Two Things More Dangerous Than Gay Marriage

At the risk of simply adding to the white noise over the DOMA act (Defense Of Marriage Act- which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman) being deliberated in the Supreme Court this week, I thought I would share some thoughts I’ve been kicking around since this thing started.  

Honestly, after sifting through the horrifying battle scene unfolding on my facebook feed this week I feel compelled to offer a perspective I can’t believe I haven’t yet heard elsewhere. 

I want to start by saying that I care deeply about people who happen to live on both ends of this issue. So far as I am able, I’d like to clarify some thoughts and offer a perspective which ends with two related issues that I think are more dangerous for Christians than gay marriage. 

Marriage Equality and the “Christian Perspective”

To sum up (admittedly in too few words to do either justice) the two views that I’ve seen represented this week:

It seems to me that folks looking to see DOMA undone focus on the fact that a homosexual man or woman does not enjoy the same freedoms a heterosexual man or woman enjoys because they cannot marry whom they want. DOMA is a restriction of their freedom of choice to marry (and love) whomever they please. More than that, there are perks and rights enjoyed by married couples granted them by the Federal Government that homosexual couples do not receive (practical stuff like hospital visits and tax status).

As a Christian myself, if I have to see one more post either from Christians OR from those who mischaracterize the Christian position I might just puke.  There are plenty awful views to talk about, but maybe MOST frustrating is seeing posts by Christians whose best answer to the watching world is "The bible is against homosexuality".  Beyond whether that statement is true I just don't think that this argument does ANY justice whatsoever to the beauty of what the bible (and the Christian perspective on marriage) is actually promoting.  That’s a conservative stance but not uniquely a Christian stance and those had better be separated in our minds no matter who we are and what we believe.  Where is the unique understanding of Biblical theology and the gospel?  

For an amazing look at what a sound Christian theology of marriage can mean check out this video from Justin Taylor’s blog.

All of this has got me thinking... 

Two Things More Dangerous for Christians Than Gay Marriage

1. Biblical and cultural illiteracy.

Very few people from within the church seem able to articulate why this ought to be a GOSPEL conversation and not merely a "culture war".  This untethering from the gospel implications and theology for marriage has led to ENORMOUS compromise by Christians who, due to a lack of Biblical thinking and theological understanding, either alienate themselves, and others, or capitulate by saying; "This is what I believe, but it's totally okay if you want to believe and live THAT way - I sin too, so I'll be quiet." The latter is Christian relativism, and it's not “meta,” it's cowardly. We are called to be patient and gentle when interacting over issues like this with someone who doesn't consider themselves subject to the Lord. But if we also see the greatness and grandeur of Jesus Christ proclaimed in and through marriage, there isn’t any wiggle room for speaking of it in either an offensive way or in a wussy way.  The gladness of people in the greatness of God is worth losing your life for, let alone a handful of off-color remarks about you.  

2. Divorce.

Christians, let's be honest - divorce is a FAR MORE devastating phenomenon on our families and witness than gay marriage. Don't mishear me: I'm not saying he debate over gay marriage is unimportant - I just don't think right now in the life of the church it's the most detrimental thing to our families.  This spectre works from within and is wreaking havoc on us as we speak.  But maybe if we expend our energy and resources on a different issue nobody will notice, right? 

There are certainly other issues with the ways I’ve watched this debacle play out this week (such as ostracizing people from the Church and creating prerequisites for faith), but these two issues loom large and are enough for now.

This post co-authored by Ole and Andy.

Killing Me Softly...

Everything dies. Everything comes to the end of its prime and begins the slow (or fast depending on what it is) descent into becoming something other than what it was meant to be enjoyed as. When this happens - you must dispose of said "thing". Even if that "thing" is a church, denomination, or organization. 

Now, don't get twitchy on me - I'm not suggesting that the church expires. On the contrary - the church goes on getting progressively stronger. The bride is being sanctified and the gates of Hell can't prevail. But if we believe that local churches, and para-churches, and even denominations are planted to reach a specific people in a particular time, then we have to be ready to EITHER remake it when the people or time change, OR pronounce the thing dead and plant fresh. 

Contextualization matters. And when we fail to recognize this fact our churches, para-churches, and Denominations go through stages of decay: (Special Thanks to Larry Osbourne - who I am totally ripping off right now!)

Movement: Fresh Theological Vision to reach a particular people at a particular time. Marked by innovation and compelling gospel witness. People feel they are part of something that God is doing - and they talk about what they believe God could do through their gospel efforts. Risk taking is "normal"

Institution: Defined programs that have been a staple for reaching the lost with the gospel. Marked by a sense of pride in a well-oiled machine. Things seem to hum along and people add themselves to the attractive ministry in slowing, but still growing sort of way. People talk about what God is doing through the ministry. 

Museum: Programs run even when no one volunteers to do them and no one shows up to benefit from them. In-fighting is rampant and people splinter over programmatic minutia - as their efforts are no longer used in cooperation for gospel ministry (if they could even agree on what that terms means). Old timers (as they're now called) talk about the good old days when God really moved. Roots of bitterness, long untended, have created deep divides amongst former friends. Young men and women have flocked away (drawn up by movements) because their seat at the children's table was beginning to feel cramped in their late 20's or early 30's. The power brokers have one hand on their wallets, one hand on the wheel, and both feet on the brakes. Risk aversiveness faithlessness is called "stewardship", and "missions" is understood to be the thing we do when we ship people or money out of our community.

You can be a part of a Church, Para-Church, or Organization that is dying and not know it. But one way to tell if something has gone bad is to sniff it. If it smells dead or dying, it probably is. And if you're consuming it and it makes you want to vomit - it's probably already expired.

"In some sense the path to heaven is very safe, but in other respects there is no road so dangerous."
                                                                                                            - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Read any good books lately? 

Disqualified

I've been realizing more and more lately how easy it is for Christians to portray a sense of disqualification to non-Christians.  What i mean is this- we often exude, sometimes on purpose and sometimes not, a sens that if you don't measure up to my standards you can't follow Jesus.  I saw a somewhat extreme example of this the other night.  We were sharing the gospel with people and  a friend of mine kept getting into arguments about evolution.  He decided that it was good evangelism to challenge non-Christians on the topic of evolution because you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution.  My point is that i think we all end up doing something like this, and Jesus wouldn't.  Whether it is smoking, socialism, home-schooling, or something else, we often portray an idea that if you don't believe what i believe you can't follow Christ.  If you respond to this post, please don't engage the topic of evolution vs. creation.  Let me know what you think about how we end up turning people away from Christ not because they realize they can't merit righteousness but because we let them know that they can't be a Christian unless you see things my way. 

Quick question

So it's my wifey's birthday next week, and she just told me last night that she didn't want me to get her anything. What should i do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8hulZ-6Oh0

The perfect place for the emergent church

Yesterday was Rob Bell's farewell service at Mars Hill in Western MI. I thought it was fitting, since he has been one of the poster-children of the emergent movement, to reflect on what we may have learned from him and others like him. I really appreciate the idea of the emergent movement as an entity that is no more, but a movement we can reflect back on and learn from.

Assuming that the downfall of Emergent Village, the slide of Mars Hill and the publishing of A New Kind of Christianity and Love Wins have sounded the death knell for the emergent movement, it is appropriate for us to start this "conversation." Inside joke.

I think its funny that the emergent movement has left us with more answers than questions, and the conclusion is more telling than the journey. This movement may well have been the most influential piece of church history over the last 500 years. I'm comfortable with that. I want to hear your thoughts on this, but here are just a few things that i am sure will go down in the history books as aspects of living the Christian faith which the emergent movement has helped us see, both for better and for worse:

- There is less of a gap between orthodoxy and orthopraxy than we think. Faith and action are almost inseperable.

- We learned how to engage postmodernism as a church (whatever your definition of postmodernism is).

- People are not actually looking to be entertained at a worship service.

-People seek Truth (even today) and don't need it sugar coated. Answers to questions are still important.

- There are certain aspects of the gospel, God's Kingdom, and soteriology that have been given too little attention for the past 500 years (call me a heretic).

-The visible, militant church must be "ever-reforming." Not perfect, not static, not finished. Always learning from our past and our present, we must stay open to new possibilities and potential.

What do you think?

That is all.

Men?

I was recently reading a few articles on biblical manhood and thinking about some recent events in my ministry context. To make a long story short, it often feels like men are generally labelled as abrasive and lack care and understanding. I don't want to get into a Wild at Heart debate, but i would like to hear your thoughts on masculinity in ministry:

How did God make men in particular suited for ministry and leadership?

What aspects of manliness can be "redeemed" and what aspects must be subdued?

What does manly ministry look like?

That should give us some good food for thought.

Je-WHO?-vah

Today I had two sweet little old ladies come to my door toting New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures. I was working in my basement when my son came down and informed me that we had "friends" upstairs sharing the gospel with mommy. Imagine my excitement.

So I came upstairs and introduced myself. When I asked them who they were with they proudly announced that were Jehovah's Witnesses.

"Really" I said. "You know your leaders predicted the end of the world 14 times incorrectly, right?"
Cute Little Old Ladies: "That is not true - they never gave a precise date!"
Me: "Your translation is a terrible knock-off of the 1611 King James Bible. Did you know the authors didn't know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic?"
Cute Little Old Ladies: "According to Jeopardy, the New World Translation IS the most accurate translation in the world."
Amber: "Huh, well if it was an answer on Jeopardy..."
Me: "Ladies, we worship Jesus here - that's the fundamental difference between us."
Cute Little Old Ladies: "Colossians says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Isn't that interesting?"
Me: "Yeah, almost as interesting as the next verse which says that by him all things were created in heaven AND on earth. Oh, and that ALL things were created through him and for him."
Cute Little Old Ladies: "Well, we best be going now..."
Me: "So we're clear, what you believe is a deception. You are deceived and you are deceivers. You believe in a works based righteousness and unless you repent and turn to Jesus for forgiveness, annihilation will be the least of your worries."

***SLAM***

So I've had a fairly robust history with Jehovah's Witnesses, and as you can see from the footnotes of my conversation above, I'm not exactly extending the olive branch when they show up. Here's why:

II John vs. 9-11 say "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

Now, these verses refer to false teachers that hold to a view of eschatology that does not include a bodily return of Christ - not to Jehovah's witnesses. I looked for the verses about Jehovah's Witnesses when I was in college, but could not find any.  :)  But John's admonishment is that people who depart from a right view of Christ so zealously as to teach contrary to the gospel of salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are void of God. John doesn't even want his audience (the elect lady and her children) to let these guys into their house.

So my logic is this: I hear John's pastoral voice warning me to protect the sheep (Remember that my 4 year old son thought the J-Dubbs were preaching the gospel to his mommy.) but I also hear Jesus' example of presenting himself to his enemies. I guess I balance it by bringing a hard gospel axe to the root of their deception as hard as I can swing. They aren't invited in, but I'll engage with them as far as they'll let me. I want Jesus to demonstrate his power to them and ultimately bring them to repentance and faith - but I also want my children to learn to identify false teachers and know that it is a no nonsense affair. I will warmly share the love of Christ with the broken-hearted - but I will also present Christ the stumbling block  to those who need their heart broken, first.

So tell us about a time the J-Dubbs visited your house. What do you think is the best policy for balancing gospel invitation with gospel warning?

Question

Here's a dilemma that i think Ole will understand, and a question to go with it. While the neo-Calvinism movement has brought with it a healthy desire for sound doctrine among SOME college students, i would still say that on the whole the theological accuity of college age people continues to decline. Now i believe in theological training for college age people, but the dilemma is this: Who do we teach and how do we teach them? We are debating on "dumbing down" some of our training so it is accessible to more students. I don't like catering to ignorance, but if training is above the heads of half the students recieving it, is it worthwhile? But if we dumb down teaching and training, it certianly won't be as challenging to our more astute friends. If this is a trend, how can we step in the gap and continue to be as helpful as possible? How do you do it in Duluth, my flannely friend?

New Season... New Episodes...

Sometimes bloggers have to put down their coffee, pull on some real-life pants, throw on some dark aviators, and brave the bright, shiny, real world for a few months. That pretty well explains where we've been here at Flannel Pilgrims - but we now return to our regularly scheduled program!

If you're just tuning in, allow me to bring you up to date:

We are a couple of Christian dudes who work on the University Campus with a para-church organization. This blog will cover a wide range of topics including but not limited to: Poking fun at Christian culture, church/para-church relationships, the gospel, ministry methodology, theology, the latest viral youtube video, facial hair, zombies, our faith heroes, conferences we attend, books we read, making fun of your denomination, making fun of our denomination (bet you can't guess it!), occasional devotional thoughts.

We love Jesus - we think He's in charge. We'll try to blog accordingly - we ask you to comment accordingly.
Thumbs up - Let's do this!

-The Flannel Pilgrims

Lakewood Church...

The Scene from the pulpit at Lakewood Church, captured from Joel Osteen's helmet-cam....

These quotes make me nervous

We will definitely return to the parachurch questions that have been raised. They are important and i think we have only begun looking at them!
But for now, i'm being bothered by some things that i would like input on. I've heard a few quotes at seminary the past few days several times each. The first comes from a book "Almost Christian" which states that most young Christians in America have basically traded true Christianity for a new religion/worldview called "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Another quote i have heard a lot the past few days is that most Christians in America hold to some form of "Christocentric universalism." We just may not realize this to be the case because the fundamentalist minority voice is so loud.
Do you think this is true? If it is, what does it mean for the future?

We Love Hurting People

Here at Flannel Pilgrims we bring you time and time again great quotes from our collection of silly church marquees... Enjoy!

And the parachurch DEFINITELY can't survive without the church.

As was said in an earlier post, there is a nasty tendency for parachurch organizations to cut themselves off from the church and attempt to function as a separate entity. Since these organizations are not coming out from the local church and aren't really working alongside the church, i would say they shouldn't be called parachurch in the true sense of the word.

But first things first. I've been asked for a more clear definition of what constitutes a local church and what constitutes a parachurch.

For starters, read this sermon by John Piper for some more insight. I think he makes some good points. A local church is comprised of Christians who have appointed leadership. Those leaders guard the church and the ministries of the church. They also administer the sacraments and work with other means of grace such as fellowship and teaching of the Word.

Those are not functions of a parachurch. Parachurch ministries work within the auspices of a local church, but are specialized to do a specific task. The specific task of our organization is to engage the campus we work on with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do our minsitry among non-Christians, while the church is comprised of Christians. Our ministry is guarded by the local church, and the church works through us to reach the campus with the gospel. If the local church can say "Yes, we are doing evangelism on campus and we are doing it through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship," i feel like i'm doing my job.

Our Christian students are church members who have a mission field on campus, just like other church members have a mission field at work or in their neighborhood. It's not too different. These students are part of the ongoing ministry of the church and are encouraged to be in discipleship relationships, attend small groups, Sunday school, and other church activities like any other member. The difference is, we've taken on the task of training and encouraging these students to make the most of their opportunity to share the light of the gospel.

What about parachurch orgs who don't come out from and work alongside the church? I would call them "amputated ministries." If ministries make an effort not to work within the realm of the local church i have lots of questions, but i'll save it for another day. My guess is someone will bring it up in a comment!

Couldn't help it.

We inerrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this brief intermission:

Here is a great parody of Rob Bell done by our friends CanonWired on youtube. The link can be found here. Both funny and true.

The church can't survive without the parachurch

Well, my blogging friend has asked me to draw first blood. The two topics he's chosen are the two most important to my vocational mission and are very near and dear to me, but the topic that most people really honed in on in my last blog was church/parachurch relationships. This topic is a bit touchy, though it has been beated to death in the past few years.

I won't hold my cards too closely here since you've probably read half the stuff off the old blog: Ole and i work for a parachurch ministry. I struggled with parachurch ministry for a while, even while working for one, until a conversation with John Piper made me start rethinking parachurch structure.

I think the model for parachurch ministry we have working in our organization is a good one, though we are still learning.

There is a nasty tendency for parachurch organizations to attempt to function outside of the auspices and authority of the local church. Even in my own organization this runs rampant, and too often ministries attempt to be a separate entity from the church. This in effect stops being a true parachurch and starts being something else. The Greek work para means "out from" or "alongside." I think it is significant to note that a parachurch must be serving alongside the church or it becomes something other than a parachurch. For me, I place all of my personal ministry under the authority of the elders in my church and i am accountable to them. We also have requirements for our leaders regarding local church involvement. One of my greatest tasks in ministry is to get students into local churches and discipleship relationships in those churches.

With good working relationships with the local church, we get to focus our ministry on being a missional branch of the local church, engaging the campus with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Along the way, i've spent an awful lot of time making the church take on the role of making disciples and teaching college-age students. Students involved in our ministry have an incredibly high rate of local church involvement after college because of the values and love for the local church instilled in them in our minsitry.

The title of this post is that the church needs the parachurch. This comes from a realization that, for example, the apostle Paul's missionary journeys, church small groups, prayer meetings, and outreach events are all parachurch ministries. John Frame goes so far as to say that each congregation is in fact a parachurch ministry if we have a right understanding of the Church. When we try to separate church/parachurch and pretend we can have a ministry that is a separate entity from the local church we get into trouble. For me, the parachurch is the most strategic place i can be in order to serve the local church and the universal Church. I love the local church, so i work in the parachurch. Who agrees? Disagrees? Do you think in a perfect world we wouldn't have the parachurch? How can we work on better church/parachurch relationships?

Steady..... Steady..... FIRE!!!!!!!

Alright... We (the authors of this illustrious blog) have decided that it's time to take aim at some of our content that we have at least some measure both of care and perhaps even what some might mistake as expertise. At any rate... we're going to be launching a series of posts in two main areas that we think are pretty important:
1. Evangelism theory/strategy
2. Church/Para-church (how should they be understood and how should they work together)

I'd really like to launch one of these out right now, but I am heading out for a trip for the next few days and will be unnabloggable. Therefore, I set this intro out to draw my comrade into making the first post. So, your move Andy... You can pick one of those two and start... when I get back I'll take the other and launch a thread on it. Go!

Open Letter to Phil Zuckerman

Dear Phil,

I recently read your article Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus. You seem to know an awful lot about what Jesus taught, but I wonder if you've nailed it as squarely as you and your audience might think. In your post you say "Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness." I don't necessarily disagree. But I would add that Jesus' message is not adequately summed up by "unambiguous mercy and forgiveness". Jesus preached about a coming Kingdom in which he was the one who would rule and reign and warned about God's wrath toward sin. It appears you missed that part. Or did you?

I think you leverage Jesus' teachings to custom fit them to your political persuasion. Which is either irony or a really witty way for you to make your point! If it's the latter then kudos! Perhaps you've exposed (in part) the bible-contortion-tactics used by some evangelicals to justify touting Jesus as a white, middle-class, Republican. But... I think it may be more likely that the former is true. And that you yourself have started with your own paradigm, and read Jesus' teachings into that paradigm - trimming off the "excess" that won't fit.


 You see Phil, Jesus' message was indeed unambiguous; his message clearly communicated that he was "the way, and the truth, and the life." and that "No one comes to the Father except through me." Yes Phil, I'd say Jesus was crystal clear in his message that he preached. The thrust of Jesus' message was not primarily about being nice to each other, but rather that people would turn from sin and embrace him (Jesus) as the only way to be restored to God.

NOT THAT HE DIDN'T teach about how we are to treat our neighbor. He totally did! But I'm afraid you've caricatured his message by stuffing it neatly into the lemon-yellow sweater-vest of Social Justice free of any offense. You DO remember that Jesus was crucified, right? He wasn't (contrary to popular belief) crucified for telling people to be nice to each other. You have rightly identified SOME of the teachings of Jesus - but you've committed a grave error by lifting them in part from a larger whole and weaving it into your own atheistically motivated, politically charged sucker punch aimed at evangelicals (a group I assume you have ample motive to discredit). 

I guess I'd like for you to consider doing a little more homework in the future, Phil. Jesus' words about mercy and forgiveness were not untied from his claim to be the SOURCE of that mercy and forgiveness. To separate Jesus' teaching from his person is to miss the point, at high cost. Jesus' desire is not JUST social justice (especially a social justice which takes a form which you favor for a myriad of reasons OTHER than altruism) - Jesus' message is primarily about how people can escape the coming wrath of God against sin. He offers himself as a ransom to pay our debt to God. A debt that we are powerless to pay, Phil. So Christians do indeed love Jesus, dearly. But not as you suppose  because "Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven" ONLY. We love Jesus because he's worthy of love, more worthy than anything else in the world. Villas in heaven wouldn't be enough incentive for me to write this letter to you, Phil. Only the joy of telling you about a God who came down to earth to die for his enemies like you, and like me. The only incentive that could move me is the scandal of Grace to undeserving sinners, and the possibility that you might actually be sorry for scorning the One Who made you. It's worth writing this if by reading it you might consider Jesus' ACTUAL words, and turn to him for forgiveness, which is ACTUALLY what people need. Why don't you do a "shock jock" piece on that? It is far more interesting than an atheist's musing at Christians not supporting his political positions... That one has been so overplayed.

Warmly,
Luke Olson