Oasis Christian Fellowship : bethechurch

What is "Christian" ?

Part One: Christian Bookstores and an Introduction to Christianity and Pop-Culture

This might sound like a subject on the effect of the protestant ethic in the United States. But, its not. It could be a positive review of an outspoken Christian CEO in America, like Truett Cathy, the founder of Chik-Fil-A. But its not. Its actually a sarcastic, maybe obnoxious but hopefully realistic view of one slice of the cultural issues that face Jesus-followers in America. I hope to cover a few different issues in Christian culture. The next article will cover what "Christian" means today. Please remember this is my opinion and I am in no way trying to speak for any other authors on BeTheChurch.com.

Christian bookstores...where do I start? They are often a great resource for ministers, lay people and students for study material, as well as the latest Christian music, software, or even devotionals. These are very helpful things, especially for people in rural areas where choices are limited and the internet is a bit slower.

TOP TEN ITEMS I'M NOT BUYING AT A CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORE

What is not useful in a Christian bookstore? Here's a top ten for me. (You could silently to yourself add "Christian" before every one of these. More on that next time.)

1. Clothing

2. Bumper Stickers

3. Jewelry

4. Candy

5. Propaganda (Heartless, impersonal tracts. Ick.)

6. House ware (Cups, plates, etc.)

7. Ornamental, collectible figures and trinkets. (See the figurine above.)

8. Toys (Board Games and action figures, which would include the likes of Bible Monopoly --um, a contradiction anyone? -- and Bible Man.)

9. Health and Beauty (Yea, I'm serious.)

"Around the outside of each Nahara gift box is a breathtaking photograph of the world-famous Yardenit Baptismal Site, the site by the Sea of Galilee where tourists and pilgrims come to be baptized in the Jordan River. The interior of the gift box transforms into a map of Galilee, providing customers an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Holy Land. "

10. Pictures, Artwork. (OK, this ain't so bad. But man sometimes people get downright untalented with this stuff, and I have to answer for it as a Christian.)

Bookstore Gallery

Easy targets. Thats what I call these pictures. I could comment on these--well, OK--so I will. Yeah, thats you Jesus. Right there! Gotcha! (Wink!) He reminds me of a used car salesman. Is this plastic Jesus a smaller representation of a larger problem? I believe so.

Here's your everyday Jesus action figure. Capitalism at work in our Christian lives. Has Jesus become irrelevant?

Ah, here we are. This is an innocent little cross, right? I cringe at objects like this. Its clean. Its smooth. It is a false representation of the Christian life and of Christ's sacrifice--and someone's making money on it. This is an example of the sanitizing of the cross. What kind of perception does this object project? Is it more for your kid, or for you to think about your kid? Will life be peachy if he or she's a "good Christian kid"? Jesus said to measure the cost before you follow the Rabbi for the road is a rough one. Life is tough but God is good.

And here's one of my favorites: Kirk Cameron starring in "Left Behind." This just fuels the xenophobic Christian's desire to throw out the outside influences in this world and go pure Christian media to protect themselves and their children. (Not to mention the bad exegesis by writer Tim LaHaye with this series.)

How many Christian bookstores don't carry Testamints?  (Not many. It is a national Christian bookstore staple.) Am I really supposed to give my friends a Testamint without feeling like a total dweeb?

The above images really are painful for me as a Jesus follower living in today's world. I mean it is funny, but also tragic. The majority of conservative Christian culture we have come to know or have grown up with have been marginalized by the rest of the world, and I must say for good reason. Now I'd like to quickly point out that I hate making generalist statements, but just like with every slice of life, there is culture and subculture. There are churches and movements out there that are going against the negatively perceived mentality about the Church, and relating Jesus in an authentic way. There is a reason we need to move from the modernistic (Christendom) way of living and thinking, and move towards authentic and relevant church/living/thinking.

Where Christianity meets religion, and where religion meets the world

If I may define a few words and phrases: Christendom and post modernism

Christendom, or "dominion of the church" to briefly summarize a very complex idea and context, is the world view and reality of much of the world since Emperor Constantine divined Christianity as the new public/common religion of Rome in the 5th century. This term is closely associated with the notion of theocracy, a God-centered government, or more recently defined as just the social landscape. Christendom had essentially come to an end by the 1960s, and had reached a deafening halt around the late 80s and early 90s. The dominion of the church wasn't and still isn't in most cases a good thing. Of course this depends on your social perspective.

We live in a postmodern age. You may have modernist tendencies, but the truth is, modernity is all but gone. The 50's, the golden age is gone. There are few places in America where the effects post modernity have not had some influence. (Which would have to be a place without TV and the Internet.) Are you aware that you live in a post-modern world, where there is no accepted truth--no universal accepted truth? Are you aware that Pop-culture, (i.e. American Idol, Mass media outlets, etc.) to a growing number of people and generations is more authoritative and influential than what the bible says, than common time-tested values that their parents reinforce, what they are being taught in the classroom, even more authoritative than what documented history tells us?

If you are aware of this shift in thought and perception, which you now are through reading these lines, you are an aware postmodern. It is not a bad thing, its not anti-Christian as I will point out--it is just a shift in how we have adapted to different historical events and technology such as the freedom of speech, human rights, the information age, the Internet, etc. To further express the idea of post modernism vs. modernism, think of how opinion columns and editorials are just as or even more important to people as the actual news events in papers, magazines, and TV. 

Back to Christendom. The 5th century and Constantine's politicizing of Christianity reflects the neutering of the heart of the gospel by the Roman empire as the "national" religion causing the first political Christian influence; Its legacy is still seen today by the likes of figures such as Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, George Bush--the list goes on. Not that politics and Christianity is purely a bad thing, but is so dangerous when using Christian influence on such a magnified scale to effect and validate non-Christian power and authority, and money. Lets not forget the likes of the Spanish inquisition, the "Christian" crusades led by the "church," and the "Christian nations," and let us not forget the thousands of years the self-authoritative Catholic church kept the common man from the words of the bible by speaking it only in Latin when the printing press wasn't yet in existence and by proxy, keeping the power in the hands of those who wished to keep it: church leaders.

Was this dominion of the church ever good, or predominantly bad? I think good in a few ways, but for the most part very bad. There were the social and moral standards that were raised all over the world the influence of the church had over the social norms and unspoken values it had in society. As I mentioned, wars were fought over the politicizing of the church. Positive influence was often a guise for real power and gain. I could see how Karl Marx believed religion was an opium for the masses - way to control people's behavior.

Now in the year 2007, the idea of the gospel and God's values being the REAL truth or over-arching world view for the majority of Americans is unfortunately not getting traction anymore. Of course, spiritualism and mysticism are popular as most Americans proclaim that there is a higher power, but less than half actually attend a church or can define specifically the Christian God or Jesus as authoritative in their lives, and even those percentages are superficial. In light of these figures, I know probably most of the Christians I know would despair and think, "how low has our nation sunk? We were once a great Christian nation with Christian values. It is time that we renew the faith we had as a nation!

Is it really about striving to being a Christian nation as a whole, or being the church (a shameless plug) where we are as individuals and with our Jesus-following local communities. The idea that our countenance as American Christians in the 21st century is tied to past nationalistic faith is outdated and really not biblical. The Old Testament people of God were closely tied to the people of Israel. The New Testament church are a people of every nation, color, and ethnicity. We, the church, are a spiritual nation and not a physical nation like Israel.

Expert sociologist and author George Barna recently posted that over 100 million Americans are unchurched. ( That may surprise some of us as having been historically speaking a "Christian nation" (whatever that really means), but the numbers don't lie: In 1994, for instance the number of unchurched leveled around 39 Million, and as recently as 2004 was estimated at 75 million. Thats 3.5 Million people on average a year for the 10 year period between '94-'04; From 2004-2007, over 3 years, has jumped 25 million--averaging over 8 million a year. The trend is not changing.

So What Age Are We In?

Postchristian

It sounds so discouraging, and so anti-God. "Let's go stand up for what we believe in!" "Let's go rage against the machine!" "Stand up for the Ten Commandments! Don't let them take that away, too!" Wrong.

This speak is very much modernist/Christendom thinking. It is out-dated. It used to be a battle of science: you give me your facts and I'll present mine. Whoever has the best argument wins. Well, that way of thinking is not effective to be honest. If you are out to find something "Christian" to fight for, maybe it should be for your neighbor who doesn't know Jesus. Instead of politicizing your faith--instead of boycotting for Jesus and perpetuating the notion that Christianity is no more than a facade and a politician's voucher into office, the power of a postmodern Christian testimony is king. That's right, its not so much about (as it used to be) facts and figures, measurements, height-width-depth as it is personal experience. I am not diminishing the objective nature of God's supremacy. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-encompassing, but how can man know that for sure? Instead of an attitude of, "everyone is a Christian, you're an outsider if you don't believe," black and white--we live in a world where Christianity is no longer accepted as THE truth. It is merely another option in a sea of choice.

I remember in High School, I would often try to live my life in an acceptable way to God, and try to project that holiness to my classmates. There was no realness factor to my Christianity, though. Church to me stressed the importance to separate yourself from "the sinners", the nonbelievers for fear of pulling you down. So, I lived by that standard, not realizing by creating a holy bubble I was making the Great Commission an irrelevant joke. I wasn't holy. I was a sinner. So was everyone else. I was just an "informed sinner."

I believe Christianity is the main theme in our reality; Its a truth that is the only truth. The rest of the world doesn't get that or doesn't want to get it. If we are more aware of what popular trends in thinking are, we will be more equipped as Christians to make a difference in the lives of those who need God. Think of how you can make traction with those you come into contact with that really don't get Christianity, who may not think like you do.

Theology of Christmas Music, Part 2

The song that prompted me to make this post a couple of weeks ago was "O Little Town of Bethlehem." I was driving to Parkersburg to pick up some gifts and had some Christmas music on the iPod to set the mood. When this song came on I listened to the lyrics, perhaps more intently than I ever have before. They struck me. So I did some background study on the song. (Again I must credit LeaderU.com.)

"O Little Town of Bethlehem" was written in 1867 by Phillips Brooks, an Episcopal pastor from Philadelphia. He had been in Israel two years earlier and had celebrated Christmas in Bethlehem. This song describes the city not so much as it was when Brooks observed it, but as he thought it might have appeared on the night of Jesus' birth.

Most people recognize the first verse well:

O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep the silent stars go by.
Yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting light;
The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

The streets of our own cities are quiet on Christmas day; stores are closed and most people are at home. It is possible that Bethlehem was quiet on the night that Jesus was born, but we know that the place was full of people from out-of-town, and chances are that there were even more people on the streets than usual. But this song does not say as much about the level of activity in Bethlehem as it does about the fact that very few people even noticed the Baby who was born. One line from the second verse reads, "While mortals sleep, the angels keep their watch of wondering love"-- a situation that is true even today. The world goes on about its business, working, eating, sleeping, and playing, utterly oblivious to the spiritual realities around it. As Brooks wrote in the third verse of the song:

How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts the blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming, but in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in.

When Christ came into this world, He came quietly. The angelic announcement to the shepherds was the only publicity that accompanied Him. He was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough; He did not arrive with the pomp that one would expect of a King. For the most part, He still does not. When people today place their faith in Jesus Christ, the Bible tells us that He comes to live inside them through the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-23; Rom. 8:9-11). There is not a lot of flash associated with an entrance like that, and some of your friends might not even notice the difference at first, but when you trust in Jesus Christ an incredibly significant event takes place. Your sins are forgiven and you are made a new person (John 5:24; 2 Cor. 5:17).

I love the lines, "God imparts to human hearts," and "no ear may hear his coming." How true this was then and how true it remains today. The human heart is deaf to Christ and will never turn to Him. It is God who imparts His will to save and extends the gift of grace. When we see and hear, it is evidence of this impartation of His gift of grace to us.

Jesus' coming means that Christmas does not have to be the lonely time that it is for so many people. We can experience His salvation and enjoy His presence as individuals, even though the world around us does not understand what is really going on. As the last verse of the song reads:

O holy Child of Bethlehem! Descend to us we pray,
Cast out our sin, and enter in; be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us, Our Lord Emmanuel.

Rocky for a New Generation

Brock and I have been counting down the days. Both of us can't wait to go see the new Rocky movie, Rocky Balboa, scheduled to be in theaters this Wednesday, December 20. I know some people are having fun at Stallone's expense with the release of the 60-year old Rocky Balboa who dares to step into the boxing ring for a sixth time. But I am glad he did it.

Watch this trailer and then tell me you don't get just a little bit pumped.

I remember the first time I ever saw Rocky and Rocky II. I was in elementary school, and after we bought our first VCR those movies became staples in my house. I had the soundtracks to all of the Rockys. Before every football, basketball, or baseball game I would watch Rocky III, and I would have the great comeback and music playing in my mind throughout the entire game. Then Rocky IV helped motivate me during the sporting years of high school and college. I love films that motivate and encourage. That's what the Rockys have done (well, perhaps not Rocky V, but even Stallone would like to forget that one; I even heard him admit in an interview with Dan Patrick this week that he made this final movie for the true fans of Rocky and Rocky II, because he felt he let them down with Rocky V). In a day when "reality" movies rule and it seems to be hip to have you leave the theater feeling confused or disoriented, we could use some fantasy entertainment that lifts the heart and motivates.

Yep, I've always been a Rocky fan. I thought the generations of Rocky had passed. But now it gets to live on. Now my eight-year old son is also a Rocky fan. Last week he watched the first three consecutively. I've been hearing the Eye of the Tiger and Gonna Fly High Now in my ears all week. I can't wait.

Yo!

The Theology of Christmas Music

With so much Christmas music being played everywhere we go these days, I wonder how often we actually pause to reflect on what the songs are actually saying. Christmas carols are some of the most familiar songs in the world. Some of them are good and speak the truth about God, while others may not be so accurate. In the weeks leading up to Christmas I will be posting some of the history behind the lyrics of a few of the most popular Christmas songs we sing in church.

The following article (and each related article that will follow this one in the coming weeks) is actually a portion of an article provided by Probe Ministries. I have taken the article segments from a posting at the Leadership U website.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most radio stations play some type of Christmas music during the holiday season, but many of the songs have become so familiar to us that we no longer consider their content. In between the secular songs like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" and "Up on a Housetop," you may hear the strains of an old hymn by Charles Wesley called "Come Thou Long-Expected Jesus." It was written in 1744, and it reads,

Come, Thou long-expected Jesus, born to set Thy people free;
from our fears and sins release us; let us find our rest in Thee.
Israel's strength and consolation, hope of all the earth Thou art;
dear desire of every nation, joy of every longing heart.

Born Thy people to deliver, born a child, and yet a King,
born to reign in us forever, now Thy gracious kingdom bring.

By Thine own eternal Spirit rule in all our hearts alone;
by Thine own sufficient merit, raise us to Thy glorious throne.

"Come Thou Long-Expected Jesus" is a little heavier than most of the music we are used to hearing today, and if we are not careful we will miss much of the meaning. The first verse focuses on the fact that the coming of Jesus Christ fulfilled Israel's longing for the Messiah. As the one whose coming was prophesied in the Old Testament, He is the "long-expected Jesus."

A few of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled are Isaiah 7:14, which spoke of a virgin giving birth to a child whose name would mean "God with us;" Isaiah 9:6, which told of a child whose name would be called "Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, eternal Father, the Prince of Peace;" and Micah 5:2, which said that from Bethlehem would come a ruler whose "goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

These and many similar prophecies looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and many devout Jews prayed earnestly for the day when He would arrive. Luke 2 tells of Simeon, a man of faith who was "looking for the consolation of Israel" (v. 25). When he saw Jesus as an infant, Simeon knew that this Child was the fulfillment of his messianic hope. Charles Wesley was borrowing from this passage when he described Jesus in this song as "Israel's strength and consolation."

Although He fulfilled Israel's prophecies, Jesus came to bring salvation to the entire world, which is what Wesley was referring to when he described Christ as the "hope of all the earth" and the "dear desire of every nation." More than that, He is the "joy of every longing heart." He alone is the one who can satisfy every soul.

The second verse tells us why Jesus can meet our expectations: He was "born a child and yet a King." As the One who is both God and man, Jesus was able to satisfy God's wrath completely by dying on the cross for our sins. When Wesley wrote about Jesus' "all sufficient merit," he was referring to Christ's ability to bring us to salvation.

"Come Thou Long-Expected Jesus" is a great song for Christmas, focusing on the "long-expected Jesus" who was born to set us free from sin and to bring us salvation by His death.

Hark! the Herald Angels Sing

Charles Wesley's best-known song is probably "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing." It has been altered slightly by editors, but most of it remains just as Wesley intended when he wrote it over 250 years ago.

As we generally hear it today, the song begins with a triumphant proclamation of Jesus' birth, describes the fact that He is both God and man, and then praises Him for the salvation He was born to provide.

The first verse reads, in part,

Hark! the herald angels sing, "Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled."

Talking about peace on earth is popular at Christmas time, and appropriately so, for Jesus did come to bring peace. Primarily, however, He came to bring us peace with God, which is what Wesley meant when he wrote, "God and sinners reconciled." We have all sinned against God; we have broken His commandments and thus made ourselves His enemies. When people become enemies, they cannot go back to being friends until their differences are set aside. Sometimes reconciliation involves the payment of reparations, and which is essentially what Jesus did when He died on the cross. He paid the price necessary to reconcile us to God. The price was really ours to pay, not God's, but Jesus was able to pay it because, though He was God, He became also a man, being born as a baby on that first Christmas day.

Charles Wesley described Jesus' birth in the second verse of this song. He wrote,

Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ, the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come, offspring of the Virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel.

Though He was the everlasting Lord, the second person of the Trinity (which is described in the song as "the Godhead"), fully equal in nature with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus became the "offspring of the Virgin's womb." He was "veiled in flesh," the "incarnate Deity." He was God, having become also a man. The name Emmanuel means "God with us," which is what Wesley was referring to when he wrote that Jesus was "pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel." He became a man, but in the process did not lose His deity. He was "God with us."

The idea that Jesus would lay aside His divine privileges for any reason is nothing short of incredible, but He did so in order to provide us with salvation. Wesley focused on this amazing occurrence in the third verse, where he wrote,

Mild He lays His glory by, born that man no more may die,
Born to raise the sons of earth, born to give them second birth.

Jesus laid aside His own rights, coming to this earth and dying for our sins, that those who trust in Him might have eternal life. He was born that we might be born again, and that is good reason to sing "glory to the newborn King."

While We're Revisiting...

I'd like to go back and revisit a post I made a few days ago. In my entry titled Faith, Emerging Church, and Real Life I was reacting to some things. To the emerging church. To articles and blog posts by respected church leaders. Some of the things I read last week made me cringe. Some of them made me smirk. Some of them just made me shake my head a little. And I reacted to a few of those.

But since Sunday I think the Holy Spirit has been convicting my heart about one of my paragraphs in that post. I took some pretty good shots at someone I do not have a relationship with. I've never really even met him personally, although I'd like to. I have only known him by listening to his sermons on the internet, reading his books and published articles, and most recently his web blog and a few posts he's made elsewhere. He has made some bold statements, and some of his first posts he has made public on his web blog gave me a bad impression. I therefore insinuated some things about his ego and his character, saying it appears he is obsessed with numbers. Although all I have to go on is what he has publicly stated on web sites, that's just the point. All I have to go on is what he has typed on web sites. I have not read his new book (I actually loved his first one, Radical Reformission. And I am sure this one will be just as insightful). I have not met or spoken directly with Driscoll. So basically, last week I did to him the very thing I hate when people do it to me--make judgments on character without relationship.

So, even though I doubt Mark Driscoll will ever read my post or even knows this site exists, I still need to say these words. I am sorry Mark. I should not have spoken of you the way I did without ever having spoken with you. I do not know your heart. I only know how you appeared to be coming across in some of your recent posts. In trying to point that out I feel I may have crossed a line that I am uncomfortable with, thanks to the Holy Spirit that is. I would never have noticed it on my own.

By the way, I know a lot of people would expect me to go back and delete what I said if I were truly apologetic. But I won't do that. I am truly apologetic. But what was said was said. I can't take it back as simply as hitting a delete button on a keyboard. All I can do is make it right by repenting.

Talking About a Revolution

For nearly five years now I have been speaking a certain language, using certain phrases and metaphors. And I found that to a great number of people I sounded like I was speaking a foreign language, and uttering non-sensible phrases, and using unrealistic metaphors. While it has been an exhilarating journey, it has sometimes been a frustrating one, and sometimes a lonely one.

Yet still, a few of you have understood. In fact, you speak the language also. You live the metaphors. I am thankful to have found a fellowship of believers in Jesus who understand. You GET it! When I say "you GET IT", it's not that we are better, or more enlightened than others. That's one of the most difficult things to try to convey. We're not separatists. We're not anti-institution. We're not a lot of things that people assume we are. One of our greatest characteristics over the last few years has probably been "misunderstood". We are a "misunderstood" bunch.

What am I talking about? I am talking about anyone who has embraced the notion that it's time to STOP GOING TO CHURCH, and to START BEING THE CHURCH. If all of our opportunities to GO to church were removed from us, we would not cease to BE the Church. In 2002 when God began to strip away everything I understood about Church, and Church life, I began emphatically saying things like, "Church is not a building. Church is not a program. Church is not a place you go. Church is not a meeting. Church is YOU. And wherever you, the people who are called 'children of God' and lovers of Jesus, happen to be at any given moment... THERE you are the Church!"

In fact, I said these things so much that some people got sick of me. Some of my very dear friends walked away from me. They thought I was going nutty. And perhaps thought I was going to plant a church that would never have a Sunday meeting, or a building, or any kind of normal organizational structure like we're used to having in the church. How could such a thing even exist?! Function?!

Well, four years later I am still at it. Yes, we have some recognizable organizational structures. Yes, we have meetings. But I submit that who we are is STILL not about any of those things. And I would be willing and ready to have any of them taken away in an instant. Yes, I am serious.

I am dead serious. Because to me, church still is not about any of those things. It's about LIFE. LIVING as Jesus LIVED, and LOVING as Jesus LOVED. And to be quite honest, we can all do that without any of the luxuries we enjoy that make up our church structures. If we can't, then we are not real disciples. Yep, I said it. Should I "nice" it up a little? Okay, we may be disciples. But we are weak and immature if our Christian life is defined by things such as a church attendance, programs, buildings, or meetings. How's that?

This past week a friend of mine sent me a link to the book you see above, "Revolution" by George Barna. Besides the link, his email had only one short paragraph. It said something like this: DING! DING! DING! DING! Finally folks, we have a winner!!! Someone who is recognized and even well-known by the mainstream organized Church is saying what you've been trying to proclaim for over four years now.

And he's going to make all the money off of it. : ) Just kidding.

The fact is, I am not the only one who has been saying it. That's the reason for Barna's book. Barna is a research analyst. He watches trends for months, even years, then reports what he predicts is happening (and will happen) in the world and the church. If you've ever read any of his other books, he is quite accurate in his assessments.

This new book is describing my faith. My Church. My hunger. To LIVE, and to BE. And to leave behind all the tired structures that hinder BEING the Church. Here's a brief excerpt from chapter two:

As we journey together, I want to show you what our research has uncovered regarding a growing sub-nation of people, already well over 20 million strong, who are what we call Revolutionaries.

What "established systems" are they seeking to "overthrow or repudiate" and "thoroughly replace," in Webster's words (defining the word "revolutionary")?

They have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful nature to expand organizational turf. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership positions who cast a personal vision rather than God's, who seek popularity rather than the proclamation of truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ. They refuse to donate one more dollar to man-made monuments that mark their own achievements and guarantee their place in history. They are unimpressed by accredited degrees and endowed chairs in Christian colleges and seminaries that produce young people incapable of defending the Bible or unwilling to devote their lives to serving others. And Revolutionaries are embarrassed by language that promises Christian love and holiness but turns out to be all sizzle and no substance.

Barna explains in chapter five about how the spiritual landscape of our country is drastically changing as we speak. Even as we entered the twenty-first century, the "local church" was the focus of most people's spiritual lives. But even in five years that number is radically changing, and Barna predicts that by year 2025 we will see a much, much different spiritual landscape. Our spiritual landscape refers to the way people are most likely to experience and express their faith. Just five years later, in 2005, we have already seen a significant transformation taking place.

I suppose the reason I write this article is to relate my elation at the coming of this book. I believe it will do wonders to help explain what so many people are doing these days. It will help people better understand Oasis Christian Fellowship of southeastern Ohio. We are different. You have a very different kind of pastor than most churches have. This book will help them to see why. You have a much different mindset when it comes to "church attendance" and living your life structured around the church and it's many programs, versus living your life structured around Jesus and out in the community. This book will help them see why.

This book will help. Where traditional church leaders think I am off my rocker, George Barna might be able to get them to scratch their head and consider otherwise. You see what I mean? They respect Barna. They trust Barna. They might even BELIEVE Barna.

Because what Barna is saying is, "Watch out!" These Revolutionaries are everywhere. And they are leaving your churches. And sadly, so many church leaders are chalking them all up to "backsliding" or "sheep stealing" or simply walking out on Jesus. But nothing could be further from the truth. They have simply chosen to BE THE CHURCH because they are sick and tired of merely GOING to church.

This book is quite possibly the best description of this web site to date. I wish I could say that I had written it. But congrats to Barna. He beat me to the punch. Thanks George, for helping me explain who I am.

Ladies Please Give Me Your Thoughts On This

((((Guys, you can too. But you'll see why I specifically asked for the ladies as you read further. It's a long one, so you'd better make some time for this.))))

There are many positive things about having a "web presence" for ministry. One of the things I like to do is visit blogs of other people who are doing ministry similar to Oasis, read their stories, and listen to their teachings if they have them uploaded in MP3 format. The same thing happens with our web site. Every so often I'll receive an email from someone who browsed our site and found a post to be encouraging, or offensive. It goes both ways.

This past week I received an email from a lady who I do not know. She had come to the site and listened to the MP3 teaching entitled Women As Wives. The teaching was part of our Proverbs series we studied during the summer of 2004. She was very offended by the teaching, and wanted to confront me on it. This launched us into a series of emails back and forth over last 24-hour period.

I want to post this conversation here for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it was a very stimulating discussion. And any opportunity you have to stimulate new thought helps develop your theology and perhaps even your faith. Second, this was sort of a frustrating conversation for me. It hit me differently than some others I have had via email with complete strangers. It wasn't because she was disagreeing with me. That has happened before. But there was something about this one that made it particularly disheartening. See if you can see what I mean.

Although no one in the Oasis family knows this lady (even all I have is only a first name), still, I will change her name in this post so as to protect her anonymity even further. Here is how the conversation began, then progressed:

Hello Chris,

I just wanted to say I was shocked after listening to the online Mp3 preaching Women As Wives . It unfortunately sounded like a sermon spoken by a Christian misogynist. And no I'm not a feminist - I am an Evangelical Christian!!

Blessings,

Karen

Karen,

Perhaps you should listen to the rest of that series, the first three sermons -- the ones about covenant and headship, and men as fathers -- where I raked men over the coals and let them (us) have it for our failures towards women... blaming ourselves for the feminist movement because of our failures to love them as Jesus does. I would also be glad to put you in contact with my wife, or any of the women in our fellowship if you would like to try and confirm that I am a "misogynist". You would find that your assessment couldn't be further from the truth of my character and convictions.

Maybe if you elaborate a little further on what you disagreed with about the teaching we could then have a better conversation. It's a little difficult to receive a three-sentence email from a complete stranger who accuses you of hating women and be able to respond to it intelligently.

You took the time to sit down and email me, so you must desire to debate this with me, am I correct?

Chris

Chris,

What would be the point of having a debate with you if, as you said in your sermon, a woman cannot win an arguement with a man??

Karen

Karen,

You do not know me. You have taken a teaching (that is Part 4 of a 4-part series on biblical marriage relationships) out of context, and are now using quotes from that sermon out of context. It's been a while since I gave that teaching so I cannot quote myself exactly. However, if I used the words "you cannot win an argument" I would have been speaking to BOTH men and women. I do recall mentioning that whenever men and women are forced into a position of competition against one another (in a relationship), the masculine characteristics of men have a tendency to crush and hurt women when forced into competition. That is not an insult to women. If anything it is an insult to men. And it doesn't mean that a woman cannot debate or compete with a man in general.

Let me ask you a question. Would you suggest that men and women have not been created with distinct and unique characteristics? Equal... yet distinct?

Much like the church, when I consider all of the men and women in our fellowship, we are all given distinct gifts and abilities to use to build and help the body of Christ, the community of believers. Our gifts are equal, but they are not all the same. Some cannot sing in tune or play an instrument, so they do not lead our times of praise. That doesn't mean they are lesser parts of the body of Christ just because they aren't as "strong" in that particular area. Same is true with men and women. As I have seen in God's Word (perhaps you see it differently), He has created men and women to compliment one another and to fully proclaim his image in a marriage relationship. Therefore they must be different. They must have different strengths and abilities. One will be strong in one area in which the other is weak. And vice versa.

You have sent me nothing but one-sentence and three-sentence emails, so I really have no idea if you are interested in discussing this with me, or if you are just angry and picking a fight. As I said earlier, you do not know me from Adam, but you called me a misogynist and have developed an opinion of me based on ONE 55-minute teaching. Neither do I know you, but I have not called you a feminist based solely on your emails.

I urge you to listen to the rest of that series. Then, if you still feel compelled to rebuke me by the Scriptures and in the name of Christ, by all means do so. In fact, give me a call if you'd like. My cell phone is listed below.

Chris

Chris,

I specifically said that your sermon sounded like that of a Christian misogynist. What you said about women in the Proverbs had a very controlling misogynistic tone.

For example, how can you say men and women are different and then tell women not to what you call "gossip" about their husbands? Does talking about your husband to your mother, sister, or best friend automatically make you a gossip? Perhaps in excess but certainly not by just consulting someone in conversation over a matter. What you said sounded very manipulative and controlling. I agree, spouses need to speak to each other about their problems. However, I see no problem in a woman taking care of her needs, especially the needs a husband cannot provide. That is why fellowsip is so important among Christian women.

Perhaps it's because you are against the modern changes in gender roles? Do you really believe the changes in gender roles today are against the Scriptures? I went back to listen to the rest of sermons (4 of 4) on audio Mp3. Why do you "blame" men for the feminist movement? Do you think it was just a movement that happened as a direct result of too much violent male dominance? Has there not been violence and oppression against women in other civilizations? Further, why would you blame yourself for a good thing? The "feminism" of the society was an issue of equality. Do you feel that women should not have the same equal rights as men?

While I agree that over-blurring of sex roles (ones that are biologically based and not completely societal) are starting to cause an androgny that God did not intend, I do not see a problem with a husband seeing his wife as a partner and not a helper. Dominance is not equality. Would you say that because you write with your right hand that it is more important than your left? No. But what about the people who are left handed? Did God not make them left handed? Are they less functional because they happen to write with their left hand? That is the problem with strict gender roles. There are many people who do not fall into your either role distinctively.

I can see why men think woman are complimentary. For women as their "helpers" is quite favorable for them. We are however compliments of each other. The other "half" as we say. If you cut an apple in two pieces, do you normally cut it vertically? Or do you cut it horizontally?

"compliment"

an expression of esteem, respect, affection, or admiration; especially : an admiring remark b : formal and respectful recognition : HONOR

Does a man not compliment a woman he finds attractive?

"Adam" was an "earthing being" until the sexes were made. There was no such thing as a woman or a man! Do you think when God said  "It is not good for man to be alone" Genesis 2:18.. that He meant loneliness? Or perhaps God wanted "Adam" the sexless earthing to have reproductive capabilies? So the creation He made (humans) would be able to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill and subdue the earth...Genesis 1:28?

I have not met you Chris, and I am sorry if I offended you personally by saying the sermon you preached was misogynistic, even if I still think it was.

Hope this is more than a few sentences for you.

Karen

Karen,

I appreciate your email. I also respect your opinion. There are a few things I'd like to respond to if you don't mind.

YOU SAID

For example, how can you say men and women are different and then tell women not to what you call "gossip" about their husbands? Does talking about your husband to your mother, sister, or best friend automatically make you a gossip? Perhaps in excess but certainly not by just consulting someone in conversation over a matter. What you said sounded very manipulative and controlling. I agree, spouses need to speak to each other about their problems. However, I see no problem in a woman taking care of her needs, especially the needs a husband cannot provide. That is why fellowsip is so important among Christian women.

Sin is sin. Gossip is sin clearly spoken of in scripture as such.  It is not just a problem with women ONLY, but Proverbs indicates that it can be a common problem among women. By the same token, I speak with men about the sin of lust much more than with women. Everything you said about women needing the fellowship and friendship of other women is, of course, true... and I completely agree. I would never suggest to anyone, man or woman, that he or she should not have friendships of accountability and people to speak with about their problems. But there is a line that can be crossed where it can easily become gossip if we are not disciplined with our tongues.

YOU SAID

Why do you "blame" men for the feminist movement? Do you think it was just a movement that happened as a direct result of too much violent male dominance? Has there not been violence and oppression against women in other civilizations? Further, why would you blame yourself for a good thing? The "feminism" of the society was an issue of equality. Do you feel that women should not have the same equal rights as men?

I blame men for much of it because it would not have been necessary if women were given proper EQUAL treatment to begin with. I'm not sure I would agree that all aspects of the "feminist movement" are a good thing. I believe many women have been tricked by feminism which supposedly 'freed" them from the tyranny of men only to realize they are trapped in this new paradigm to compete with men. As a result, men are being confronted with the 'new woman" who is told they must pursue status, wealth and power. Women have fought for a certain respect that now means they have to fend for themselves. As a result, men have learned that they are able to pursue and seduce these women with no apparent responsibility or consequence. Instead of women being cherished, men are free from any commitment to the woman because women need to be able to take care of themselves. Therefore, I do not see all aspects of feminism to be a good thing. Hopefully you will see by the end of this email, however, that I fully agree in the EQUALITY aspects.

YOU SAID

...I do not see a problem with a husband seeing his wife as a partner and not a helper. Dominance is not equality.

I agree, dominance is not equality. And I have never suggested "dominance" in anything I have said. My guess is that your interpretation of words like "headship" and "helper" is one of dominance (meaning you see them in a negative light). I do not see it that way. And I do not think God intended these words to be negative when He used them in His Word. I have no problem with a husband seeing his wife as a partner AND a helper. Especially if those are the roles God gave her. God exists in three parts... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equal parts of the Trinity, yet play very distinct roles. It is interesting to me that the same word Jesus used to describe the Holy Spirit as "helper" is what is used by God to describe the wife of Adam. In the New Testament Paul continues this thread by exhorting husbands to imitate in their marriage Jesus' relationship to the church, his bride. If husbands are to treat wives like Jesus treats the church, and wives are to help their husbands like the Holy Spirit helps the church, then this is the most beautiful picture of equality you will ever see. Who would dare suggest that the Holy Spirit's role is "lesser" or "weaker" than the role of Jesus? Of course not. One is not "dominant" over the other. They are equally God, yet distinct in their roles.

YOU SAID

I can see why men think woman are complimentary. For women as their "helpers" is quite favorable for them. We are however compliments of each other.

Again, it is obvious your interpretation of "helper" is a negative one. Therefore you are assuming men interpret the complimentary relationship of "head" and "helper" as one of dominance and power. It just isn't so. Granted, there are some who unfortunately do interpret it this way. As a result, women revolt. And rightly so. But rather than continuing to react to bad teaching, I'd rather go back and try to see it properly, the way a loving God intended it to be seen. I don't suggest that I have perfect interpretation. But I do know that I don't interpret "complimentary" as a one-way street. I agree, we are compliments of each other.

"Complimentary" (IMO) means that men and women were both created in God's image and neither is better or worse. In God's design he created men and women to complement each other and as such created differing roles for men and women.

The tendency in many Christian circles today is to stress the equality of men and women by minimizing the uniqueness of manhood and womanhood. Part of the reason is because of the abuse and failure men have had in their role. As I have already suggested, as men failed, feminism took over. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case, feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychological compelling power. It is this reason so many people choose to believe in their viewpoint but do so based on feelings not on what is communicated in scripture. Certainly you would not suggest that all aspects of the feminist movement are rooted in scripture?

YOU SAID

"Adam" was an "earthing being" until the sexes were made. There was no such thing as a woman or a man! Do you think when God said  "It is not good for man to be alone" Genesis 2:18.. that He meant loneliness? Or perhaps God wanted "Adam" the sexless earthing to have reproductive capabilies? So the creation He made (humans) would be able to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill and subdue the earth...Genesis 1:28?

This I will have to completely disagree with. I would like to see what Biblical hermeneutic you have used to try and suggest that Adam was not created as a man, but as some other earthly being with no sex characteristics. Even Paul says that "man was created first, then woman." No, I do not think that what God meant when he said "it is not good for man to be alone" was loneliness. Are you suggesting that the only reason God created woman (after creating the "sexless" Adam) was because he wanted him to have reproductive capabilities? That is not my understanding at all. I go back to the very nature in which God was creating man to begin with.

Are you married? If so, this passage should have great significance for you. Let me explain. When God said, "it is not good for man to be alone" perhaps it had to do with the whole nature and intention of how God created man in the first place. In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." The image of God is a community. We know Him as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. He is ONE God, but exists in the plural... thus the phrase "our image."

So it wasn't good enough for man alone to bear the full image of God. God knew this. By ourselves we cannot reflect His image. He is every perfect characteristic of a man, and every perfect characteristic of a woman. So he put man to sleep, and created his partner... woman. Now, God says, when these two are joined together as "one" (like God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), you now have a better picture and understanding of the image of God.

What is marriage? IMO, in it's purest form it is to be the IMAGE OF GOD. As you know, the scriptures are filled with specific instruction for husbands and wives, and we most often are told to look to the example of the relationship between Jesus and the church to better understand how our marriages are supposed to look. But at one point in the book of Ephesians chapter 5, Paul says this after discussing husband and wife roles in a marriage, "This is a profound mystery -- but I am talking about Christ and the church." (verse 32). All along he been using marriage to illustrate Jesus' relationship to the church. He was saying that at any point in time and space a person ought to be able to look at a Christian marriage and SEE the GOSPEL. We are a walking, talking, living illustration of the great mystery of the Bible... the Gospel story... the story of God and His people.

So when a wedding ceremony takes place, there is really no greater human illustration for the work God has done through Jesus in His creation. I used to hate wedding ceremonies. I used to discourage couples from putting much into their wedding day ceremony. But now I have a different perspective. Now I understand that the wedding ceremony is perhaps the greatest opportunity for people to see Jesus, and to see what God has done for them. It's no wonder it was a week-long party in Jesus' day (he attended a wedding ceremony at the beginning of his ministry in John 2).

So what we celebrate together is something greater than a wedding of two people. Yes, it is that, and more. It is one more illustration of the love of God for humanity. The married couple is intended to be that illustration. Together, the biblically married coupleis the complete image of God.

Knowing that I interpret the marriage relationship this way, I am not sure how you can honestly believe that I view women in a lesser role than man. Different? Yes, in many ways. Also the same in many ways. But less equal? Of course not.

You have not offended me. I am not offended by people who find disagreement with me. I was a little taken back, perhaps, at the fact that a complete stranger had drawn a pretty serious conclusion about me. However, I am confident that if you lived near me and fellowshipped with us you would feel much differently. Relationship always has a way of helping you interpret a person's heart much easier. In fact, you might even be a little surprised to find that women have roles of leadership, teaching, etc... in our fellowship. There is nothing that a woman can't do.... except be a man. Likewise, the one thing that a man cannot do is be a woman. That's why they are so beautiful when they work together.

Your email has been stimulating. Feel free to pass along additional thoughts if you wish.

Chris

Chris,

What do you think man  (ad'uhm)  in our image, after our likeness... So God created man (ad'uhm) in his own image... means?

KJV - 26 And God said, Let us make man {Hebrew adam} in our image, after our likeness:... 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

NRSV - 26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind {Hebrew adam} in our image, according to our likeness;... " 27 So God created humankind {Hebrew adam} in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

NRSV - 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground 7 then the Lord God formed man {Hebrew adam} from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man {Hebrew adam} became a living being...

I find it interesting you have not replied to this statement. "...what about the people who are left handed? Did God not make them left handed? Are they less functional because they happen to write with their left hand? That is the problem with strict gender roles. There are many people who do not fall into your 'either role' distinctively?"

Karen

KAren

I'm not sure why you find that "interesting". Unless you are actively looking for things to indict me on. You had many questions, most of which I gave very lengthy explanations. To the question you asked below, I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with gender roles. I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. I do see that you continue to use the words "less functional" which continually indicates to me that you assume anyone who celebrates the "differences and distinctions" in gender roles must be looking at one as greater and the other as lesser. Of course a left-handed person is equally as gifted and functional as a right-handed person. That is a characteristic that helps make them uniquely who they are. Same is true for men and women. We both have characteristics that make us uniquely who we are.

I see that as GOOD. Not negative.

I was not dodging the question. I was just confused by it. The only thing I can figure out that you were trying to say is this... I have created a box for women (called right-handedness), but what about women who are born "left-handed"? The women who do not necessarily fit into the gender roles I have suggested God has given them.

If this is what you were saying, maybe you can give me some examples of what you are talking about that are specific to gender. Left-handedness and right-handedness are not gender-specific. But, for instance, some behaviors and emotions could be considered gender specific. Are you concerned that I have painted a broad-sweeping generalization and included all women in that, when some may not fit into it???

Please read this with all respect. I am not patronizing you. I am really trying to understand what you are thinking.

I think I see where you are coming from. I don't agree, but I see your point of view. I can respectfully agree to disagree.

Now, here is what I see in the Genesis account. In the description of the creation account in chapter 1 we find God's first word on the subject of men and women (verse 27)... they were both equally created in the image of God. Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as human beings, as spiritual beings, standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal. I see a general description of the creation account, then a more specific one in chapter 2. This interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is consistent with the author's description of all the other pieces of God's creation. First he tells us when God created what he created in chapter 1. Then in chapter 2, verse 4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth as they were created." Now he gets more specific.

Despite the complete equality, the more detailed account of the creation of the two humans written in Genesis 2 shows some differences in their God-given responsibilities (the gender-specific roles). God did not create the man and woman spontaneously at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being a helper to Adam. Though Eve was Adam's equal, she was given a role to fulfill in submitting to him. While the word "helper" carries very positive connotations, even being used of God Himself as the "helper" of Israel (Deut. 33:7, Ps. 33:20), it is still taken as an offensive word by many who are proponents of the feminist movement. Obviously you, yourself, have taken offense at the word, seeing it to mean "lesser significance". If you refuse to see that even God himself used this word to describe his character and role, then I don't know what will appease you.

Karen, I want to say something pretty pointed here. But please hear my heart. It has become obvious to me that you have bought into the feminist movement hook, line, and sinker and have come out on the other side thinking that unless a man says "you are equal" in every way they are trying to control you, put you down, etc. You have not been able to see (or at least have been unwilling to see) that I am placing women in a more esteemed role than even you are!!! GOD certainly places women in a more esteemed role than the feminist movement does. It is very possible that I may have more respect for you as a woman than you have for yourself. Otherwise you would not feel compelled to pick a fight with a complete stranger on the internet who actually goes out of his way to explain how wonderful women are in their distinctive nature from men.

One more thing. In a previous email I asked if you were married. If you are, you will certainly understand what I am about to say.

There are traits my wife has that are distinctly feminine that I wish I had. But I don't. So I am glad I have her. Likewise, my wife recognized traits in me, things that are clearly masculine that she does not have, and she is glad she has me.

Why is that have to be a negative thing?

Chris

Chris,

I am sorry you feel that way. Did I not say that I saw no point in arguing with you about this?  I still view your comments as misogynistic.

Do you believe feminists are God's enemy? Perhaps it's some insecurity you have that makes you lash out at people with different points of views? I have gained so much freedom from my mother's generation and am very greatful and proud of their accomplishments thus far. Do you really know what feminism is? Have you looked into why they believe what they believe? Your responses show complete ignorance. I am not talking about radical feminists here.

Yes, you are right Chris I do take offense to the idea of a woman's role as a "helper". There is nothing honorable about having yourself controlled by someone else who is superior to you. Is a woman not her own person? What you say with the "helper" idea is that women were made by God for man and not for God. Why then should women pray to God? Shouldn't they not be praying to their man? Since he is the Christ of their life as you say?

And no, I am not married. I am in college.

Karen

Karen,

You have missed nearly everything I have said. I have had to repeat many of the same answers a number of times. Never have I "lashed" out at you because your point of view is different. I have actually done quite the opposite.

When you say you take offense at the use of the word "helper" you are not taking offense at me. You have told me much about your view of God. You are offended more by God than by me. Therefore I can no longer have this conversation with you because your issue is not primarily with me. I have been open-minded about your perspective. Openly telling you that I respectfully disagree. Your continually accusatory tone with me is evidence that you have become blinded by your convictions and have no ability to open your mind to something that could possibly be better. Which I do believe that my understanding of women is much better (FOR women's sake, not for my own) than the one you have chosen. You could poll any number of ladies in our fellowship who would undoubtedly agree. There is fear, combativeness, hardness, resistance, competitiveness, defensiveness, in your understanding. God did not create us to compete with one another. Women should not have to resort to that. I happen to believe he has much MORE for you. But as long as you refuse to trust Him and instead make your own way you will never experience that.

One thing I try to live by is the understanding that I have not arrived in anything, especially in doctrine and theology. I want to always remain teachable and open to new insights. But not ones that have to twist Scripture in such ways as you have in order to support a particular view.

I'm sorry, but this conversation appears to be over. You can have the last word if you'd like. But I will not respond. I will only pray. No, I will not be praying that you "see things my way". That has not been my goal in this conversation. As I said earlier, this has been a stimulating discussion. I do respect you. It isn't important that you agree with me or even believe that I respect you. But it is important for me to end this email by reminding you that I have spoken with you very respectfully and graciously.

Best wishes,

Chris

Well, that's where it ended. I know it was long, but if you have thoughts (especially you ladies) I'd love to see them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Biblical Manhood, Part One

It's a bit of a rainy morning, and I'm spending a few minutes inside, so I thought I would post some of the material I have been working on over the past few weeks. Last weekend I taught a workshop at a College student retreat called Deeper Life. My topic was "Biblical Manhood" AKA "Being A Godly Man."

This has become a subject of great interest for me. Perhaps it is because I see a decline in manliness. I don't mean machismo... but manliness. I look around the world and cultures, and even in the church there seems to be a common thread of unmanly, unmen. Today's men have had their masculinity removed and have been told its' something they must apologize for. Psychology has taught us that a man who has discovered his "feminine side" is caring and sharing, but our "masculine side" is aggressive, domineering, and territorial. We have been conditioned to see masculinity in a negative light. And I submit that it is all reactionary.

Whenever you discover a new problem in culture, usually all you have to do is go back a few years and you find the reason why the new problem has developed. Everything we experience in culture is a reaction from the previous culture. For instance, there was a day when men's and women's roles were clearly defined and distinct. You only need to go back about 50 years to find this truth.

Males had a particular role in society, while females had another. We lived with the false idea that a man should come home from work with a pregnant, barefoot wife working in the kitchen for his every need and desire. A male was seen as strong, the leaders, the providers... and the world was really seen as a man’s world.

Even if things appeared to be in order, great problems lived underneath. Men were often chauvinists; they used their power to look at women like second-class citizens. For example, American women were below the male only being allowed to vote in 1920, which passed Congress by one vote. For centuries, Anglo-American common law granted the husband the right as head of the household to beat his wife as long as he did not cause permanent damage. Domestic violence perpetrated by males accounts for more adult female emergency room visits than traffic accidents, muggings, and rape combined, and according to the U.S. surgeon general it is the greatest single cause of injury to American women. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 30% of women who are murdered, are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends.

These days are often looked upon with great nostalgia. But let me say with great assurance, we do not want to return to these past sins. We must learn from the errors our fathers and grandfathers made. It was these chauvinistic lazy sins of men that caused a great movement by women to rebel against the failure of men.

It was during the late 1960’s that the rebellion really started advancing mainstream. Women nationwide had become sick of men being in power, telling women how to live. Feminist organizations were founded to change society’s structures so that sexual distinctions might be minimized or overcome. At first feminists protested the Miss America pageant; they threw their dishcloths, girdles, false eyelashes, bras, and copies of Vogue, and the Ladies Home Journal into a “Freedom Trash Can”.

It wasn't until the 1970's that these ideas began to gain steam. Women realized that the change had to come from a position of power. To challenge this, feminists developed a woman-centered analysis of all culture. Every facet of human experience had to be challenged and redefined.

Language: Feminists maintained that a bias favoring males was present in language. Gender neutrality was brought forth.  “Stewardess” became “flight attendant”; no longer could you speak of mankind; even in marriage women began to keep their own last names.

Motherhood: Each individual woman must have the right to determine when, where, and how to become a mother. If she had an unwanted pregnancy, she must have the right to abort her child. Abortion numbers rose dramatically. If she chose to have a child, it was to be cared for by society as a whole so that the responsibility would not restrict her in any way. Daycares sprung up across the country.

Sexual Relationships: Following the sexual revolution of the 60s, feminists agreed that women should be free to have sex with whomever they wanted. However, up until this point, the matter of sexual relationships between women was not discussed in public. In the early 70s, a woman's choice of sexual partners became more than a personal choice; it became a political statement. This led to the rise of lesbianism and promiscuity.

As these changes became reality, a whole new generation of children were reared under these ideas, Women changed. Also, the next generatikon of men were changing.

You see what I mean by "reactionary". The culture we now understand and are forced to accept is a reaction of the bad things from the previous culture. In my pursuit of Godliness, and Biblical Manhood, I want to seek and find what God's original plan for man and woman was. And once we find that, pray for His strength and wisdom to live that out in today's warped world.

More to come on this subject. I have lots and lots of notes. I just wanted to give a little teaser right now. In the Fall of 2005 I plan to host a class for the men of Oasis and anyone else who wants to attend. Our goal will be this search and discovery I mentioned above.

Puzzled Grace

http://charliewear.next-wave.org/2005/03/13#a1006

Here is a quick blurb about a topic brought up in message at a "Soularize" event by a speaker named Todd Hunter on grace. Below is the link to a short video that sums up a powerful message.

Video link:

http://desertpastor.typepad.com/paradoxology/files/
todd_hunter_on_grace.WMV

Though there isn't an entire message available for viewing or transcript, here's my take on Paul and grace.

In Wear's discussion, Conversion is this idea today (as it is often popularly defined) that we become Christian merely to escape the fires of Hell. We do it as insurance, as Charlie Wear says. Of course, people *may* learn after the fact that there is much more to being a Christian than going to "paradise" and escaping eternal damnation. Chris underlined the point that eternity starts now, and we are able to  take part in God's favor now as opposed to only after judgement day in his teaching on 1 Corinthians on Sunday.

We've all seen and chuckled or perhaps worn shirts that say "Hell is for losers," or "To get to heaven, you need the hell knocked out of you." Now, while perhaps true ultimately, this isn't speaking the language of most people today, frankly. It is a very modernistic trend that peaked in the 70s-80s and can be problematic when trying to enter dialogue with common unchurched folk today with a shirt on with an image like the one below.

Back to subject, conversion in this discussion has a tendency to be a one-stop shop fix to the "problem of hell," and often leaves non-christians and christians alike with an incomplete view of grace, and more importantly, an incomplete picture of who Jesus is and what he did, which leads to the other side of the story.

Kingdom is the idea, in Hunter's discussion, that paints a picture of Christians as followers in a larger picture of God's grace. God's grace is not just the forgiveness of sins and the saving of one's soul from hell, but a conscious and progressive journey of one's soul that actively seeks God and is active in being set apart like the church depicted in Paul's Letters and the book of Acts. Unfortunately, the former, "Conversion," reflects much of today's American Evangelical Christians. The tension between the two needn't be mutually exclusive, but actually melded together to get a more complete picture of grace.

Highlights from 2004

A few business items before I make my post:

1. Here's the teaching download from today's gathering. It concludes the Oasis series on the book of Ephesians.
2. This Sunday at our Oasis gathering I will begin a four-week series on the books of the Old Testament. It will be an overview of how the Old Testament is put together and all points to the main story of the Gospel of Christ. We will look at one book from each of the main sections of the Old Testament: (1) The Books of Moses, (2) The History Books, (3) The Wisdom Books, and (4) The Books of the Prophets.
3. This morning we discussed one small way that we, here in America, can help the devastated brothers and sisters in Indonesia and Africa. Here is the link to the Compassion International page that I referenced.

In this, my first post of 2005, I thought I would share a few of what I might consider to be "highlight" posts from 2004:

From January 8, 2004:
A couple of nights ago I sat beside my daughter’s bed singing worship songs with her, and I noticed she seemed very uncomfortable. She was kicking her legs and groaning and tossing and turning in her bed. I asked, “Honey, what’s wrong? Do your legs hurt?” She looked at me with big tears in her eyes and said, “Yes.” She was growing. As her father I knew that, and knew that her pain was being caused by a very good process of life. In fact, if she did not ever have growing pains it would probably mean she was not growing, which would cause much concern, and we would take her to the doctor to find out what the problem is.

This is the great paradox of growth. We know we must, but it hurts. We would get concerned if we were not hitting the appropriate stages of growth in our lives. We know it’s a natural part of life, but the change takes it’s toll on us emotionally. We know we will be exposed to new things and will experience things we’re not sure we are ready for. We know every new step we take means we are getting closer to the goal God has for us in life, but taking steps means we have to leave where we once were. It’s hard. We get used to things. Change hurts. Growth hurts.

But God is Good. And I have one question. It is the burning question that separates disciples of Jesus from church attendees… it separates followers of Jesus from those who believe but are reluctant to follow. Here is the question… Do you trust Him?

TRUST is the fabric of the clothing of Christ (Galatians 3:27 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.”). Trust is the fabric of His clothing. Do we lack trust that He really will be faithful to complete the work he has begun? Do we not trust that He knows the needs of our lives, the needs of our children, as much as we do? Do we not trust that He knows where we need to be challenged and where we need to be coddled? Do we not trust that He is Good?

To be excited about a new baby means many changes will be taking place in our lives. At first we don’t think we will like the changes, but as I mentioned earlier, “life hadn’t really begun until we had kids.” This is the great paradox of creating new life. In order for it to take form there must be sacrifice on our part. Sacrifice hurts. But I have experienced that there are some things in life that are well worth the pain we experience. They bring us to a better place. In the middle of the pain we wonder if we will ever make it…

How will we make it?

Trust.

Trust breeds perseverance. Perseverance breeds faithfulness. Faithfulness breeds new seeds. Seeds breed new fruit. Fruit breeds kingdom life. Kingdom life breeds changed families. Changed families breed changed neighborhoods. Changed neighborhoods breed changed communities. Changed communities breed a changed world.

From January 22, 2004:
>> There is no “one-size-fits-all” way for doing things in the church. You know, I’m sure every emerging church leader, every postmodern thinker, would agree with that statement. But you know what is ironic to me? Those same people (and I include myself in this, because I have certainly been guilty of doing this) will still point at a certain method, model, or movement and say, “That’s it… that is what is going to work!” I agree that some things work better than other things. But aren’t statements like that just the beginnings of building another box? Who am I to say that God can’t or won’t use a modern approach and style to reach lost people, even in a postmodern context? The kingdom of God is made up of large churches, small churches, home churches, multiracial churches, intercultural churches, inner city, rural, and suburban churches. It refuses to be boxed in.

>> How would an average person in the church define the word “church”? This question deals not with styles or methods. It goes deeper, to the heart of who the church is. I will give two possible definitions people may give, and then elaborate just briefly.
- Definition #1: I come to church to be fed, to have my needs met through quality programs, and to have leaders teach me and my children about God. Church, in this definition is seen as a dispenser of goods and services… this is called “going to church”. In this definition a person will describe to someone else about the church to which they “GO”.
- Definition #2: I see church as a body of people sent on a mission given by Jesus, and who gather in community for worship, encouragement, and teaching from the Word of God, which supplements how I am feeding myself throughout the week. In this definition a person will describe to someone else the church to which they “BELONG”.

>> The issue is the mindset, not the model. When the mindset of every believer is consumed with a missional vision (definition #2) for the church to which they belong rather than a consumer vision (definition #1), then the model will really not make a difference. God will use the large church, the house church, the simple church, the complex church, the urban church, the rural church.

Some of you reading this are thinking… “Wait a minute, I thought you were adamantly for the simple church, and adamantly against the institution of the church? Are you changing your tune?” Perhaps. But I really don’t think I am changing my tune. I still have personal preferences and convictions. Maybe I’m not changing the tune, just turning the volume down a bit. I hope there is always room in my heart for God to “change my tune,” or perhaps to open my eyes to see things as He sees them. Sometimes leaders and critical thinkers get so bent out of shape over the stuff that really doesn’t matter. If the people of Oasis have a heart for the mission of God and an understanding of their membership in His family, then why would I need to create apologetics for where and how we gather together? If the heart is where it belongs, then it won’t matter if the church is gathered in homes, or in large settings, or in bars, or in legion halls, or in parking lots, or wherever!!!

Dear postmodern, changing culture observers, critical thinking friends: lets get over it!!! Get over your disdain for the modern forms and structures that didn’t teach you anything. Get over your cynicism of the institutions (or should I say, the “IC”) and the models that “don’t get it” the way you do. Set aside the discussion and the philosophy for a few minutes. Ask yourself, “Am I helping the mission of the church in the world by spending much of my time talking about what is wrong with it?” It’s okay if you meet in a simple, home church setting. And it’s okay if the pastor down the street leads his congregation in a large, formal setting. You are brothers. It’s okay if you use candles, and it’s okay if the youth pastor across town uses a disco ball. You are brothers.

From January 29, 2004:
Had a great visit today with "new" friend Chad (one of those things, you know, where we were acquainted with one another for years, but after one sit-down conversation you really get to know someone more in that one conversation than years of just being "acquainted"). Today, before we realized it we had been sitting in Donkey for 3 hours talking about everything from ancient church history, to modern day church, to music, to writing, to a whole list of topics.

Thanks Chad, for taking time out of your day to share your stories and listen to mine. Looking forward to doing it again.

(NOTE: We have been continuing for the entire year. Chad, look at how far we've come!)

From February 13, 2004:
It has been so refreshing to see many new faces in our gatherings and home church meetings. One thing I am constantly reminded of is the fact that worship is, in and of itself, evangelism. The outward expression of worshiping Jesus will naturally draw people to Jesus. What I mean is this... one of the best ways for an unbeliever to become a believer is to see/experience other people worshiping Jesus. Often what happens is they look around and are blown away by what they see. There is nowhere in their life where they see anything like this... a group of people singing and praying, with all their heart, body, and soul. They look at their friends who invited them to come to the gathering. And they look at a community of people who shouldn’t be together, because they don’t look alike, they aren't all in the same economic bracket, they have different interests. And from all those different people they hear one voice being lifted up to God. The presence of the Holy Spirit is there, and I believe one thing that happens is they are faced with a crisis. Their minds are in a deep place (and they like it but they don't know why). They may be thinking, “I’m encountering God right now... and... what am I going to do about it?” In that moment God meets them face to face and calls for a response. Many of you reading this have experienced God like that.

In my "seeker sensitive" days, I used to think that we shouldn't create an environment where people would have to do things that would be "unusual" for them. I mean, where else do people sing together in public, other than at a baseball game, and only then it's to the tune of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame"? But now, however, my feelings are much different... that’s exactly why we should sing, why we should pray for people, why we celebrate communion, why we should baptize people. Because of MEANING... the very thing people are looking for. Meaning. It all means something. The very “oddness” of what we do is important. Community has to have its markers. So, worship is one of the major marking points of our community. Yes, it's all about God, to God, and for God. But part of being about God has to do with identifying ourselves as the church.

Why am I writing these things to you? Because I believe people in our neighborhoods and cities are looking for more than a "feel good" experience or a one-time, get some answers and go, drive-thru church experience. If they come with you to a house church meeting, or to a worship gathering, or to a conversation over coffee at a local cafe... they are anticipating something meaningful, something sacred, something that will in some way connect them with the Almighty God of the Universe... whom they may or may not even believe exists as of yet.

And it's there they continue their journey with God (God had been seeking them for some time)... but begin it in a community of love and worship.

From March 10, 2004:
As most of you who read my blog on a regular basis know, during the past couple of years I have been personally challenged in my theology of church. Many of the things that were once very important to me no longer have great significance in my practice of ministry. This is not to say those things are wrong, or should never be considered significant for anyone else. It just means I believe God has called me to something different. Something simple. Something that appears very “stripped down” compared to my former church work and experiences. Again, I am not bashing or putting down those former things. I have refrained from writing about these things for a long time because I have had a tendency to come across very strong about such matters. But if you could see my heart today you would know that I love ANY and ALL forms of ministry that point people to Jesus. If it points people to Jesus, and not to us, or to the form, or whatever… just to Jesus… then it’s okay in my book.

Now, having said that. Here are some things that I believe regarding church and how we ultimately end up with a “form” for what our church “looks like” in the community in which we live:
· I believe Jesus desires relationships with his children first… before anything else, relationship first. When relationship comes, then comes worship and devotion, Bible study, etc.
· I believe relationships do not require much formal space, training, teaching, buildings, etc. Relationships simply require time, conversations, and ultimately love.
· I believe that when all of the church is boiled down to the simplest factor, it ends up being me having a relationship with Jesus, and me having relationships with others… so that they, too, might meet Jesus through me. That’s being the church.
· I believe it is more important to “be” the church than it is to “go” to church, “get involved” in a church, “attend” a church, etc. I believe this because as I examine the Gospels and the life and teachings of Jesus I find that he gives very little instruction about church forms, and what the church should look like, its’ leadership, it’s programs, etc. However (and this will sound like a contradiction), he actually does give us plenty of instruction through his example of what the church should be, look like, etc. He and his disciples were the perfect example of church life. Always on the move, always doing good, reaching out, healing, giving, teaching, loving, etc. They did this without any of the formalities we have today.
· I believe that Jesus cares little about our forms, and a whole lot about us.
· I believe that God honors many different forms of church today. We live in a variety of cultures and settings that are very different from Jesus’ day, and therefore the church should look different… but it’s actions, it’s heart, it’s ministry should be the same as His.
· I believe the church is the body of Christ, a community, and should look and function very much like a good family.
· I believe it is easy to live and function like a good family when the church gathers in simple settings, such as homes, or in coffee shops, or parks, etc.
· I believe God honors and enjoys our gatherings for worship, whether they are small or large.
· I believe that when it comes to church forms, what works for one town or city will most likely not work for another town or city. Every city has its’ own personality, its’ own culture. And it takes time to discern what that is, and more importantly, to become what that is. Only then will you be ready to gather people into a “form” of church.
· I believe the reason we have the church is because of relationships, not vice versa. The church did not come first, relationships did. This is a very important thing to remember in evangelism… a very important thing to remember when considering our motives for worship gatherings, outreach programs, etc.
· I believe the Gospel does not exist for the church, but the church exists for the Gospel. We ought not view the Gospel through the lens of the church and culture… but rather, view the church and culture through the lens of the Gospel. Only then will our perspective be right for who we are and what we are doing in the world.
· I believe the church is a community of people on a mission. Jesus demonstrated and proclaimed to us the best example of our mission… (1) To seek and save that which is lost; and (2) Not to be served, but to serve.
· I believe God is constantly at work in the world… and as long as I am giving my heart, my love, my devotion to Him first… I will be in His will for my life. His will for me is that I believe in Him and love Him. From that point everything else will fall into place (John 6:29; Matthew 22:37).
· I believe that the Gospel story (the big picture of God and His people) is the most important thing for a person to hear and learn… not all of the peripheral issues the church has added to the gospel story throughout the years of its’ history.
· I believe that a person can focus so much on the peripherals of Christianity that they completely miss the point (John 5:39-40). It happened when Jesus was on the earth, and it happens today… people educated beyond their intelligence.
· I believe that knowing God has nothing to do with how much you understand or can figure out, but everything to do with how much you love. The Bible says, “God is love”… therefore this idea makes perfect sense.
· I believe Jesus loves the church in the same way I love my wife… therefore I should watch my mouth when speaking about it. We have always heard Paul’s command to love our wives in the same way Jesus loves the church. It’s a great comparison when speaking in the context of husbands and wives. But think about that statement in the context of the church. Jesus views the church like His wife. Who are we to smear her name through the mud and bad-mouth her? This is a great lesson I am still learning.

There are many things I am learning and developing as I do my best to walk in the light of Jesus’ love and grace. I prefer not to call it a theology, although that is what it is. I just know that it is constantly changing, constantly moving. It’s a “liquid theology” if you will. It doesn’t mean it is wishy-washy… it just means I don’t have a corner on understanding and enlightenment. And according to the apostle Paul we will never have a corner on them until we leave this imperfect and cursed world (1 Corinthians 13:9-12).

From September 9, 2004:
In many ways today is a day that was called into being a long time ago… in my estimation, at least three years ago, but perhaps even longer in God’s mind. It was three years ago that April and I had begun seeking the Lord about where he was leading us. When we drove through southeastern Ohio it certainly seemed right to us and to the Holy Spirit that He would be sending us to Athens. When we drove uptown Athens it became even more apparent to us that our ministry would involve direct links to the campus of Ohio University.

If you were to ask me three years ago to define what that meant, I would have probably given you a much different explanation… if I gave any at all. Would it mean that we would start an Oasis in Athens that would meet on or near the campus and have a large college student constituency? Would it mean that one of us would work for Ohio University and therefore have direct links to the campus? Would it mean that we would be involved in starting a new campus fellowship at Ohio University? We just didn’t know.

During the last 3 years there have been many things that have not gone as anticipated. Some to our dismay, but some to our pleasant surprise and excitement. God has brought many people into our lives, and has allowed many to exit from our lives. What’s important is that HE has always remained. He is constant, and His plan is constant. He is persistent. He never fails. Even when we feel like we have failed Him, He keeps going, and for some reason He picks us up and brings us along. Sometimes we are dragging our feet in bewilderment, other times we are running along beside Him (or even out in front of Him at times… but that is another article), and sometimes He just needs to carry us for a while. But regardless, it is always good to be with Him. He never fails.

From October 24, 2004:
We try to place a lot of value on what we call "simple church." Simple church is just like it sounds... simply BEING the church, without placing a lot of extra-curricular rules on people. I suppose the most specific definition of "Simple Church" would be this... our goal is to make sure that whatever we do can be easily duplicated. If the church is going to multiply rapidly it must be kept simple. Multiplication will not happen in the large meetings, but rather, in the smaller, simpler gatherings of people all throughout the community.

Church is not about the weekly gathering (whether it's in homes or wherever)... although those are alot of fun... it's about a different way of life. I want to make sure I am not just talking about this... but living it out, and exhorting others to do the same.

From October 27, 2004:
I believe God honors our distinctions. He looks around His kingdom and He sees lots of flavor, lots of diversity. And this world is in need of lots of flavor. Even the smallest of towns in the USA is in need of distinct flavors. So please don’t despair just because you live in a town of 500 people and there are 50 different churches. Don’t assume there is a great division among God’s people. Instead, recognize the beauty in being distinct. Just never allow your distinctions to divide you. There is a thin line between the two. And we do have to be careful. The moment one group says, “We worship the ONE Lord but you don’t because you do this or that,” well there you have the root of division. Allow one another to be distinct. And recognize the unity God has given us in Jesus Christ, through the Spirit. Unity is something that comes from the Spirit, not from us. As long as churches think unity is something they can accomplish they will forever be missing the point, and they will lose every distinction and calling God has placed on them in a given community. Because all of their efforts will go toward creating unity instead of fulfilling the mission of God.

From November 7, 2004:
I shared with our Oasis gathering this morning that I absolutely despise morality. "Why?" you might say. Shouldn't we stand for morality? Especially in a culture that has appeared to have lost all sense of morality? Yes, but here is the problem. Morality is merely a form of godliness, and it ultimately denies God altogether. Morality is what causes all of the confusion in the world about God, salvation, and hell. Have you ever heard the question, "Why would God send GOOD people to hell?" We all know good, moral, people... don't we? Some say that it just doesn't seem right that a God who claims to be "just" would send a good, moral person to hell. The problem with that line of thinking is the assumption that morality is the goal. If the goal were morality then it's true, it would not be just for "good people" to go to hell.

But morality is not our goal. JESUS is our goal. Intimacy with Jesus is the goal, and the solution for overcoming sin. The world is confused because for too long the church has put so much emphasis on morality and so little emphasis on Jesus. If sin is our problem (which it is), then the answer to it will never lie within oursleves. Morality lies within ourselves. It's something we can all accomplish. But we need something much greater in order to overcome sin. We need Jesus. He's the only correct answer. Intimacy, friendship with Jesus.

From November 23, 2004:
...it is NOT the Lord’s will that you face awful circumstances. But as I reflect on the Scriptures I have read and studied over the years of my life I seem to find this common thread being spoken of as the will of God. Are you ready? It’s really deep…

To KNOW Him.

Could it be that the will of God that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 5 is simply this… to be close to Jesus. Could it be that this is what it’s all about? The whole Christian life. To simply be close to Jesus.

If so, then it now finally makes sense why I should give thanks in everything — all circumstances — even the bad ones. Not because God has given us those circumstances, and we respond by saying “thank you” like children do when you hand them a Popsicle.

But because in everything — whether good or bad circumstance — we have the potential of being drawn closer to Jesus.

And for that we give thanks.

_________________________________________

I'm looking forward to contributing to, reading, and learning from "BeTheChurch.com" this year. Let the creativity flow in 2005!