Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Unknown's avatar

MissionShift Essay #1 and Geoff Henderson Response

by
This blog post is simply an attempt to interact with several essays related to the subject of missions found in MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millenium.” It is one part of the missions discussion found at Ed Stetzer’s blog.
Charles Van Egen lays out a very helpful paradigm for anyone moving toward defining and applying “mission” in the local church setting. I appreciated the practicality of his aim. Battling over definitions for the sake of having the best definition of mission is truly a waste of time. But I didn’t sense that was his aim, and so applaud him for that. 
His grounding “mission” in the idea of being “sent” by Christ is helpful. Certainly not groundbreaking or novel, but we can’t deny or overlook Christ’s centrality in this whole process. He is ultimately the one who sends, and the local church, or denominational sending agency, simply recognizes Christ’s call as a sender. In addition, the formation of any idea cannot have a better genesis than in God’s Word.
Nevertheless it is the height of arrogance to limit one’s definition of mission to personal exegesis of scripture. We do bring baggage (not to mention sinful hearts and minds) to the texts of scripture. In order to limit such subjectivity, this exegetical activity has to take place in community, and not just the community of saints this side of heaven. 
As a result, Van Egen takes a stroll down memory lane, at least someone’s memory, and explains how saints before us have defined and applied mission over the years. From the Constantinian picture of Christendom-type evangelism, to William Carey’s model, to the world council of churches to the “missional” churches today, Van Egen recounts, and sometimes evaluates, how the church has formed and applied its understanding of mission. 
One can see his favor or disfavor of some of these models, particularly disfavor for the World Council of churches which derives, or “redefines” mission, drawing its direction from the world and not from Jesus Himself. In addition, he does identify that the “three-self” church model in America takes a similar u-turn and becomes “self-centered.”
After a helpful stroll, with bits of evaluation along the way, he returns to the church at hand, hoping to construct a helpful definition. The definition is quite biblical and encompasses the major thrust of the bible: Jesus is reconciling a people to himself, as well as all things, in order to bring about a complete re-creation. Van Egen’s definition is scripturally solid, avoiding the gnostic residue as well as the secularization from a faithless world; he advocates for evangelism in word and deed. 
The only problem I had with it, was that it was too long. 
Things that are too long are by nature un-applicable and eventually discarded. Authors of books would do well to consider this, in my opinion (ironically, Guder’s response sought to bring back Barth-certainly there is some helpful stuff by Barth but it is difficult to wade through the endless Dogmatics combing for that which may be very helpful, especially as it relates to missions).
Andreas Kostenberger seems to have offered something somewhat new by listing some guiding principles, although I think 12 could have been shortened down to 5 or 6. If the goal of this whole project is to assist the local church redefining and applying mission,  it is imperative to make things as succinct as possible.  Kostenberger failed to interact with the examples of how the church has defined and applied missions, and is one major weakness in his response.
Van Egen probably should have ended his pursuit with his helpful descriptive principles (instead of a definition) of a “missional” church (pg 24-25), although I undersand when you title an article “Mission: Defined and Redefined,” you’ve got to conclude with a definition! Still, some guiding principles seem the best way to go.
I agreed whole-heartedly with Ed’s response as I sensed a fear from some of the essayists, particularly Eitel who began with an example more of syncretism than over-contextualization. He correctly calls much of Eitel’s concern, a “slippery slope argument” applied to “any creative missiology” Stetzer considers this Pharisaical approach quite harmful. In addition, The Holy Spirit, scripture and community help us walk on such slippery slopes instead of ignoring them.
And not only is such an approach harmful, but it is equally ignorant. Very few of us realize that missionary practices of any day are always going to be culturally contextualized. Paul’s missionary endeavors were super-contextualized to the extent where he took money or worked as a tent-maker, went to synagoues or public intellectual centers, dependent upon whom he was ministering. All churches do this today, as there is no biblical command for length of sermons, time of worship, instrumentation, etc….We apply the scriptural principles of the timeless gospel to our setting.
In considering missiology, I am becoming aware how much of this is dependent, or at least connected to one’s ecclesiology-which I guess makes sense, since churches are usually the ones sending missionaries! What you think church is supposed to look like, and why it is supposed to look like that, will largely shape our vision for what “mission” churches look like.
I really can’t add much to Ed’s response. I know that’s not adding anything there, but I felt like he hit all my concerns with the previous essays. I found the other responses thoughtful, and for the most part gracious. But they seemed once again to fall in the “either-or, word or deed, contextualiaztion or anti-contextualization, bible or culture,” categories. Stetzer on the other hand, rightly sees the necessity of interacting with not only scripture, but how the church has applied or mis-applied it, even interacting and commending theologians he might not line himself up with, in order to move forward in the mission discussion.
I like reading and reacting. But I wrestled with even participating in this discussion because I couldn’t see what the point was. People will disagree over definitions until the cows come home. But if the goal of this project is to help the local church clarify how to follow God’s call to love their neighbors and those to whom will yet believe in the gospel and experience the blessings thereof, I’m all for it. 
Such discussion can be helpful for any missions committee as they set parameters for mission conferences, mission trips, missionaries to support, and participating in local missions and mercy. I think the goal should not be definition but guiding principles. Moving forward in missions thought and application will and should always be a journey filled with discussion. 

Since I’m of the Reformed theological perspective, I embrace their battle cry of “Always Reforming.” Let’s continue reforming our principles and practice, ever mindful of the sender (Jesus) and the conclusion (New Heaven and New Earth).

Unknown's avatar

Deleting facebook?

by
I try not to read too many blogs because doing so inevitably takes too much time. I know, earth-shattering wisdom there. But of the 5-6 I follow, one of those which I’ve most benefited from is that of that of Jonathon Dodson, an Acts 29 church planting pastor in Austin, TX. 
After viewing the movie the Social Network (aka “the facebook movie), he deleted his whole facebook account. He explains why in his post here, but here’s one of his more compelling reasons.
#4 Reason I Quit FB
I want to deepen in real friendship and community not chase dopamine bursts of false significance. After seeing The Social Network, I wrote a post about the The Social Network & the Decline of Friendship. In it confessed my tendency towards preferring the convenience of friends we can turn off over the inconvenience of friends we can’t. We prefer the dopamine rush of a virtual friend’s text, tweet, or FB message over the sacrifice and love of investing in a real friend’s joys, hardships, and concerns.
In summary, this is probably a decision that is part of new line of decision-making that will spill over into next year, a slow year. A year (and hopefully many years) of rich community, significant friendships, relished family life, deep thinking and devotion, and a more rewarding life all the way round.
I completely respect Dodson’s decision to erase facebook (although it should be noted he still is on Twitter!). This last post is quite challenging, because facebook activity can replace personal, actual, “face” time walking alongside broken people.
 
But what I most respect about his decision is that he makes it very clear in his post that this is WHY HE DID IT, not WHY YOU MUST DO IT. That’s called personal conviction. Because the scriptures are quiet on whether or not you should have a facebook account, we have great freedom in this area to be led by the Spirit.   
Facebook to me is neutral. Like alcohol, and like the internet in general, it can be used for good or evil. For me it is an extremely helpful tool to keep in touch with friends, family, and church family.

Nevertheless, we always need to apply the principles of scripture to facebook activity in the same way we apply scriptural principles to all of life. I’ll give some reasons why I think it can be good to have a facebook, and some principles that I think should guide facebook activity. But this post is long enough as it is…

Unknown's avatar

Like coach, like player

by
Throughout the NFL, you see different types of coaches, even different types of successful coaches. Tampa Bay Buc’s coach Raheem Morris (they were successful in my opinion this year at 10-6, same record as the Green Bay Packers who are currently in the 2nd round of play-off’s) prefers to be approachable and limit the player-coach distinction even to the point where players don’t call him “coach” but “Rah.” 
N.Y. Jets coach Rex Ryan prefers to coach in a boastful manner, trash talking (often profanity laced) and calling out other opponents. As a result his, players do the same thing. 
Bill Belichik, on the other hand chooses a different approach of letting the play on the field do the talking. Players are tight lipped because their coach is tight-lipped. Patriots never give other teams “bulletin-board” material, even when taunted. Why? Because they reflect the personality of the coach.
These are just three different coaches, with three different styles, each of which is reflected in their players. That’s not coincidence. People under leadership often reflect the personality or at least practice of their leaders.

It would be hard to argue that this isn’t the case with most leadership-follower relationships. Parents, pastors, and anyone in church leadership need to be sober minded that their behavior and what they teach (not just in word but in deed and in attitude) will be reflected somewhere. That’s good news if leaders eat, sleep, and breathe the gospel, but certainly disconcerting if they don’t.

Unknown's avatar

McNabb, the bench, and the freedom to fail

by
Strange that I would begin this day with a post about an NFL team not currently in the play-off’s, particularly when the BCS championship game was so good last night. But I never claim to not be a little strange. My only take on the game was that it was good, and that Auburn will most likely eventually have to forfeit the title in a few years when the pay-for-play investigation concludes. Auburn fans, don’t post hateful things: I’m seriously not pulling for this to happen, just predicting it.
Several weeks ago, just after the Bucs beat the Washington Redskins, Donovan McNabb was benched. Some players, including the vocal Clinton Portis, didn’t think this was a good decision. 
“In the locker room, I think that [the McNabb benching] that would scare a lot of guys,” Portis said on 106.7 The Fan, via the Washington Post. “That Donovan McNabb, who is proven to do so much, and who has done so much in the NFL, gets benched. I think it becomes a thing in the locker room like, ‘Man, if they bench Donovan, anybody can be benched. Or am I next or what’s next?’ And I think guys start playing for safety.”
Now Portis, who’s been in the league for a number of years, knows competition is part of the game. Those who compete and perform best in practice, will play on Sundays. But if QB’s are scared to make mistakes, if DB’s are scared to go for an interception, then I guess I could see how fear could really affect their play. Portis insinuates that fear doesn’t motivate people; it cripples them. You will get less out of a fearful player because he won’t take risks.
I’ve never heard this kind of thinking from a football player before, but it is the kind of thinking which results from believing the gospel. 
Jesus’ perfect atonement for our sins removes the fear of punishment. We can be lovingly disciplined, (fortunately) when we stray, but the fear of punishment is removed. Therefore we can “play” without fear of losing our status. We need not fear being benched or having to work our way back into God’s good graces. Instead of license (do whatever you want to do), this new freedom motivates us to joyfully follow the one who removed our punishment by taking it upon himself.

I can’t speak as a coach and motivator of football players, because I never was one, and probably will never be one. But as a motivator of people (not motivational speaker), I’ve seen the gospel we preach free people from passivity to actively honoring Christ and moving toward others. Free to fail, such folks can take risks, not live in guilt, and move forward with the smiles of their Heavenly Father.

Unknown's avatar

Jim Joyce’s bad call and the life after

by
Last season, Detroit pitcher Armando Gallaraga had a perfect game going. No hits, no walks, no base-runners through two outs in the ninth inning. Then came a routine ground ball to the first baseman, and Gallaraga running to first base to catch the ball. The throw clearly beats the runner and the perfect game is secure. Well that’s what should have happened, but for some reason umpire Jim Joyce called him safe. He thought he was safe, but replays showed he was clearly out.
That blown call would change Joyce’s life. Check out this article on the aftermath of blowing such a call. The article is helpful for a number of reasons. Here are several of my “takes” on the article and situation.
1.) The situation could be harder for this umpire. Gallaraga came up to him after the game, have him a hug, and received an apology. I don’t know if Gallaraga is a believer or not, but he sure is acting like someone who has been shown lots of grace. Grace received should move us to show grace to others. Something I need to remember all of the time, as a parent, pastor, friend, neighbor, and spouse.
2.) Umpires and referees carry a heavy burden. They do affect the outcome of the game. While the only professional referee I’ve ever met actually did prison time for fixing games, most probably try their best without bribery. From a fan’s perspective, its hard when officials blow a call and don’t own it. But it in this article you hear from other officials, that this is probably not the norm.
3.) Caring and caring too much. That people would give death threats for blown calls is unbelievable. That a blown call should or even could change or alter someone’s life is sad. Sad, but inevitable when following sports moves from hobby to idolatry. 

4.) The support from imperfect people. Outside death threats, it is fascinating, but also obvious, how broken people attract support from broken people. From other referees who’ve blown calls, to airline workers, to children with cerebral palsy, it is cool to see a fellowship of the broken develop. That’s also one picture of the church of what the church should be.

Unknown's avatar

Jersey Shore Sexuality and a good secular response

by
Sometimes I watch The Early Show or Good Morning America while eating cereal and drinking coffee. Today, the latter had on the cast (if you can call people who aren’t really actors a “cast”) of Jersey Shore. I’ve never seen the show other than just flipping by it, but I can tell that it is one which would probably kill brain cells faster than any alcoholic beverage one could concoct. 
I did learn that it took one dude, you can guess which one from the picture, 25 minutes to get his hair ready each day. Outside the fact that I’m still blown away that reality TV is really that popular-although I guess we could have predicted post-modernity would bring us shows like this-the only other redeeming part of my 10 minutes was it reminded me of an article I read last month called “Sex Ed in the age of Snooki.” Ironically, Snooki, was the only member of the “cast” not present.
It’s not from a Christian perspective, but because of God’s “common grace” (we’re all made in the image of God and can still reflect truth to one another) even non-Christians can make great points. Here’s a clip from the above mentioned article.
On the surface, I’ve got it easy as a parent—my wife and I have two sons. “Boys will be boys” goes the conventional wisdom. We’ve come to expect—and often excuse—their bad behavior. That means it falls on a girl’s shoulders to have the self-confidence and self-esteem to create and protect boundaries in respect to her sexuality. While I think it’s important to teach girls how to be empowered gatekeepers of their own sexuality, I also believe that we have to focus on the boys, not let them off the hook. If girls operate in the male gaze (both actual and internalized), then we need to change that gaze. Boys need to learn how to see girls differently. Here’s how:
Start with your own relationship. Almost from birth, children model and imitate what they see at home. If you and your spouse don’t treat each other with respect, you can’t expect the same from your child.
It is good to see that even on CNN.com, folks are aware that free and open sexuality is not good. But I was most impressed by 3 things from this piece.
1.) The affirmed need for families to take responsibility in discussing sexuality before the Jersey Shore, movies, and friends get their grubby little paws on our youth and distort this great gift from God.
2.) The affirmed need to not place the whole responsibility on girls for acting and dressing in sexually provocative ways. I for one am glad to have 2 boys (although I would have been happy to have a girl). Dealing with a daughter who wants to wear a long belt to pass as shorts or blue spray paint to pass as jeans is not something I look forward to. But as a father, and as guys in our culture, we have a responsibility not to expect women to dress as such. I particularly love the line “We have to change boys’ gaze. Boys need to learn how to see girls differently…”
Perhaps if guys in the church can learn to see girls differently, at the very least, girls in the church, will less and less feel the need to dress or act in ways which can do harm to both them and their future husbands.

3.) The importance of respect in the Mom-Dad relationships in front of their children. I believe 90% (I have no way of proving this though) of what we teach our children is actually informal, and happens as we do life together.

Unknown's avatar

Don’t Waste Your Sports

by
I obviously like sports. I like playing them-on the rare occasion that I get-and watching them. I look forward to watching my son play them. In addition to simply enjoying them as a hobby, sports provide a great in-road into the lives of many, both believers and non-believers. 
Folks in this part of W.V. (Teays Valley) are like me. They like sports, so I feel like I fit in fairly well. 
But there is also a problem with sports: they can become an idol. They can become a place where our hearts, mine first and foremost, get overly distracted and entangled. They can quickly replace Jesus. And they can quickly replace the church as many American Christians will take extended breaks from worship just to take their kids to sporting venues (this may happen in other countries but I can only “vouch” for America). 
However, sports don’t have to be an idol. In fact they can even be the opposite: something which points us toward Jesus and His glory. C.J. Meheney has as incredibly rich sermon on how to honor Christ with our sports called “Don’t Waste Your Sports.” Justin Taylor blogs a blurb about it here, and has a place where you can watch the video of it as well-I’m glad there is no video of us at Redeemer, although since we meet in a movie theater, you kind of think there should be….
Whether you’re a fan of watching sports, play church softball, or have kids in sports, this sermon is very applicable to you (if you’re not a fan or athlete or parent of either, then you probably won’t find it worth your time). And challenging. And frankly, most of the American church thinks very little about how Jesus and sports collide. Questions like “How do I honor God by watching football” and “Should I regularly skip worship so Johnny can play soccer?” have to be asked. Too often we just do, without any real consideration whether or not something is honoring or dishonoring to God. We just do without thinking. We do without being challenged to think through what it really means to “eat or drink, do it all for the glory of God.” Convictions will and should vary among Christians, yet we still need to be challenged and encouraged to “Not Waste Our Sports.”
This sermon has actually been made into a booklet of the same name, which I’m going to pick up soon. It’s never too early or too late to start thinking through how to truly honor Christ with your sports.
Unknown's avatar

Andy Dalton and I Peter 5

by
Last night was another bad bowl game, at least for the 2nd half, with Virginia Tech eventually getting blown out by a very good Stanford team. I had anticipated a closer match-up, and so was quite disappointed. But the opposite happened in the Rose Bowl this year with “little” (they actually were quite smaller and had to use strategy more than power to bring down the bruising Wisconsin tailbacks) TCU defeating Wisconsin. 
While TCU was ranked number 3, they were still in many eyes, the underdog. They played in the “nazareth” of football conferences. Yet this sideline reporter noticed that the team as a whole continued to remain humble throughout the week. They didn’t self promote. They didn’t take any media “bait” to defend themselves. 
Here QB Andy Dalton talks about his motivation for humility: that God will lift you up “at the proper time.” A quick look at I Peter 5:6 couches this verse in the older/younger relational dynamics in the church. While athletes need to be careful not to isogete (read their situation “into the passage” they still need to take what’s there and apply it to their sporting venues. Most Christians do this everyday to their situations; they’re just not interviewed about how they apply such verses.
And this QB is probably fully aware of the original context. What I think Dalton is doing is applying the general principle of humility: letting God exalt you at the right time. Should we not humble ourselves outside the church as well? And there is nothing about this exaltation in I Peter 5 that would lead one to conclude that God only exalts us when we get to heaven. He lifts people up all the time, and sometimes for only a season (probably Dalton will not go far in the NFL). 
I do confess that I sometimes cringe when Christian athletes get in front of the camera because they often forget that there are Christians on the losing side as well. And I think the most beautiful display of fellowship is when winners/losers pray together after the game. 
But 9 times out of 10, I think they simply want to give God glory for lifting them up in victory. And I think ultimately what our brother Dalton is doing in this interview is simply following I Cor 10:31:  “….whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
So thanks Andy for the reminder to humble ourselves before one another and let God pick the times to exalt us. Check out this brief interview below.
Unknown's avatar

Tucker Carlson’s version of Must Love Dogs

by
For many, 2010 meant something new. For Michael Vick, it represented his first chance to start at quarterback since spending time in the slammer for all of the dog fighting mess. And with that chance to start, albeit only because of another Q.B.’s injury, he has gone on to enjoy an incredible season. A season which he pretty much single-handedly propelled me to a fantasy football win in our Redeemer league. Even Obama lauded praise on Vick for taking advantage of his 2nd chance. 
Now I never pulled for the guy to begin with, and really have no reason to pull for the guy. But he did his time and is now making the best of it. However, you wouldn’t be in any spiritual danger to pull against Vick; but then again, for some, pulling against Vick isn’t enough. 
FoxNews analyst Tucker Carlson, who is the spitting image of a K.A. (Kappa Alpha) fraternity boy at my alma mater Furman University, had this to say:
“I’m a Christian, I’ve made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances….But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did [it] in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should’ve been executed for that. He wasn’t, but the idea that the president of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs?” 


I like dogs. I’m allergic to them, but I still really like them. But dogs are not people. Dogs are not made in the image of God, and that’s why doing things like murdering people made in that image can get yourself executed in the Old Testament and present day period (Gen 9:6). And this whole made-in-God’s-image thing is also why its so bad to curse people (James 3).
You can root against this joker. You can make the case that he didn’t go to prison long enough, because he really didn’t do any time for the actual murder of the dogs. Mike Florio of profootballtalk.com, and also a lawyer, writes:
As to Vick, he was fortunate that the state-level prosecution for killing dogs was bungled; Surry County, Virginia prosecutor Gerald Poindexter somehow couldn’t get a grand jury to indict Vick on charges of killing dogs even though Vick admitted to killing dogs in conjunction with his guilty plea on federal charges.  A zealous and competent prosecutor would have obtained an indictment and a conviction and would have pushed for an additional sentence over and above the time served at Leavenworth.
 
But you can’t, as a Christian, want him executed.

The spirit of Tucker Carlson lives in on so many Americans. One facebook “friend” (I wish they were called “contacts” instead of “friends”) whose posts I chose to permanently hide now, blasted people who gave her weird looks for traveling with her dog. She wrote, “I love this dog more than some people love you.” How sad, but how true. Dog lovers keep loving your dogs, but don’t love them more than you love people. And if you do, don’t use your Christian faith to promote your stance.

Unknown's avatar

When women and children shouldn’t go first

by
In the scriptures there are examples of women stepping up and leading their families and passing on their faith from one generation to the next. One example is Timothy, who’s MiMi and Mama, not Pa-Pa or Da-Da somehow played a role in Timothy’s faith (2 Tim 15). I think there plenty of lads today who have had mothers who spiritually impacted them. I want to emphasize the importance of godly women in the spiritual formation in the church.
With that stated, when father abdicates spiritual responsibility in the house, there is a lasting effect. This article discusses and reflects on a Swiss study on church attendance and the concomitant disastrous result of fathers skipping out on corporate worship. Certainly a thought provoking article on the necessity of men in the church.
The results aren’t pretty, but they are pretty obvious. When Dad is not there worshiping with his kids, his kids very likely won’t be worshiping as adults. If the church in general primarily targets women and children, then soon there may be only women.

I’m very thankful for it and commend it to you. It has me really thinking more on the role of men in children’s ministry at home and at the church.