This may be one of those articles that I look back on 10 years (or 10 days) from now and regret.  I think I may be flirting with the idea of tipping over a sacred cow of modern evangelicalism.  I’ll show you my cards up front…I’m not sure a personal testimony is really as important as we make it out to be. 

With every church interview I have ever been a part of this question is inevitable…”would you please share your testimony”.  Granted, it’s a good question.  You want to know that the person you are considering for membership, leadership, or whatever is actually a believer.  The motivation behind the question is a good one.  However, I do not think it is the right question. 

Have you read anything in the New Testament where a person was asked to share their testimony? 

I will grant the fact that Paul shares his story of coming to Christ.  So does John in 1 John 1.  In fact there are many places in Scripture that are personal stories of the work of God in the life of a believer.  My point is not to say that personal stories or “testimonies” are not valuable.  They are immensely valuable.  My point is that personal testimonies are not an accurate criteria for judging a person’s salvation nor is it definitive in proclaiming the truthfulness of the claims of Christ. 

A personal testimony really is not an accurate barometer as to a person’s relationship with Christ.  Consider the early Gnostics.  They had amazing testimonies.  Think about the Colossian heresy.  They went on and on about the visions and experiences with God that they had.  Surely, you have known people with phenomenal “testimonies” that later forsook the gospel and rejected Christ.  Despite what some evangelism material will tell you a personal testimony (by itself) has no authority.  You can be an unbeliever and have a great story to tell of how you came to a Jesus of your own making.

And honestly, not having a clear testimony is not really all that accurate in telling that a person is not a believer.  Ask Jonathan Edwards of his personal testimony and he’d probably stutter to tell you.  John Bunyan would probably give you several dates.  Do you think Peter would give you the day when he was called by the lake, was it when he professed Christ, or was it at some other point on his journey with Jesus?  There are many people that do not have a S.P.O.T. (Specific Time or Place) that strongly profess Christ. 

I have a challenge for you Bible/church history buffs.  Find me times in Scripture or in the first 300 years of Christianity when someone’s story of coming to Jesus was a determining factor in admitting them into membership or participating in the Lord’s Supper?  I am not saying that you will not find anything.  I am simply saying it will not be a pervasive theme like it is in our day where subjective experience reigns over objective truth.  What you see in the New Testament and the early church is a profession of belief in the claims of Jesus Christ…not a story. 

There is one last sacred cow—maybe THE sacred cow—that needs to teeter.  Your testimony is not really all that definitive in sharing the gospel.  Oprah has a testimony.  Heretical “Christian” groups have testimonies.  A Muslim would have a testimony.  This will sound like heresy…Jesus is not the only thing that can change your life.  A homeless man that inherits a million dollars will have his life changed.  An alcoholic that stops drinking will have his life changed.  A woman whose family leaves her will have a significant life change.  Many things can change your life. 

Your testimony does not prove the truthfulness of the claims of Christ.  Yes, it is true that nobody can argue with your personal testimony.  That’s the problem.  You can’t argue with it because it is subjective.  The claims of Christ are objective truths.  This type of witnessing just leaves the door wide open for the, “well that’s good for you…but as for me…I believe”.  People need to be confronted with the claims of Jesus—not your story. 

In summary, I am not against personal testimonies.  I just think they are not nearly as important as we make them out to be.  They are not all that helpful in witnessing and they aren’t the final answer in determining salvation.  Feel free to disagree and argue your case.  I’m willing to listen.  If you agree with me I have a question for you.  What are testimonies useful for?

After a brief hiatus we will return to our discussion on The Deliberate Church. As always If you are just joining the discussion (that as of yet has not been much of a discussion) then please check out the foreword, intro, and chapter one. You can catch up pretty easily. If you have yet to buy the book I would suggest buying it for a paltry 9 bucks, here.

Quick Summary

This chapter is one that holds a very passionate place in my heart. I have had to counsel a decent amount of teenagers that are confused because of irresponsible evangelism. I have been to conferences, children’s ministry events, motorcycle evangelism shows, etc. where a good number of students “accepted Christ” but had absolutely no clue what that meant nor had a passion to follow the biblical Christ. I have seen from experience the importance of heeding what Dever is saying in this chapter.

On the positive side of things, Dever encourages two over-arching principles: Be God-centered and be certain to include the essentials. What are the essentials? Dever makes it easy for us God—man—Christ—response. For a very great extended discussion on this check out Dever’s book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism.

In this chapter Dever also talks a couple examples of irresponsible evangelism: extending invitations (at least in an irresponsible way), entertainment-centered evangelism, manipulation. This first one is probably the most controversial in Southern Baptist circles. It is important to understand that Dever is not saying that it is irresponsible to, “invite people to repent and believe the Gospel” (52).

What Dever is cautioning against is the “no evidence required” assurance. Allow me to give you an example of this from my own personal ministry. A few years back our church had previously committed to be a part of this motorcycle (X-games type) evangelism event. They had drama, music, and a cool motorcycle guy that did tricks that shared his testimony. At the very end of the event the speaker did one of those bow your head and close your eyes moments. He had people come forward, he prayed for them, assured them, and invited them to speak to a counselor.

After the event I found out that our youth group had somewhere around 20 “decisions for Christ”. I began the process of counseling these youngsters that were, keep in mind, assured of their salvation by this speaker and probably a fair amount of counselors that had prayed with them. As I began talking to these teens it was apparent that the only thing that really had happened was emotional manipulation and shoddy evangelism. Only one of these students actually had a helpful experience with Jesus. The others were assured of salvation and yet wanted little to nothing to do with Jesus or other believers.

This is what Dever is talking about: Draw a crowd with entertainment--sneak the gospel in the back door, have some heart tugging music, the preacher using his voice in a mellow way, etc. to manipulate people into decisions and then assuring them after those decisions are made that they are absolutely saved. That is not responsible evangelism, and our 16 million with only around 40% in attendance SBC is sadly a testimony to the effects of such evangelism.

The evangelism that we are to be engaged in is the whole church presenting the whole gospel to the whole person. Another great resource for this is Will Metzger’s excellent book Tell the Truth.

Quotables:

“If we’re not getting the evangel (gospel) right according to the Word, then whatever we are doing, it can’t be called evangelism.” (51)

“The only external evidence that the Bible tells us to use in discerning whether or not a person is converted is the fruit of obedience.” (53)

“The Gospel is inherently and irreducibly confrontational. It cuts against our perceived righteousness and self-sufficiency, demanding that we forsake cherished sin and trust in someone else to justify us.” (55)

“Churches are most healthy when the gospel is most clear; and the gospel is most clear when our evangelistic methods are most plain.” (55)

Questions:

• Dever mentions things that we confuse as saving responses with the only thing that is a saving response (repentance and faith). What are some of these things that we confuse with a saving response?
• When speaking of a “public profession of faith” Dever seems to be saying that baptism and not altar calls are to serve as that. What do you think?
• Have you been guilty of or had any experiences with irresponsible evangelism?
• These are Dever’s questions: Are there elements in your churches evangelism that are more entertainment than informative? Are there ways in which your churches evangelism strategy is more like a marketing strategy? Could your churches evangelism method be perceived as emotionally manipulative? If yes to any of these, how might you pursue change?

Last time we discussed the three different types of cultural engagement.  This time we will look at the stick-shaker.  Remember last time we defined the stick-shaker as the one who looks at the problems of the world shakes a stick at them, rebukes them, rallies the troops to pick up their sticks, and hopes that by enough stick-shaking the problems will go away.  Today we will consider what the stick-shaker gets right and where I believe the stick-shaker turns from the Bible. 

The stick-shaker is correct that worldliness is a major problem.  When the world infiltrates the church you have major problems (see Corinth).  We are told by the apostle John not to “love the world or the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 

There is also an element of engagement that the stick-shaker does get right.  In Ephesians 5:11 we are told to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead to expose them.”  Sometimes the way that we are to engage is by loving rebuke.  So there are some things that stick-shakers get right and there are areas where we are indebted to their faithfulness to the holiness of the gospel.  But there are also serious problems with a stick-shakers view of engagement.

The fundamental error of the stick-shaker can be seen in a quote by JC Ryle’s book Holiness.  By no means am I accusing JC Ryle of being a stick-shaker.  These words, I think, meant something different in his day.  However, this quote will serve to show the underlying mindset of the stick-shaker:

[There] are [those] who are always trying to keep in with the world.  They are ingenious in discovering reasons for not separating decidedly, and in framing plausible excuses for attending questionable amusements, and keeping up questionable friendships.  One day you are told of their attending a Bible reading; the next day perhaps you hear of their going to a ball.  One day they fast, or go to the Lords’ table and receive the sacrament; another day they go to the racecourse in the morning, and the opera at night.  One day they are almost in hysterics under a sermon of some sensational preacher; another day they are weeping over some novel.  They are constantly laboring to persuade themselves that to mix a little with worldly people on their own ground does good.  Yet in their case it is very clear they do not good, and only get harm.

The problem with what Ryle is saying is that there is nothing innately wrong with a ball, watching horses go around a track, opera, or weeping at a novel.  Can these things become worldly and sinful?  You bet.  But can you enjoy an opera, read a novel, watch race horses, or enjoy a ball and it not be sinful?  Can Jesus go to a wedding party?  Where Ryle errs on this point is that he creates a needless dichotomy between sacred and secular. 

This needless dichotomy is the fundamental error with stick shakers.   And because of this they will defend their position with a great amount of vigor; after all, they are defending the sacred against the secular—God against the world.  The problem, though, is that the “world” that John is referring to is not the opera or great works of fiction.  The “world” that John is referring to is the God-hating mindset of secular man.  As D.A. Carson points out for John the world, “is not the universe, but the created order (especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker.”

Furthermore, you do not see this type of cultural engagement with Jesus.  His sharp rebukes were often reserved for the religious elite.  Prostitutes, tax collectors, and society’s outcast often were given grace.  The problem with the stick-shaker is that they  create an “us v. them” mentality and often they feel more holy because they are not like the world.  I like what Paul Tripp says, “Whenever you believe that the evil outside of you is greater than the evil inside you, a heartfelt pursuit of Christ will be replaced by a zealous fighting of the “evil” around you.” 

If you are a stick-shaker that refuses to get your hands dirty and really incarnate the love of Jesus into other people’s lives then you need to come to grips with the sin in your own heart.  The reason for you disengagement is probably a combination of fear and pride.  So, realize that your greatest enemy is not the person across the street that is in love with world; your greatest enemy is indwelling sin.  Realize that the only hope that you have is the same hope that your neighbor has—the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Rather than engaging your neighbor with picket signs engage him with the love of the gospel.

To be continued…

“You might be the only Jesus that some people ever see”. Undoubtedly, you have heard that phrase. It is supposed to motivate us to holiness—especially around unbelievers. And it’s a decent statement. But, have you ever totally blown it around an unbeliever? If you are the only Jesus they will ever see then their view of Him is going to be pretty shallow. Perhaps, you said something stupid. Maybe it was something that you did that Jesus would probably not have done. Is your witness totally blown at this point?

It is my opinion that evangelicals have bought into the myth that a follower of Jesus has to be perfectly like Jesus in order to be an effective witness. This is not to say that holiness is not important. This is not to deny that we are to adorn the gospel with our lives. But if the gospel requires perfect examples of Jesus then nobody is going to come to embrace the God of the gospel.

One of the consequences of this myth is that discouraged believers struggle with personal evangelism. Because they are very aware of their sinfulness and because they assume they will “blow it” by their lives they are timid in sharing the gospel. I understand that often this is an excuse for not engaging unbelievers, but nonetheless, such a fear is present. Alongside this are believers that shamefully stop engaging an unbeliever with the gospel once you’ve “blown it”.

Perhaps the biggest consequence is that in order to be perfect examples of Jesus we fake it. We are often surface and inauthentic as we engage unbelievers. We do this because to really be authentic would be to show our brokenness. And because the gospel that is often shared is “Jesus will fix your life” we make a really poor example of an “abundant life”. So we fake it; and that is perhaps the most ineffective witness that we can have.

Here is the point: the most effective witness might be to believe the gospel enough to ask for forgiveness. If you blow it then perhaps the best way you can proclaim Jesus is by modeling repentance and believing in the power of Jesus enough to be authentic. So, if you blow your witness (and you will) then show Jesus by being humble enough to admit that you are wrong, don’t stop modeling the gospel.

Because there is still at least one sinner yet to become a sheep and because God has decided to remain in a position of mercy for the time being.

While God is still showing mercy...perhaps I should.
While God is still withholding wrath...perhaps I should.
While God is still calling sinners to repent...perhaps I should.
While God is still radically, lovingly, doggedly, pursuing sinners...perhaps I should.

seWhat you do to hook them is what you will have to do to keep them. Windsor Hills Baptist Church in Oklahoma has made the news by giving away an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to encourage young people to attend their youth conference. The goal is for "teens to find faith".

My main disagreement with this is not necessarily giving a teenager a gun. That could be done responsibly--many of our teenagers are responsible hunters. My main problem with this is that it rejects the sufficiency of Christ and his Word to bring about "teens finding faith". Apparently God's Word is no longer sufficiently the power of God unto salvation but it now requires giving away semi-automatic rifles.

Remember this; what you do to hook them is what you will have to do to keep them. You cannot slide the gospel in the backdoor--unless you intend to ALWAYS slip the gospel in the back door. Here is a suggestion: believe God enough to draw people to himself--yes even crazy lost teenagers.

I also should mention that my "problem" is not with the people at Windsor Hills Baptist Church, their staff, their people, nor anything of that sort. I wholeheartedly affirm their passion to bring about "teens finding faith". My "problem" is with the theology and dangerous philosophy of ministry that brings about such events. It is unnecessary and actually hinders the glorious gospel, and I hope that they turn from this and find more confidence in the gospel. I say this with much humility.

I think I have discovered one of the most effective motivation tools for evangelism. It also seems to be the way that Jesus did it. Tell people to "tell no one" and they will not be able to shut their mouth. Isn't it ironic that in Mark he continously tells people to "tell no one" about what He has done and they cannot seem to keep silent. But, Jesus has done something even greater with us by giving us new life and we cannot muster the courage to tell anyone.

What a sharp rebuke this is to my paltry evangelism:

"But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it." (Mark 7:36)

Nathan White tells a very heart-felt story about his confrontation with a beggar and then asks a very intriguing question.

I am very intrigued by the series that Phil Johnson is beginning on contextualization. This is a very interesting discussion that is going on in the church. It seems to be one of those things that keep coming up in my life. To be honest, I'm leaning towards what Phil is saying here. Read his introduction here.

This one is for bloggers; Timmy Brister provides live-blogging tips.

The John 3:16 Conference continues to cause a stir. Oh, we who adhere to the doctrines of grace ought to brace ourselves for the bunk that is about to come our way. Dr. Galyon has pointed us in the direction of Jerry Choice Grace. All I can say after reading Grace's article, is "wow"...I am out of my "caged"-Calvinist phase. It's okay with me if you aren't Reformed minded. I understand, I was not at one point as well. But, to totally misrepresent and be so vitriolic is neither fitting to a Calvinist or an Arminian. Read Dr. Galyon's article and tell me what you think.

A few weeks ago I mentioned that Tim Keller spoke at the Google HQ. If you get a free hour watch this:
(HT: Buzzard)

Trevin Wax discusses the influence of Calvinism at Southern Seminary (SBTS). I particularly like this paragraph: "Perhaps there are some who fit the category of “hyperactive” Calvinists - students who are still in the proverbial “cage-stage” of Calvinism and who are actively seeking to convert all other Christians to their doctrinal viewpoint. The problem with the hyperactive strain of Calvinism is not theology, but sin, particularly the sin of pride and arrogance. It is the same sin that lies at the root of Church Growth controversies, when a young pastor enthralled with Bill Hybels proceeds to divide a church by throwing out all hymns and organs. Immaturity and selfishness comes in all forms, not merely Calvinist."

As one that has unbelieving family members (most are "nominal" at best) this post by Chris Daukas is phenomenal: Jesus, Meet My Unbelieving Family Members

Marc Backes has an excellent point on leadership. He, like myself, spent years devouring books by leadership gurus. He has came to the same conclusion that I have: "Put the man made leadership laws down and get on your knees before Jesus and ask Him to break you and mold you. Man doesn't make a leader. Jesus breaks a leader."

I am so happy that Ligonier Ministries is now blogging. Check out their most recent interview with Sinclair Ferguson. (I really want to start reading Ferguson's stuff, any suggestions on where I should start?)

Can you really develop a sermon in 279 words? One pastor is going to apply the Gettysburg Principle. I actually think I am going to try this. If I can make a sermon this concise then I probably "get" the text. (HT: Abraham Piper)

I have a confession to make. I've never really read much of anything by Tim Keller. I know he's one of the elite. I know I should read his stuff. I just haven't. At least not much. Until tonight. I dedicated time to my first article by Keller. You can read it here. It discusses Evangelistic Worship. One of Keller's points is that we ought to make our worship service comprehensible to the unbeliever. Here are his seven sub-points on how we make the worship service comprehensible:

1. Worship and preaching ought to be in the "vernacular"
2. Explain the service as you go along
3. Directly address and welcome unbelievers
4. Have quality aesthetics
5. Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice
6. Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear
7. Preach grace

What do you think? Be certain to read the article, focus on page 4-10. Is it necessary to preach in the vernacular? Ought we change words like propitiation, to make them more "clear"? Are quality aesthetics necessary? Is this trying to be too smooth? Should the church toot her own horn, for unbelievers? Is this not letting our deeds be known before men? Are the sacraments for unbelievers, believers, or both? How will we edify the body if we "preach grace" every Sunday? Don't we need to move on from these elementary things?

I am pretty certain that I know what I believe on these issues. I am interested, though, to learn what you think? Is Keller on target? Should we even make the worship "comprehensible" for unbelievers? Isn't the service for the believer and God?

Brian Thornton has an intriguing quote. Who do you think said it?

This could be a watershed decision by an appeals court in California. The court has ruled that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children. I can not articulate a comment on this as effective as Dr. Mohler. I would simply say, "that is just dumb". Dr. Mohler is a little more articulate, read his take here.

Great story of witnessing and faithfulness to the gospel by Timmy Brister: The Cross Isn't Sexy.

Michael Spencer, the IMonk, has compiled a list of 10 Reasons He Doesn't Read Your Blog. It would very helpful to me if my readers would read this article, and e-mail me any suggestions in how I may improve this blog.

I failed to mention this last week. Abraham Piper has a new blog called 22 Words. It is very intriguing. And it takes about 15 seconds to read each post.

There is a very important discussion going on between Rick Love, John Piper, Justin Taylor and a few others. The eye of this hurricaine is found in Love's signing of A Common Word. He gives reasons why, Piper, Taylor, and others do not quite buy it. Here is Love's latest explanation. Here is Frank Turk's (of Team Pyro) response to Love.

Trevin Wax points us to a phenomenal Spurgeon quote admonishing pastors and people alike, to read.

This is a phenomenal post by Ray Ortlund. His central thesis is this: "In the heart of God, moral fervor is beautiful. In the heart of a sinner, moral fervor is complicated." He then offers a few diagnostics to monitor whether or not he is slipping into moral fervor. Wonderful post.

There is a Real Preachers of Genius video floating around. I thought this one was pretty funny (and sadly true) also:

Before I begin these thoughts I need to make 2 points of disclosure. 1) I reserve the right to be wrong. I do not propose to solve this problem, if it were so simple, that somebody like myself could solve it, then it probably would no longer be an issue. 2) I am certainly not Emergent, I do not agree with Driscoll/Acts 29 on everything, but I would not consider myself in opposition (at least to Driscoll/Acts 29). This is my humble offering to this discussion. Knowing that it can be a form of pride to take the "nobody is right in this issue" road, I timidly will take that position. Probably the most difficult thing in this discussion will be defining the issue. Usually by the time someone has nailed the proverbial jell-o to the wall, the discussion is already so confusing that the implications or application is thrown out the window. So for sake of clarity, knowing there are a gazillion other issues at stake, I will try to address only one major point: the idea of "making the gospel relevant".

Since I am not emerging/emergent I doubt I can give them a fair shake. In fact I only include them in this discussion because of their supposed association with the Driscoll/Acts 29 crowd. A true Emergent person would probably be speaking of something different by "gospel" anyway. Rather than asking, "how do we preach the gospel in such a way that someone comes to know Jesus", they are probably asking, "how do we live the gospel in such a way that someone lives a better life and has a better understanding and grows a soul-patch". I'm not concerned at this point with addressing the Emerging Church, it would be a distraction. But a distinction must be made. On issues of the gospel and soteriology ACTS 29 IS NOT EMERGING.

You will not understand this discussion until you come to that conclusion. There are some areas that Acts 29 will look like an Emerging Church. Their methodology sometimes will have the appearance of evil Emerging. But soteriologically speaking they are far from Emerging. You cannot brand them heretics. Doing so is irresponisble and just plain wrong.

On the other hand folks in the Acts 29/Driscoll crowd have the same foundational desire that Emerging Churches have; the desire to change the present structure and be relevant in their culture. The buzzword now is missional. You have to exegete your culture and figure out a way to make the gospel relevant. You do not sell out the message. But you have to make certain to speak the language of the culture. That is the mindset. Sometimes that gets a little shaky. What do you do if the culture you are ministering to eats monkey brains? Well, you eat monkey brains. What if the culture you are ministering to uses crass language? Well, you use crass language. Or do you? And here is the big discussion.

Those who oppose Acts 29/Driscoll say that you must not use crass language just to reach the culture. That is selling out the gospel. Methodoloy matters. If you are drinking a beer with an alcoholic, you are not doing him any favors. Total abstinence is the best way to share the gospel. The lost person, must see that your life is different. Then maybe at some point he'll ask questions. "Hey, buddy, why don't you drink"? Then you can share with him that it is because of your relationship with Jesus Christ, and that you have found happiness outside of a bottle. Maybe you were once a drinker. You can use this as a launching point to share your testimony. But the best way to share the gospel is not to become like the culture. That can lead to sin.

But wait, 1 John says that "greater is he that is in me". Wouldn't we all have been in a pretty precarious position if Jesus himself had not went to these sinful places? Doesn't Jesus say, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners?" If Jesus always stayed out of bars then why did they call him a drunkard and a glutton. And as far as offensive language is concerned have you read Ezekiel? Do you pick up on some of the language of Paul? Does he not also use, inspired by the Holy Spirit, scatalogical language? So, are we not just following the methods of Paul and Jesus? Because of Jesus and his power we are getting as close to sinners as possible. Our task is to be like Jesus and Paul, they did not run away from sinners and hope that they came to them. They went to sinners. They engaged the culture.

So who is right? Before I begin to answer that question I have to add something else to the mix. Reformed Theology. Acts 29/Driscoll claims to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll claim to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll are not Reformed and oppose him based upon this point, but missionally speaking they might agree. This is the way I see the discussion. Driscoll/Acts 29 says, we are Reformed and because of the awesome power of the gospel we believe that God calls us to engage the culture with it, whatever that means. Reformed guys that oppose Driscoll, we believe that God is powerful enough in His Word that you do not have to add to it with all of this "engaging the culture" mumbo jumbo. Just preach the Word, and God will bring the increase. The non-Reformed Driscoll opposer will either dislike his theology, or dislike his methodology. This camp believes that people are won over to Christ by what we do. If they agree with the Acts 29 methodology then they will probably change their seeker-sensitive churches into Acts 29 churches...or, hey theology doesn't matter much...so why not just be Emerging. Or maybe they disagree with the whole alcohol issue. Maybe the methodology does not square with them. Nobody will be won to Jesus by a drinker. Then you have opposition from this side.

So who is right? All sides believe we are to engage the culture--at least in as much as that means "win lost people to Jesus". Note that I asked, "who is right", not what wins the most people. This is not a pragmatic question. If we make it so, then we will side-track this. You cannot say look at all those people Driscoll and Acts 29 is reaching. That's not a good argument, because look at all those people Joel Osteen is reaching. To which we respond, reaching with what? They key issue is this...who is most faithful to the gospel, as presented in the Word of God?

1) The gospel must be clear. It is very true that God's Word has power in itself--it doesn't need my help to accomplish its purpose. But it seems that there is a need for a preacher. (Rom. 10:14) And it appears that there is a need to preach in the "native tongue". (See Acts 8:26-40) So, there is some credence to this idea of "making the gospel relevant". But

2) Making the gospel relevant, if it is to remain biblical, must mean NO MORE than preaching the gospel in the "native" language. It does not mean that you have to make the gospel appealing. Paul models this in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. It seems as if Paul labored to make the gospel unappealing. He did not want the Corinthians to be won over by his eloquence, but instead to be won-over by the message. But, Paul did labor to be like a Jew when he was with the Jews and like a Gentile when he was with the Gentiles. What does this mean? It means that Paul laobred to speak in their native tongue. He was not doing this to make the gospel appealing, he was doing this to keep from putting up stumbling blocks. He ate monkey brains, if his hearers ate monkey brains. But it is also important to note:

3) Speaking the native language does not necessarily mean engaging in native rituals and removing ALL stumbling blocks. Paul did not allow Titus to get circumcised. Nor did he sacrifice to pagan idols. You do not become a prostitute to minister to prostitutes. But this point is where we get into arguments. Is Mark Driscoll becoming a "prostitute" to minister to "prostitutes" when he uses coarse language to minister to those with "coarse language"? Do Acts 29 guys prostitute themselves when they have a beer to minister to those that drink? These are difficult questions and ones that must not be settled in a vacuum. Despite what some may believe this is not as black and white as it would appear. Therefore,

4) The Church and the church plays a critical role in taking the gospel to the nations; or to put that another way, you are not supposed to "make the gospel relevant" by yourself. That is why we must consider, and 99.4% of the time submit, to the authority of the consensus of the Church universal and, how this will be lived out most generally, to the local church. There are times that we need Martin Luther's. But, seriously, those are going to be really really rare. As long as the Church is being the Church then even if we have a few warts, we are genuinely the body of Jesus that he is caring for. She is worth submitting to for the sake of others. So what are the implications of this?

Let's take Driscoll's language for an example. Language can be a funny thing. What may not be offensive in Calcutta may be offensive in New Hampshire. And the reverse is also true. In Missouri I can walk side by side with my wife. But I better not do that in many Muslim countries. I realize that is not an example of language, but it serves my point well. There is nothing really innately offensive about words...only the meanings that they carry.

But lets consider this through our first four points. 1) To make the gospel clear, is it absolutely necessary for Driscoll to talk the way that he does? I do not know Seattle culture, but I am not certain that speaking the way that he occasionally does is necessary. 2) Is he doing it to make the gospel clear or appealing? It appears to me that his reasoning is to make the gospel "relevant", and by that I mean appealing. 3) Is he engaging in a sinful cultural ritual? This could be debatable. I would lean towards, yes; but lets try giving the benefit of the doubt and see what happens? Let's consider it a non-issue for the moment. 4) If you post a video on youtube it better be acceptable for not only Seattle but also the Bible belt. Why? Because you risk offending the body of Christ as well as creating a needless stumbling block for an unbeliever from a different culture. And I understand that we can easily do this unknowingly. But, you cannot tell me that Driscoll has no clue that what he says may offend somebody in New Hampshire.

Should it offend them? That's not the issue. Is it central to the gospel? No. Do you need to speak that way to preach the gospel? No. You do not need to say "knockin' boots" just to put the gospel in the native tongue. The issue to consider is this, are you trying to make the gospel understandable or appealing? If you say appealing then you are on really shaky grounds. Therefore, I believe Acts 29/Driscoll should abandon the use of potentially offensive "edgy" language. There may be instances where words are not innately sinful. Maybe saying "knockin' boots" is not offensive to folks in Seattle. But it is offensive to your brothers and sisters elsewhere. Therefore, for the sake of unity, and because it is not central to the gospel--abandon the practice.

At this point it probably seems as if I am not taking the "high road" of disagreeing with both sides. It sounds like I am coming down hard on Driscoll/Acts 29. So, this is where I disagree with the opposers.

1) I do not think that Driscoll really is considering all of the ramifications of his every action. I do believe that he is far too entrenched in his culture. But, is he a heretic? No. Is he blasphemous? I really think that is too strong of a charge. And such a statement might create shock but I am not sure that it furthers the discussion.

2) In discussing these matters with Acts 29/Driscoll people, are you trying to speak in their native tongue? We will not win our brother by name calling. Is it possible that you ought to bear their burden? Ought you not gently instruct and rebuke?

3) Are there some issues that they may be right on? Are these brothers in Christ? If so are we guilty of slander? Are we not also responsible for the way that we engage in our discussion with them? Might we cause undue offense by the way that we discuss these matters? Is it really helpful to the body of Christ to call those that follow Driscoll "Kool-Aid drinkers"?

4) Things are not as black and white as you wish they were. Engaging the culture is a difficult thing. Do we eat monkey brains? Do we pick a sheep up out of a well on Sunday? How close to sinners do we get? How do I keep from being culturally anorexic? How do I keep from being culturally gluttonous? These are very difficult questions. In no way does this statement negate the absolute sufficiency of Scripture. But you cannot always point to a biblical text and determine whether or not it is okay to watch a Rated-R movie. You cannot pull out Scripture that speaks of coarse language when the coarse language of Paul's day is different than ours. There are general principles, but it is NOT as black and white as we wish. To act like it is will be dangerous, and will not engage our brothers and sisters. We cannot ignore these issues. Nor can we simply make blanket statements and hope that it all goes away.

So here is my conclusion, to this rather long post. If you are a follower of Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. If you oppose Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. And I just bet that as we are both draw closer to our great King we will be drawn closer to each other. Maybe we all will give up our pride in the process.

I doubt these would actually work, but Michael Patton gives us 20 Theological Pick Up Lines. My favorite is this one: “I could not help but notice you were exegeting me instead of the text during the sermon.” Check out the rest...

In the latest Pulpit Magazine article, John MacArthur considers election.

Tim Challies interviews one of my favorite authors, Os Guinness. You can read it here.

Jared from Gospel-Driven Church points us to a list of pastoral pitfalls given by Art Azurdia. By the way, an excellent work is Azurdia's Spirit Empowered Preaching. Seriously, if you are a pastor you really need to buy and read this great book. About the best 9 bucks you can spend.

Great article by Stephen Altrogge, Pride and Arrogance 101. Unfortunately I'm not sure I need to take the entry level course, I might qualify for the upper level courses...wait...was that prideful?

Trouble with Frank Page, part four is provided by the Reformed Mafia. The conclusion is well put: "The bottom line is that Dr. Page’s heralded, supposedly reformational, Scriptural soteriology is merely the five articles of the Remonstrance, with the last one replaced by Eternal Security, which both sides at the Synod of Dort would have found strange."

Nathan Busenitz wraps up his discussion on the Law. In case you missed each link, this particular article can link you to all 8 posts on the topic. It is a very helpful discussion. His resolution post can be found here. Part 2 of Appealing to the Law can be found here.

Unfortunately Timmy Brister never blogspotted The Mystery of Providence. But he does provide an open thread.

Phil Johnson continues his excellent series on Depravity. His latest question: Is There an Antidote to Our Depravity?

Timmy Brister has a thoughtful post on the ridiculous things we in the SBC use as Evangelism. Here is his concluding statement: "The truth is, the sinners in Paul’s day were no more sinful than sinners in our day, and if we are going to experience the power of the gospel in our lives and ministries, we must preach Christ and Him crucified. The resurrection of Christ is no mere illusion, and we should not evangelize like it either."

In closing...HOW ABOUT THOSE BROWNIES IN FREE AGENCY!!! We have no draft picks in April but Donte Stallworth, Shaun Rogers, and Corey Williams are huge helps for our team. My only concern is the lack of a shut-down cornerback. Check out the Browns website for the latest.

Alvin Reid has some insights on Students and Student Ministry.

Phil Johnson asks, and attempts to answer, a much debated question: How Can we be Held Responsible for our Inability? In the conclusion he states, "our inability is no excuse for our sinfulness. It is precisely the opposite. It is the very reason we are condemned. Sin flows from the very core of our souls. The heart of who we are is evil." Go there and find out how he got to that conclusion.

Dr. Mohler has a wonderful article for prospective preachers. He helps us asks, "Has God Called Me to Preach". Important to this consideration will be Mohler's statement here: "One key issue here is a common misunderstanding about the will of God. Some models of evangelical piety imply that God's will is something difficult for us to accept. We sometimes confuse this further by talking about "surrendering" to the will of God. As Paul makes clear in Romans 12:2, the will of God is good, worthy of eager acceptance, and perfect. Those called by God to preach will be given a desire to preach as well as the gifts of preaching. Beyond this, the God-called preacher will feel the same compulsion as the great Apostle, who said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"

David Powlison gives excellent advice in counseling others. “Don’t ever degenerate into giving good advice unconnected with the good news of Jesus crucified, alive, present, at work, and returning.” (HT: Of First Importance)

Justin Buzzard reminds us to put the gospel in everday conversations.

Bob Kauflin the Soveriegn Grace Worship Director, enters the conversation begun by Greg Gilbert on the place of music in worship today. He has great insight to add to the conversation.

Welcome to February. I am beginning to think that many bloggers are snowed in today; we are having quite an active Friday.

Steve Camp has a well put-together post on Discerning whether or not you are in Christ. He provides quotes from Flavel, Whitefield, and the little known Matthew Mead. Really good stuff here. Also you can view his first post in this series on discernment, here.

Alvin Reid, whom we used his book for Intro to Evangelism in college, has a wonderful discussion on The Great Commission in the Home. Recently in my conversation with David Michael (Pastor for Parenting and Family Discipleship at Bethlehem in Minneapolis) he mentioned something similar. For some reason we forget that the home can be a strategic center for missions and obedience to the Great Commission. I look for a resurgence in this in the coming days. Reid offers an interesting challenge to pastors: "Ask your congregation how many grew up in a Christian home? Then ask how many of those who raised their hands can recall their parents leading a discussion ever about reaching your neighbors. Then, ask how many remember the family ever doing anything specifically to get the gospel to their neighbors."

Timmy Brister closes up our discussion on The Bruised Reed. The last post is an open thread (which if you are involved in the challenge be sure to post on to be eligible for the prizes--I'm pulling for #7). Timmy also offers a summary of all the posts on Sibbes. He concludes his discussion by pointing out the mercy exhibited by Sibbes as well as the fact that he was a 17th Century Christian Hedonist.

Scott Lamb posts a transcript of Jimmy Carter's speech(?) at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration.

J.D. Hatfield has a phenomenal post on The Heart of the Matter. It is a very phenomenal articulation of the balance between being a jerk in our proclamation of the truth and neutering the gospel for the sake of being nice. Excellent job, J.D.! (Will: Make sure to read this one!)

I am overjoyed that C.J. Mahaney has joined the blogosphere. He gets it going with a great lists of Cross-Centered books. After reading this I need to update my wishlist with a couple of these books. He also offers a lists of helpful books on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Scott Lee asks, "Is Church Membership Divisive?"

Thabiti has written a wonderful article on The Gospel and Bitterness, at NA. I absolutely love Thabiti's heart (from what I've seen) and his ministry! Thanks, dear brother!

Jonathan Leeman continues blogging through Willow Creek's REVEAL. Today he gives us Part 9.

Denny Burk responds to Rick Warren on The Colbert Report. So do I.

There is also a very good disussion on praise songs at Old Truth. There is some very good information on the history of praise songs. It would be interesting to contrast this with the history of hymns. I find it quite funny that sometimes our arguments over praise songs are the same as they were 250 years ago with hymns. Nonetheless, the point is really good that our music should be heady and hearty.

Steve Camp has a great article on the Sinfulness of Original Sin, along with a song [poem] in the post.

Mark Driscoll offers help to preachers setting a preaching schedule. (HT: Micah)

I think you are going to be seeing quite a bit of discussion coming out of Bethlehem in the coming days concerning interacting with Muslims. Piper offers answers to "How shall we love our Muslim neighbors". As always Christ is at the center.

Something that is pretty cool is the 9Marks report card. Very interesting stuff. Much can be learned in the first couple of pages as well. (HT: JT)

In other 9Marks news I can't help but wonder how Dever's statement, here,will fly in the SBC. Apparently Dever will continue cooperating with Acts29. His statement is excellent.

Dr. Mohler discusses an often ignored voice in the abortion debate, it is the voice they do not want to hear, the dad's.

Today is a sad day in history. 35 years ago today Roe v. Wade was passed, setting way for the slaughter of numerous "innocent" babies. There are several articles and challenges addressing this issue today. Justin Taylor uses an excerpt from Piper's book A Hunger for God to challenge us to fast for the little ones. JT also provides a graphic that helps us visualize what 46 million looks like. He has also recently interviewed Robert George on abortion and politics. There is also a graphic video that shows actual abortions. I could hardly bare to watch. You can access that video here: (Warning: This is Very Very Graphic!)

(HT: Denny Burk)

John Ensor does offer some encouragement and challenges us to pray for the Third Wave in the fight to end abortion. Denny Burk also provides a sunday school lesson on the Sanctity of Life. After experiencing the birth of our child, I just do not get it (and even before). I can have sympathy with the teenage girl struggling with making a decision. She is only a child herself. I can sympathize (but of course not agree) with her decision. I can sympathize with the rape victims. I can sympathize but not agree. But what baffles my mind is the politicians and the entire movement itself. How in the world can we hold to such a ridiculous practice and allow it to be legal?

Dan Phillips has posted the third part to his "Preaching the Good News"? Earlier he gave us a snippet of an "evangelism" tract left at his door step. He asked what we could tell about the group that left it. Then he told us it was the Mormons. Today he considers some of the implications of this discussion.

I have been reading about the life of Charles Spurgeon. The fuel that drove his ministry was laboring in prayer. So I believe it is not a coincidence that the MacArthur article today is on Praying Without Ceasing.

Jonathan Leeman continues to blog through Willow Creek's REVEAL. Today he considers mutli-campus churches.

Finally, the IMonk has created an interesting discussion about 12 Churches and 12 Calvinists. What would happen? This lends itself to being a great discussion.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Early on John Piper challenged us to Not Waste the MLK Weekend. Piper also quoted at length from King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. MLK's full I Have A Dream speech is accessible at the bottom of this post. It is such an amazing speech. Only 1600 words but riveting. (HT: JT) Said at Southern has numerous links today on Racism, Christianity, and America.

Last day of Challies blog tour. Today he visits Sharper Iron. They asks, "How does Scripture tell us to view discernment as a step of rational thought guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than a supra-rational sixth sense?" Find the answer here.

Over the weekend Justin Taylor interviewed Tim Keller. If you are not familiar with Keller you should be.

Phil Johnson continues his series on Total Depravity. Today he considers In What Sense is Depravity Total. A great summation is this statement: "Human depravity is "total" in the same sense death is total. You can't be partly dead. You can be really, really sick or critically injured and on life support, but you're either dead or alive. There are no degrees of death." The Weekly Does of Spurgeon is centered upon the point of depravity as well. In this excerpt Spurgeon discusses How Depravity Necessitates Election.

Fred from Of First Importance shares this excellent quote by Alfred Poirier: “In light of God’s judgment and justification of the sinner in the cross of Christ, we can begin to discover how to deal with any and all criticism. By agreeing with God’s criticism of me in Christ’s cross, I can face any criticism man may lay against me. In other words, no one can criticize me more than the cross has. If you thus know yourself as having been crucified with Christ, then you can respond to any criticism, even mistaken or hostile criticism, without bitterness, defensiveness, or blame shifting. Such responses typically exacerbate and intensify conflict, and lead to the rupture of relationships. You can learn to hear criticism as constructive and not condemnatory because God has justified you.”

J.D. Hatfield discusses Moving On sometimes in evangelism.

Here is the "I Have a Dream Speech":

Apparently TULIP's have thorns. At least that seems to be the conclusion reached by many in the "old-guard" of the SBC. Recently 15 Evangelists (why this is BP News I'm not sure) met to discuss the growing movement of Calvinism in the SBC. Apparently its costing them jobs. Tom Ascol responds here. Also, a Christianity Today article was written on the rise of Calvinism within the SBC. Within that article Frank Page (resisting the urge to add an adjective here) commented: "The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible." Timmy Brister responds here. (HT: JT)

Challies Blog Tour reaches Day 10. Today he is interviewed by Jonathan Leeman from Church Matters (the 9Marks blog). He asked these two questions: Tim, from your perspective as a layperson, what steps would you like to see more pastors taking to grow in discernment? And, Are there specific areas of church life and pastoring in which you find yourself wishing pastors would exercise greater discernment? Answers here.

Challies also writes a very good article on considering non-Christians "the enemy". Why do some churches rarely see baptisms? Challies belief is that, "...the real problem in these churches was in their attitude towards the unbeliever. The person next door was the enemy, a person to be feared for what he might do to the family, and the children in particular, and thus someone to be regarded with distrust and suspicion rather than with love."

The Wall Street Journal has ran a very interesting and quite ridiculous article on church discipline. It is, thankfully, making a "comeback" in many churches. It should not come as a surprise that it will start getting attacked by the world and less biblically minded believers. (HT: Denny Burk)

David Heim has a good article on Children's Sermons. (HT: Transforming Sermons)

Phil Johnson, from Pyromaniacs, continues his series on Total Depravity. Here is a snippet: "We are born into this world as thoroughgoing sinners, not merely tainted a little bit by sin, but completely, hopelessly in bondage to it. Every aspect of our being mind, emotions, desires, and even our physical constitution,is corrupted, controlled, and disfigured by sin and its effects. No one escapes from that verdict. We are totally depraved."

Steve Camp is concerned that many Christian men are more concerned about niceness than truth. His main contention is that these men are, "...toy-soldiers [that] carry what I call 'a velvet covered sword.' It's lightweight, easy to wield, isn't designed for battle, takes little strength to lift it, looks inviting, and won't cut too deep for fear of offending too greatly. " Also central to Camp's argument is this statement: "But in our day, postmodern evangelicalism would have us place tone above truth, demeanor above doctrine, feelings before faith, and embrace the comfort of the retreat rather than the campaign of the battlefield."

Challies blog tour reaches Day 9 and finds itself at the home of the IMonk. As Challies sums it up IMonk asks, "questions about what happens to churches and Christians who refuse to practice discernment, about freelance discernment ministries, about a Protestant magisterial and about Tim Horton’s (along with a few other topics)."

Ray Ortlund points us to an excellent quote by James Denney. "No man can give at once the impressions that he himself is clever and that Jesus Christ is mighty to save."

Yesterday at Team Pyro Dan asked a question about a card left at his doorstep. Today he gives the answer, it was indeed Mormons. Dan also shares his experiencing of witnessing to them. It was inspiring and convicting. We've had a couple Mormons walking around our neighborhood and I've never stepped out the door and screamed "Mormons!" so as to engage them.

Jared Wilson shares 5 Important Things the Seeker Sensitive Movement Got Right. Great thoughts. It takes much wisdom to mine even things you do not agree with for truth! Thanks for these thoughts Jared.

Tony Kummer is giving away 3 Children's books at his website. I own The Jesus Storybook Bible but would love to have the other 2 for Isaiah. If God does not grace me with winning this give away I will probably buy them later.