five services at three sites, which is too many for me to preach in a Sunday. Rather than beaming me in by video, we determined that other pastors on the staff would always preach at least that fifth service. When we get to six and seven services, about two years from now, each site will have its own Lead Pastor who will share the preaching with me.

We will then transition from a 'multi-site' to a 'collegiate' model. Though still under one unified board of elders, each church will have its own pastoral team, elder team, and set of lay leaders. Other collegiate models in our PCA denomination include Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and Brooklyn Presbyterian here in New York City.

I was careful in my interaction with the USA Today journalists not to criticize other multi-site churches. I do not know what motives other churches have for using the multi-site model, but those are ours.

Christmas eve I found that the innocent growth in my leg was actually a tumor. New Years eve, I was told the "benign" tumor, had cancer cells.  When I told my family and friends they were shocked, sad, afraid, and concerned. I, however, was not.

No, I'm not some fanatical sadist. Strange, yes. Dark sense of humor, yes. "But to be perfectly honest," I explained to my husband as we were walking to church last Sunday, "I'd rather have cancer then plant another church."  He cautioned me to not use that expression around the women with whom I work who are currently in plants. I reassured him it would be no problem. "If they are planting, they already know how hard it is."

You see Cancer and Church planting share a lot of communalities. Both are foreign substances forced upon a culture that doesn't want them and where they don't belong. Both require a fight. Both come with tons of ambiguity. Both can leave you feeling sick to your stomach. Both require a complete change of life, as you currently know it. Both imply you will never be the same after this. Both take you for a roller coaster ride of emotions. "Both can kill you" my son calls from the couch. And neither one is something you choose. Or if you happen to willingly choose church planting or cancer for that matter, I know a psychiatrist I can highly recommend.

But there are also a ton of differences.

With cancer, just mention the word and everyone knows what you're talking about. You get a lot of support. People ask how they can help, when can they bring meals, what they can do. But with Church planting, you might as well be speaking Pashto plus you won't get much support. "Did you say you're in Church Planning?" Or if you live in a city like NYC, you might get a response like, "What the hell is that?" You quickly learn to come up with phrases people might remotely comprehend. "I'm in ministry."  "Oh, you mean state ministry?"  "Well, you could call it that," I've been known to comment.

How about, "I work with starting new churches" ?  Even in the south I would get responses like, "Why would anyone think there is a need for more churches. Haven't they caused enough problems already?"

Added to the confused responses I get from my non-Christian friends, try saying something among Christians. For, I'm not just in church planting. I'm a woman in church planting. I still get responses such as, "You mean your husband is in church planting."  "Well yes, he is but so am I."   "Well in our circles it's best to say he's the church planter. People might misunderstand you."

I soon learned they were going to misunderstand me anyway and a slight twist of phrases wasn't going to make that big of a difference.

One thing that makes church planting so difficult is those whom we expect to be in the trenches with us often have little comprehension of the tremendous battle taking place on a daily basis. Also, while my husband was "officially" the planter, that was part of the problem. We were both planting but rarely did others in the plant seem to understand that. And I won't deny some of that confusion was our fault. Sure we had different roles but without both of us completely committed and in this together, we didn't stand a chance of making it. We are fighting for the hearts and very lives of people. We were fighting unseen forces, bringing order out of chaos, building a spiritual community in enemy territory. The evil one does not want us to succeed. To be perfectly honest, sometimes I didn't either. It would have been much easier to just quit. But like cancer, this wasn't something we chose. It was chosen for us. Oh, don't get me wrong. When we were young and hopefully more naïve, we too thought it was our choice. But Church-planting is something to which you are called. It's not just a career you one day decide to chose.

And implicit in this calling is a call to battle and to suffer. Whether or not spouses have formal training in church planting, tons of people stream through our doors seeking counsel. We start new ministries. We cook. We teach bible studies. We lead worship. We wipe snotty noses. We often do sermon prep. We train leaders. We clean houses. We work other jobs to make ends meet. We impact what people think about the church. And hopefully somewhere in that mix, we love our spouse. But in the overwhelming confusion we receive little encouragement and less help. And we often forget we are cherished, chosen, called, and loved beyond our wildest imagining. For in Christ Jesus, we have already received the ultimate word spoken over us from our Heavenly Father. "In you, I am well pleased."

Tears came to my eyes when I was sitting in the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center last week waiting for another series of tests. I let them drip down my cheeks and splash on to my arms. But they weren't for cancer as much as they were for the many years in church planting when I needed the kind of care and attention I was now getting among strangers. They were for the many women who are in church planting right now who feel alone, unnoticed, scared, and with questions they don't know where to get answered.

What if we said to people with cancer what we say to women in church planting? Just in case you're wondering what I mean, I took the liberty of translating some comments I've received in the past about planting to see what they would sound like in the context of cancer.

"Oh, I thought you had breast cancer. I was only interested in helping if it was a more serious kind of cancer."
"You just aren't going to make it!"
"Cancer is consuming your life! You never spend time with me any more."
"What's so hard about cancer?"
"Cancer! Come on, isn't there enough of that going around?"
"So I know your spouse has cancer. But what about you? What do you do with your life?"

Surely, some theological minds are spinning with counter arguments they'd love to throw my way, appalled that I'd dare compare starting churches to cancer. And I'm sure they are right.

But you see I can get away with a lot right now because, well, I have cancer.

Note from web admin:  As of today, January 12, 2010, Shari is recovering at Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital after a successful surgery to remove the tumour in her leg.

Some time ago, after enjoying a scrumptious dinner with the family at the MickeyDs in Fort Lee, NJ, something kinda funny happened.  As I pulled out of the parking lot on Lemoine Ave (9W), a pedestrian was passing by on the sidewalk but stopped at the driveway to let me pass.  Well, I'm all about pedestrian (and bicyclists for that matter) right of way, so with a smile on my grill I wave-gestured the guy to make his way across the driveway.

Now, what happened next as he passed by in front of my minivan was what kinda took me aback for a moment.  The guy, a younger (twenties/thirties perhaps?), very white male, looked over in our direction, smiled, and then he bowed to me - at least it was his slightly unusual and awkward attempt at a bow.  At this, I looked over to Diane and asked her a bit incredulously, "Did that dude just bow to me?"

Immediate thoughts:  What in the world was that?  How un-politically correct was that move?!  Immediate feeling:  indignation.

Granted, according to city-data.com, of the 36,275 Fort Lee denizens 38% are of East Asian (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino) descent.  Although had he known anything about me, the bow would've been the last thing he?d have done because the fact of the matter is I grew up "whiter-than-white," as the All-American kid who played wall/box stickball at Tamblyn Field and two-hand-touch football on Addison Ave. and other streets of Rutherford, NJ - a mostly WASPy middle-middle-class town in Bergen County NJ where I was raised.  I was what some would refer to as a twinkie, or banana - white as can be on the inside, but yellow on the outside.  And back in my younger days, if anyone made any issue of my oriental heritage (sorry to all you PC folks out there as I am fully aware "oriental" has taken on offensively racist overtones but it simply is the Latin word for "Eastern"), it was an opportunity for immediate fisticuffs.  I was a diminutive kid but extremely irascible.

With that being said, at this point I will divert your and my attention to the Gospel.  Why?  Because we are sinners in the basest of ways due to our depraved nature.  I quote R.C. Sproul in his tremendous classic, The Holiness of God:  "We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners."  The good Word makes it crystal clear that we have inherited the sin of Adam and that it is a corruption that emanates from the core of our being.  The Bible declares that all our sin is an offense against God and that this sin is both in the flesh and the nature.  But thanks be to God, we have been ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God who was slain <1 Peter 1:18-19>, as Jesus "Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.  By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" <1 Peter 2:24-25>.

Despite my initial "knee-jerk," but nonetheless sinful response in mind & heart, by God's grace I was able to salvage something out of the experience.  Reflection on my reaction to "the bowing white dude" brought J. Hudson Taylor to mind as well as the many missionaries who are persecuted as they seek to incarnationally contextualize, and immediately I was reminded of how vital it will be for our mission, our church plant, Maranatha Grace Fort Lee, to be comprised of folks who have both an understanding of what it means to be missional and a desire to grow in missional practice & lifestyle.  We must be a church that obeys both the Great Commandment  and the Great Commission .  In fact, a proper understanding of and application of obeying the Great Commandment will naturally lead God's people to a posture, a readiness, a willingness to obey the Great Commission which is explicit in all the Gospel accounts.

So what is missional?  Well, here are a couple definitions from a missiologist and a church planting pastor:

Ed Stetzer > "Being Missional means actually doing mission right where you are. Missional means adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound" (Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches, 19).

Mark Driscoll > "It is imperative that Christians be like Jesus, by living freely within the culture as missionaries who are as faithful to the Father and his gospel as Jesus was in his own time and place" (Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, 40).

The word "missional" is the adjective form of the word "mission," and it simply means "of or pertaining to a mission."  Now in contemporary missiological-speak/jargon, the word has amassed and accumulated baggage due to the Emerging Church Movement that really has no orthodox doctrinal backbone.  But we will utilize the word in the rightful way to describe our mission to be missionaries who contextualize without compromise.  At the foundation is a Christ/Cross-centered Gospel that informs & drives our missiology/missionality.  This involves being Gospel-centered & driven in our church community as we become sanctified, Christlike, thru discipleship - "body-building" thru teaching and engaging in all the "one anothers" (gathering & growing)  while never dare neglecting our call to be a city on a hill "shrewdly, compassionately preaching the Good News to our community after listening to our community, learning about our community" - the language, the interests, the music & arts, the demographics, the pervasive idols, and then sacrificially investing our time/talents/treasures into our community, and thereby loving our community.

In essence, we are following the examples of Paul & Peter and the rest of the rag-tag band of disciples.  Ultimately, we are simply following our Savior's lead as He gave us the ultimate example of being missional when He came from heaven to be a missionary here on earth - talk about contextualization!  And perhaps that?s what ?the bowing white dude" was doing?  Just trying to be friendly and sensitive to me and what he believed was my cultural context and heritage...who knows?  But thank You, Lord for the much needed reminder.

Recientemente, varias personas me han preguntado: "¿cómo afrontas la crítica?" En cada uno de los casos, quienes me han hecho la pregunta han sufrido lo que ellos han considerado ataques injustos contra su persona. En esta era de internet, cualquiera puede tener sus puntos de vista censurados de forma injusta por gente que ni tan siquiera conoce. Por lo tanto, ¿qué haces cuando eso ocurre? He aquí la esencia del consejo que suelo dar cuando me preguntan al respecto. Por muchos años he encontrado de gran ayuda una carta de John Newton, normalmente, titulada "Sobre la Controversia."

El mayor peligro [que corres] al recibir crítica no es para tu reputación, sino para tu corazón. Sientes la injusticia [de la crítica] y sientes lástima por ti mismo, y ello te tienta a no sólo despreciar a la persona crítica, sino a todo el sector o grupo al que pertenecen. "Esa gente..." susurras por lo bajo. Todo esto con el tiempo puede hacer de ti una persona más orgullosa. Newton escribe: "Cualquier cosa que nos haga pensar de nosotros mismos que somos, comparativamente, más sabios o más buenos, de manera que tratemos con desprecio a quienes no comulguen con nuestras doctrinas, o sigan a nuestro partido, es una prueba y fruto de un espíritu de justicia propia." Newton argumenta que cuando quiera que el desprecio o el [sentimiento de] superioridad acompañan a nuestros pensamientos, es una [clara] señal de que las "doctrinas de la gracia" están actuando en nuestras vidas "como simples conceptos y especulaciones" sin "ninguna influencia saludable sobre nuestra conducta."

Así pues, ¿cómo puedes evitar esta tentación? Primero, tienes que mirar a ver si hay la más mínima señal de verdad incluso en el más exagerado e injusto de los ataques. Normalmente, esa mota de verdad está ahí cuando la crítica viene de amigos, y a menudo también está ahí cuando la censura viene de gente que realmente te conoce. De manera que aún cuando la censura esté parcial o incluso mayormente desenfocada, aún así mira por aquello que efectivamente hayas podido haber hecho mal. Quizá simplemente actuaste o hablaste de forma imprudente. Tal vez la crítica es parcialmente correcta por motivos totalmente equivocados. De todos modos, identifica tus faltas , arrepiéntete de corazón ante Dios por lo que seas capaz [de identificar], y deja que ello produzca una disposición humilde en ti. Entonces será posible aprender de la crítica y tener una actitud de gracia hacia la persona que te critica aunque puedas [continuar estando] en desacuerdo con lo que él o ella haya dicho.

Si la crítica viene de alguien que no te conoce de nada (y éste es a menudo el caso en internet) es posible que la crítica no tenga ninguna base y esté completamente equivocada. A menudo soy ridiculizado no sólo por puntos de vista que defiendo, sino también incluso más a menudo por puntos de vista (y causas) que de ninguna manera asumo o defiendo. Cuando esto sucede, es incluso más fácil dejarse llevar por un sentimiento de superioridad y reírte de lo equivocados que están tus críticos. "Patético..." tal vez te sientas tentado a decir. No lo hagas. Aún cuando no haya ni la más pequeña brizna de verdad en lo que quienes te critican dicen, no debes burlarte de ellos [ni siquiera] en tus pensamientos. Primero, recuérdate a ti mismo ejemplos de tus propios errores, imprudencias e inexperiencia en el pasado, situaciones en las que realmente metiste la pata. Segundo, ora por quien te critica, que él o ella maduren en gracia. Newton habla de esto mismo de la siguiente manera:

"Si consideras a tu oponente como creyente, aunque seriamente equivocado sobre la materia de debate entre vosotros, las palabras de David a Joab sobre Absalón son aplicables: 'Por amor a mi tratad bien al joven Absalón.' El Señor le ama [a tu oponente] y es paciente con él; por lo tanto, no debes despreciarle o tratarle con dureza. El Señor te trata con la misma paciencia a ti y espera que muestres ternura con otros como muestra de que [realmente has entendido] lo mucho que tú mismo necesitas ser perdonado. En poco tiempo os encontraréis en el cielo; entonces [tu oponente] te será mucho más preciado que el más intimo amigo que ahora puedas tener en la tierra. Anticipa ese tiempo en tus pensamientos; y aunque encuentres necesario oponerte a sus errores, mírale personalmente como un alma hermanada con quien serás feliz en Cristo por siempre."

Así que cualquier cosa que hagas, haz todo lo que puedas para evitar el engreimiento y sentirte superior a quien te critica. Incluso si te dices a ti mismo que no te afecta y que no vas a responder a la critica, de todos modos puedes llevar a cabo toda una defensa y refutación en tu sala del tribunal mental, en la cual demuestras con éxito lo mezquinos y maliciosos que son tus oponentes. Pero eso es una trampa espiritual. El comentario de Newton a este respecto es convincente:

"Un hombre puede tener el corazón de un fariseo mientras su cabeza está repleta de nociones [muy] correctas sobre la persona y sobre las riquezas de la Gracia. Sí, yo añadiría, que ni los mejores de entre los hombres están completamente libres de esta levadura; y por lo tanto están demasiado dispuestos para actuar de manera que ridiculice al adversario y, en consecuencia halagarse de tener un juicio superior. Las controversias son tratadas, en la mayoría de casos, de manera que uno da rienda suelta, en lugar de reprimir, su mal carácter; por lo tanto, hablando en términos generales, producen más bien poca cosa buena. [Las controversias] provocan a quienes deberían convencer y llenan de soberbia a aquellos a quienes deberían edificar. Espero que [en medio de la controversia] saborees un espíritu de verdadera humildad, y que seas un instrumento que promueva [esta humildad] en otros."

____________

* Puedes leer el original (en inglés) aquí

Why is moving such a hassle? Well we are about to move in the next few weeks to Cliftonville Road to the house of the Living Room. Yet moving it is like flipping a coin in the air, there are two sides to every coin, in my case there is a side that is excited about the move and the other side is not very excited because of all the things that have to be packed, stored and yes moved.

But, I am relieved that I am not on my own in this, since I know that there is a story written in the Bible, which is the Word of God, that tells the story of a people that is always on the move. These people were on a journey to the promise land that God had promised. They moved from one place to an another till finally they settled.

They had to pack all of their possessions and move. So like them, moving for us means moving toys, clothes, furniture, electrical things and many of those things and of course many books!! Put all that into boxes and ... Well you can imagine.

Yet there is a positive side to this, you get the chance to delete, destroy, and dispose of all the rubbish and clutter accumulated over the years.

Moving means basically to change from one place to another, yet we can also experience an emotional move, we can change emotionally from one minute to the next and particularly during a big move we tend to change emotionally, that is my tendency, my stress level goes up and I tend to worry about the move and all that it involves.

It seems to me that we were created for change and never created for purposeless settling.

Settling is to be rooted somewhere, it is a place of arrival and it seems always in the present tense. Has anyone asked you this: Are you settling in okay? It could be about work, it could be about relationships, it could be in our case moving house. I am always under the impression that when asked that question I should answer: yes!! It is great!! But may be in my case it is not that great to move! I will leave behind all that it is familiar to me and start again. Sometime changes are difficult to handle.

The other side of this reality is more positive and full of hope. Since everything is new you get the chance to start again.

I may not be very familiar with the house, neighbors, the local shops, the post office, schools, well you can add to the list... and I can be feeling lost with all the changes that are happening around me or be excited and taking everything as an opportunity to learn.

Settling without a purpose is like dying while you are still living. We have not moved yet, but our move is guided by a calling, a vision and a mission.

We are moving to the North of the city of Belfast believing that the God we serve has called us there. Our vision is a vision to connect people to God through Jesus, God's Son. He is the hope of any change and our hope is that we are changing every day into the likeness of God's Son. That is our hope, not in the change itself but in God's Son. Now I don't believe that we can change by our own initiatives and best wishes, just think about Christmas and New Year's resolutions and wish lists, have they worked? In my case they have not.

That is why we are moving to plant this church - The Living Room - it is a place where you are welcome to be you and allow you the space to be changed by God.

Dario Leal

In his days, Jonathan Edwards was one of the theological instructors most sought after by Presbyterian students and missionaries preparing for the work of ministry. Today, he's still relevant. His significance for churches planting stems mainly from (1) his preaching during the Great Awakening, (2) his emphasis on prayer in his missionary writings, and (3) his understanding of the purpose of history. Let's briefly consider each of these.

Preaching  

As part of his attempt to re-arouse his congregation in Northampton, Edwards preached thirty sermons which constitute the History of Redemption. Although Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is the most famous of these sermons, only a few of his sermons are of the threatening, imprecatory sort. A much larger percentage is typed as evangelistic, theological, spiritual (i.e. dealing with the Christian experience) and ethical (i.e. dealing with personal and social ethics). Most of his sermons were not threatening, but had a positive theme: the beauty of holiness, the joys of heaven, the rest of the believer in Christ, and the practical virtues of Christian living.

 To understand the place of sin and grace in Edward's preaching, we must keep in view his testimony of his own spiritual life. Edwards was able to portrayed the depths of human sin against the highest reaches of divine beauty and holiness, because his own sins were that of every man and his own sense of the beauty and holiness of God could be that of every man who sought it earnestly.

 Once, as I rode into the woods for my health, in 1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation and prayer, I had a view that for me was extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek an gentle condescension. This?continued, as near as I can judge, about an hour; which kept me, the greater part of the time, in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him to live upon him; to serve and follow him; to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I have several other times, had views very much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.

 By this kind of vivid personal experience of grace Edwards communicated to his hearers a sense of the awfulness of sin and judgement and a fervent desire for forgiving grace.

 Many did indeed found forgiveness through Edward's preaching, as attested by those who came for counsel to his study each Monday as well as by the fact that one Sunday a hundred new members were received.

 Prayer

Edwards' writings wielded a still greater influence than his preaching. During his early ministry, he felt a growing concern for the advance of Christ's kingdom and the conversion of men, and through extensive correspondence he supported a number of Scotsmen in their institution of regular prayer meetings for the coming of Christ.

In 1748, Edwards published A Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God?s People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and Advancement of Christ's Kingdom on Earth, a work that became, on both sides of the Atlantic, one of the most potent means of missionary education and support. Based upon Zechariah 8:20-22, the appeal is for fervent, concerted and constant kingdom-centered prayer: prayer that Christ will "advance his spiritual kingdom in the world", prayer "for the promised glorious and universal outpouring of the Spirit of God." 

In his Thoughts Concerning Revival (1742) Edwards again proposed that ministers should actively encourage God's people "to abound in united fasting and prayer."

He proposed "to keep a day of fasting and prayer" with all God's people in America, who are well-affected to "the work of the promotion of religious revival; wherein we should unite on the same day, in humbling ourselves before God... that he would continue and still carry on this work, and more abundantly and extensively pour out his Spirit."

While some may think that all fasting and praying on the same day is "a circumstance of no great consequence", Edwards could not be of that mind. "Such a circumstance makes the unison and agreement of God's people in his worship the more visible, and puts the greater honour upon God, and would have a great tendency to assist and enliven the devotion of Christians. Christ delights greatly in the union of his people, as appears by his prayer in the 17th of John".

Many were stimulated by Edward's writings to begin prayer meetings and monthly Concerts of Prayer for mission.

Purpose

A key missionary text is Edward?s History of the Work of Redemption (1774), "a body of divinity in an entirely new method, being thrown into the form of a history". The thesis of History of Redemption is the unity and purpose of history. Redemption began before the fall in the Trinitarian "covenant of redemption" and will end with "a new heaven and a new earth." The revival of seventeenth-century America is seen as part of this history of God?s saving work.

God's plan is progressively realized in three stages. In the first period of history, from he fall to the incarnation, the keynote is the preparation for Christ's coming. Much went wrong in this period, but God wonderfully worked things so that whatever happened was ordered for good to his general design, and made into a means of promoting it. The very decline itself, was one thing that God employed as a further preparation for Christ's coming.   

The keynote to the second great period, from the incarnation to the resurrection, is "procuring and purchasing redemption." Christ's full act of humiliation from the cradle of the womb to that of the grave paid the whole account. "Then was finished that great work, the purchase of our redemption, for which such great preparation had been made from the beginning of the world."  

In the last period of world history, from the resurrection to the end of the work, the keynote is accomplishment. This period is that of "the kingdom of God", "the latter day's". Edwards comforts the church living in these days with "the constancy and perpetuity of God's mercy and faithfulness towards her, which shall be manifest in continuing to work salvation for her "and carrying her safely through all the changes of the world, and finally crowning here with victoryand deliverance." 

Lessons learned

The Reformed theologian Hans Burger recently designed a framework for understanding "being in Christ", consisting of four moments: representation, substitution, union and participation. Within this framework, Edward's contribution may be summarized as follows:  

Representation. God, not willing that man should remain in misery, sent his Son to take our nature. Heaven came to earth in Christ. His life and death became the foundation of a new earth. The church on earth is inseparable from that in heaven and the embodiment of God's redemptive purpose in and beyond time. Corruptions threatens the kingdom of God and its growth in the world, but the resurrection of Christ holds the promise that grace will revive, that death and decline itself is the one thing that God employs to bring life and multiplication. This is the church (re)planter's essential hope in doing the work of mission.   

Substitution. Edward's theological pattern was typical in demonstrating that man's moral judgements and his seeking of God cannot earn God's favour. Only God?s saving grace can rescue a sinner from judgement. Christ came to be our Mediator, to die for our sins on the cross, and thus to redeem us from the curse of sin and the power of the devil. Pardon in Christ is full and free. Justification in Christ is complete. The giving of his life was the deepest and the highest of satisfaction for the human sin. In the death of Christ, our redemption was purchased and God's work of redemption was in principle finished. This is the church planter's essential message to the world.   

Union. The moment of substitution is necessary but insufficient for a concept of being in Christ. Doctrinal knowledge of sin and grace is necessary but insufficient. Even the devil knows doctrine. What is needed is the Holy Spirit illuminating souls, turning them to Christ. A subjective sense of the beauty and holiness of God gives man a new discernment of scriptural truth, brings him unto vital union with Christ, and moulds his affections into exquisite harmony with the divine. This is the church planter's essential ministry within the church. 

Participation. God's work converts and justifies particular souls but this effect upon individual subjects is taken up into the corporate and the universal as there is participation in God's work: Christians enter actively into the work of advancing the kingdom of Christ, rich men generously contribute temporal goods, God's people abound in united fasting and prayer, and Christians attend to the duty of true love for their neighbour. The eternal kingdom has already begun, and one day it will be made complete. Then love begun on earth will be fulfilled in heaven. Fellowship with believers on earth becomes communion with the saints of all history. Great acts and small acts will all be taken up in the great design of redemption. This is the church planter's essential contribution to the city, equipping the saints for their work of ministry.   

Hay "iglesias" por internet en EEUU (léase en El Mercurio), no sólo compartiendo los sermones, sino también ofreciendo los sacramentos vía online. La verdad es que ya no pueden llamarse iglesias. De no haber discipulado, Santa Cena en comunión, una comunidad en la que recibir miembros bautizados, entonces no es iglesia, y miles de personas están siendo engañadas.

No critico el uso de la tecnología, lo fomento; con twitter (@iprovidencia), facebook (Iglesia Providencia), pero eso no debe reemplazar el valor y definición Bíblica de la iglesia; un grupo de personas, miembros de una comunidad, que se reúnen frecuentemente para adorar a Dios, en la predicación de Su Palabra y la celebración y buena administración de las ordenanzas (Santa Cena y Bautismo).

Los animamos a todos a "Seguir animándonos a las buenas obras" y a "no dejar de Congregarse" (Hebreos 10:24-5). Todo verdadero discípulo es parte de una comunidad real (no virtual) en la que debe participar, sirviendo a otros con sus dones, y reuniéndose para celebrar las maravillas de Dios.Con mucho cariño...

Felipe Chamy.

PD. Gracias Pame Figueroa por el link.

Are you a Spanish speaking church planter? Do you speak Spanish or do you know someone who does? Are you looking for Spanish resources that resonate with Redeemer's vision and mission to the city? Here you have all of Tim Keller's posts directly translated from this site as late as the day after they're published.

Falsos dioses

Xavier Memba

As I was reflecting on the Prodigal God and discussions about younger and elder brothers, I got to thinking about elder brothers and how they impact church planting.

At first, I thought about how elder brothers lack the desire to go after younger brothers and how often they complain about those who do. As Keller has said, "our churches are full of elder brothers". And, I am afraid that I thought about them pretty much as lost causes.

But then it struck me that one of the greatest church planters ever, was also one of the worst cases of "elder brother(ness)", Saul of Tarsus. I often wonder if any of the early church prayers included the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. I think most prayer that concerned him would have been of a different kind. And yet, God reached out the grab hold of Saul and turn him into the apostle Paul. God used all of that theological training and passion for good.

So, as I think of the many elder brothers who warm pews or chairs in North America, I pray that many of them will "see the light" and become wonderful servants in reaching other elder and younger brothers. It seems to me that this is a "mission field" that should not be ignored.

I'm a sports fan and for a while I've been wanting to write a short piece on it. Specially about where sports interacts and intersects with spirituality.

I've often found myself comparing what happens in my soul when I play a soccer match, read the sports section of an online paper and, watch one of my country-men fight an MMA match with what I experience in worship, preaching a sermon or reading my Bible.

There are some similarities. If there wasn't Paul wouldn't have compared his ministry focus with a race or a boxing match.

I don't know about you but, every time I go to a stadium or an arena of any sort it's very clear to me that there's a spiritual experience taking place. Worship is evident in the chants, emotional reactions, community expressions and, the feasting. I could even throw the offering element in there if you want me to.

It's funny how people will criticize organized religion because of all of the above and yet still pay their yearly tithe to their teams of choice, shout the name of their deities till they bust all their vocal cords, hug and drink with strangers and, practice apologetics to prove the existence of their team/ group/ player's superiority. In many ways there's no difference between a hard-core sports fan and a pentecostal christian.

We all have a longing to belong, an urge to triumph and a need to escape the boredom of reality. Sports therefore, become a great outlet for these needs. From this standpoint entertainment is extremely important for life in society. The Romans understood it well as their famous slogan of "bread and circus" revealed.

As with every good thing given by the Father of Light, sports were given to us so that we would enjoy and stimulate these soul cravings. Like sex and food, sports point us to a greater reality. A reality where we can solve our crisis of belonging, quench our thirst for everlasting victory and find true meaning in the midst of the repetitiveness of reality.

Though Sibbs and Baxter had a good deal to say about the redemption of the world, they were never involved in an actual church planting effort. John Eliot, on the other hand, was the founding pastor of a church in Roxbury, from where he further worked to plant an Indian church.

It took Eliot almost 25 years to establish a self-sustaining Indian church. The process was accomplished in four stages and has been well-documented in a number of missionary tracts.

1643: Early fruits and help sought. The first missionary tract, New England's First Fruits (1643), indicates that already during the first decade of the plantation in Massachusetts, concern for the Indians was present and that individuals were concerted, and at least one and perhaps more were admitted into membership of the church. These initial blessings were considered as an earnest of the greater harvest to come. For this gathering, help from England was sought to support full-time church planters among the Indians.

1646: Preaching to groups and dealing with individuals who responded and sought further counsel. The second tract, The Day-Breaking, If Not the Sun-Rising of the Gospel with the Indians in New-England (1647), gives increasing hopes for advance in the Indian work. Four meetings between the English and a group of Indians are described.

There were five parts to these religious exercises: (1) After an opening prayer, (2) Eliot catechized the children. Then, (3) Eliot preached and taught a sermon and applied it unto the condition of the Indians present. Following the sermon, (4) the Indians asked questions. The meeting ended with a prayer of fifteen minutes. Moved by the gospel, some Indians came to Eliot for (5) further personal council and admonition, to which the Indians submit themselves reverently. (6) After encouraging the Indians in their purpose, the English went home.

Prayer. Eliot was known for his love of prayer. At visits with friends, meetings with ministers, and gatherings in the church, one could expect an encouragement to prayer. "Come let us pray..." was often heard by him.

Preaching and teaching. Eliot emphasizes the preaching of the simple truths of the gospel and the teaching of the history and doctrine of the scripture both in winning converts and in their growth in grace. His manner of preaching and teaching was simple and plain so that even children and unbelievers could understand.

Questions. During the Q&A, the Indians asked many questions, some philosophical, others ethical or practical. "How may we come to know Jesus Christ?", "What does 'humiliation' mean?", "Why do the English call them 'Indians'?" "What is the Spirit?", "Should we believe dreams?", "Could they have a place for a town and learn to spin?" "How may one know wicked men, who are good and who are bad?", "Why did not God give all men good hearts that they might be good?", "How should we know when our faith is good faith, and our prayers good prayers?" "Why did not God kill the devil that made all men so bad, God having all the power?" "Why did the English wait twenty-seven years to teach the Indians about God?", "Since I am still so sinful and perhaps may fall back into sin, is it wrong to wish that I might now die?" "What happens to our children when they die?" "What must we do when we are sick, now we go no longer to the powwow?" "Should a man whose wife commits adultery and runs away receive her again when she repents?", "Why does God, who loves the repentant, still afflict them?", "What do English men think of Mr. Eliot because he associated with wicked Indians to teach them?" (prompted by a sermon on Eph. 5:1, "Have no fellowship with unfruitful workers of darkness")

Answering some of these more philosophical questions demands a learned gospel ministry; answering practical questions requires a decision whether or not to grand the request and how to provide for it. Thus, an important "obstacle to the gospel work among the Indians" was the lack of money to hire translators, preachers, teachers and ministry managers, which could not come from the poor Indians themselves.

The third tract, The Clear Sun-shine of the Gospel Breaking Forth upon the Indians in New England (1648), therefore, consisted of a straight-forward request to all English churches to give prayers and assistance. "Let those who have tasted God's mercy, be merciful." The sixth missionary tract, Strength out of Weakness (1652), was a further request for sacrificial giving on the part of the English.

Counseling. Many of the Indian converts wrestled with faith and doubt, with sin and assurance of pardon. To Eliot, these "recurring attacks of doubt and temptation" could only mean one thing, " a greater need for the means by which God strengthens those weak in faith": the means of grace.

1651: Encouraging the formation of a community of believers and community development. Although word of the Christian faith spread and aroused, the Gospel, as the Puritans understood it, was a way of life, not simply a few doctrines to be accepted. Many Indians accepted the doctrines as "gospel truth." (Who were they to deny that the English, who were so obviously superior in nearly everything, were not also superior in the knowledge of God?) But the "gospel way of life" they did not easily accept. What was necessary was the creation of a community with a patterned way of life which would both be Christian in its structure and provide opportunity for unbroken training in the Christian doctrine of life.

Eliot was not only concerned with the spiritual welfare of the Indian. He also responded with mercy to individuals in need, and worked for justice.

Mercy. An old Indian, who regularly brought his wife and children to the meetings, came naked to Eliot in the cold. Eliot gave him some cloths. At this the Indian was overcome with emotion and responded, God I see is merciful.

Justice. Eliot regularly brought cases to court to prevent defraud of Indian land, sought to secure lands for Indian use, pleaded clemency for convicted Indian prisoners, and fought the selling of Indians into slavery.

Community Development. Because of the unsettled way of life that the Indians led, Eliot believed that he should first bring the Indians to some form of a more settled way of life, with their own civil government and school system, before he could gather them into a formal, organized Indian church, with its own officers and teachers. Therefore, he worked with English volunteers to build bridges, erect houses, and establish schools for the Indian adults and children.

1660: Developing leaders and organizing local churches. Eliot agreed with Baxter that Christians should remain in their own parochial churches and be salt to others. This he has insisted upon for his Indian converts rather than they should leave the Indian villages and join the spiritually stronger English churches. "No, rather let them keep Sabbath: worship together, and the strong help the weak."

This was not needless to say, because (1) the first Indian church members were not those organized in an Indian church but those worshipping in an English church, and (2) in reforming their lives, some Indians left all of the Indian customs, rejecting their names and abhorring to dwell with the Indians any longer.

Leadership Development. Because the Indians were "not furnished with any to be an able pastor and elder over them, by whom they might be directed and guided in all the affairs of the church, and administration of the household of God", Eliot put much work in developing native leaders: training Indians men and youths that had begun to speak to one or the other of the things they had heard to become elders and evangelists.

Eliot feared an underestimation of the significance of the office of ruling elders. Eliot not only assigned traditional duties to the presbytery (receiving new members, calling new officers, disciplining offenders) but also duties that concerned the execution of the mission task of the church. The presbytery was (1) to fast and pray for fit laborers for the service of Christ, (2) to send forth ministers to carry the gospel, and preach Jesus Christ unto the unconverted, and (3) work with these ministers to gather and plant churches among them.

For example, the Indian church was established during a public day of confessions, before the Lord and a council of elders and other 'messengers' from the nearest churches. After the public meeting the messengers met together and unanimously declared the confessions satisfactory and the Indians fit matter for a church-estate. Many adults and children were baptized, the Lord's Supper was celebrated with many Englishmen also participating. Two teaching elders were ordained to serve as pastors. Ruling elders and deacons were chosen, and encouragement was given for the planting of two new churches.

Lessons

As New England has become one of the least churched parts of the United States (see the item Church Planters target New England on this web site), let's notice a few important lessons.

First, new churches don't come falling from heaven. They must be planted and require help from established churches. First fruits require workers to bring in all the harvest. I think of the help that New York pioneers sought from the Mission to North America (before Redeemer could be planted) or the first letter to the RCPC from the Reformed churches in Amsterdam (before Via Nova could be planted). The missionary task of the local church concerns more than just an occasional or annual contribution. Church planting require sacrificial giving on the part of the established churches. And more than money, it requires prayer and "presence ministry", from the presbytery as much as from regular members or a special committee.

Second, those who seek to evangelize their city (planters or pastors) do well to understand the inextricable connections between evangelism, counseling, community formation and social work. Preaching prompts existential questions and practical requests. Time is needed to express or share these concerns and capacity is needed to respond to them properly. Without it, preaching and teaching will be in vain.

Third, becoming a Christian (community) means leaving an old way of life and developing a new (corporate) way of life. This process must be planned for and guided. In recent years, missiologists have developed excellent manuals for doing this. Both planters and pastors do well to make use of them.

Richard Baxter, though perhaps best know as author of the Reformed Pastor, was not just a caring, loving Christian pastor but also an evangelist whose 'Call to the Unconverted' was heard far beyond the bounds of his life. What can we learn from him?

Baxter on Evangelism

Begin with the essential truth that God is good. According to Baxter, we must begin our communication of the gospel with that which is clear and fundamental truth, namely that God is good. We must not permit later matters (such as judgment) to qualify this first principle.

I have found this very helpful in answering questions from people struggling with the 'negative' side of the Christian faith, as well as in meditating on passages in which God or Jesus seems to "offend our Western sensibilities". Some difficulties will always remain, but for many people it can be a liberating thing to start theologizing from the principle that God is good.

Teach all that is of flat necessity to salvation and as much of the rest as possible. According to Baxter, we must distinguish between the essential necessary truths and the smaller controversial truths, and keep the later in the background. "God has made the points that are of necessity to salvation to be few and plain," yet "so few of the multitudes of Christians have a clear idea of the real grounds of faith."

I have often sat with people who had mostly grown up in the church but did not know what the word "gospel" meant and could not summarize the message of the church in a few sentences (while they could comment in length on the reason why one particular (way of being) church was better than another!). A friend recently pointed out to me that an important question left unaddressed by many Christians is: what is the good news of the gospel for me, personally?

The first duty of ministers is to preach to the unconverted in such a way as to accomplish their conversion. According to Baxter, it is simply "the work of faithful ministers, to have men's soul saved." True pastors thirst after the conversion of men to Christ and present the words and works of God in such a way as to accomplish this. The Commission to bring people out of the world into the church is "the first great business of the gospel and ministry in the world." It is necessary because the far greatest part of the world is without the gospel today, and because even where the gospel has long continued, for most part there are many still that are unconverted.

Two things may be noted. First, in the church's use of the metaphor of the pastor, the focus is often on the pastor as the man who spends time with the sick and elderly. As important as this role is, it must not lead to a neglect of the role of the pastor as the one who spends time with the lost. Second, the key indicator of successful preaching is not the number of seats filled but the number of people changed.

The believer's plain and urgent duty through the church is to do all he can for the conversion of others. In several lengthy passages Baxter sets out the believer's duties for the conversion of others. Three "duties of the tongue" are (1) to pray for conversion, (2) to communicate the love of God, and (3) to repeat the truths taught by faithful pastors. Three "duties of the hand" are (1) to procure faithful ministers where they are lacking, (2) to bring others to pastors who teach sound doctrine, and (3) to bring others into the fellowship of believers (e.g. placed in good families, married to a believing wife, steered away from bad into good company). Every Christian bears these duties and ought to exercise them: there is a "common obligation on all men to do their best in their places to propagate the gospel and church, and to save men's soul."

Several things may be noted about Baxter's instruction here. First, while every believer is made instrumental to the conversion of others, not every believer is called to be an evangelist. The first duty of the tongue is not to evangelize, but to pray for the conversion of others. The third duty is not to teach by yourself, but to repeat or explain the teaching of pastors. Second, all the duties of the hand are focused, not on private communication, but in bringing men to profitable relations. Every Christian should work to draw the unconverted and weak in faith to large and small group meetings of Christians where (1) the gospel can be lived out in interaction between (many) people of and (2) explained to them by those who are gifted to do so. This instruction takes the pressure of ordinary Christian who want to be obedient to the duty to be instrumental to the conversion of others but do are not particularly gifted to communicated the gospel verbally.

Baxter on Christian & Community Formation

There are three parts to conversion: mind, will, and behavior must be changed. The first is the change of the mind. When the Spirit illuminates our understanding, ignorance is put away. The Spirit opens the eyes to faith, causing the mind to know the ugliness of sin and the loveliness of God. The second is the change of the will. The will receives a new inclination. It chooses right ends, commits to everything the Lord has commanded and changes affections from material to spiritual objects. The third is the change of behavior. A life of habitual works, witness and compassion for those in need.

I've found this teaching especially helpful with regard to the vision of the church. A theological and ministry vision is not only a particularly renewed understanding of God, self and world (expressed in the church's core values), but also consists of a renewed commitment to new "priority areas" (expressed in the church's mission fronts) and a renewed practice (expressed in the church's core competences).

Unchanged people are a great hindrance in evangelism. Hypocrisy and evil conduct of Christians is the great stumbling block for the conversion of heathens. The wicked and scandalous lives of Christians is the grand cause that they abhor Christianity. Baxter points to the fact that Satan capitalizes on people's natural weaknesses and defects of character to hinder the advance of the gospel. Christian character formation has a missionary thrust.

Baxter on Lay Ministry

The duty to minister to others consist first in getting one's heart affected by the misery of others, being compassionate towards them (affinity), second in taking every opportunity that you possibly can to help others to attain salvation, and third in increasing your ability to do so effectively through instruction. Right performance increases success, we must especially learn how to minister in a way that suits the character and situation of the person.

Baxter on Mercy & Justice

Faith is exercised in works of charity and justice. Love for God cannot but bring well-being to man. The believer's plain and urgent duty through the church is to exercise compassion for men's bodies as well as their souls. The expression of love to God necessarily involves a love for others. "Love is the most powerful preacher in the world."

We please God when we readily share his gifts to us with others. We must share our goods with men of all sorts, high and low, rich and poor, old and young, neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies, good and bad, none excepted that are within our reach. There are to be no bounds to our endeavors to seek the good of multitudes and to exercise a healing love to all mankind.

Human trafficking is one of the worst kinds of thievery in the world. "To go...and catch up poor negroes or people of another land, that never forfeited life or liberty, and to make them slaves and sell them, is one of the worst kinds of thievery in the world; and such persons are to be taken for the common enemies of mankind."

Baxter on Faith & Work

All the believer's work is characterized by "heart work" and "heaven work". The Christian, in his love for God, will show a hearty love and a heavenly disposition in all his work...

Baxter on Movement

The church's unity of spirit fortifies and fits it for the conversion of the world. "A united army is likest to be victorious." We must pray and labor for the reformation and concord of all the Christian churches as the most probable means to win to Christ the world of unbelievers. Baxter regrets that many pastors care only for their own particular churches, rarely giving a thought to other reformed churches. "Are we to pray only for our party as if it were all of the church? Is God so narrow as we?"

"Tell me," said I.

"To start a campaign to privatise music," he said.

"No chance," said I.

"Just give me a chance," he said. "I'm not a fan and it's everywhere these days. You can't escape it. But if I have my way, we'll change all that."

"But why?" said I.

"Surely you can see," he said. "Music stimulates fanaticism, encourages all kinds of weird behaviour. It stops people thinking clearly, stirs up emotions and passions. Music is subjective. There's nothing solid about it, nothing measurable. You can't analyse it. It's not real."

?" know you can measure sound scientifically. But it's not sound that people value; it's those abstract things like melody, rhythm, poetry, sentiment. These are just figments of overactive imaginations."

"So what's the plan?" said I.

"Oh simple," he said. "It has five parts.I know it will take a while but I think it can work.

"Part One: I find a few people like me. They will think that music is an undesirable force in our society that we'd be better off without. But since there's no chance of that, we'll do the next best thing; we'll make it a private affair.

"I will find influential people in various sections of society. We will start talking about how music is a very personal thing so it would be better kept for private places. We won't criticise music per se, just point out how people have different tastes in music, different ideas about what is good and what is not. It?sall about preference. So with such a subjective force it's better to confine it to certain areas and not have it freely available."

"Ok,? said I. "I understand part one, but I still don't see it working."

"Part two," he said, "is to work with the musicians, the songwriters, the singers. We convince them that their music would be better off played to the real fans, the people who believe in them. Why make it accessible to critics and cynics when you can keep it for those who really loved it?

"Then we convince them that their musical work should focus on... music. We persuade them to stop writing songs about real things like love, politics, tragedies, triumphs, cheating lovers and second chances. Instead we persuade them only to write songs about music - how good it is, valuable, interesting and so on. Then music will begin to turn in on itself. Eventually music and normal life will be separated. They will be two different and unrelated categories, one real and one imaginary."

"You have me worried," said I. "What's next?"

"Third," he said, "we remove music from the academic world. Instead of studying music itself, people will only be able to study about music, the history of music, the different music traditions. In public colleges you will be able to study anything to do with music except music itself. If you want to study music itself you'll have to go to a private college, a place set up by enthusiasts for one type of music.

"Fourth, we would reduce music in the media. We won't be able to remove it altogether but it should be easy enough to confine it to certain narrow areas. A paper might have a weekly column called "Thinking musically." Radio or television programmes on music will be at unusual hours. They would be quaint, ethereal or even bizarre - anything but normal.

"In time part five will come into play. It will become offensive to play music in public. People who do it will be seen as intolerant and insensitive, imposing their musical tastes on others. People will only discuss music in official "music gatherings" or while visiting a professional musician. Playing music will be confined to private places or specially built halls. No one else will ever go near them."

"What do you think?" he said. "Will it work?"

"Will it? said I. "Perhaps it already has."

Is Calvinism basically a theology of the elect for the elect or is it a theology of redemption for the world? This is the question Sidney Rooy addressed in The Theology of Missions in the Puritan Tradition: A Study of Representative Puritans - Richard Sibbes, Richard Baxter, John Eliot, Cotton Mather, and Jonathan Edwards.

Let's look at the first one, Richard Sibbes, who was a Puritan minister at Cambridge whose writings were among the most read and quoted by the Puritan fathers of New England.

Sibbes on the Ministry of the Gospel

All of salvation is in Christ. For salvation to be achieved, there must be concurrence between heaven and earth. Heaven came to earth in Christ. His life and death became the foundation of a new earth. All of salvation is in him.

Christ comes to us through preaching. "Preaching is the chariot that carries Christ up and down the world." We must hear the gospel to know Christ, experience the converting power of the Spirit and be saved. 

Christ is the purpose of preaching. The purpose of the ministry of the gospel is (i) to win souls for Christ and (ii) to renew Christians.

Christ and only Christ is the object of preaching. To minister the gospel is to show the sinner his true state, to "lay open Christ" and his riches and then sweetly persuade the sinner to come to Christ.

Preaching must be inclusive. Sometimes by ekklesia the Word of God intends all under the regular hearing of the gospel: believers and unbelievers are included. Other times it is used more narrowly in referring to the bride of Christ: only believers are included. Sibbes' conclusion: ministers must address both sorts of people.

Preaching must address the mind. The knowledge of theology and liberal arts go hand in hand. Theological spears strike harder, go in deeper, when soundly brandished by logic and rhetoric.

Preaching must address the heart. In the ministry of the gospel, the Spirit of God stirs up the heart. Motives of fear of judgement or damnation are usually short-lived, but motivation based on an attraction to God is lasting.

Sibbes on Personal Change

Salvation requires change. Through fire and brimstone preaching is infrequent in Sibbes' sermons, his view of the implications of human sin is plain. There is necessity for change. No one can be saved without the change of a new birth.

All of salvation is grace. Salvation, from beginning to end, is all grace. Faith is the first grace of the Spirit, the one that precedes and stirs up all other graces. Glorification is the final grace, which completes and surpasses all other graces. But all is grace.

Sibbes on Community

The church is a community. This community is a precious thing, a preserver, a necessary act. Isolation halts grace. Sibbes refers to the Christ's prayer in John 17 and to the trinity as the "pattern" of our community.  

The church is a paradoxal community. The church of God is his house, but it often bears a contradictory character because there is a mixture of good and bad in it. First, in every church there are many in the church who are only Christians in name, who profess the gospel but are not in Christ. Our thoughts are not to stray far away when we think of lost people. Second, churches are made up of imperfect Christians. Even without unbelievers in it, the church would still be imperfect.

Sibbes on Serving

Because God has a gracious good will toward all men, we most love mankind. If Christ has compassion with all men, shall we see so many poor people and not have compassion?

Sibbes on Lay Ministry

God makes common Christians ministers. Not only ministers, but everyone must labor to enlarge the kingdom of God. The individual Christian should be at the heart of the gospel's spread.

The gospel is to be spread wherever the Christian is to be found. Sibbes places a heavy responsibility upon all Christians to spread the gospel where they are. Every Christian in his place must employ his talent to answer his calling.

Sibbes on Movement

God's love is a spreading love. Because love is by nature diffusive, we must be of a spreading disposition. The love and grace received must flow out to others. Sibbes often uses the metaphor of sunshine and light. Those not heated with grace cannot kindle others. God shines first, and we shine consequently on others.

The end of election is mission. Rather than just weeping over their own sins, Christians should mourn for any sins that may stand in the way of others' salvation. The end of light is not to shine in our hearts to no purpose, but to shine to others.

God is the sovereign Lord of mission. God has done great things. He still does. He is working his victory for us and in us. His name be praised!

I often get asked how I personally became acquainted with the pervasive influence of idolatry in the human heart.

Like many younger ministers I worked far too many hours, never saying "no" to anyone's request for my pastoral services. When salary increases were offered to me, I turned them down. When administrative help was offered to me, I declined. I was quite proud of being the kind of person who worked very hard, never complained, and never asked for any help. This regularly brought me into conflict with my wife, who rightly contended that I was neglecting my relationships to her and to my young sons. It also led to health problems, although I was only in my early thirties.

Nevertheless, I continued to feel that the way I was living was noble and good. I believed I was sacrificially committed to the ministry of the Word. I was especially delighted to make sacrifices that nobody saw -- not my people or even my family. That made me feel most noble of all. If all this created some problems for me personally, wasn't that just evidence of how truly devoted I was? It was a very dangerous situation. My future was bleak, though I didn't know it. In the short run, this kind of ministry workaholism is often rewarded by admiring people all around.

Some well-meaning friends, however, saw the problem and literally "laid the law" on me, showing me that I was violating the commandments of taking Sabbath and of honoring my family. I usually responded with incremental changes that never endured. Others used the modern technique of self-esteem -- "You need to think of yourself; you need to do things that make you happy." I despised that advice as terribly selfish. I valued self-sacrifice.

It wasn't until I began to search my heart with the Biblical category of idolatry that I made the horrendous discovery that all my supposed sacrifices were just a series of selfish actions. I was using people in order to forge my own self-appreciation. I was looking to my sacrificial ministry to give me the sense of "righteousness before God" that should only come from Jesus Christ. People make idols out of money, power, accomplishment, or moral excellence. They look to these things to "save them" -- to give them the sense of purity, value, and acceptability that only Jesus can give. In my case, I was using ministry (and my own people) in this way.