July 31, 2008

Out of Context: Mark Dever

"Too many Christians today are trying to improve on the gospel. The gospel is what it is: the Cross of Christ. Christians on both the political right and the left are downplaying the effects of the Fall, and instead buying into a secular myth of progress through market economics or socialism."

-Mark Dever is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Taken from "Does Your Preaching Touch Politics?" in the Summer 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 31, 2008 | Comments (35) | TrackBack

July 28, 2008

Cartoon: Church Growth Addiction

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 28, 2008 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 25, 2008

The First Church of Second Life

by Angie Ward

There is another life beyond this one: a realm where one's role on earth is a distant memory, where inhabitants have new bodies and can fly anywhere they like. It sounds a bit like heaven. But it's not. It's cyberspace.

Second Life is - well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and "in-world" at any given time, create their own names and "avatars" (virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman "looks") that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls - and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn't real?

Because, for many of its residents, Second Life is real; more real - to them, at least - than their real-world existences. Some members spend entire days in-world at one time; they make friends, go to school, party, play, and sometimes even derive more income from their virtual enterprises than from their real-world ones. This is either cause for great alarm, or great opportunity for ministry.

Second Life resident "Emmanuel Hallard" believes the latter, and started the Christian Church of Second Life two and half years ago. "I felt that Jesus' saying, ?Go into all the world' included Second Life," explained Hallard, who in his "First Life" is Lee Wilson, a minister, author, and actor who works for the Family Dynamics Institute, a nonprofit marriage and family ministry located outside of Nashville.

Wilson/Hallard chose his Second Life first name, Emmanuel, because it means "God with us." "When I first joined Second Life I wanted that message to go with me - that God is everywhere," he said. "We can't hide from Him in the dark, in a voting booth, or in a virtual world." The Nashville minister says he spends around 10 hours per week in Second Life, communicating with his church's 1,000 members, developing the church "property," leading Bible discussions, talking with church visitors, and exploring new areas of the world. The church also has a donation box and accepts gifts that go toward the purchase of new property and the Second Life land ownership fee of $30 per month.

Other Second Life churches function in a similar manner, offering Bible studies and discussion groups. Some hold special events based on the liturgical calendar, such as Easter gatherings and special prayer services.

"Second Life in general lets you experience freedom you might not have in your everyday life," explained Wilson/Hallard.

And the freedom to be and do anything you want in-world is a two-edged sword. "Slappy Yering," another Christian who has spent significant time in Second Life, has observed the darker side of this freedom.

Yering, a church planter and telecom employee in his First Life, used to spend 8 to 16 hours per week in Second Life. He originally joined to get closer to a couple in his church that was very quiet in real life, but spent a lot of time in-world. "In the game they were just crazy," Yering explained. "The couple worked at a virtual strip club. He was a DJ and she was a dancer, and they owned a house in-world. Most of the time I was there, we were talking about life. I was a counselor to these people who had trouble dealing with each other in the real world.

"It was kind of a fun thing," Yering continued "You could be whoever you wanted and do whatever you wanted - no responsibility, because it's just a game. But that's the dangerous part. It crossed a line. The couple eventually divorced. They should really have never been married in the first place, but the game accelerated their downfall."

So, what is Second Life? A colossal time waster, a harmless (albeit elaborate) diversion, or evil escapism? From my own experience, the Second Life world is difficult to learn, yet potentially addicting. The virtual world is completely unreal, yet totally real at the same time. Dangers lurk, yet opportunities abound. What is the appropriate approach for a Christian? On the one hand, Scripture warns us of spending time in futile pursuits; on the other, we are to spread the Gospel to the unreached, using whatever means possible.

Personally, I am too busy in my First Life to spend time in Second Life. But I commend those who are thinking outside the box about how to engage a vast, unevangelized world that is actually contained inside a box.

For a brief glimpse of a Second Life church experience, check out this video, produced by Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 25, 2008 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

July 24, 2008

Is Manliness Next to Godliness?

Today you can read Leadership's own assistant editor, Brandon O'Brien, was in USA Today. The report by Cathy Lynn Grossman highlights the lengths churches are going to reach men. O'Brien wrote an article last spring for Christianity Today on the errors that plague some of these Christian masculinity movements. He was tapped by USA Today to comment on the trend. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

O'Brien says most of the "guy churches" don't go to the degree 121 has, "but much more prevalent and more alarming is the number of churches that promote a stereotype of muscular male behavior as the only correct godly way to be."

He describes a 2002 gathering of comedian Brad Stine's GodMen ministry, featuring videos of karate fights, car chases and a song with lyrics urging, "No more nice guy, timid and ashamed ? Grab a sword, don't be scared - be a man, grow a pair!"

O'Brien counter-punches that those who prefer lattes and books to bows and arrows are equally able to embody Christ-like qualities. "Guy church" pastors should not forget that "humanity in the image of Christ is not aggressive and combative; it is humble and poor."

Read the entire article here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 24, 2008 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

July 22, 2008

The Life You've Always Wanted (in Bed)

A number of churches are now preaching a message I never heard from the pulpit growing up: God wants you to have sex. Lots of sex. Great sex. All for his glory, of course.

In February 2008, Relevant Church of Tampa, Florida, issued a "30-Day Sex Challenge" during their sermon series on relationships. Married couples were exhorted to have some form of intercourse - and singles to abstain - every day for a month.

Last month, New Direction Christian Church (Memphis, Tennessee) conducted its own "40 Nights of Grrreat Sex" program. The pastoral staff handed out daily planners with suggestions for mixing things up. They set up a blog so members could ask questions - and presumably offer advice - anonymously. I hope they also have plans to increase their children's ministry budget in the coming months.

And it's not just churches. In the Christian publishing market, the body of explicit sex manuals for Christian couples is growing. Ironically, about the time secular commentators have begun to voice their concern that our culture is overstimulated, the Christian church says, "I've got an idea; let's have more sex."

Of course I understand the difference between casual sex and intimacy within a godly marriage. And in some ways, I find this trend toward openness about human sexuality to be encouraging. Having grown up in a conservative church in a conservative part of the country, I know Christians who feel guilty about having (not to mention enjoying) sex with their Christian spouses. This certainly should not be so.

On the other hand, where does "church as sex therapist" lead? In the upcoming issue of Leadership, Sam O'Neal reports that Relevant Church's sex campaign resulted in a 15 percent increase in attendance. Is that transfer growth or conversion growth, I wonder? (Not growth precisely, but you know what I mean.)

I don't mean to criticize either of the ministries above; there's certainly nothing wrong with churches celebrating sexual intimacy within marriage. And I don't know enough of the details to critique either of the "campaigns." But to comment on evangelicalism's apparently growing fascination with sex, I have to wonder what this looks like to nonbelievers.

For example, as I understand it, there is some disagreement among Taoists concerning the role of sex in spiritual development. Some say that sex uses up chi (which one must reserve in order to become immortal), so they abstain. Others say a person can actually gain chi during intercourse, so have all you want. From an outsider's perspective, if I were going to choose a form of Taoism ? well, it's a simple choice, isn't it?

There's a part of me that wonders whether nonbelievers will look on Christianity, from an outsider's perspective, and say, "Well, if my options are ?take up your cross and follow me' or ?have sex every day,' I'll take option two, please." What you win them with is what you win them to, or so they say.

I'm curious to hear what you think. Is this "tell 'em what they want to hear"? Or are we finally beginning to understand God's design for sex in marriage? Does an emphasis on sexual fulfillment (or financial security, or anger management, or ?) distract from the gospel? Or is satisfaction of all sorts an element of the gospel message of restoration? Let us know what you think. And remember--keep it short and keep it clean.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 22, 2008 | Comments (28) | TrackBack

July 21, 2008

Cartoon: Biblical Literacy

by Nick Hobart

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 21, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

July 18, 2008

New Christians VS. Vintage Jesus (Part 3)

I want to thank Chad Hall for taking the time to read the book and giving me some helpful feedback in his review. I also appreciate the opportunity to respond and will seek to do so graciously.

(Read Chad Hall's review here.)

First, the accusation that I am humble is scandalous. I have said some things over the years that I regret. Meditating on the fact that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble, God shook me deeply. Today I am, as a friend says, a proud man pursuing humility by the grace of God. I appreciate Chad's insight that humility is knowing one's place in God's plan because I find it helpful and truthful.

Second, as a loving push back, I would say that my goal in the book was not to say anything new, but rather to say things that are timeless in timely ways. Admittedly, the person who graduated from seminary ten years ago and is now in ministry like Chad, might not resonate as deeply with Vintage Jesus as the twenty-something who is as lost as Dick Cheney in the woods - which was the primary audience I had in mind when I wrote. The feedback I am getting from younger, less theologically trained people is very encouraging and the sales of the book to young folks have remained strong by God's grace.

Third, the book is the first in an ongoing series and establishes the big anchor concepts of our faith that will be explored in greater detail in forthcoming books. All of them can be found at www.relit.org and yes, that is a shameless advertising plug. The next in the series is Death By Love, which is a series of pastoral letters to people I know and love explaining how twelve aspects of the atonement apply to them. So, for example, the expiation chapter is a letter to a dear female friend who was raped. The propitiation chapter is written to a suicidal non-Christian who molested a child and was convicted in court. My guess is that the style and stories will provide a glimpse into the pain of pastoral ministry and may be more what Chad was hoping for. I will make sure to send him a copy.

Fourth, I am always looking to be a better servant of Jesus. So, without being trite, the review is helpful. I'm publishing six books this year alone along with a lot of articles in addition to pastoral ministry, church planting, raising five kids, and more, and Chad has helped me remember to do my best with every project and for that I am grateful. In going back over Vintage Jesus, I still believe it is a great book that packs a ton into a fun and readable format. But I also see how I could have served people even better, and I aspire to so in future books. In the meantime, I'll be drinking flat Coke for Jesus and rejoicing in the fact that at least the truth was present in Vintage Jesus as it gives the Holy Spirit something to work with.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 18, 2008 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

July 17, 2008

New Christians VS. Vintage Jesus (Part 2)

As writer, I am always thankful for reviewers who are thoughtful and evenhanded. I'm afraid that Chad Hall is neither.

(Read Chad Hall's review here.)

Firstly, I clearly do not write that the emergent movement is the exclusive purveyor of the reformation that is currently underway in Christianity. I make it clear in the pages that Mr. Hall cites that it is the gospel that is red-hot lava, bursting through the centuries of accoutrements that have been collected by the church. It would, indeed, be the height of arrogance to suggest that the emergent movement and the gospel are one-and-the-same, but I do no such thing. Instead, I write (and believe) that there are major, tectonic shifts taking place in the church, and the emergent movement is part of that landscape.

Next, to caricature my treatment of convention and traditional Christian worshippers as "crusty old Christians" is, of course, Mr. Hall's right, but it does not accurately reflect my feelings or my writing on the subject. I am frustrated by the reified theologies of the Protestant right and the reified bureaucracies of the Protestant left - and I make no bones about that - but I refer throughout the book to my own journey through those systems and with those people. Indeed, my parents are among those people.

Speaking of that journey, I don't know that it's "condescending" and "supremely arrogant" to write negatively about a theological system of which I was a part and which I now reject, that of Campus Crusade for Christ (at least as it was practiced and taught at Dartmouth College in the 1980s). Is it similarly arrogant for a convert to evangelicalism to write about the failings of the Catholicism he left? How about for the Catholic to write about how Catholicism is superior to Protestantism? Is that supremely arrogant? (Indeed, isn't it supremely arrogant to write a review accusing an author of being "supremely arrogant"?)

And now to defend my friends in Seattle. Mr. Hall refers to them as "intellectually superior egoists." Honestly, I find this label shocking and demeaning. In that chapter, I write that the people at Church of the Apostles are working hard to find common ground on the sexuality issues that are tearing at their denominations (Lutheran and Episcopal), that they feel caught in the shadow of Mark Driscoll's imposing mega-church, and that, above all else, they have an unremitting fear: "is this possible to sustain? How long until politics or gender issues or something else tears COTA apart?" (209) And I wrote about their East Coast benefactors to show just how tenuous their little cohort really is. Seriously, how many "intellectually superior egoists" do you know who are on the dole?

This goes to the very heart of my concern with Mr. Hall's review. The people of Church of the Apostles are the very "crusty old Christians" I'm accused of constantly disparaging: They abide by the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, they are faithful members of two mainline denominations, and they are reliant upon the subsidy of a wealthy, old endowment. And yet I portray them so glowingly that they come off as arrogant as I supposedly do.

So, I wonder, which is it, Mr. Hall? Do I admire them, or am I surreptitiously undermining them by writing honestly of their struggles.

And to Mr. Hall's final warning, let me say this: Truly, the deconstructive tendencies in the emergent tribe may be our undoing. Or they may be the very characteristics that infuse some Christlike humility in us. In either case, I'm counting my blessings that God, and not Mr. Hall, will be the final arbiter of that decision.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 17, 2008 | Comments (28) | TrackBack

July 15, 2008

New Christians VS. Vintage Jesus

If you'd asked me two years ago if I was part of the emerging church movement, I would have thought for a second and said, "Yes." When asked today, I pause for half a second before saying, "No." The New Christians and Vintage Jesus helped me clarify my journey from Yes to No.

I found one book insignificant and the other inflated.

Let's start with the insignificant. I admire Mark Driscoll for doing significant stuff. He's planted a thriving church in a place where it's tough to do ministry and helps lead one of the more successful church planting networks around (Acts 29). I cracked open Vintage Jesus anticipating something important. Based on the title, I expected Driscoll to pop the cork on an enduring theology that over time increases in flavor and potency. But the book was more flat Coke than fine wine.

I did not find Driscoll's book very interesting. About a third of the way through the book, my mind traveled back a decade to my first week of seminary. As a preaching newbie in need of guidance, I checked out an old, small book on preaching that started by saying something like, "If your sermons are not interesting, you're missing something because God is infinitely interesting." The notion that conversations about God should be interesting resurfaced as I read Vintage Jesus and caught myself muttering, "Yeah, yeah, yeah? so what?"

I did not expect some new theology from Driscoll, since that is certainly the opposite of his well known position. But I did expect him to show that God was interesting and revolutionary. I think guys like Erwin McManus and John Burke tend to deliver better on what I expected from Vintage Jesus: how ageless truth is renewed within each generation.

Driscoll wrote boldly when it came to things that don't really matter, such as his choice of over-the-top colorful language in retelling some biblical narratives. But he held back on the truly important matters, such as how radically life-altering is our faith. Except for a few confessional moments that really stood out, he played it safe in Vintage Jesus. Maybe he didn't want to be mistaken for one of those emergent kooks who deny the basics of faith he finds important: beliefs such as hell and substitutionary atonement. Whatever the reason Driscoll chose to play small in this book, I was disappointed. I think he could have done better.

Enough of that. Let's turn now to the inflated book.

The New Christians gave a true and honest depiction of the emergent church movement. That's not to say it was an attractive picture. I felt Jones presented himself and the movement as condescending, contradictory, and closed.

Jones's lava metaphor scored especially high on the pomposity meter. Evidently the emergent movement is red-hot gospel lava bursting forth from the confines of crusty old ?isms: individualism, consumerism, institutionalism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, and Methodism.(37) I read the pages surrounding the metaphor four times looking for something that would rescue it from being a condescending thumb in the eye of anyone who is not emergent. I'm still looking.

In similar condescending fashion, Jones detailed his realization that the Campus Crusade for Christ folks he knew in college "were beholden to underlying theologies that are even more in need of overhaul than the methods themselves."(102) These Crusade schleps exemplify what Jones admitted sounds like a supremely arrogant equation: good theology begets beautiful Christianity while bad theology begets ugly Christianity. Even after his explanation, it still sounded supremely arrogant to me.

I also thought The New Christians revealed some deep contradictions in the movement. Jones emphasized that emergents are open and humble and driven to explore because they know they really don't know and they might be wrong. That's a nice epistemology, but it didn't play out in Jones's interaction with non-emergent thinkers. He never seriously considered that maybe non-emergents are legit in any significant way. What if Jones misunderstands or is misinterpreting the critics, the ?isms, the bureaucrats, the left, the right, or the foundationalists?

Jones was gracious, generous, and inclusive to emergents and practically anyone beyond the pale of crusty old Christians (saints, theologians who can be hijacked, Derrida, yoga, etc.), but was dismissive toward the crusty old Christians. He failed to explore the nuance and texture of these groups while simultaneously criticizing opponents of emergent for not recognizing the nuance and sophistication of his movement. Jones described emergent as a beautiful and messy movement, but gave evidence that non-emergent Christians are just ugly.

My jaw really dropped when Jones described an emergent church in Seattle. The congregation came off as a band of intellectually superior egoists. Bureaucratic institutionalism has suffocated the traditional church because it cares only about itself; meanwhile this rag-tag emergent congregation worries how long they can survive in face of the big, bad, co-opted, unthinking brutes who rule the spiritual landscape. They constantly look over their collective shoulder at mean old Mars Hill Church (Driscoll's congregation). Without even a nod to the irony and contradiction, Jones noted that the Seattle congregation exists because they are funded by a big, traditional, mainline church in Manhattan. I got the impression from the emergent pastor/priestess/abbess that the East Coast sugar daddy church really doesn't know what those crazy kids in Seattle are doing. That's okay; just send money so we can keep on emerging.

More than the condescension and contradiction, what I found most disturbing was that emergents' thinking process seems self-sealing. Early in the book, Jones recounts a critic who opined that criticizing emergents is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. Jones responded that emergents don't blindly accept the assumptions of the stories they've been handed, which could make them appear slippery. He went on to recall a time when Walter Brueggemann urged emergents to live by no other script than the biblical script, which emergents try to do.(39) This is a perfectly self-sealing process: anyone who criticizes emergents simply reveals how faulty the critic's assumptions are; anyone who doubts emergents' assumptions reinforces how faulty (non-biblical) the doubter's assumptions are; all criticism validates that emergents are on the right path and reinforces emergents' core assumptions that they are not beholden to any assumptions. Nothing self-critical here.

This self-sealing process showed up throughout the book, notably in Dispatch 10: "Emergents believe that theology is local, conversational, and temporary. To be faithful to the theological giants of the past, emergents endeavor to continue their theological dialogue."(111) I was impressed by what an elegant and efficient shelter this provided for emergents: by disagreeing with theologians of the past, they are actually agreeing with those same theologians. If you disagree with this dispatch, then you reinforce their theory in use. There is no way to for emergents to be wrong. In fact, my act of thinking in terms of right and wrong just shows how trapped I am by my own faulty assumptions. There's no way through this kind of thinking, and, I fear, no way out.

Driscoll's depiction of emergents as a bunch of liberal, sissy losers who finger paint is funny (in an off-color way), but I don't think it's very helpful for getting emergents out of their doom loop. He seems concerned with being right and being funny but not with influencing a group who really needs some of what he has.

And what does Driscoll have that emergents could use? As crazy as this might sound, I think he is humble. Not in the politically correct sense of humility where nobody is ever wrong or bad or judged, but in the City of God sense that you know your place in the order of things. In my opinion, Driscoll seems to get that Christianity is the rock against which humans are broken, the fire that purifies us, the sieve through which our lives are sifted and sorted and made good. By taking a deconstructing stance toward Christianity, theology, and life, emergents seem to be getting this backward: they can't help but to break, burn, and sift the faith.

Drunk on an overindulgence of their own intelligence and high on the hoopla of being on the exploratory edge, emergents seem headed off the road of what passes as sensible and sound Christianity. Can the Christian faith withstand the deconstructive doubts and curiosities of emergents? Of course it can. That's not the point. The point is that emergents may not be able to survive their chosen path.

In Vintage Jesus, I caught brief reminders of why and how our faith remakes us into God's likeness. In The New Christians, I learned just how much the emergent movement needs to take this reminder to heart.

**Stay tuned to Out of Ur in the next few days when we'll post responses by Tony Jones and Mark Driscoll to this review.**

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 15, 2008 | Comments (80) | TrackBack

July 11, 2008

Felt-Needs and Messianic Marketing

Conventional ministry wisdom goes something like this: When launching a new church, first analyze the felt-needs within the target area or population. Then construct ministries to address those felt-needs. Felt-needs based ministries will draw people to your church, and simultaneously positively predispose seekers to the gospel message. In this scenario, caring for peoples' felt-needs plays a supporting role in the mission.

What if this conventional wisdom is wrong?

The idea outlined above is what I was taught in seminary, it's what I read frequently in ministry books, and it's what I see practiced virtually everywhere I go. But I increasingly suspect that the theological foundation for felt-needs based ministry may be sand rather than stone.

The biblical rationale comes primarily from the gospels. Jesus, it is thought, performed miracles in order to confirm the content of his preaching. His "acts of power" (the word "miracle" is rarely used in the Greek-language gospels) function as validation for his verbal proclamation. In other words, you should believe what Jesus says because look at what he can do.

Translating this principle into contemporary ministry, we are told that identifying and satisfying felt-needs will confirm and validate the gospel we preach - and hopefully draw a crowd the way Jesus' miracles did. But there are a few problems with this understanding.

1. If his miracles play the supporting role of validating his message, one would expect to see Jesus performing miracles in conjunction with teaching. But this is rarely the case. There are some exceptions, but for the most part the gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles do not include teaching. Most of the gospel writers separate sections of dialogue and teaching from stories of miracles.

2. If the miracles were to validate his message, why does Jesus frequently command people not to report the miracles he has performed? Some argue Jesus was trying to postpone the discovery of his identity until the appointed time. That may be true, but the secrecy undermines the notion that his acts of power are to confirm his proclamations.

Theologian N.T. Wright, among others, has suggested a different way of understanding Jesus' miracles. Rather than supporting his preaching, Jesus' acts of power should be seen as accomplishing the same thing as his preaching - namely, restoring exiled sinners to God. Wright:

Most if not all of the works of healing, which form the bulk of Jesus' mighty works, could be seen as the restoration of membership in Israel of those who, through sickness or whatever, had been excluded as ritually unclean. The healings thus function in exact parallel with the welcome of sinners (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 191).

If theologians like Wright are correct, and Jesus didn't address felt-needs to win a hearing or confirm his message, then how and why we address felt-needs in our present ministries needs to be reconsidered. For example, if Jesus' healed blind Bartimaeus and the bleeding woman not to win their approval or validate his teaching, but rather to restore them to full communion with God and his people (something their handicaps prevented), then our good works need to be more than smart PR or marketing. They too must have some intrinsic gospel validity - a worthiness beyond validating our verbal proclamation.

Similarly, no one doubts that Bartimaeus or the bleeding woman had legitimate felt-needs. But in our context what some may interpret as a felt-need may actually be a felt-want. If surveys show that people in my community really want an after school sports program, should my church create one? Why not a day spa or car detailing service? Who defines what is a legitimate felt-need? If we believe acts of service exist to validate or incentivize our message, then anything our audience deems valuable will do.

Jesus appears more discerning. He healed people with ailments or handicaps that excluded them from Israel or the worship of Israel's God. And when people requested miracles outside these parameters, he refused to perform (see Matthew 16:1-4). As Wright observes, "[Jesus] never performed mighty works simply to impress."

Does this mean we shouldn't love our neighbors, seek justice for the oppressed, or let our light shine before men? Of course not. Many of the outreach activities practiced by churches (liking handing out bottled water at summer events, a growing trend in my area) may be acts of kindness that help improve the public perception of Christians - and heaven knows we need that. But we shouldn't equate what is essentially marketing with Jesus' mighty works.

Contradicting the gospel message is another danger of a hyper-felt-needs based approach to outreach. The gospel calls us to surrender our desires, take up our cross, and follow Christ. How can a church effectively invite people to "die to self" while constantly appealing to their self-interests? Whereas Jesus' miracles of restoration were completely in sync with his message, our acts of service - particularly in an affluent, consumer culture - run the risk of undermining our message of personal sacrifice by promoting the satifaction of felt-needs/wants.

I don't pretend to have covered every aspect of this issue. With just 800 words, one can only hope to scratch the surface of a tremendously complex topic, but I hope my thoughts and questions ignite your own.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 11, 2008 | Comments (14) | TrackBack

July 10, 2008

Out of Context: Dave Gibbons

"I love the church. It's God's vehicle for transformation. But I don't want the church to become so centralized that it can't reproduce, can't adopt multiple forms. And that works better when you're small, when you're on the verge, on the edge. Small is the new big. Big isn't bad, but it's overrated."

-Dave Gibbons is pastor of NewSong Church in Irvine, California. Taken from "On the Verge" in the Summer 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 10, 2008 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

July 9, 2008

Audio Ur: Dan Kimball on Gay Marriage

Last month the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Some are predicting that the California ruling will open the door to gay marriage throughout the country. How should church leaders respond? Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership, recently spoke with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, about how his congregation is handling the controversial decision.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 9, 2008 | Comments (40) | TrackBack

July 8, 2008

Formation via Fiction

This is a highly unscientific observation, but I stand by it: In my scouring of bookshelves in pastor's studies and church libraries, I regularly find volumes from the corporate world about how to be an effective leader and efficient administrator; studies from the humanities about human psychology and sexuality; and manuals from the financial and legal sectors about budgeting, zoning, and liability issues. What I seldom, if ever, find is fiction. And I think that's a shame.

For much of their history, many evangelicals have considered novels to be either immoral or simply a waste of time. (To be fair, there are a good many novels that are both.) But good fiction (an entirely subjective category, I admit) can help a minister better understand the people to whom he or she is ministering - people struggling with doubt, addictions, or questions about calling and vocation. Here's a list of a few novels I think every minister should read, along with a few reasons why.

The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde - a great look at how a person's spirit can be tormented by secret sin.
Wealthy and conceited Dorian Gray wants to be young forever. He commissions an artist to paint his portrait. Then wishes that his portrait would age and bear the evidence of his dissipation and loose living, but that he would stay young forever. He gets what he asks for. His struggle with sin is powerful (and never explicit, by the way).

Continue reading at www.OfftheAgenda.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 8, 2008 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 7, 2008

Cartoon: Fish Food

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 7, 2008 | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 3, 2008

God and/or Country?

I've got a special treat for you to commemorate Independence Day - a preview of the summer issue of Leadership due out later this month. The issue focuses on the intersection of church ministry and politics (not an irrelevant subject this year). Here is a snippet featuring Charles Colson and Gregory Boyd debating the biblical basis for loving one's country:

Charles Colson: I don't think that you can simply forget the fact that we live in a kingdom and a state. Our job is to make the state as righteous and conformed to God's standards as possible. But you can love the Lord your God with your heart, mind, and soul and also love your country as a way of loving your neighbor.

Gregory Boyd: This is the fundamental difference between us. In your book you speak a lot about our dual commitments, our dual allegiances to God and country. I just don't know where in the New Testament you get that. I can't imagine Jesus or Paul saying such a thing. God tells us to obey the laws of the land and to pray for peace. Those are our two engagements. But I don't feel we have any kind of duty to love or defend our country.

As you can see, this issue is sure to spark some debate. Share your thoughts here, and look for more thought provoking discussion on Out of Ur in the coming weeks.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 3, 2008 | Comments (46) | TrackBack

July 1, 2008

Announcing the Ur Lexicontest!

Regular readers of Out of Ur know that new words and phrases are often coined and disseminated on this blog. ("Church pirate" may be the most recent example thanks to Ed Young Jr.) We'd like to assemble an Out of Ur lexicon that records the definitions of these new words and phrases. This endeavor involves your help.

Send us your ideas for newly invented words that should be included in the Ur lexicon along with a definition and example of the word in use. Entries should follow a dictionary format. Here are two examples:

Pomosapian (n). A person so utterly entrenched in postmodernity they have totally lost touch with reality. They are often found at coffee shops and used book stores. "Bill thinks the law of gravity is a Euro-centric truth imposed upon indigenous peoples to prevent them from pursuing flight. He's a total pomosapian."

Calvinistas (n). Those who believe Calvin wasn't Calvinist enough and revel in belligerent theological discussions. They are easily diagnosed with an MRI scan because they completely lack a right hemisphere to thier brain. "When the Calvinistas arrived the pomosapians fled for their lives."

Entries may be nouns, verbs, adjectives, or adverbs, and may have more than one definition. You may submit as many words as you like. We'll be judging the entries based on creativity, originality, and hilarity. The words deemed to be most urthy (adj., that which is deemed worthy of Ur), will not be posted in the comments section. They will be published each week in the Out of Ur e-newsletter. (You may subscribe to the e-newsletter on the right.)

The person who submits the single entry judged to be the best by our editors will receive a free one-year subscription to Leadership journal. Good luck!

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 1, 2008 | Comments (33) | TrackBack