Leaving It Better

Joe Ball at Despising None is urging Baptists to take a long look at how we act. I think this one is worth your time (it won’t take much).

HT: Art Rogers

 

Just a bit of Shameless self-promotion

[Here's a re-post from my other blog, just to make sure I hit all the readers out there]

I just received word from Lulu.com that my sermon collection, So, This Is Church, has been selected for listing in their new Amazon Marketplace program. What this means is that I’ll get a little more exposure for that particular title, and perhaps more sales.

For the uninformed, So, This Is Church is a collection of sermons dealing with foundational issues of the local church and her practices. Chapters deal with the Foundation of the Church itself (Christ and His gospel), worship, evangelism, fellowship, and the like. Interested? Hop on over to Amazon.com and take a gander.

Issues with the program include a price hike to accommodate Amazon’s cut and still ensure Lulu gets theirs and they can still produce the book with a tad leftover for me (the author/publisher). If you want the best price on the book, purchase it at my Lulu.com store. And have a great day.

 

Rant About Ethics

Pre-apology: Today’s post is pure rant–so, I apologize before I begin. Even so, I hope to achieve several objectives with this post:

1. Get it off my chest (once in awhile you just need to vent)
2. Introduce a series that will be actually more pertinent to this venue (so stay tuned)
3. Spark a conversation about the ethical behavior that is prevalent in our culture today.

And now, without further ado, LET THE RANTING BEGIN

 

In recent days, I have become more and more disgruntled with the common practice in the workplace–namely the advertising of a job, interviewing of hopefuls, then disposing of those hopefuls as if they are little more than yesterday’s refuse. The problem is that there never really was a position to begin with; yes, the position was there, but the person to fill the position had been chosen.

Part of the problem is the legal issue involved. In order for an employer to maintain “equal opportunity employment” status, they must advertise the job opening as if it is open. If said employer advertises an opening, they must then interview possible employees in order to give the appearance of actually considering people for the job.

Here’s the part I take issue with: the employer has already decided to offer the job to a particular party, but they go through the motions of interview, just for appearance’s sake. Then following the interview process all but the already chosen person receive a letter or phone call, “Thanks for your interest, but we’ve decided to go a different way.”

Granted, this description does not apply to ALL interviewers, but I see it happening more and more. My question then is this: If you have already decided on a candidate, is it really “fair practice” to interview others at all?

If I were on the prowl for a job (especially in this day when people are honestly looking for honest work), then found out that a position that I applied for and was interviewed for, had been awarded (in actuality) a week before my scheduled interview, I would be truly and utterly miffed. 

One person suggested to me, as I was waxing eloquent about this very subject, that interviewing well was good practice anyway. Perhaps when another position was available, you will be the first on the list of those considered. I, however, would like to know ahead of time if I really have a chance with the position or not. I would like to think that when the prospective employer called me for an interview, I really was being considered. My hypothetical self thinks that when I am called to set up an interview I would ask, “Is this a real interview? or are you just putting up the appearance of interviewing even though I won’t even remotely be considered because you’ve already awarded the job?” In other words, are you just wasting my time sending me on the emotional roller coaster of I think I did really well on this interview, I think I got the job, sorry but we went another direction (before we interviewed you) but thanks for playing our game. Of course, if I asked such a question I would destroy all possibility of a real position that might be out there.

I’m not referring to the common practice of cattle-call type interviewing where prospects are narrowed down through the process of interview and one finally is awarded the position. What I’m talking about is the growing practice of deciding on a person to fill the position, then going through the interview process knowing full well that you have already awarded the position and all other candidates are really not candidates at all. There is just something dishonest at the base of this practice.

Is it just me, or have we become increasingly dishonest in the way we approach one another?

 

Christian Content at a Glance

Tony Kummer has developed another great idea. He’s the brain-power behind sites like SBC Voices and Devotional Christian. He has now birthed another brain-child called My Christian Blogs. It seems to be another clearinghouse site to feed the need for Christian thought. You’ll find feed from a variety of Christian bloggers such as Tim Challies and Al Mohler, as well as Internet Monk.

Why am I telling you all this? For two reasons: (1) It’s just nice to have another place to find “one stop shopping” when you’re looking for all that’s going on in the world of C’hristian thought. (2) I’m hoping to re-charge my blogging batteries and be a bit more disciplined about posting here. I need to think more, journal more, and converse more with those who can teach me. So check out My Christian Blogs; official “launch” details this summer.

 

Christian Devotions @ Devotional Christian

Tony Kummer has started yet another informational site in the blogosphere. The new one is devoted to devotions. He links everything from “My Utmost for His Highest” and “Our Daily Bread” to video clips from Billy Graham and others. Check it out at Devotional Christian.

 

More Words on the Younger Generation

Lost and Found – Ed Stetzer, Richie Stanley, & Jason Hayes

©2009 B&H, Nashville

As much as I hate reading statistics and as hard as it is for me to search through research, I have been looking forward to this report/book for several months. Ed Stetzer and the guys over at LifeWay Research have been working on this compilation for a few years. The result is more examination of how to reach the younger generations. Lost and Found walks pretty much hand in hand with books like Simple Church (B&H, 2006), Essential Church (B&H, 2008), and UnChristian (Baker, 2007).

Divided into three parts, the authors use their research to introduce us to (1)what the younger generation looks like [younger generation is defined as the twenty-something crowd of which many have been identified as unchurched or even de-churched], (2)the mainstays (four pillars) of what it takes to reach this generation, and finally (3)a survey of the commonalities among the churches that are in fact reaching this generation.

Part I is filled with charts and graphs and tables and statistician-speak that is always difficult to muddle through for readers like me. However, this is the necessary groundwork from which the observations and suggestions throughout the book are drawn.

Part II is more interpretive and is built on the part of the research where all the responses to questionnaires are piled up in stacks of post-it note madness, reducing said responses to categories represented by a few key images (the graphics for these post-it mountains/key image categorizations is cool). The four areas discovered during the interview process that are important to younger adults (both within and outside of the church) as identified by the research team were Community, Depth (and content), Responsibility, and (Cross-Generational) Connection.

An interesting inclusion in the book is the on-going story of four representative twenty-somethings. The reader will find the fictional representation of how this research is lived out every day at the end of each chapter in parts I and II. I liked this part of the book because the fictional representatives of five different kinds of young adults helped to put some flesh on what goes on in the minds of those who participated in the research. The only glimpse of the characters outside of the first two parts of the book is the challenging conclusion that is in the (what else) conclusion.

Part III focuses on the churches that are getting it right as far as the younger adult generation is concerned. Mountains of interviews and reading are reflected in this section that identifies nine common traits found in those churches that are actually reaching this younger set of adults (creating deeper community, making a difference through service, experiencing worship, conversing the content, leveraging technology, building cross-generational relationships, moving toward authenticity, leading by transparency, and leading by team).

There are several bits of useful information in the book and some helpful hints as to how to build (or re-organize) your ministry to reach a generation that is quickly turning away from the church. One of the better moments is found about halfway through the book as the authors talk about the importance of building community. They suggest that churches should move from a behave/believe/belong model (which currently characterizes a majority of churches in America) to a belong/believe/become model. The former expects unchurched people to behave in the right manner before we even allow them in the doors of our space, then we teach them how to believe and finally we are free to invite them to belong to our number. The latter model suggests that we welcome people in (as they are) to then learn what we believe and then become with us as we learn to be more like Christ. (see pages 83 & 84).

I would recommend this book to anyone who is still trying to get a handle on the new generation. Those who are already getting it won’t benefit too much from this book except to validate what they are already doing.

I give Lost and Found 4 out of 5 reading glasses.

—Benjamin Potter, March 12, 2009

 

Faith Out Loud

You’ve seen the news already. Sunday, tragedy struck in the form of a mad gunman. A church was devastated, a family ripped asunder, and still God can be glorified. In the midst of the ocean of prayers lifted up in behalf of First Baptist Church of Maryville (just down the road from us) and the family of Fred Winters, I raised the question “What do you say when there’s nothing to say?”

Today I want to pose an even more pertinent question: What do you do in light of faith?

Fred Winters (others would be much more qualified to eulogize him than I) was a man of great faith. He lived his life as the pastor of a church, the husband of a wife, and the father of two girls, in such a way that his faith was evident. Without having known him personally, I stand back and see the fruit of his life knowing that he walked with Jesus. So, how do you honor his memory? How can you let your faith be evident?

This morning I heard at least part of an answer. FBC Maryville was slated to host one of the concerts involved with the “Opening Act” contest sponsored by our local/regional Christian Radio Station. It seems that WIBI and the church have been in dialogue as to what to do about the upcoming concert (scheduled for this Friday night).

At latest word, it seems that the church membership has decided that carrying on for the Kingdom is the best way to honor their fallen pastor. The current plan is to treat this worship-filled service as a tribute to Christ in honor of Fred Winters. This I applaud. Dr. Winters would not want to stand in the way of advancing the Kingdom of God–in life or in death.

As we continue to pray for the church and for the family, let us keep on spreading the Word.

 

COFFEEHOUSE THEOLOGY – Ed Cyzewski

©2008 NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO

Theology. Here’s a word that scares most Americans, even those who are generally a part of an established church. After all, we believe that only the clergy and the deep thinkers are truly theologians. But break the word down to its bits and what do you have? The study of God. Who is it that studies God? Simplistically, I would answer everyone. Even those who make it a point to point out that they believe that there is no God have spent time studying to decide that they do not believe in God.

Those of us who have been to institutes of higher learning with the express purpose of studying God have become theological snobs of a sort with the end goal of convincing others that our ideas about God are the right ideas about God, and theirs are not unless they agree with ours. Ed Cyzewski has taken a few pages to try to break through these barriers—both the fear of addressing theology, and the prejudicial version that most people like me practice—and find the relevance of theology in the everyday life of a postmodern world.

Before dismissing the book altogether because Cyzewski gives a level of legitimacy to postmodernism (which would turn hundreds of conservative evangelicals off before breaking open the book at all), set aside your semantic prejudices and take a moment to do what the author suggests: reflect on God.

Cyzewski addresses how postmodern thinkers think about God because, he argues, we are living in a postmodern world. We have moved beyond the modern age which taught us to try to find the definitive answer to all questions by using logic and the scientific method and into the postmodern era (dated at 1970 and beyond) which suggests that you must attack any question from a variety of angles. The ultimate in postmodern thought leads us to the sad conclusion that there is no real truth. The Christian response keeps the ultimate truth of Salvation through Christ in focus while remembering that we as humans cannot assuredly claim to understand all that there is to know about Christ.

In addressing the tricky task of theology, the author suggests that we all approach our own theology within the context where we live—so Americans see God through the eyes of the American culture, Latin Americans see Him through the eyes of their culture, and so on. In order to accomplish our task of knowing God better and making Him known to the world in which we live, we must first understand our own culture. Then we can at least begin to see the strong points and shortfallings brought to the table in our culture.

According to Cyzewski we must consult three theological perspectives in order to arrive at the answers to theological questions that crop up in everyday life. The place to begin as we reflect on God is the Scripture. This is the foundation and the best witness to who God is and how He works in the world. Any other sources that we use to build our theology should be measured by Scripture. Again we should remember that we read the Bible through glasses that are tinted by our culture and should strive to overcome the limitations that our personal preferences build in to the conversation that we have with the Bible as we read.

The other “experts” that we should include as we approach theology are church tradition and the global community of Christians. Church tradition can guide us by keeping us on a stable path, as long as the tradition is not a contradiction to the Bible itself. Consulting with Christian thinkers from other parts of the world from our own will open our eyes to perspectives that we cannot see through our cultural biases.

Coffeehouse Theology at times gets a little heavy as you read, especially in the passages dealing with history and philosophy that brought us to the postmodern age in which we live. Even so, it is a readable volume that basically suggests that in order to be the best theologian (reflector on God) we can be we should expand our horizons and let our theology grow. I would have to agree with that assessment and give this book four out of five reading glasses. Pick up a copy today and discuss it over a cup at your local coffeehouse.

—Benjamin Potter, February 19, 2009

 

Heaven? (Getting on the Same Page, part 3)

One of the greatest obstacles to overcome when addressing the American culture is the approach that the evangelical church has to amassing her converts. We think that everyone wants the same thing that we want. But perhaps they don’t. Mark Twain picked up on this discrepancy between what the witness wants and what the target wants and recorded it in his boys’ novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Miss Watson would say, “Don’t put your feet up there, Huckleberry;” and “Don’t scrunch up like that, Huckleberry -­ set up straight;” and pretty soon she would say, “Don’t gap and stretch like that, Huckleberry -­ why don’t you try to behave?” Then she told me all about the bad place, and I said I wished I was there. She got mad then, but I didn’t mean no harm. All I wanted was to go somewheres; all I wanted was a change, I warn’t particular. She said it was wicked to say what I said; said she wouldn’t say it for the whole world; she was going to live so as to go to the good place. Well, I couldn’t see no advantage in going where she was going, so I made up my mind I wouldn’t try for it. But I never said so, because it would only make trouble, and wouldn’t do no good.

Now she had got a start, and she went on and told me all about the good place. She said all a body would have to do there was to go around all day long with a harp and sing, forever and ever. So I didn’t think much of it. But I never said so. I asked her if she reckoned Tom Sawyer would go there, and she said not by a considerable sight. I was glad about that, because I wanted him and me to be together.

It seems that Huck didn’t have a full understanding of the concepts of Heaven and Hell, but neither did Miss Watson have a cultural understanding of her pupil. Sadly, we seem to miss the point of culture still today. Just to assume that someone wants to go to Heaven when they die is a misconception. Some people are positive that there is no Heaven and there is no Hell.

If my premise is that salvation is all about getting to Heaven, then my premise is flawed as well. Look at much of the music popular in the church today—you know, that Southern Gospel variety. Here we find songs like “Carried Away” which says, “I’m gonna let the glory roll when the roll is called in Glory,” and “Heavenbound” to name a couple. We probe our friends’ readiness to accept the message of Jesus by asking, “If you were to die tonight and stand before God in heaven, and He asked you, ‘why should I let you into my heaven?’ what do you think you would say?” Our entire focus is on heaven.

I recall a youth minister who was fond of saying (because we as Baptists immerse baptism candidates), “If heaven is all there is to salvation, then the preacher should hold you under when he baptizes you.” The point he wanted to make: there must be more than just an end game involved here.

When I think about all of these things, I come to the conclusion that not only is heaven (or a trip there) not the basic point of salvation but neither should we make it so. Heaven, as wonderful as it is or will be, when seen as the point of salvation is the selfish side of salvation, if any side at all. It becomes the carrot with which we tantalize those who are not of us.

The point of salvation, as I understand it is to draw me into a relationship with the Creator, and so that I can give Him all of who I am—including the glory for who He is. In determining that, I should begin to build relationships with people where they are so that I can glorify God in their presence. In so doing, perhaps they will become a part of Christ’s kingdom for the express purpose of building a relationship with the Creator and giving themselves to Him in the process.

That said, I must then begin to develop relationships outside the church that invite rather than alienate. To do that, I must know the culture outside my own church culture and live my life accordingly.

 

Crossing Cultures – Getting on the Same Page, 2

As a new missionary with the International Mission Board, I spent several weeks training at the center they have for that purpose outside of Richmond, VA. The curriculum and living experience is to provide a bridging step from everyday, normal existence in the life that the new missionary knows and prepare them for what is ahead. Much of what is taught in the coursework portion of the orientation deals with a crazy animal called Culture Shock—that demon that rears its ugly head when a person moves from a familiar surrounding to an entirely different cultural atmosphere. The concern is that those preparing for service in an unusual culture will be crippled by the overwhelming nature of immersion into a new culture. Even with all the emphasis, some still despair and return to life at ease in their home country, home state, home county, home town, home.

With all the emphasis on living in a new culture, one discovers that language is integrally related to a person’s culture. We say what we say because of what it means to say what we say. We use the words we use to mean a specific thing. When crossing cultures, one must discover the right way to say what they are intending to say. Otherwise we find that we are not saying anything near what we thought we were saying. Here are several examples I encountered while serving in a Russian-speaking setting:

1. The story is told of the American preacher on a two-week trip preaching in several places. At one church he and his translator were going well until the American used a Baseball illustration. After a moment or two, the preacher realized that his translator had stopped translating and was starring at his guest. When the preacher looked inquisitively at his translator, the young man said, “Besbol, what is this besbol? We do not know this.”

2. Some of my friends commissioned to the Russian-speaking world warn new missionaries and possible volunteers to avoid talk about their passion for Jesus. The reason is that unless they have a very experienced translator working with them (and sometimes even when they do) their helper will translate that they have a “strong sexual desire” for Jesus. That’s what the only Russian word for passion means.

3. When translators first started working on getting the scripture translated into a certain dialect of one particular Turkish people group who live in the former Soviet Union, the workers began doing a word for word translation. Without properly testing the translation with native speakers, they went to press with a scripture portion complete with pictures. Searching for pictures revealed some beautiful artwork that could be used and depicted the Christ in their gospel portions. When the portion was printed and distributed, the target people would have nothing to do with it. First of all, because the language was not smooth or communicative to the people. But even more, the pictures used were Russian Orthodox icons and represented the “God of our oppressors.” Learning from these mistakes, new teams began working and rather than rushing to print, took sometimes up to two years to field test the language learning the best way to say what they were trying to say so that the message would be clear without cross-cultural baggage. Better yet, an artist from within the people group was commissioned to illustrate the stories, and many of the people not only read the first collection of scripture stories, but accepted the Christ about whom they were written.

My point with these examples is that we need to be aware of the culture in which we are sharing our faith. That is true whether we are crossing the street to a new culture, crossing the tracks to a new culture, crossing the country to a new culture, or crossing the globe to a new culture.

Today’s suggestion: learn two or three (or even four or five) different ways to say what you are trying to say when you are speaking of spiritual matters. Take the time to know your friend, and speak their language. This does not water down the gospel, but it makes it effective on all the levels it is meant to be effective. After all, the message of Christ is one that is for any and all who will hear—not just those who speak my language.

(more to come)