For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me
(Matthew 25:35-36).

The Gospel; the good news that we preach is not only for the soul, but also for the whole person. Following in the footsteps of our servant Savior, we are to seek to love and serve in His name whenever given the chance. Our hearts weep with those affected by this tragedy, yet we also know that our tears will not alleviate their immediate suffering.

We must call on Christians everywhere to serve; through prayer, financially and materially, and by sacrificing time to actually go and help. Prayerfully consider how God would have you to serve in during this time.

Help through the NAMB’s Disaster Relief Program.
Donate directly to the NAMB efforts.
Help through the American Red Cross.
Donate directly to the American Red Cross.
Help through the Salvation Army.
Donate directly to the Salvation Army.
Visit the FEMA website.
Follow continuous coverage from the New York Times.
Follow continuous coverage from CNN.
Follow continuous coverage from Fox News.
Read The Killer Storm and Christian Concern by Al Mohler.
Read Katrina’s Effects at a Glance from the AP.

This past weekend at Grace Community Church of Glen Rose, TX, where I pastor, we began our Fall Sunday School program (we use the Desiring God children’s curriculum, so we don’t have year-round Sunday School). We also began our 12-week membership class, Foundations. At a recent dinner, I was asked why the course is so long. Indeed, it is a healthy commitment; 12 weeks (plus a membership profile and a signed church discipline addendum) that may seem a bit excessive at first, but let me explain.

We’ve already seen the disconnect between numbers and reality in the Southern Baptist Convention. For many years now, it has been the norm to make church membership easier, and therefore, less meaningful in the pursuite of numbers. We’ve robbed the concept of church membership of any substance to the extent that many otherwise well-intentioned believers no longer see it as necessary, buying into the pervasive individualism of our surrounding culture. But even the Lone Ranger didn’t travel alone, did he?

Meaningless membership is an affront to the very Gospel that we preach. We preach that hearts of stone may be replaced with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19), that men may be born again (John 3:1-21), and that the spiritually dead may be raised (Ephesians 2:1-10). All of this assumes that after salvation, there ought to be a stark difference. All Lazarus had to do was walk into a room and people immediately thought of the Christ who had raised him (John 12:9-11). Is the same true of us? Sadly, it seems that such concepts are not even on the radar screen of many believers, much less the churches they attend.

Drawing together the relationship between salvation and church membership, Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC writes in his book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church that “Membership is the church’s corporate endorsement of a person’s salvation.” The church, by accepting a member is affirming, that, the best we can tell, this person is in line with the characteristics of a true believer. There are many people with strong but false assurance of their salvation because their name is on a membership role somewhere. The church has assured them of something that is likely not true.

These concepts tend to carry more weight in the Credo- or believer-baptist perspective than in the Paedo- or infant-baptist one. However, even paedobaptist churches struggle with correlation between church membership and holy living, or the lack thereof. It is likely true that the problem only increases as we move to examine the more mainline churches. In fact, I would argue that a return to the connection between baptism and salvation is a unique and vital weapon in the war for meaningful church membership.

In churches across the spectrum, the drive to equate numbers with success has resulted in the chase of numbers instead of God’s glory. Many churches have made the front doors wider while all but closing the back doors, stockpiling the growing numbers. Membership is made easy while commitment is slim to none. The result is a church with 600 members who is lucky to have 100 in actual attendance and we’re again faced with the disconnect of numbers. As long as we have them counted, and our numbers padded we musn’t be troubled with whether or not they’re actually there during corporate worship! Don’t be so antiquated!

But what if we stressed numbers in exactly the opposite fashion? What if churches struggled to have fewer numbers on their membership role than actually in attendance? The implied message would be that both church and members understood that membership was not akin to a leisure pass for the lodge, but a powerful theological statement. We at Grace Community Church strive for just such a scenario.

In hopes of restoring church membership again to something meaningful, we do require a substantial commitment up-front. We are convinced that the Christian life is designed by God to be lived out in community and unity (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, Amos 3:3, Mark 3:25, Acts 4:32, 1 Corinthians 12:18, 27, Philippians 2:2, etc.). Yet, blind unity is not enough, ultimately, in the setting of the Church, any unity must be formed upon the foundation of doctrine. The majority of our 12-week course teaches the doctrines we hold as fundamental. We want to be entirely open and honest about who we are as a church with the goal that there will be no “hidden surprises.” We would much rather promote the unity of clearly stated, God-centered doctrine than fixate on a few numbers. Fidelity to the Word ought to be a much more accurate measure of ministry success than empty numbers.

Admittedly, this approach does lose some who are either not willing to make the commitment or who disagree with us doctrinally. Yet rather than weep over lost numbers, we may rejoice at a potentially diverted conflict. Again, we realize that our local congregation is not for everyone. Therefore we strive to educate regarding our core beliefs. The very process itself is a minor test of commitment.

All of this poses the question of “church shopping.” By adopting such an approach, aren’t we just encouraging people to find the “right church,” one that feels right? Well, yes and no. As already stated, we unapologetically call for commitment, so it is unlikely (though not impossible) that someone will pop in and pop out in search of having their felt-needs met. We are also unapologetic in our stance that the most important factor to consider while searching for a church is their doctrine; what do they teach? We therefore strive to lay bare our doctrinal positions prior to ever asking a person to considering membership.

We do not claim for a moment to have a perfect model. However, I do recognize that we are part of a growing number of churches moving again towards intentional membership and the reinstatement of church discipline (another topic altogether, though one that is closely related). These are not easy moves, but they are necessary if we hope to reform God’s church. Please pray for us as we labor for His glory. I urge you to consider seriously how your church views membership.

Visit the Grace Community Church website.
Read Why Should I Join a Church? by Jim Elliff.
Read Baptists and a Regenerate Church Membership by Josef Nordenhaug.
Read Moving Toward Meaningful Membership by David King.
Read Nine Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever.
Read Stop Dating the Church by Joshua Harris.
Watch an episode of the Lone Ranger television series.

Our friend Adam just had his piece The Heresy of Intelligent Design published in the Dallas Fort Worth Star Telegram. The piece, subtitled “When it comes to Darwinian naturalism, the scientific community has its own version of fundamentalism,” serves as our “guest blog” for the day.

Visit the Origins website.
Visit the IDEA website.
Visit the Intelligent Design Network website.
Read Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.
Read Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe.
Read The Design Revolution by William Dembski and others.
Read Intelligent Design by William Dembski.
Read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.
Read Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson.
Buy a Planet of the Apes movie poster (Charlton Heston is my president).
Watch the original Planet of the Apes.

The fad-driven church chugs along like an snowball adding mass along the way. We are bombarded with a slew of comments and thoughts regarding the Emerging Church from Reformation 21, Modern Reformation, The Christian Century, Christianity Today and even PBS as they all elbow their way to a place at the proverbial round table of “conversation and dialoge”.

I’d like to offer a lotta links regarding the subject from a variety of perspecitves (because of course, I wouldn’t claim to be able to know objective truth well enough to say who is right or wrong in the discussion; I’m just happy we’re having the discussion at all, isn’t that the point….):

Read Wikipedia’s entry on the Emerging Church.
Read Dallas Willard’s collected articles on postmodernism.
Read The Emergent Matrix by Scott Bader-Saye.
Read What’s Emerging in the Church by Jeffrey Jue.
Read Cool Kids Church by Eric Landry.
Read Derek Thomas’ editorial concerning the Emergent Church.
Read The Emerging Church by D.A. Carson.
Read The Emergent Mystique by Andy Crouch.
Read Bugs Bunny Meets Brian McClaren by Russell Moore.
Read What Should We Think of the Emerging Church (pt. 1) by Al Mohler.
Read What Should We Think of the Emerging Church (pt. 2) by Al Mohler.
Read Al Mohler’s critique of McClaren’s Generous Orthodoxy.
Read PBS’ interview with Brian McClaren.
Read part one of PBS’ piece on the Emergent Church.
Read part two of the PBS piece.
Read my thoughts on the emerging church growth movement.
Visit Brian McClaren’s website.
Visit Leonard Sweet’s website.
Visit Dan Kimball’s blog.
Visit the Emergent Village website.
Buy (and then read) The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball.
Buy (and then read) Becoming Conversant… by D.A. Carson.
Buy (and then read) The Church in Emerging Culture by Leonard Sweet et al.
Buy books by Brian McClaren.

Quite some time ago, Eldon forwarded me an article that has periodically resurfaced in my thinking. The article originally appeared in GQ magazine (September 2002), and is written by Walter Kirn, GQ’s literary editor (at least at the time of the article). I must say that I have no idea what Kirn’s personal beliefs may be and the (sometimes crude) article will offend many, but I’m guessing that’s the point.

Kirn is (in admittedly over-the-top fashion) pointing out something that haunts many who truly love Christ and creativity; mainstream Christianity often lacks both. Rather than understanding that Christians were once and still should be at the forefront of the arts, we are content to copy mainstream culture and regurgitate poor facsimiles of what was the trend six months ago (if not more).

The article is entitled What Would Jesus Do? and ridiculously subtitled But more important, what were Jesus’ fitness secrets? If you were one of the growing millions of Americans living in the multimillion-dollar Christian Alternaculture - in which everything in mainstream culture gets cloned and then bleached of ’sinful’ content - you’d know. Walter Kirn spends seven strange days walking in the shoes of the faithful.

The premise is that Kirn will spend seven (transparent number choice) living in the “Christian” subculture, “ark culture” he calls it. In other words, he will read “Christian” fiction, listen to “Christian” music, consult “Christian”news sources, watch “Christian” entertainment, admire “Christian”art, and I hope you’re picking up the pattern here.

On Day Two, Kirn remarks “I wake aboard the Ark. The old Ark, the biblical Ark, constructed to save the chosen from the Great Flood, had two of every creature in existence. The new Ark, the cultural Ark, built to save the chosen from the Great Media Flood, also has two of everything I’m learning.” Kirn then equates Third Day as our Pearl Jam, Ted Dekker as our Tom Clancy and Bibleman as our Batman and on down the cultural food chain.

But, in the end, Kirn finds his Christian cocoon slightly disconcerting. Describing some Christian musicians, he notes “They’re not bad at all. Because their lyrics are mostly unintelligible, there’s no way to know they’re even Christian, really. And yet, in the same way one sensed that groups like Abba were singing in a language they didn’t speak, one detects a certain falseness in these bands’ sound. They’re trying too hard, somehow.” He concludes: “They sound a bit like foreigners — highly trained Asian prodigies whose governments have equipped them with guitars and trained them in some elite punk-rock academy. These new Christian bands rock like Americans play soccer; skillfully but somehow not convincingly.”

Kirn concludes, “What makes the stuff so half-assed, so thin, so weak and cumulatively so demoralizing has nothing to do with faith. The problem is lack of faith. Ark culture is a bad Xerox of the mainstream, not a truly distinctive or separate achievement. Without the courage to lead, it numbly follows, picking up the major media’s scraps and gluing them back together with a cross on top.”

Kirn clearly has a distaste (as do I) for the mimicry that passes as Christian creativity. But I think that his comments also shine light on some deeper issues. The world knows when we try to position ourselves as something we are not. They know when we’re trying to “fit in.” The church (particularly those claiming to be emerging) has bought into the concept that we need to make things “relevant” to our surrounding culture. We have lost faith in the power of the gospel and as such, we feel that we must dress up in the latest cultural costume in order to slip through the door. We feel that we have to earn the right to be heard by being “one of the guys.” See, we can wear the same clothes; I’ve got my soul patch too; we even have the same type of music! The result, too often is that we end up being mocked rather than accepted.

Yet, we are called not to “fit in,” but to confront. We cannot mold the gospel into “relevance.” The message of sin and salvation is so alien to our culture that the call to repentance bounces off hardened hearts. But, loving as Christ loved, serving in humility, offering Total Truth, what could be more “relevant” than unleashing the power of the Gospel rather than dressing it up in the latest fad? The world knows when we’re pretending to be something we’re not. Do they know better than we do?

Read the original article by Walter Kirn.
Read Walter Kirn’s books.
Read Taking the Swagger Out of Christian Cultural Influence by John Piper.
Read Art and the Bible by Francis Schaeffer.
View a Christian Music Comparison Chart.
Visit “Relevant” Magazine’s website.
Buy a Raiders of the Lost Ark movie poster.

Who says what is and is not “Christian” music? The Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), that’s who! Thanks to our friend Eldon for pointing us to a story from Reuters.

According to the CMTA, an artist such as Sufjan Stevens, whose beliefs are certainly not in question, does not qualify as a “Christian” artist. In other words, you will not be able to purchase his work at your local Christian bookstore. For many, this might not be anything to think twice about. Not many have heard Sufjan Stevens and he’s most likely not going to be a household name any time soon. However, one need listen to his music for only a short time before being squarely confronted with his beliefs. So much so that some reviewers make the point to state that they don’t like what he’s saying, but they like how he’s saying it (Pitchforkmedia for example).

Yet the CMTA’s decision poses larger questions about what really goes on in the “Christian” music industry. John Styll, president of the CMTA quips that Stevens “just doesn’t want to play the Christian music-market game, and that’s OK.” In other words, he has not sought distribution through the right channels, nor does he play the right venues. All of which makes one wonder how a group such as Phillips, Craig and Dean who deny the Trinity (see also) may be purchased at any Christian bookstore while Bob Dylan’s landmark Slow Train Coming may not. Apparently, good business means more than good theology in some circles, and God-glorifying content is not even on the radar.

What password are the gatekeepers looking for? According to the Reuters article, “Styll says albums must receive some national play on Christian radio, 25 percent of sales in the first week must be in Christian shops, and lyrics must have “Christian content.” Styll furthers that the lyrics in question must in line with Scripture, but acknowledges that these boundaries may be “a little loose.” That’s a problem. Who defines what is in the bounds of Scripture? Denial of the Trinity would certainly fall outside of my definition, but apparently not those set by the CMTA. Lyrical/theological content is obviously not deciding criteria.

It must be said, that to my knowledge, Sufjan Stevens has not sought CMTA certification. Indie artist Jeremy Casella notes that Sufjan is “not considered one of the CCMers or GMTA’ers because his music doesn’t run in CCM industry circles. No business connections or touring connections. No label connections. No affiliation really. No Nashville bloodline/money.” In other words, it’s a business decision, not a content question. Casella concludes “Its obvious as daylight that he’s a believer.”

Such discussions ought to make us apprehensive at best about what is and is not considered “Christian” music. Yet larger issues are also hinted at here; most notably the separationist tendencies of many Christians (which I am currently pondering more). Rather than be “in the world but not of the world,” many have chosen to withdraw all together, having a “Christian” version of everything the world might have to offer, both good and bad. We have our own musicians who play in our own venues that we buy in our own stores and labels are worth a thousand words; if it’s “Christian,” it’s alright by me.

All things considered, it seems as that you must be part of the club. If you don’t want to play the game (regardless of clearly Christian content), you will not be sold through us; and if you do play our game, denying the Trinity is just fine. One does not have to look at the issue very long to understand that it is not a question of belief or content, but of business decision.

We must understand that we have created our own sub-culture which runs by its own rules. Just because something may be purchased at a Christian bookstore does not mean it may be trusted. Conversely, just because something may not be purchased at the same store does not mean the people behind it are not glorifying God in what they do. These issues are not new to anyone involved in “Christian” music or books at any level. However, we must be sensitive to the fact that many well-meaning believers are sincerely swayed by labeling, and the lack of endorsement as a “Christian” artist is the death-bell as far as they’re concerned. We must gently teach Christian truth that not only affects the heart, but also the head. We must teach discernment, something sorely lacking in our day and age.

We are faced with a sacred/secular divide that permeates every level of life, forcing us to label everything, regardless of accuracy. Casella concludes, “The labeling is foolishness but that’s just the way it is here in town (Nashville). I think the whole thing is falling apart though. It happening right now and will continue to happen in the coming years.” Let’s hope he’s right but in the meantime, Christians must learn to look past the cover to judge the book.

Read the original article from Reuters.
Read Drop7.com’s thoughts on Sufjan Stevens.
Read Tangled Up in the Bible by Michael J. Gilmour.
Play Biblical Allusions in Dylan Lyrics trivia.
Visit the Christian Music Trade Association website.
Visit Jeremy Casella’s website.
Visit Bob Dylan’s website.
Visit Sufjan Stevens’ website.
Download More Than The Watchman (demo) by Jeremy Casella.
Download Gotta Serve Somebody by Bob Dylan (live).
Download The Transfiguration by Sufjan Stevens.

I’m sure you’ve noticed, Nancy Pearcey and some of her thoughts have been making regular appearances here of late. Her book Total Truth is in my current reading rotation and many of her ideas are in my thought pattern.

While challenging Christians to first understand the need for and second formulate a complete Christian worldview, she touches on many apparent side-issues that could stand further exploration on their own. One of those side-issues is raised in the introduction to the book in a section entitled Politics is Not Enough.

Pearcey states that “in recent decades many Christians have responded to the moral and social decline in American society by embracing political activisim.” She points out that though “this heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, the impact remains far less than most had hoped.” The obvious question is why? Why has Christian political involvement not had the cultural impact we hoped it might. Because, Pearcey argues, we have failed to realize that “politics tends to reflect culture, not the other way around.”

This is an interesting perspective, and one that demands further thought. I (and I don’t think I’m alone) vote my conscience and I often vote based on issues; specific issues that I’ve already come to a conclusion on. I view politics as a tool to be used; a bludgeon to be swung on behalf of some other interest. In this scenario, Pearcey is exactly right: my activity in politics will directly reflect my (already determined) view of culture. Though I’m sure there are some, I doubt that most of us look to politics to formulate our positions; rather, we come to politics hoping to shape it in the image of our own pet causes.

If this is true (and I’m beginning to think it might be), then Christians must ask at least two initial questions: 1) how do we influence our culture if not through politics? and 2) should we withdraw from politics if it is not the force for positive change we have made it out to be?

1) Pearcey at least, argues that the first step to influencing the culture is to understand the scope of redemption. Using a Creation/Fall/Redemption grid, (customary to most Reformational world views), Pearcey argues that we must do away with the sacred/secular divide we have come to accept. If you are a believer, everything you do is to be understood through the filter of the Gospel. Does that mean I am to be a “Christian” car mechanic? What about a “Christian” plumber? Yes. All of life is to viewed through the lens of the Gospel.

We must strive to bring every thought captive to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), understanding that in Him we are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17) and we must take seriously Paul’s admonition to do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Believers are now ambassadors of Christ, actively working to undo the effects of the Fall wherever possible. When we are truly being clothed in Christ’s image and striving to live that out in every aspect of life, we will have an impact. When we love because we were first loved (1 John 4:19), when we serve as Christ served (John 13:1-20), when we practice love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) we will be so different from our surroundings that people will notice.

The first step to influencing culture is to realize the full implications of salvation. Until American Christians come to a point where we actively seek to live out the Gospel at every level, we are robbing the very message we proclaim. We cannot claim to be new creatures and continue to live the way we always have. Until salvation is understood and lived, politics is simply a band-aid on an open wound. We may make small gains but we’re climbing up a landslide. Only the power of the Gospel unleashed in lives can have the impact we want.

2) Should Christians then withdraw from political involvement? I don’t think so. We need to understand that politics is not the savior, but that it can be used in His name. Consider the last election. The mainstream media absolutely did not know what to make about people voting “moral concerns” at the polls. The concept was simply foreign to them. When used wisely, politics may be an effective way of proclaiming the Christian moral vision for the world. This is not the same thing as theonomy.

Politics is a tool. It reinforces (or should) the God-given conscience in us all, enforcing right and wrong and it must be guided (as much as possible) by Scriptural principles. God has placed every government in its place (Romans 13) and we must be subject to them as long as they are inside Scriptural bounds. Our authorities help to keep us from hurting one another, from stealing and the like; all of which is certainly a God-given mandate. When viewed as a tool rather than as a solution, it is good that more Christians are pursuing this avenue. Reigns may be placed on the moral decline of society and people may be protected in the name of The Protector. Politics is a tool, but it’s just that; one tool among many.

Pearcey concludes that “the most effective work is done by ordinary Christians fulfilling God’s calling to reform culture within their local spheres of influence - their families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, work-laces, professional organizations, and civic institutions.” Affecting culture begins with you, not the voting booth.

Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer.
Read what John Piper said in D.C. regarding politics.
Read Guidelines for Proper Political Involvement by Michael Horton.