One won’t wade very far into church planting waters without being bombarded with the importance of being “missional.” Writing for Acts 29, Scott Thomas says:

A church that is not missional is not really a church. A church exists by mission as the sun exists by burning. When the sun loses its burn it ceases to be the sun. When a church loses its mission, it ceases to be a church.

The problem is that the word seems to have become sort of a junk drawer. You know, I’m willing to get that you have a drawer in your house into which you just throw things you have nowhere else to put. The term “missional” has come to mean different things to different people. So it becomes possible to have a conversation in which you come to realize at some point that you’re using the same words but in very different ways (hopefully you realize this if its happening!).

Part of the problem in even trying to define a term like this is that you’ll likely gravitate towards those with whom you already agree, at least to some extent. That having been said, one of the resources I’ve found to be quite helpful in thinking through many of these issues is Ed Stetzer’s Planting Missional Churches (formerly Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age). Stetzer begins his book by noting that:

Establishing a missional church means that you plant a church that’s part of the culture you’re seeking to reach.

Stetzer states what should be the obvious but often seems to be lost in such discussions: “The goal of church planting is to reach people.” Right away this will be a major paradigm shift to some. Some feel the desire to plant a church because they simply feel they’ve got their theological ducks in a straighter row than others. This does not seem to be a biblical reason for planting a church. Yes, doctrine is important and cannot be divorced from church-life, but it doesn’t seem to be the biblical thrust behind the impetus to plant new churches. While the church is certainly commanded to protect doctrine, this seems to be under the more broad command to make disciples. One cannot properly make disciples without engaging in every step of this process, beginning with bringing the Gospel to the lost.

Missional then, in the sense that Stetzer puts forward, is a powerful reminder that, as he puts it: “It’s possible to be a missionary without ever leaving your zip code.” I would add that not only is it possible, it is expected. But we need to be careful and make a distinction between “Mission(s)-Minded” churches and “Missional” churches. Stetzer clarifies between the two terms (italics his):

The first refers more to an attitude of caring about missions, particularly overseas. Missional means actually doing mission right where you are. Missional means adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound. Think of it this way: missional means being a missionary without ever leaving your zip code. You can see how a particular congregation or denomination can be mission-minded without being missional.

Practically, of course, this means that it is possible to have a church that does a lot overseas but nothing at home, as odd as that might initially sound. Stetzer argues that this arises, at least in part from a false dichotomy between “missions” and “evangelism.” Missions is for out there somewhere while evangelism is for here. He argues that “There is no basis, biblically or theologically, for the territorial distinction of missions and evangelism.”

This thinking seems to contribute to what I believe to be a faulty question in the life of many churches: “Is our primary duty to feed the sheep or win the lost?” I have become convinced that this is the wrong question because our “primary” duty is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. This includes every step of the process, beginning with missions/evangelism. It is a continual process rather than an either/or question.

Furthering the discussion, Stetzer throws one other term into the mix: “on mission,” saying that:

on mission means being intentional and deliberate about reaching others.

Seems simple enough, right? And yet, many churches fully support abroad what they run from at home. We equip foreign missionaries to carefully study the cultural context, encouraging them to “contextualize” (without sacrificing content) the Gospel in such as way as it is most effective to that given cultural context. Yet, churches seem scared to death of the idea of “American” culture, either isolating from it or drowning in it. Or, we simply see a church that seems to be succeeding and we decide to import, lock, stock and barrel, what they are doing, regardless of any cultural differences that might exist between where they’re at from where we find ourselves.

We expect our missionaries to analyze and adapt to surrounding cultures yet we become doubtful of churches doing this, labeling them “liberal” or “emergent” or both. Why? Is it because we fear change? I would like to think that it’s because we’re so protective of the Gospel, but research demonstrates that most Americans who claim to be Christians don’t live anything like biblical Christians, so that doesn’t seem to be it either. Could it simply but profoundly that we don’t think of ourselves as missionaries, especially while singing “God Bless America” under flag-draped crosses?

If anything wrestling with terms like these ought to encourage us to rethink and reapply our approach to how the local church lives in the culture it finds itself.

• Read the article “What Is A Missional Church” by Scott Thomas for Acts 29
• Read Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer
• Read Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process For Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger
• Read Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century by Aubrey Malphurs
• Read 44 Questions for Church Planters by Lyle E. Schaller

There is so much that established churches simply take for granted that can seem almost overwhelming from the perspective of planting a church. Consider the name. How do you go about naming a church? You obviously want something biblical, something that expresses at least a bit about who you hope to be and what you hope to be about.

But you also want something accessible and immediate. Foreign-language names, including Greek, Hebrew and Latin can be seen as being “elitist.” But “The Name of Your City, Street Or Neighborhood First Baptist Church” is certainly not memorable. How much do you consider marketing elements such as the “Rule of 3,” and memorability (is that a word?)? What do you do if you have a name you like but everyone else dislikes? Does that serve as “market research?” Are we even interested in market research?

What is your church’s name? Is it appropriate and effective? Did you choose it? If so, how? If not, would you choose something different? How would you go about choosing a church name? Should you be trying to elicit a response from the unchurched? If so, what response? How important is the church name? When you are looking for a new church, how much consideration do you give the name? Ed Stetzer says that if you are not using a denominational name:

The name should convey reliability, theological meaning, and the church’s commitment to reach and serve the unchurched community.

But his church’s name is Lake Ridge Church. Does that fit these criteria? Am I making more of this decision than is necessary? How would you or have you gone about this process?

• Read Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer
• Read Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process For Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger
• Read Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century by Aubrey Malphurs
• Read 44 Questions for Church Planters by Lyle E. Schaller

As you know, I’ve had an irregular but ongoing series simply presenting the words of Jesus with the question: “What if He really meant it?” Today continues that series and, in light of yesterday’s ponderings about the John 3:16 conference, presents two statements from Jesus that many like to ignore:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).

But what if Jesus really meant it? Would that affect your view of salvation? Your view of God?

• Read Jesus and the Gospels by Craig Blomberg
• Read Jesus the Messiah by Robert Stein
• Read Synopsis of the Four Gospels (English Only) by Kurt Aland

By now many of you have likely heard about the upcoming John 3:16 conference being put on by Jerry Vines ministries. No, this is not a conference on the Max Lucado book though that was my first thought too and that might be just as productive.

No, this is a conference during which several Arminian pastors will examine the issues of Calvinism. The Conferene’s website introduces it this way:

Did Jesus die on the cross for every person? Are believers eternally secure? Can grace be resisted? These and many other questions will be addressed.

This conference is not going to be a “Let’s bash the Calvinists” conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.

In case you were wondering, here is the proposed content:

John 3:16 - Dr. Jerry Vines

Total Depravity - Dr. Paige Patterson

Unconditional Election - Dr. Richard Land

Limited Atonement - Dr. David Allen

Irresistible Grace - Dr. Steve Lemke

Perseverance of the Saints - Dr. Ken Keathley

John 3:16 to the entire world - Dr. Charles Stanley

- There will be a 60-minute Q & A session following the last speaker -

I think it’s fine if some well-known Arminians want to examine Calvinism. I even think it’s fine if they choose not to have someone from the Reformed perspective present to clarify and explain. That’s their prerogative. But what I don’t think is fine is the implicit ad hominem nature of the conference itself. You see, even though they haven’t come out and directly said this, by making it known that they are taking issue with Calvinism, by naming the conference after one of the best-known of all Bible verses and closing with a session “John 3:16 to the entire world,” the organizers seem to be saying that Calvinists don’t believe John 3:16.

I’ve share many times (see here, here, here, here and especially here for example) that one of my frustrations in many of these discussions just how acceptable it has become in many circles to simply misrepresent the position of someone with whom you disagree. Of course Calvinists believe, support and promote John 3:16!

Some might say here something like “Well, yes, but by you Calvinists having conferences like Together For the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition, aren’t you implying that Arminians don’t believe the Gospel” No, and the reason I say that is because the purpose and topic of those gatherings was not to give the Calvinist “response” to Arminianism.

Perhaps I’m off here? Am I misconstruing this? Am I overreacting?

• Visit the official conference website
• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• Read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner
• Read Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul

And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for . . . . or something like that. A bunch of links. Enjoy.

See what I hear at Last.fm.

Sign up for eMusic, find lots of DRM-free downloads and help me earn free downloads in the process. Everyone wins!

While you’re out there exploring, you’ll need some music to listen to. Please consider subscribing to our podcast, the Habañero Hour at iTunes. Be our friend at Facebook, Myspace or last.fm.

Read 9 Marks’ review of Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution.

Read about the cancellation of this year’s Vegoose music festival.

Read Donald Whitney’s thoughts on Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth.

Read the “Evangelical Manifesto.”

Read Justin Taylor’s interview with Os Guinness about the document.

Read Justin Taylor’s outline of the manifesto.

Read Ed Stetzer’s thoughts on related topics.

Read as the Washington Post considers the enduring popularity of Cannery Row.

Read as the NY Daily News considers the trend of television shows putting out soundtrack albums.

Read Popmatters‘ interview with Mark Kozelek.

Read as Parade polls its readers about funding public broadcasting.

Read as the Morning News considers signs that you might be a hipster.

Read as “Evangelicals Lament a Politicized Faith.”

Read about Christianity “falling out of favor” in Britain.

Read as the ACLU weighs in in the FLDS raids.

Read as the Washington Post considers the renewed interest in exorcisms in Europe.

Read as Christianity Today examines “ancient future” Christianity.

Read about Deepak Chopra’s view of Jesus (hint: He’s not God).

Read as Reuters finds that the US is among the most Bible literate nations.

Read about many missionaries struggling because of the devaluation of the dollar.

Read this overview of China’s Christianity.

Read as The Atlantic considers “Apatheism.”

Read as Christianity Today interview Andrew Adamson, director of Prince Caspian.

Read as one blogger considers how Darwin lost his faith.

Read about the man who has asked a court to legally change his name to “In God We Trust.”

Read about Microsoft dropping its bid for Yahoo.

Browse this list of suggestions for what bands should and should not have on their Myspace page.

Read Andrée Seu’s thoughts on writing.

Read as Collin Hansen considers whether our gospel is too big or too small.

Read about the recent Pew research finding that Americans claim that they want other things before being rich.

Read about “green” burials.

Read about the new study claiming that sitting straight is not actually the best posture for your back.

Read about the continuing and growing trend of many young people raised in the church leaving as they grow older.

Read about the recent report claiming that in Britain, practicing Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2035.

I was thinking the other day about the movie No Country For Old Men by the Coen Brothers. The film is dark and sometimes troubling in its depiction of fallen nature and I know, “Christians aren’t supposed to watch movies like this, right?!” (See Jim’s insightful thoughts from yesterday and what “Christians” far too often partake of in the media).

Quite often, when Christians are confronted with movies containing violence, language and depravity, they respond with something like Philippians 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (Philippians 4:8).

But I worry that what many Christians mean by referencing this verse is not what Paul had in mind when writing it. Many Christians mean that we should focus on things that are warm and fuzzy and “family friendly.” You know, “safe for the whole family” types of things. So, of course it stands to reason that a movie like No Country for Old Men, with its “gratuitous” violence is not suitable, because it shows a lot of violence.

And yet, according to the way in which many well-meaning Christians apply Philippians 4:8 to popular culture, it should stand to reason that we should not think upon the Cross of Christ. After all, the Cross is certainly not lovely or commendable. To this day it remains one of the most horrendous and gruesome forms of torture the world has ever known. It was brutal and played on humiliation throughout. Certainly this is not warm, fuzzy or “safe for the whole family,” is it? Or is it?

In reality, what seems to have happened is that many well-intentioned Christians have reduced the art of media discernment to simply asking what is appropriate for an eight-year old or what makes you feel “spiritual,” warm and fuzzy.

These thoughts prompt the question of whether or not it’s possible to be spurred on to considering holiness by a movie depicting depravity. Of course it is. Much of the point of the film is the pointless nature of depravity and that, when left to themselves, men degenerate into something we can barely understand. We lie to ourselves when we try to say things like “mankind is basically good” and films like this help to remind us of just what we’re capable of; what lurks inside each of us.

The film also holds out the lure of redemption. Throughout, you realize that there is nothing the characters can do to break the cycle in which they’ve found themselves. That’s much the point of salvation itself, isn’t it? We cannot and will not do it on our own (Romans 3), but God, being rich in the great mercy with which He loves us, made us alive, together with Christ (Ephesians 2).

I wonder just how much hope I would be able to have if the Gospel were really as tame as some would have us to believe and I am thankful that there are films such as this to remind me of its power. Regardless of the filmmakers’ intentions. I will indeed think about these things.

• Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski
• Read Cormac McCarthy

Recently, my 5-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter have been enjoying a special addition to our nightly bedtime routine. Thanks to their Grandma, we have a jumbo-sized canister of gourmet jelly beans…Jelly Bellies to be exact. Just before we do our Bible time and prayers, the kids ask Daddy to tell them a “jelly bean story,” which is just like any ol’ bedtime story except that the objects in the story present opportunities to slowly dole out jelly beans. For instance, the characters in the story might have a sudden thirst for root beer, which results in each child receiving a root beer flavored jelly bean. Likewise the characters might climb an orange tree, presenting the perfect juncture to pass out, you guessed it, orange jelly beans.

The first time we did a jelly bean story, I remember watching their little faces light up at every unexpected story and flavor twist. I savored the challenge of telling the story in a way that would keep them in rapt attention, never knowing when the next jelly bean would be handed out.

However, something changed after many weeks of jelly bean stories. The creativity and cohesiveness of my story-telling took a nose dive. You see, I was slowly starting to view the jelly bean story as a simple means of getting the bedtime routine kicked off so that I could get them quickly to bed. I would dispense the jelly beans in a slipshot manner, no longer taking the time to look for something delightful in the reaction of my children to a good story. Whether the story had any particular charm or flow made little difference to me after a long day. I think they’ve caught onto me, but at some base level, jelly beans are still an acceptable tradeoff.

Strangely enough, it took a conversation this week about books with my mother-in-law (their Grandma) to make me aware of my storytelling atrophy. She was recounting how some friends recommended a popular Christian work of fiction, saying “You just have to read it!” To her dismay, she found the book to be tedious with characters that could only be described as “one-dimensional”.

I responded by sharing my theory that Christians sometimes have an unhealthy view of the arts as merely a vehicle for a gospel presentation; rejecting the pursuit of beauty or truth as a sufficient justification for creative work. In a word, it’s utilitarianism. Then it hit me. That’s exactly what I was doing with the jelly bean story by cheaply slapping together a story with the “required elements” (a.k.a. jelly beans) without regard for the drama or quality of the story. The humor of this realization was not lost on me, the guy who is always quick to notice the lackluster nature of much of what currently passes as “Christian” music or books, yet who had unwittingly assumed that same mentality in my storytelling.

In further consideration, it occurred to me that this tendency rears its ugly head in more places than just the arts. Though Jesus Christ, in his person and his story, should provoke infinite wonder, we somehow manage to reduce our thoughts about him to mere catch phrases. It’s as if we were offered the greatest feast ever cooked, yet could only manage to describe it as “pretty good” or “nice”. It happens as a parent speaks to a child, as an artist speaks to an audience, and even as a pastor preaches to a congregation.

Writer and playwright Dorothy Sayers (1893-1957) wrote brilliantly about the irony of making Christ’s story dull in her essay “The Greatest Drama Ever Staged”:

This is the dogma we find so dull—this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero. If this is dull, then what, in Heaven’s name, is worthy to be called exciting? The people who [crucified] Christ, …to do them justice, [never] accused him of being a bore—on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him “meek and mild,” and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale [clergy] and pious old ladies. To those who knew him, however, he in no way suggests a milk-and-water person; they objected to him as a dangerous firebrand.

Speaking later of the person of Jesus Christ, his incarnation, and his dying in the place of guilty sinners, Sayers notes:

Now, we may call that doctrine exhilarating, or we may call it devastating; we may call it revelation, or we may call it rubbish; but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all. That God should play the tyrant over man is a dismal story of unrelieved oppression; that man should play the tyrant over man is the usual dreary record of human futility; but that man should play the tyrant over God, find him a better man than himself, is an astonishing drama indeed. Any journalist, hearing of it for the first time, would recognize it as news; those who did hear it for the first time actually called it news, and good news at that; though we are likely to forget that the word Gospel ever meant anything so sensational.

I trust that Sayers’ words challenge the reader as much as they do me. They help me to think on the great drama of the gospel and the wonder of Christ that should be shared with others. That’s a tall order (to say the least) but merely retelling his story with worn-out slogans or religious-sounding words isn’t enough. Doing so would either give a dull impression of my God or send the message that I have a low view of my audience’s capacity to take in the story. No, such blandness would treat the audience like toddlers who are satisfied with a sugar buzz instead of the captivating story they deserve.

• Read Dorothy Sayers’ works including Creed or Chaos? Why Christians Must Choose Either Dogma or Disaster (Or, Why It Really Does Matter What You Believe)
• Read Imagine: A Vision for Christians in the Arts by Steve Turner
• Read A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship by Michael Horton
• Munch some Jelly Belly jelly beans (except for the nasty coffee-flavored ones)
• Listen to the White Horse Inn
• Do not forward this post to the American Dental Association