The Hardest Part About the Gospel pt II

I was reading over some of my past writings to ensure I have not covered this coming topic fully or not to repeat what I have said before. I am too young to already be repeating stories already. I was thinking about some of the students I encountered in Slovakia that I hope to see again next month in Italy (the military students) as well as the close proximity to people in the field. What kind of faith do people live?

What a person lives is too often so far from what they claim to believe. I have had so much more understanding of St. Francis' quote I have in my headline, "Share the gospel always, when necessary use words." Without getting on too much of a rabbit trail I find it important to point out that everyone lives out their faith. Whether that faith can be recognized with any specific organized religion or not doesn't matter. Faith as Hebrews 11:1 states it is what we cannot see but put our hope towards. Even the denial of faith is faith that there is none.

As I mentioned in the Slovakia Blog, that I am not interested in convincing people to say a prayer that means something at the moment but will not likely last beyond the week. I also must be careful not to underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit working in someone from a week in God's presence. As I mentioned in the first part the majority of Americans believe themselves to be Christians, but so few know what it means to be a Christian.

Haunting over me I have Matthew 7:15-23 scrolling across my thoughts like a teleprompter. If people can prophesy, cast out demons and perform other miracles but not know Christ what about the rest of us? I have been far from ever able to perform a miracle, so for Jesus to have such harsh words about focusing on the acts and not on him is quite the stern warning. On one side it is comforting because it shows how much Christ cares about the personal relationship he seeks with us, our salvation is not based by our works. On the other side, when it comes to my daily failings in the Christian life, my will departing from Christ's it is the same kind of fear that would be instilled in a Hellfire and Brimstone sermon.

I recall a talk by Darin McWatters at Hume, he was described the individuality of Christianity. He said it would be great if all we needed to do to be set for eternity was to inform someone about Christ, or know Jesus name. The hurdle that someone must believe is so much further it is often frustrating. It is very easy to inform someone of some random fact or an important detail. To introduce someone to God on a personal level is difficult because we are so unfamiliar as a society with anyone taking a genuine interest in another person for non-selfish reasons.

For cabin time in Slovakia I would have one question that we would all go around in a the circle to answer, not so much as an icebreaker but it added a touch of personal investment into each member. I constantly emphasized to give a real answer to whatever the answer would be. As I phrased it, “be real, not like you're writing an essay or up for a pageant.” We have such common speech that to describe an active faith by speech alone is very difficult. I think the only thing that truly separated what I had to say was me being on the brink of tears trying to describe my relationship with Christ. Hopefully the guys could see my genuine sincerity about the discussions. I often find myself trying to be too intellectual about my faith when sharing it through conversation.

As other blogs have easily noted, I take a great appreciation being knowledgeable about my faith and issues of faith through apologetics and empirical knowledge. I have spent more time lately focusing on the importance of the heart within that faith. I cannot let one side take over so as I become a heartless Christian or a faithful buffoon. Looking at John 14:20-21 I read it that God requires our heart first and our minds will be answered in time.

How then do we be authentic in our faith enough to share it when asked, in accordance with 1 Peter 3:14-17? Is the gentleness and respect all that we must do when giving our reasons for our hope? I think not, if I had a well written essay about why I believe and carried it with me everywhere I went just in case someone asked me I would not think that to be what God demands of us. The personal aspect of sharing our testimony with someone adds what words often cannot describe. I think it is called authenticity.

I can write about the awesome sights I have seen in my travels, or my passions I pursue with my time, or even the euphoria I get from a good workout, but none of those are remotely close to feel if I could tell you about those things in person. That happens with things we care about. I am constantly told when I get talking about something I care about I get loud and very excited. Isn't that how we should be about things we care about? That is where there is so much more value in what we say and do than in what we claim.

Epilogue: Due to some travel difficulties on another weekend, as a form of punishment I was tasked to go on a field exercise instead of go to Italy. Sometimes that is how the cookie crumbles..

Prayer of Salvation: Expressway to Hell?

I am not aiming for a pure shock value title that will irritate/anger people's belief systems, if it does have such an effect maybe you might want to re-evaluate what it means to be a Christian. As it stands I think this is half a rant and half serious thoughts, let me know.

I have never been a fan of tracts, be it a quick tract with the Romans Road, or a simple way to argue against relativism, or even the simple layout that as sinners we are forever separated from God and the path to Salvation are steps A-D. You name it I am sure we've all seen at least one of each. I don't contest the content of the information, usually; it is the matter in which it is presented most of the time. It might be an effective method to spread Christian literature (if you'll give it that much credit) to mass numbers of people for pure exposure purposes. It might even be the first time people have ever heard of Jesus, but is this the way we ought to be striving to add to the family? There are many things that "better than nothing" are a sufficient answer to justify corny methods but are sharing the most important message one of those things we want to group into that category?

There are two main reasons I oppose such distribution/methods of advertising for God. First, I think it cheapens the message. Sure the Romans Road is handy to remember the scripture passages to show someone the very basics: where we are, what our condition is, and what we ought to do about it. Is that seriously the way we want to invite people into a relationship with Christ? Whenever presented with an opportunity that one is seriously considering what the Christian faith is and if they want to join I am weary about people that will say a prayer at a moment of emotional high. I question how many people have actually attempted to understand what the Romans Road actually states. I have heard too many times "say this prayer and you're in" or something to that effect. Along the same lines, I have known too many people that said that prayer but I see them from time to time and see no sign of Christ living in them. I think many evangelists need to reexamine how we handle the Gospel. Does a 10 page tract come close to describing our true situation and what Christianity is? At the same time we do need to start somewhere…

The military ministry is filled with such quick ways to God. I can look at the normal bulletins at this moment and see no less than 3 versions of how to get to God. Is this in case someone has a quick visit and the only thing they retained was the chapel bulletin? Are there not enough knowledgeable or prepared Christians that we want to refer people to a tract than talk to them like they matter? Why is the Christian religion so proliferated with such a cheap method to advertise our tenets? I recall the way the Jews were instructed to approach God, when the curtain was still up. I agree it is a wonderful thing that we can approach God directly, however are we walking into the Holy of Holies with a cup of coffee in hand and cell phone in an ear? Perhaps not physically but do we do it with that mentality?

I have seen people on street corners pass out New Testaments, flyers to a bible study, Christian tracts and everything in between. At first thought I see the people I get a similar sense as seeing a door to door salesman. I try to avoid eye contact, if convenient avoid contact altogether, if I absolutely must I will take what is being passed out and look through it. Examining the nearby garbage receptacles and one can gather how much of an impact the material is making. Then it usually hits me, we are on the same side... aren't we? When I agree with the reason that person is there giving their time and effort why don't I support them? I think the most logical answer to that question, do I really agree with what they are doing? Do we?

My second reason against such form of evangelism and more rooted to the title of this I think it is misleading. Find someone that has not heard a sermon about making Jesus their Savior and I will wonder if they have ever been to a church. Find a church that preaches “make Jesus your savior” and show me where it is in the Bible. Somewhere in the cheapening of the Gospel to make it more marketable I find the vast majority of my experiences teach a God that is not consistent with scripture. One of the forms that such weak teaching has manifested I consider the popular belief system termed "Moralist Theistic Deism". If we did an unofficial survey of our friends how many do you think would answer one of the following:

(A) I am a Christian because I go to church - Were the Pharisees Christians then?

(B) I am a Christian because I believe in God - Demons do that too (James 2:18-25)

(C) I am a Christian because I am an American - I am a Christian first (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

I don't know if such common beliefs represent that people aren't listening to the message of the Church or if the Church is presenting the message so poorly that these ideas still prevail.

When the Gospel, the core of the Christian Faith, can be clipped down to a couple paragraphs and is often preached in that form is it a wonder that many people are confused about the theology, philosophy or mere moralistic implications that are consistent with Christ. I have never read in scripture that Jesus offers himself to be a Savior, I have seen that there are 37 instances in the Gospels that Jesus said "follow me"*. While "follow me" sounds perfectly logical for the role which Jesus offers himself to us, Lord; as comparable to the Lords and serfs of the feudal era, the Jesus I hear about from most people sounds more like a cosmic teddy bear than God.

As long as ministries focus on the Prayer of Salvation, I think we will only continue to produce confused people. Consider this, a person has not attended church nor come in contact with an active Christian. They come across a Gideon's bible in a hotel and start reading. At a certain point in their journey they come across the Prayer of Salvation, and pray it. They might leave the hotel with a new sense of freshness, a new lease on life. To say that the Holy Spirit entered them at that moment of prayer I do not know. What I do realistically believe is that they at most will be confused if they are indeed a Christian. I tend to personally wonder how much legalism is contained in Romans 10:5-13. According to Romans 6, at that moment they have the opportunity to be free from sin, knowing how to actually do so takes far more than reading several verses and saying a prayer.

While I know many of the tracts also contain a contact number, church address that people can get follow up upon their epiphany or further guidance but isn't that backwards from what Jesus said? Luke 24:44-50 describes that Jesus said "go" not "leave a contact so they can come". Where does this leave me then? Do I advocate getting rid of all pamphlets, tracts and other easily to distribute Christian literature? Not quiet, I think tracts can be useful for certain purposes, such as showing the logical failure of relativism, which could be done in a couple pages, or at least get it started enough that conversation would be initiated. I think that is the goal that we ought to attempt towards should be to engage people by whatever consistently Christian means possible.

It does concern me that Christ's message is delivered accurately, the main idea that has been encouraging me to write this is to ensure people know what they are getting themselves into when they want to become a Christian. A person thinking they are right with God is just has hazardous as a person that denies God. When the Christian life is attempted to be explained incompletely people don't know what they are signing on to and or don't live the life that speaks of Jesus. I know of the deceit that is used to enlist soldiers, if it was comparable to that of some salvation plans I have seen it would be like this

Consider Luke 14:25-25 that doesn't sound as simple as many try to advertise Christ to be. Ever see a tract with that passage in it?

*Note that Luke 1:3 is not Jesus speaking

Epilogue: As I reviewed this I found throughout the piece I discounted the ability of the Holy Spirit to lead someone to an authentic faith. I have heard numerous testimonies by missionaries confirming such miracles. At the same time, these reports have been reports of the miraculous, not the norm. It was necessary that I recognized the importance of the Holy Spirit throughout the process of faith and salvation. I would hope this process would be through an ongoing relationship with a Christian, not in the manner that I would describe as a Gospel Drive-By.

Slovakia Service Project 2007

I am still in the awestruck having gotten back so recently. I do want to write this while it is still so fresh in my mind. I had the privilege to spend this last week in Slovakia. The short version, I spent a week hanging out with some high school guys while building a playground and playing with some Slovakian children.

I refrain from speaking of this as a mission trip for the same reasons I mentioned in Prague Mission. Where do I start? Wow, to be in the presence of God’s creation, to be actively doing his work, it is so refreshing and recharging. To scream “Alive” at the top of my lungs is still an understatement.

Let’s start from the beginning. That goes back to November or so when I was working with Club Beyond, that is the military youth ministry, on post. Fast forward to the more recent months, where I have been very much so out of the loop what has been happening in Club Beyond. Most of the activities are on a different post, thus I am unable to attend and/or the meetings occur during duty hours.

It was I think in February that I got curious about what was happening with Club on Illesheim, so I shot and email over to the community directors. I mentioned Slovakia and at the time I was not needed, that was a bit of a downer but I am very used to bad news. About a week later it turned out that they did need me. The approvals went through and voila, I was going.

We left around midnight on Easter for a 15-18 hour bus ride (depending on how you count it), not a big deal. Being a choir tour veteran I have spent many a Spring Break on a bus. I was introduced with my four guys and Cotton, the other male leader. So yea, sleep on a bus, especially on the way over is usually something to be desired. After we get to the “village” it was a small camp that turned out to have communities from all over Europe of Club Beyond and Malachi (the other youth ministry program). I think there was between 700-1000 military teens altogether. We were split up according to work sites, which I could not spell my work site. The only thing it rhymed with would sound obscene.

Once we all got settled in our rooms, the first day it was just hanging out. There was an artificial soccer field next to the cabins and a basketball/volleyball court on the camp as well. The first day was the only one we had more than a couple hours of free time. After dinner we’d get on the buses to go to Club (youth group meeting). Then we’d bus back to the cabins for cabin time and sleep.

A typical day I’d get up around 0630, make breakfast for myself and the guys, get to the leader’s meeting. The meeting was about 30 minutes. From there gather all the things and make sure everyone was on the bus. We’d get to the site work all day and get back to the camp around 1630ish. Construction wasn’t the only thing we worked on, we also did VBS for the little kids, our students would lead Club for the Slovakian middle schoolers and we played with the kids sporadically throughout the days. That is all the basic what’s I can think of so you can get an idea of what I got to do.

The band at the evening Club meetings was 330 Plan, who happened to share the common bond of Hume with me. That connection was a nice reminder of great cloud of witnesses there are, especially when I was not expecting it. I had a nice little chat with them Saturday night to catch up on a little bit of what I have been missing back in California and in Hume. How I long to return there soon. By the way, I am about 95% certain I am reenlisting for 2 years (I am really only adding 3-4 months of time to my contract) this month. I am reenlisting to better set myself up for a transition into the civilian life.

There were some fine differences that I found interesting about this mission. I think in many ways it was much better than any camp I have been to before. The emphasis to live out Christ’s love to the Slovakian children while living the same love to our students was encouraging. On the humanitarian level, this project was incredible and made a difference in several towns. It was like mixing a short term mission with summer camp. I hope to find programs like that stateside to encourage people to support.

As far as the camp talks/sermons they were good, I had that sense of inclusiveness that is one of those sticky parts about gov’t sponsored ministry sorta… In order for Club Beyond to operate on military posts the leadership cannot discourage anyone’s current faith no matter what it may be. One of the humorous moments, I was talking with one of my guys, based on a guess of what the lessons would be like, and I called every single one. For those Hume veterans out there I think you know what I mean: Introduction to theme, Present Gospel, Purity or something of those sorts, Rededication, How to stay with it as the rough theme of each night’s message.

One of my thoughts concerning the method of teaching was how it correlated to non-Christian students in the course of a week. It seemed outdated or inappropriate for our current culture. For a truly evangelistic theme camp there are major places of the mind that I think contributes too many people getting the mountain top experience and then sliding down often as much as they climbed up in the following weeks upon experiencing God.

My first objection is to present the Gospel so early. The leaders should be living it throughout the week, at day two the leader and the students are still building trust and getting to know them. There are certain philosophical factors that I think are important to address before getting to the Gospel at such a place that it can be readily accepted. This is exemplified by the order in which most apologetic books address faith. I think the order in which the Gospel ought to be presented in terms of sermons/talks should be something like: Existence of Truth and Absolutes must be established; Showing how it is possible to know the Truth; The Bible is the Word of God; Then present the Gospel. I explain deeper why I think it is so important in Semantics or More.

I think under the current scheme of messages there is an oversight on the part of the mind. Given the course of a week a person’s heart in that environment can change drastically, however, I think that for it to be real it must also resonate in the mind, because like all matters of the heart emotions can be unpredictable and erratic. I do not think that is a healthy foundation for faith. The heart is often what starts to move people towards action. I think it is the mind that continues that action when the heart gets discouraged. This leads me to my second objection.

I was very pleased to find out there were no altar calls and there was not going to be one in the duration of the week. I know it sounds awfully anti-evangelistic to but opposed to altar calls but allow me to explain my reservations. I think it is best put forth with this event.

When I was working at Hume, Chris Brown was speaking. I have never heard a speaker with such talent for making scripture come alive the way he does. If you are interested here and here for sermons archives. Anyways, on the Gospel decision night, he spoke on the Prodigal Son. Upon closing the message he ended it with a prayer and invited students to stay and pray in the chapel and just “do business with God.” I had never seen such a high percentage of students stay, I can say with confidence easily 800 of the 1000 students in that chapel stayed that night.

The next day at a staff bible study he mentioned that he’d received complaints from counselors for leaving them hanging and not presenting the gospel or having an altar call. He responded with “At the place I had them, I could’ve prayed to the Easter Bunny and they’d have done it.” To phrase it in such a way, to show the care and concern not for a prayer but a true decision spoke worlds to me. Christianity is not a business, too often we forget that and measure success in the church with commitment cards or attendance increases. I have been to too many camps and choir tours to lead more students to a prayer when they don’t understand the gravity of.

I would much rather have some deep conversations with students throughout the night (and sometimes early morning as this last week proved) so that they can understand what Christianity is before they commit their lives to it. I think waiting for such decisions is more beneficial to the student also. If and when the decision happens they know what they are getting into. On the eternal scale I think there is more clarity too. They won’t have a question in their mind about some prayer they said some years ago at some camp. To high schoolers I try my best to mentally challenge them for the college/adult world they are soon to enter. One of the ways of doing that is helping them define themselves and their faith. The last thing I want to do is send someone on their way more confused about Christianity or what they believe than when I started.

One thing I learned from this week about youth ministry was patience. When I entered the week I had the mindset that I had one week to forever change their lives, either introduce them to Christ or get them to a mature place in their faith that they can live bold lives. At the leader meeting it was never under emphasized that often the fruits of youth ministry frequently are not seen for years to come, if we ever do get to see them.  As a youth leader I need to be satisfied with doing the most I can do for the time I have with them. I cannot rush them in their spiritual journey and my success or failure is not dependent on what happens in the course of the week. It is also an issue of trust and humility on my part to let God do his thing. It is not I that move the hearts and minds of the students but the Spirit working through me.

All in all it was a week I could not have asked anything more from. I am so recharged and encouraged by this last week it is indescribable. Having such fellowship with other believers is something I miss all too often. There were several times I was strongly lamenting returning back to the barracks in spiritual isolation again. To be able to remove my walls for a week only reminds me of where I am and what I am constantly doing. For those of you praying for me at home I thank you.

Losing Our Minds

            I know more recently I have reflected upon my thoughts about the lacking of intellectualism throughout mainstream Christianity, this might be some closing thoughts for the time being. Much of this reflects the points mentioned in the book I have been lazily reading, and thus have stretched it out far longer than I intended it to. I had to finish the chapters concerning this topic before I spelled it all out.

            I think it is fairly easy to notice that the contemporary style of church is growing in popularity far faster than the traditional style. I am one who prefers a full band, drums and all to be present with the worship leading. In addition to the modernized music the casual attire is another glaring sign, it is not taboo to wear shorts and a t-shirt to church anymore. The concept of "Sunday's best" is all but a concept except in few denominations that I see still exercise such fashion. I'm not one to say whose right or wrong, I think such issues of instruments in the band, attire, and style are preferential. It all matters in what the teaching are; is it a non-biblical self-help session growing our imaginations about a divine genie in the sky? Is it a hell fire and brimstone style that wishes us to scare us into submission? I have seen examples that go both ways too far and to the detriment of the Church (remember church is the organized group, while Church is the body of believers).

            Perhaps the most difficult part about truthfully practicing biblical faith is finding the right balance with all the sinners involved in the process. Sometimes we need to have the kind of zeal that Fred Phelps is so infamous for, except about something that is actually true about God. While other times I think it is best to be meek and humble. How do we reconcile narrow gates with becoming a slave to win them? While it might be theologically true and honest to stand on soap box telling the passersby to repent, does it model a biblical example that Christ showed us? At the same time, just hanging around our secular friends without ever presenting them the Gospel is no better. We must live in such a way that people can see a difference in our life. While at times it is encouraging, I hope my life is bold enough in faith that no one ever has to ask me “what do you believe?”

            So going back to the topic of this conglomeration of thoughts, I have my moments that I pity the old church. The 1600's style of church was liturgical in ways most people can only read about now. The emphasis of the personal God is rather new as far as the practicing of faith goes. Based on the historical analysis that I recently read it was pointed out that such emotion driven faith is a development of the Great Awakenings, the first in the 1730's and the second one in the 1800's, the emotionalism was much more present in the Second Great Awakening. It is common knowledge that it was the pilgrims that started to settle in what is now the United States in the 1600's it is not so common knowledge what kind of faith they practiced upon arrival. The First Great Awakening was especially focused on the hell fire brimstone method of evangelism. This is when such famous works as Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God" were more typical. In contrast, the Second Great Awakening marked the beginning of the revivalist movement.

            It is important to know ones’ roots, those from New England were of the Lutheran, Presbyterian denominations while middle colonies such as Jamestown were closer to the Baptist, Episcopal affiliation. For easier reference I will just go with North vs. South. From the North there was little distinction between the Church and the community. The teachings were that of ordered educated men standing in a pulpit and reading, often it was simply scripture with the occasional personal notes added. The style of preaching that broke down the barriers between the people and the pulpit were some of the signatures of the Great Awakenings. While I treasure such adaptations in the way the Gospel is preached and taught I recently pondered, "When did we pull away from intellectualism?" Remember that Yale, Princeton and many of the Ivy League schools started out to train ministers. If you doubt me, schools having such mottos as "In Thy light shall we see the light", "Laws without morals are useless" or "Truth" seems to point to their roots and original purpose. How did these institutions of intellect and faith get so far from the faith that drove their founding?

            The Second Great Awakening originated in the South; whereas preachers would live much like the disciples going place to place preaching to whomever would hear them. While such introduction of introducing faith as a heart issue greatly popularized faith it started a differentiation between our thought lives. The faith practiced prior to the Great Awakenings was strongly linked with the intellectual fields of science. Be it Galileo, Mendeleyev, or Newton they were all devoted and often driven in their scientific study by their Christian faith. There was no diversion between faith and science, much of early science was established by the church. Nancy Pearcy phrases such mental division as the “upper story”; being topics of science, politics, what we mostly call facts verses the lower story; which is our relationships, faith and philosophy. So what happened?

            It appears to me somewhat of a throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater occurred, during the Second Great Awakening. While the Gospel was popularized and swept the nation it was emphasized on the personal level of faith verses the Northern style which is exemplified in such works as The Scarlet Letter. That's when people caught in sin would be publicly chastised, punished, and or worse. The sense of loving one another was embodied as tough love if love at all. I am grateful that faith is taught as something that is of the heart, but strongly dissatisfied with the common limits of faith from being more than feelings and emotions. I was wondering what happened in our culture that we got so far from our critical thinking and common sense, and I am looking right into our own history as a Christian nation. During the Second Great Awakening and for decades following, the emphasis towards theology, reason and philosophy was ignored or discarded. In an effort to get away from the judgmental liturgical method of worship and become relevant to the masses the message was simplified and in some ways watered down.

            In my own desire to point fingers to who watered down our faith that it is so difficult for so many to know how to think critically and faithfully I have found the finger pointing at ourselves. It seems the cost of focusing so intently on the faith of Christianity; the Truth of Christianity has been blurred. We live in a society that claims to be 90% Christian, and yet looking at our social issues they seem to be problems that plague a worldly culture not one focused on Christ. I mentioned this in Born Again or Christian, but it is worth returning to.

            Where does that leave us now? The anti-Christian sentiment fueled by “rationality has been growing, from the Blasphemy Challenge of the Rational Responders or any number of the proud atheist movement. They stand on their soap boxes with pride claiming as Nietzsche did "God is dead" and there are few Christians that can engage them in the spiritual warfare they are bringing in us. I wonder where are all the Daniels, Hananiahs, Mishaels, and Azariahs? They mastered the Babylonian way of life, knowledge and culture yet did not become subjects of it. They remained faithful in their life while relevant and eternally effective as ministers and apologetics. I hope I can do the same and recruit some others to join me.