I’m wondering if the tension we sometimes feel is because we tend to believe that we can separate the gospel from justice and peace; or that we can actually have true shalom and love without Holy Spirit-fueled redemption. Isn’t that the message of the gospel: that love and peace and justice can finally break into the world because our sin is crucified and through faith we are becoming the righteousness of God? Obviously, this is a primary argument. There are all sorts of secondary issues when dealing with people and culture. Jesus didn’t just preach and die – he grew up and walked and ate and drank and lived and laughed with the sinners he came to save. “Lifestyle evangelism” (as some call it) is right on the money, precisely because living the witness of the Kingdom day-in and day-out is not a program; it’s an abundant life with our God which is shared with neighbors. So, I’m guessing Jesus didn’t feel a lot of tension between evangelism and promoting social justice.
As to the original paragraph of the article, evangelism only seems to be a hidden agenda if you believe you have to hide Christ to truly have peace. On the other hand, if redemption is the greatest step toward true peace and justice, why would you hide Christ? The answer to the question seems to depend on how you see peace and justice realized on earth. If the victory of God over sin can come without the Son of God, then put him away and be done with him.
Can you give a little background on what “Scriptural Reasoning” with a Christian/Muslim group looks like for you – how gets started, what exactly you do, structure, allowance for expression, questions, etc.? I find that, the more we know about how things are supposed to “work” we can be less intimidated in starting the process. Thanks.
The sudden death of Prince hit me and several of my family & friends hard. I had to really wrestle with why, and what endures when greatness is fleeting.
This is a helpful list, especially if you find it difficult to get to a finished presentation. However, I would recommend moving prayer from step 4 to step 1. If we think we need prayer as part of the writing process, but not part of the interpretation process, it might be better for our congregations if the printer does break.
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link to the original paper.
Makes me think of the value of our Confessions. If we use the confessions properly, they will continue to drive us to Scripture to see the unique place of Jesus as the Savior and Son of God – both titles and works which cannot be syncretized with Islam.
Second: Great question at the end of this article, which actually illuminates our culture in the light of the Gospel. Generally, ‘Conservative Chrsitianity’ minimizes scriptural mercy and ‘Progressive Christianity’ minimizes scriptural holiness. To side with either of these truncated philosophies is to live only half a Gospel, usually in the hope of gaining some power or control over how the Kingdom is maintained or expanded.
Jesus’ absolute love of God and neighbor calls us to place our entire outcome in his hands – whether we can see the outcome or not. We can learn a great lesson for our personal life and public culture by being so satisfied with the obedience we are called to live that ‘power’ and ‘control’ – winning – looks cheap in comparison.
Maybe I've missed something along the way, but I see absolutely no conflict whatsoever in any way with being "welcoming but not affirming." We – personally and corporately – *have to be* if we wish to get up in the morning and look ourselves in the mirror, much less evangelize or serve our neighbors.
Have we assumed differently? Has our biblical opposition to sin really given us the idea that really bad sinners (i.e. people who sin differently than me) really are beyond repentance? I pray that's not what we think – and I pray that’s not what people outside the Church think. After all, the God who said, “Go and sin no more.” said it after invading our sinful world and stepping into our flesh. Paul doesn’t “become all things to all men” so he can reject them out-of-hand. When Paul wrote “and such were some of you,” he testified that the gospel reaches into all sorts of people’s lives and gives them new life and repentance.
I love the statement, “Like I said, you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian. If you go to Taco Bell, that doesn’t make you a taco.” Partially because it’s true and partially because I really love tacos.
But the rest of it is cause for deep thought. I wonder if Justin really means what you mean, Staci, about ‘imperfection.’ Does Justin really mean sinful – like, ‘I deserve to die’ sinful [Lev. 4]? ‘I can’t ever make life right between me and God’ sinful? I know that’s what Christians read into ‘imperfect’ – and thanks to our teachers for connecting that for us – but I’m not sure that’s how Justin, or even most unbelievers, take it.
If not, then the idea of needing Jesus alone to be both sin offering and Lord for us kinda flies by the hearts of the people we’re speaking with and showing love to in our neighborhoods, And if Jesus isn’t essential to life itself, then certainly the Church isn’t worth putting up with. We’ll still come off as ‘holier than thou’ because we insist that, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” [John 3.18] Not that the Church is essentially more acceptable to God than the rest of the world, but we’ve been made acceptable by our faith and trust in Jesus’ resurrection for that moral unacceptability. Most people I talk to either get it and don’t think I stink, or they’re really offended and can’t stand the smell of my faith.
But isn’t that what Paul affirms in 2 Corinthians 2.15-16? “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” Now, maybe Paul just didn’t love people, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. Which makes me ask another question: Is being liked really the obstacle for the gospel, or is it more of an obstacle for our own egos?
I understand that there are many things we can learn from other Christians in other cultures, but part of that learning has to be done with an understanding of who Jesus is. Unfortunately, Dr. Goizueta’s Liberation Theology criticisms of the Western church fall a bit short because we do not share the same view of Jesus, his salvation or his kingdom.
The answer to our over-commercialized, consumerist western ecclesiology is not to find Christ in poor people, but to be found by Christ and witness his love to all people.
“To me, God working for the good of his people, is not exactly the same as working for my good.”
This is precisely why the Church’s expectations must be defined by God’s Word and Spirit, not by our human nature and culture.
Without explaining all the Greek on this, let’s go to context. In Rom. 8.18, Paul writes, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” If we tend to believe that personal suffering is the greatest evil (and much of our culture does), then we have a problem. Why? Because Paul has already admitted to believers “suffering” – and “suffering” in Rome for being a Christian included more than a raised eybrow or a lost job. Either the Bible is wrong or our understanding of “good” and “bad” is off-base.
How off-base are we? Again, let’s look at context, especially looking at Paul’s death. According to history, Paul was martyred by being crucified upside down. Was that “good” for him or “bad” for him? Was that “good” for the whole Body of Christ? While that is the question we wrestle with in our culture and our understanding of the word “good”, here’s a different question: What if the will of God being worked out in us – even in painful, self-denying ways – is “good” in and of itself AND for the whole Body?
Since Scripture interprets itself, I think we have to see our “good” in Christ’s words alongside and defining Paul’s: Matthew 16.24: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Luke 14.26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”
When the Word and Spirit define our own personal “good”, we will have a much different outlook than the rest of the world.
I’m not a big one for increasing the bureaucracy (actually I hate the idea), but it seems to me that the oversight that makes us good enough to become eligible for a Call is still needed once we’ve settled into that Call. Yes, I know that the elders are responsible for overseeing the preaching in their own congregations, but sometimes (and maybe more regularly) an outside ear can offer some helpful perspective. So, what would happen if we formed a classical preaching review committee?
Regular and frequent review of preaching in each congregation;
Evaluations based on a universal set of criteria;
Review of evaluations by a meeting of pastors every 2 months (or so).
This is a basic idea, and in all honesty it means a lot more work for a lot of people. But, are our people worth better preaching? I’m open to suggestions and refinement (or scrapping altogether) of this plan.
Other than the time involved, I believe the biggest hurdle to this is a universal set of criteria that defines a ‘good sermon.’ We’ve all been helped (or been the victim of) the Calvin Sem. Sermon Evaluation Form. Is this a good set of criteria? Can it be made better? What is the thing we seem not to be getting right about preaching in the CRC? Let’s pin something down and move forward.
Posted in: Is Our Goal to Dialogue or Evangelize Our Muslim Neighbors?
I’m wondering if the tension we sometimes feel is because we tend to believe that we can separate the gospel from justice and peace; or that we can actually have true shalom and love without Holy Spirit-fueled redemption. Isn’t that the message of the gospel: that love and peace and justice can finally break into the world because our sin is crucified and through faith we are becoming the righteousness of God? Obviously, this is a primary argument. There are all sorts of secondary issues when dealing with people and culture. Jesus didn’t just preach and die – he grew up and walked and ate and drank and lived and laughed with the sinners he came to save. “Lifestyle evangelism” (as some call it) is right on the money, precisely because living the witness of the Kingdom day-in and day-out is not a program; it’s an abundant life with our God which is shared with neighbors. So, I’m guessing Jesus didn’t feel a lot of tension between evangelism and promoting social justice.
As to the original paragraph of the article, evangelism only seems to be a hidden agenda if you believe you have to hide Christ to truly have peace. On the other hand, if redemption is the greatest step toward true peace and justice, why would you hide Christ? The answer to the question seems to depend on how you see peace and justice realized on earth. If the victory of God over sin can come without the Son of God, then put him away and be done with him.
Posted in: Bridges Between Christians and Muslims Begin with Friendship
Can you give a little background on what “Scriptural Reasoning” with a Christian/Muslim group looks like for you – how gets started, what exactly you do, structure, allowance for expression, questions, etc.? I find that, the more we know about how things are supposed to “work” we can be less intimidated in starting the process. Thanks.
Posted in: The Artist Prince and Being Forgotten
The sudden death of Prince hit me and several of my family & friends hard. I had to really wrestle with why, and what endures when greatness is fleeting.
https://mbentley.org/2016/04/22/the-purple-reign-ends-goodbye-prince/
Posted in: How to Compose a Sermon in 10 Super Simple Steps
This is a helpful list, especially if you find it difficult to get to a finished presentation. However, I would recommend moving prayer from step 4 to step 1. If we think we need prayer as part of the writing process, but not part of the interpretation process, it might be better for our congregations if the printer does break.
Posted in: What Is Convergence Thinking and How Does It Affect One's Approach to Muslims?
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link to the original paper.
Makes me think of the value of our Confessions. If we use the confessions properly, they will continue to drive us to Scripture to see the unique place of Jesus as the Savior and Son of God – both titles and works which cannot be syncretized with Islam.
Posted in: Let’s Play “Banner Editor for a Day”
“Paul’s Letter to the Colossians: The CRC’s Uplifting Mission To Downcast People”
Posted in: Apocryphal Stories, The Maccabees and Susanna
First off: Awesome use of the Apocrypha.
Second: Great question at the end of this article, which actually illuminates our culture in the light of the Gospel. Generally, ‘Conservative Chrsitianity’ minimizes scriptural mercy and ‘Progressive Christianity’ minimizes scriptural holiness. To side with either of these truncated philosophies is to live only half a Gospel, usually in the hope of gaining some power or control over how the Kingdom is maintained or expanded.
Jesus’ absolute love of God and neighbor calls us to place our entire outcome in his hands – whether we can see the outcome or not. We can learn a great lesson for our personal life and public culture by being so satisfied with the obedience we are called to live that ‘power’ and ‘control’ – winning – looks cheap in comparison.
Posted in: A Gracious Welcome
Maybe I've missed something along the way, but I see absolutely no conflict whatsoever in any way with being "welcoming but not affirming." We – personally and corporately – *have to be* if we wish to get up in the morning and look ourselves in the mirror, much less evangelize or serve our neighbors.
Have we assumed differently? Has our biblical opposition to sin really given us the idea that really bad sinners (i.e. people who sin differently than me) really are beyond repentance? I pray that's not what we think – and I pray that’s not what people outside the Church think. After all, the God who said, “Go and sin no more.” said it after invading our sinful world and stepping into our flesh. Paul doesn’t “become all things to all men” so he can reject them out-of-hand. When Paul wrote “and such were some of you,” he testified that the gospel reaches into all sorts of people’s lives and gives them new life and repentance.
Posted in: Can We Learn From Justin Bieber's Philosophy on Christians and Church?
I love the statement, “Like I said, you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian. If you go to Taco Bell, that doesn’t make you a taco.” Partially because it’s true and partially because I really love tacos.
But the rest of it is cause for deep thought. I wonder if Justin really means what you mean, Staci, about ‘imperfection.’ Does Justin really mean sinful – like, ‘I deserve to die’ sinful [Lev. 4]? ‘I can’t ever make life right between me and God’ sinful? I know that’s what Christians read into ‘imperfect’ – and thanks to our teachers for connecting that for us – but I’m not sure that’s how Justin, or even most unbelievers, take it.
If not, then the idea of needing Jesus alone to be both sin offering and Lord for us kinda flies by the hearts of the people we’re speaking with and showing love to in our neighborhoods, And if Jesus isn’t essential to life itself, then certainly the Church isn’t worth putting up with. We’ll still come off as ‘holier than thou’ because we insist that, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” [John 3.18] Not that the Church is essentially more acceptable to God than the rest of the world, but we’ve been made acceptable by our faith and trust in Jesus’ resurrection for that moral unacceptability. Most people I talk to either get it and don’t think I stink, or they’re really offended and can’t stand the smell of my faith.
But isn’t that what Paul affirms in 2 Corinthians 2.15-16? “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” Now, maybe Paul just didn’t love people, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. Which makes me ask another question: Is being liked really the obstacle for the gospel, or is it more of an obstacle for our own egos?
Posted in: Voluntary and Temporary Community
I understand that there are many things we can learn from other Christians in other cultures, but part of that learning has to be done with an understanding of who Jesus is. Unfortunately, Dr. Goizueta’s Liberation Theology criticisms of the Western church fall a bit short because we do not share the same view of Jesus, his salvation or his kingdom.
The answer to our over-commercialized, consumerist western ecclesiology is not to find Christ in poor people, but to be found by Christ and witness his love to all people.
Posted in: Theology in Song: "Your Love Never Fails"
“To me, God working for the good of his people, is not exactly the same as working for my good.”
This is precisely why the Church’s expectations must be defined by God’s Word and Spirit, not by our human nature and culture.
Without explaining all the Greek on this, let’s go to context. In Rom. 8.18, Paul writes, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” If we tend to believe that personal suffering is the greatest evil (and much of our culture does), then we have a problem. Why? Because Paul has already admitted to believers “suffering” – and “suffering” in Rome for being a Christian included more than a raised eybrow or a lost job. Either the Bible is wrong or our understanding of “good” and “bad” is off-base.
How off-base are we? Again, let’s look at context, especially looking at Paul’s death. According to history, Paul was martyred by being crucified upside down. Was that “good” for him or “bad” for him? Was that “good” for the whole Body of Christ? While that is the question we wrestle with in our culture and our understanding of the word “good”, here’s a different question: What if the will of God being worked out in us – even in painful, self-denying ways – is “good” in and of itself AND for the whole Body?
Since Scripture interprets itself, I think we have to see our “good” in Christ’s words alongside and defining Paul’s:
Matthew 16.24: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
Luke 14.26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”
When the Word and Spirit define our own personal “good”, we will have a much different outlook than the rest of the world.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Well, let’s take a stab at really fixing it.
I’m not a big one for increasing the bureaucracy (actually I hate the idea), but it seems to me that the oversight that makes us good enough to become eligible for a Call is still needed once we’ve settled into that Call. Yes, I know that the elders are responsible for overseeing the preaching in their own congregations, but sometimes (and maybe more regularly) an outside ear can offer some helpful perspective. So, what would happen if we formed a classical preaching review committee?
This is a basic idea, and in all honesty it means a lot more work for a lot of people. But, are our people worth better preaching? I’m open to suggestions and refinement (or scrapping altogether) of this plan.
Other than the time involved, I believe the biggest hurdle to this is a universal set of criteria that defines a ‘good sermon.’ We’ve all been helped (or been the victim of) the Calvin Sem. Sermon Evaluation Form. Is this a good set of criteria? Can it be made better? What is the thing we seem not to be getting right about preaching in the CRC? Let’s pin something down and move forward.
Comments?