For freedom Christ has set us free…

“For freedom Christ has set us free. So stand firm and do not be subject to the yoke of slavery again” (Gal 5:1). These words are Paul’s powerful plea to the Galatian Christians not to allow themselves to be subject to the law, but to live as people truly set free in Christ by the Spirit. The problem with applying these words, and much of the rest of Galatians, is that most Christians today are not tempted to take up the Jewish law as a means of living the Christian life. So what does Paul’s plea have to do with us today?

First, my reflections on the application of this passage come from someone who serves in a traditional Southern Baptist church; I do not pretend that these points of application are universal (everyone has their own areas of enslavement). However, I believe that many traditional Southern Baptist churches today are living under the yoke of slavery. We are no longer enslaved to the law, but now we are enslaved to our traditions and our selfish desires.

Take for example a “traditional” Southern Baptist church. This church meets for Sunday school at 9:15 on Sunday morning and for worship at 10:30 or 11:00. The church meets again for worship at 6:00 and gathers to pray for the sick on Wednesday evenings. The church sings hymns that are accompanied by a piano and an organ. The church meets in a building that “looks like a church” (whatever that nonsensical phrase means) and has committees that make sure that the church functions properly. Christians are expected to worship at these kinds of churches, and devout believers show up on Sunday and Wednesday nights. They arrive dressed in suit and tie out of respect for the reverence of the occasion.

This portrait might be a bit of a caricature, but many will recognize in the drawing a picture of the traditional Southern Baptist church. Before going any further, I want to clarify that none of these things are inherently bad: owning a building with a steeple, wearing a suit to church, singing hymns, etc. However, I would suggest that many of our churches have become enslaved to this way of doing church. Having been set free to live by the Spirit, we have enslaved ourselves to a style of doing church

Perhaps change in the church is difficult not just because we are creatures of habit or because we have our own preferences and styles. Perhaps change in the church is difficult because we have enslaved ourselves to a certain way of doing church. We have judged our obedience and Christian maturity based on whether we are following this model, not on whether we are in step with the Spirit. We are not free to follow the Spirit as churches because we have restricted ourselves to a certain model of church.

May we become free as churches; not free to indulge our own interests, but free to follow the Spirit wherever He leads.

Jesus, Interrupted

Ehrman’s goal in Jesus, Interrupted is not to destroy his readers’ faith, but instead he wants to undermine any confidence his readers might have in the Bible as the Word of God. For Ehrman, the Bible is a human book full of contradictions, written largely by men far removed from the world of Jesus and his apostles. The Bible tells us little about the life of Jesus but gives us much more about what his disciples came to believe about Jesus and the religion they invented after his death. None of these conclusions are new to Ehrman’s book, but two facets of his book deserve attention.

First, he writes for the church member and not for the scholar. Ehrman’s books have been featured on the New York Times bestseller list, a remarkable feat, particularly for his book about textual criticism. In fact, his reasoning for writing Jesus, Interrupted seems to be his desire to tell the common, church-going public what their seminary-trained pastors “refuse” to tell them about the Bible and its history.

Second, he claims that the general principles presented in his book are beyond dispute, that scholars don’t question his overall assessment of the Bible as a book filled with forgeries and falsehoods. For Ehrman, “evangelical scholar” seems to be a contradiction in terms. A sober look at the evidence would lead anyone to the same conclusions as him (except for staunch evangelicals who refuse to see the truth).

So what are we to make of his latest book? Should we tell believers to avoid it like the plague? Actually, Jesus, Interrupted is an interesting book about the Bible and the development of Christian thought. The problem is not as much with Ehrman’s presentation of the facts but with his interpretation of the facts. So if we cannot learn the whole truth about the Bible from Ehrman, what can we learn? First, we need more evangelical scholars writing for the “average” Christian. Ehrman presents one side of the debate about the Bible, but the Christian who reads his book would be hard pressed to find an equally accessible book that presents evangelical scholarship on the Bible. If we can’t write books from evangelical scholars defending the Bible that end up on the New York Times bestseller list, perhaps we could at least manage one such book that could make it onto the Lifeway bestseller list.

Second, we need more education about the Bible in our churches. Ehrman is right that we are not teaching church members about the history, development, and nature of the Bible. If we have nothing to hide, then why are we hiding? Perhaps church members have little interest in learning about the Bible in this way; they are content with “devotional” reading of the Bible. Maybe this is true, but if we do not teach them the facts and at least offer an evangelical perspective, we should not be surprised if they are shocked and defenseless after reading books like Ehrman’s.

New Wine in New Wineskins?

“No one pours new wine into old wineskins, because the new wine will burst the wineskins, the wine will be spilled, and the wineskins will be destroyed. Instead, new wine must be poured into new wineskins” (Mark 2:22). This parable is frequently used as justification for new and innovative ways of doing church. “We can’t keep pouring this new wine of the gospel into the same old wineskins of the ways we’ve done church in the past,” or so the argument goes.

But does the parable support this conclusion? The parable occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the context of a question as to why Jesus’ disciples didn’t fast like John’s disciples and the Pharisees did. Jesus’ answer is two-fold. First, he is the messianic bridegroom in whom God’s Kingdom has come, and fasting in the presence of the groom is inappropriate. Second, in Jesus, God has begun something new, and this new work of God is incompatible with the old way of doing things. To cling to outdated methods would make no sense now that Jesus has come. So this parable is about the incompatibility of the old wineskins (Pharisaism, the law, etc.) with the new wine (Jesus and his church).

To apply this parable to the need for change in the church today would require new wine. But where is the new wine? The point of the parable remains the same today; because of what God has done through Jesus, we relate to God in a new way (through the church, or being in Christ, etc.). The old way of doing things (the temple, sacrifice, the law, etc.) is now inappropriate. Jesus’ parable isn’t about changing to keep up with the times, or changing to make things fresh and new, or changing for the sake of change. The parable is about the change that God brought through Jesus.

But surely the parable still works by analogy. Even if it’s not explicitly what Jesus meant, we still need new wineskins or new methods in our churches today. The parable, however, seems to lead us to the opposite conclusion. Since we have no newer wine than Jesus, we should keep the same wineskins we have been using. In other words, since God is still working through Jesus today just like he was years ago, we should not change, but we should keep the same wine in the same wineskins. All this shows that the parable is not about change in the church; it is about the change in the world that came through Jesus.

Do I think change in the church is bad? No. In fact I think many churches are in desperate need of change. For many churches, the way they have been operating is simply no longer working. And if some churches fail to acknowledge their shortcomings and address their problems, they will die. I just don’t think that’s what Jesus was trying to say in the parable of the new wine and the new wineskins.

 

Why I’m a Foster Parent (Part 2)

Those of you who know me know that my younger sister is adopted. I grew up in South Korea as the child of missionaries, and while we were in Korea our family adopted a 2-year-old Korean girl we named Amanda. (I wanted to name her Amy, but that’s another story.) I don’t remember when my younger brother was born, so I have no memories of anyone coming into our family any way other than through adoption. So it did not seem odd to me, as far as I can remember, that someone who one day had no place in our family would magically become a part of our family the very next day.

I don’t remember a day when I felt like Amanda was any less my sister than my two biological siblings. Our differences in appearance have led to some awkward encounters (like when we’ve been shopping together and people thought we were dating), but appearance often has little to do with family anyway. Adoption is a beautiful image of salvation (Gal 4:5), and I have had the opportunity to see first hand the power of a family transformed through adoption. Now adoption does not always mean that things are easy, but family isn’t always easy no matter how the family is formed.

I’ve learned from my sister that family is not always about genes. Much like the biblical concept of the family of God, which stretches beyond race and biology, families do not have to be confined to our biological relatives or even to people of the same race.  In fact, what better way to show what the family of God is all about than to invite people in to be a part of our family, even if only for a time.

 

Is inviting people to church our evangelism strategy?

We have hundreds of evangelism strategies and plenty of outlines for sharing the gospel, but I am afraid our main evangelism tool has become inviting people to church (and by “church” we usually mean a Sunday morning worship service). The logic seems to be that if we could just get them in the doors of the “church” (forgetting that the church is not a building), then they could hear the gospel message. Tony Morgan in his book Killing Cockroaches shared a story about Ted. Tony felt that if Ted would just come to a worship service “he’d love the experience.” Tony wanted Ted to come to church because Tony “would really love for him to hear about how Jesus could transform his life” (102).

I don’t know Tony Morgan, and I’m sure he is often bold in his witness, but my first response to his statement was “why don’t you just tell him.” I think that, consciously or not, many of us have confused evangelism with inviting people to church. Sunday morning has become our open door to the church. Perhaps this happened for practical reasons; we have more visitors on Sunday morning than any other time. Perhaps it happened for convenience’s sake; it’s less threatening to invite people to church than to share the gospel with them. Whatever the cause, I see three problems with this approach.

It stretches our resources

• We have poured millions upon millions of dollars into our church buildings and our worship centers. We have to have the latest in audio-visual, flat screens all around the building to catch people’s eye, and the building has to maintain a certain standard. After all, if the building doesn’t wow them, then people won’t come back (well at least not people with money or status). Whenever we use Sunday morning as our main outreach, we run the risk of moving our efforts away from life-transforming, God-honoring worship toward doing whatever it takes to keep people in the seats.

It’s not working

• Tony also relayed a quote from George Barna, “Our research shows that transformation does not occur in the church” (152). Leaving aside yet another misuse of the word “church” (because I think the New Testament writers would argue that transformation always happens in the context of the church as a community of faith), if transformation occurs in the context of Christian community, this transformation will often happen outside the confines of our buildings or worship centers.

It’s not biblical

• I just don’t see the biblical mandate to go ye therefore and invite people to church. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t invite people to church, but I am suggesting that this should not be our primary method of evangelism. Should our worship services communicate truth in relevant and meaningful ways? Sure. But a relevant and meaningful (or entertaining or even gospel centered) worship service does not excuse us from the mandate to personally share the good news with others.