Friday, March 31, 2006

Motivation!

"As members of the new covenant community we serve as tokens of the new creation, and live out the promise of a thornless, tearless, world. Knowing far, far less than this, Noah got out of the ark as the first step to a new world. Knowing what we know now, ought at least to make our getting out of bed each morning just a little more worthwhile!"
Philip Greenslade, A Passion for God’s Story, p. 142

The Technique of Prayer

There has been considerable debate in the blogosphere about what prayer techniques are acceptable for Christians. There are those who demand that we find biblical justification for any form of prayer.

With the exception of the “Our Father,” Jesus has little to say about the form of prayer. He has a lot to say about the attitude of prayer. But his message seems to be primarily, “Just do it.”

Of course, we need to always remember that prayer is spending time with the Father. It is not just a technique to relax or center ourselves. But it seems to me that if we spent more time with the Father, we would spend less time arguing with others about how they “do” prayer.

What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Missing the Point

While thinking about the power Jesus promised us through prayer, we must not lose sight of what is most important. Prayer is first of all about a relationship with God.

Just before Jesus performed one of his most spectacular miracles, the raising of Lazarus, he prayed the following prayer, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me" (John 11:41-42).

What is Jesus saying? He is saying that he knows the Father intimately and knows what the Father wants to do. He knows this because he has been stealing away to spend time with the Father.
The primary purpose of prayer is to get to know God.

How do we get to know another person? By spending time with him or her.

(I almost deleted this post. Because I’m not really saying anything new.)

If we are focusing on prayer in order to obtain spiritual power, then we’re missing the whole point. Besides, getting close to God is more valuable than any amount of spiritual power.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Self-righteousness

I’ve been listening to some sermons by Tim Keller. (You can find a good list of audio files and documents at D. J. Chaung’s site.) He was talking about the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). But he made a point that we are all subject to self-righteousness.

If we are not aware of our own tendencies to self-righteousness, we are like the Pharisees who claim to be able to see and thereby put themselves beyond Jesus’ ability to heal their blindness (John 9:41).

Like the Pharisee in the parable we pray, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people, those who
  • don’t preach the true gospel.”
  • are lost in emotionalism.”
  • are too intellectual.”
  • are legalistic” (double irony!).
  • are not passionate about their faith.”
  • are bound by traditional ways of doing church.”
  • are unkind in their treatment of people with new ideas.”
  • have a flawed theology (one different than mine).”
  • say bad things about the people I like.”
  • are people pleasers and say good things about the people I don’t like (teach ‘error’).”
  • don’t care enough about the poor.”
  • spend all their time focusing on social issues instead of focusing on the gospel.”
  • aren’t clever like me.”
  • don’t spend enough time doing spiritual disciplines.”
  • practice the wrong spiritual disciplines.”
I could go on. But you get the point. We all justify ourselves in our own eyes. (If you just said, “I don’t do that,” gotcha!) But the point is not to call out others. The point is to expose our own drive to justify ourselves. We who have the spiritual oversight of others need to be especially careful (Galatians 6:1). And we who appoint ourselves as “prophets” to point out the errors of others on the Internet need to be even more circumspect.

So what do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Prayer or Magic?

(To catch up with the argument read this, this and this.) Here’s another idea to throw into the mix. If prayer worked the way many expect it to, then it would not be prayer. It would be magic. It would be a way to manipulate God. C. S. Lewis had some insight on this:
Invariable ‘success’ in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something much more like magic—a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

Then he points out that Jesus’ original request in the Garden of Gethsemane was not granted. And Paul had his request denied three times (2 Corinthians 12:8-9).

What is the difference between a mature believer who has her prayers answered consistently (and positively) and a (hypothetical) person who is able to manipulate God to do what he wants God to do?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Training Required

Whenever people handle powerful (and therefore dangerous) things we usually require a certain level of maturity and often require special training. In many circumstances we even require a license, to verify that a person is qualified to use the dangerous object or substance.

You can think of many different examples. We don’t let children drink alcohol. We require drivers to be 16 and pass a competency test before they can legally operate an automobile. Doctors must take years of schooling and receive other professional certification before they can prescribe powerful medicines.

What would happen if God let everyone exercise the full power of prayer without spiritual maturity and without training in how to use it?

This seems to hint at an answer to why our prayers tend to lack power. Does this make sense? What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Monday, March 27, 2006

Powerful=Dangerous

This statement by Dallas Willard got me thinking. I’m beginning to develop a satisfying answer to why our prayer seems to lack the power Jesus said it should have.
One good public answer to our prayer might be enough to lock some of us into weeks of spiritual superiority. Great power requires great character if it is to be a blessing and not a curse, and that character is something we only grow toward.
Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy, p. 368

What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Power of Prayer

Jesus said some rather audacious things about the power of prayer.

He said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:12-14).

He said, “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Luke 11:9-10).

He said, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you” (Matthew 17:20).

Yet we do not experience this power in our own lives. At least I don’t.

Why do you think that is? Why do our prayers seem to have little impact compared to the prayers of Jesus to the Father? He said that we would accomplish even greater things. So why don’t we?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Friday, March 24, 2006

Preaching to the Choir & the Cynic

To whom should the pastor address his message? The Saddleback/Willow Creek model solves this problem with two kinds of “services.” On the weekends, they address the “seeker.” During the week, they instruct the believer.

There are some difficulties with this approach: many never make the transition from the weekend to the weeknight; seekers are not exposed to how Christianity works; believers often feel “under-fed” at the weekend “services;” the “world” assumes that what is being taught on the weekend is “all there is” to Christianity.

Tim Keller
argues quite persuasively that evangelism and worship should be happening at the same time.

Here are the three concerns one must address to accomplish this:

  • Making worship comprehensible to unbelievers
  • Getting unbelievers into worship
  • Leading to commitment

I know that sounds like “watering down the gospel.” (Before you make that judgment, read Keller’s biblical argument based on 1 Corinthians 14 and Acts 2.)

Tomorrow we’ll look at some of the practical issues involved in pulling this off.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Looking for a Fight

For those of you who are visiting from Reflections of the Times, Pyromaniacs or BalylyBlog, welcome. Feel free to look around and make comments. But this is not the place for verbal fighting. If you want to debate me on some issue raised at those other sites, keep the discussion there. If you want to debate my controversial post at Behind the Scenes, I’ll gladly indulge you.

This blog, however, is like your mother’s living room. There are too many things that might get broken. So if you wanna fight, let’s go
outside. Otherwise, let’s place nice.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Seeker-Sensitive Remixed

The Willow-Creek Saddleback model has come in for a considerable degree of criticism. There are those who resisted it from the beginning. There are others who believe that its time has come and gone. I believe that much good has been done for the cause of the kingdom by these churches; however, there is unavoidable baggage when attendees are trained to think as consumers and start their journey toward Christ expecting to be entertained.

Some have rejected the slick, highly-produced presentation of the gospel and gone to the other extreme of
rough-edged, spontaneous, “authentic” gatherings.

In New York City,
Redeemer Presbyterian Church is following a “third way.” It is lead by the gifted Tim Keller. (This guy makes me feel like a pre-school dropout.) He suggests that the pastor speak to believers and unbelievers at the same time. In fact, he says, “Speak to your whole community, not just the ones in the seats.”

Traditional services tend to assume that the listeners have lots of biblical knowledge and are familiar with the insider jargon. They also tend to use “we-them” language. Consequently, the Christians who attend the service know that their non-believing friends would not feel welcome in the service.

Instead, a pastor should try to create an environment where the Christian attendee would say, “Oh! I wish my non-Christian friend could see (or hear) this!”

But this does not involve “watering down” the gospel. But it does involve presenting the gospel in different terms. The gospel has traditionally been presented as “forgiveness from sin.” But in a world where people don’t accept the concept of sin and say they don’t believe in moral absolutes, this approach falls flat.

Keller suggests that sin be explained in this fashion, “Sin keeps you from being free as you need to be, and therefore it enslaves and de-humanizes you.” The gospel shifts from being a gospel of forgiveness to being a gospel of freedom.

Now there is nothing unbiblical about this. We have been so conditioned to think of the gospel in terms of a legal transaction, that we have failed to notice all the other ways the gospel is presented in the New Testament. (See
Three Gospels.)

Non-believers value freedom. They see religion as “restrictive.” They need to hear the need for the gospel is these terms, “You are actually being religious, though you don’t know it—trying to be righteous in a destructive way.”

Then they can hear the good news that Jesus Christ redeems us, frees us from slavery.

Tomorrow I’ll look at how Keller suggests that a pastor can speak to believers and non-believers at the same time and be effective with both groups.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

One Gospel in Action

Pastor Tim Keller explains that the three different descriptions of the gospel are in reality just three different perspectives on the same gospel. But most Christians only see the gospel from one of these perspectives.

The first view could be called the Salvation Perspective. Most evangelicals have reduced the gospel to “getting saved.” They try to get people “converted.” Then they try to encourage these converts to “grow” as believers, but the most important work has been done. They are ready to go to heaven when they die.

The second view could be called the Kingdom Perspective. This is similar to the old liberal Social Gospel. It had a gained new life with the
Emergent Movement. This view encourages believers to participate in the Kingdom of God as it takes on the kingdom of this world. Individuals are “recruited” to repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and King. This includes spending eternity with him but focuses on advancing the Kingdom now.

The third view could be called the Grace Perspective. This view is emphasized by one of my favorite authors
David Benner. The Apostle Paul is talking about this in Galatians when he asked, “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Galatians 3:3). The focus here is on learning to rely on God’s grace. This is also reflected in Paul’s statement, “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

So what do you think? How does your view of the gospel affect how you go about your life?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

One Gospel

In a previous post, I asked you to pick the real description of the Gospel from among three very different explanations. By now you’ve probably realized that all three are true and accurate descriptions of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some might quibble over my attempt to summarize each perspective in one paragraph. Others might have a sectarian ax to grind. But in general, each of these is a more-or-less accurate explanation of the Good News.

Unfortunately, most Christians tend to emphasize one of these explanations at the expense of the other two. At best, this leads to an unbalanced approach to Christianity and evangelism. At worst, it causes a distortion of the gospel and leads to battles between Christians.

With the exception of a
small but vocal group of Christians, everyone agrees that God gives humans the opportunity to choose whether to accept the gospel. (Please keep the debate over this issue at the other blog. Such comments here will be deleted.)

So let’s focus on the choice that one makes in response to God’s call from the three different perspectives.

From the first perspective, God’s call focuses on what Jesus Christ has done for us in his death and resurrection. He calls us to put our trust in Christ and receive eternal life (Romans 10:9, 10).

From the second perspective, God calls us to join the kingdom he is establishing in Jesus Christ. He calls for us to repent and submit to a new Lord, working to advance that kingdom starting right now (Luke 9:23).

From the third perspective, God calls us to accept his unconditional love. He calls for us to give up the impossible effort to make ourselves good. He calls us to live a life of grace (Ephesians 2:8-10).

The interesting thing is that most Christians interpret all three of these passages in the context of the first perspective.

But these three perspectives suggest three different approaches to how we go about living “in Christ.”

We’ll explore that tomorrow.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Monday, March 20, 2006

Not a Balance

The metaphor of the two thieves may cause us to think that we need to strike a balance. But how can you have a balance between legalism and lawlessness? Between moralism and relativism? Proclaiming the gospel is not a balancing act between emphasizing God’s mercy and his holiness. It is something entirely different.

Tim Keller:
The gospel produces a unique blend of humility and boldness/joy in the convert. If you preach just a demanding God, the listener will have "low self-esteem"; if you preach just an all-loving God, the listener will have higher self-esteem. But the gospel produces something beyond both of those. The gospel says: I am so lost Jesus had to die to save me. But I am so loved that Jesus was glad to die to save me. That changes the very basis of my identity—it transforms me from the root.

I can't tell you how important this is in all mission and ministry. Unless you distinguish the gospel from both religion and irreligion–from both traditional moralism and liberal relativism–then newcomers in your services will automatically think you are simply calling them to be good and nice people. They will be bored. But when…the gospel is communicated in its unique, counter-intuitive balance of truth and love, then listeners will be surprised. Most people today try to place the church somewhere along a spectrum from "liberal" to "conservative"–from the relativistic to the moralistic. But when they see a church filled with people who insist on the truth, but without a shred of superiority or self-righteousness–this simply explodes their categories. To them, people who have the truth are not gracious. People who are gracious and accepting say, "Who knows what is the truth?" Christians are enormously bold to tell the truth, but without a shred of superiority, because you are [a] sinner saved by grace. This balance of boldness and utter humility, truth and love–is not somewhere in the middle between legalistic fundamentalism and relativistic liberalism. It is actually off the charts.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Three gospels

Which of these is the correct expression of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

  • Every person who ever lived has sinned and fallen short of God’s righteous standard. But God loved the world so much that he sent his Son to earth. Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross in your place, so that you wouldn’t have to pay the penalty for your own sins. In order to receive the eternal life now made possible through his sacrifice, you must repent of your sin and accept God’s gift of grace. If you make this decision then you are reborn and will spend eternity with God in heaven.


  • God created a good world and put humans in paradise. But they rebelled against him and, in the process, became enslaved to sin and to the kingdom of evil. Jesus came to redeem God’s creation and establish God’s kingdom on earth. If you want to participate in this kingdom and enjoy an eternal kind of life, you must submit to Jesus as your Lord. This kingdom overcame evil in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the ultimate victory will not come until Jesus returns to inaugurate the new heavens and the new earth. In the meantime we work to advance God’s kingdom and oppose evil in every form in which we encounter it.


  • God loves you unconditionally just the way you are. There is nothing you can do to make God love you more than he does now. There is nothing you can do to make God love you less than he does now. However, pride gets in the way of God’s love. The only way we can experience God’s love is to come to him in our brokenness and sinfulness. When we do this, we receive his grace. We cannot earn his love. But because we are loved, we allow God’s spirit to work in our lives to produce the fruit of the Spirit.

So what do you think? Which is the true gospel?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Wesleyan "Onion"

This is too funny not to share. Consider it a little comic relief from our serious discussions. Enjoy.

Avoiding the “Two Thieves” part 3

Here is more application of the metaphor of the two thieves from the Web site of Sanctuary Church in Seattle (reformatted slightly):

Self-control:
Moralism tells us to control our passions out of fear of punishment. This is a volition-based approach.
Liberalism tells us to express ourselves and find out what is right for us. This is an emotion-based approach.
The gospel tells us that the free, perpetual grace of God "teaches" us to "say no" to our passions (Titus 2:13) if we listen to it. This is a whole-person based approach, starting with the truth descending into the heart.
Ministry in the world:
Moralistic religion will insist on converting others to their faith and church, but will ignore social needs of the broader community.
Liberalism tends to emphasize only amelioration of social conditions and minimize the need for repentance and conversion.
The gospel leads to love, which in turn moves us to give our neighbor whatever is needed--conversion or a cup of cold water: evangelism and social concern.
Worship:
Moralism leads to a dour and somber worship which may be long on dignity but short on joy.
Liberalism leads to a shallow understanding of "acceptance" without a sense of God's holiness and can lead to frothy or casual worship. (A sense of neither God's love nor his holiness leads to a worship service that feels like a committee meeting.)
But the gospel leads us to see that God is both transcendent yet immanent. His immanence makes his transcendence comforting, while his transcendence makes his immanence amazing. The gospel leads to both awe and intimacy in worship, for the Holy One is now our Father.
Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Avoiding the “Two Thieves” part 2

Here is more application of the metaphor of the two thieves from the Web site of Sanctuary Church in Seattle (reformatted slightly):

The physical world:
The moralist is afraid of or indifferent to physical pleasure and wholeness.
The hedonist makes it an idol.

The gospel leads us to see that God has invented both body and soul and so will redeem both body and soul. Thus the gospel leads us to enjoy the physical and fight against sickness and poverty.
Relationships:
Moralism makes relationships into a blame-game and a never ending need to earn our love; often creates "co-dependency,” a form of self-salvation through neediness.
Liberalism reduces love to a negotiated partnership for mutual benefit.

The gospel leads us to sacrifice and commitment, but not out of a need to convince ourselves we are acceptable. So we can love the person enough to confront, yet we stay with the person when it does not benefit us.
Suffering:
Moralism takes the approach of Job's friends, laying guilt on the self. "I must be bad to be suffering."
Liberalism lays the fault at God's doorstep, claiming he is either unjust or impotent.

The gospel shows us that God redeemed us through suffering. He suffered not that we wouldn’t suffer, but that in our suffering we could become like him.
Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Avoiding the “Two Thieves” part 1

Here is some application of the metaphor of the two thieves from the Web site of Sanctuary Church in Seattle (reformatted slightly):

Multi-culturalism:
The conservative approach is to idolize some cultures.
The liberal approach is to relativize all cultures.
The gospel of grace leads us to be:
somewhat critical of all cultures,
morally superior to no individual,
hopeful about any individual, and
respectful and courteous to each individual.
The poor:
The conservative elites tend to scorn the poor as failures and weaklings.
The liberal elites tend to scorn the religion of the poor and see them as helpless victims needing their expertise.
The gospel of grace leads us to be:
humble, without moral superiority knowing we were saved by grace,
gracious, remembering our former deserved spiritual poverty, and
respectful of believing poor Christians as brothers and sisters from whom to learn.
Difficult emotions:
The moralizing say, "You are breaking the rules-repent."
The psychologizing say, "You just need to love and accept yourself."
The gospel leads us to say: "Something in my life has become more important than God, a pseudo-savior, a form of works-righteousness.” The gospel leads us to repentance, but not to merely setting our will against superficialities.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Friday, March 17, 2006

Two Thieves

Here’s a powerful metaphor from the thought of Tertullian, through the message of Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church as reported in a blog archive by J. V. Moore:

The early Christian theologian Tertullian once said that just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so the Gospel (the message of Christ) is crucified between two opposite errors. These two “thieves” can be understood as moralism (usually conservative) and relativism (usually liberal.)

Moralists tend to stress truth without grace, for they say we must obey the truth in order to be saved. As Tim Keller once said: “This view will lead either to a) self-hatred (because you can't live up to the standards), or b) self-inflation (because you think you have lived up to the standards). Moralistic people can be deeply religious--but there is no transforming joy or power.”

Relativists on the other hand tend to stress grace without truth, for they say we are all acceptable to God (if there is a god) and we have to decide what is true for ourselves. Relativists tend to prefer “liberal” religion. They may talk a lot about God’s love, but since they do not see themselves as morally deficient (“sinners”) God’s love costs him nothing.

The Bible describes Jesus as being “full of grace and truth” which is why he never seems to fit comfortably into either the conservative or liberal stereotypes.

The ironic thing about moralism and relativism is that they are both ways of avoiding Jesus as Savior and keeping control of our lives. And the result is either pride (because we have lived up to our rules) or despair (because we have failed to keep them.)

How different the biblical Gospel, which cannot be co-opted by either conservatives or liberals, for on the one hand it tells us we are far more sinful than we ever dared imagine, but on the other hand we are far more loved than we ever dared hope. It will surrender neither truth nor grace, but unites them both in the person of Jesus.
(Emphasis added and edited for brevity.)



Be sure to weigh in on the Three Gospels.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Networking Evangelism

I found this PDF article by Tim Keller at the excellent resource page managed by Steve McCoy. Tim talks about the difficulties with most approaches to Friendship Evangelism. He suggests an alternative: Networking Evangelism.

Here are some excerpts:

A networking church is developed primarily through cultivating a mindset, a collective attitude and only secondarily through setting up programs.

A bringer will use the church as a plausibility structure to reach out to his or her web-network.

In a networking church, you must be either a seeker, a bringer, or a cell leader (follow-up) OR YOU ARE DEADWEIGHT!

There are four basic kinds of “web networks”: familial, geographical (neighborhood), vocational (career/school associates), relational (friends not necessarily in the other networks).

It is expected that the non-Christian will be exposed to the gospel at least several times on the way to commitment.

A networking church will discern, create, and keep track of “pathways” for the non-churched into the congregation.

(I suggest that you download the full article and keep it for reference.)

At first glance this seems to be the “seeker” model of Willow Creek and Saddleback. But it's really a different philosophy. Here’s an excerpt from
another article by Tim Keller:

We live in an increasingly "post-modern" society. The older modern society rejected revelation as a source of truth, but still honored reason/science as a source of truth. "Post-moderns" are more deeply secular and skeptical of any kind of truth at all…. In a "mixed" group, when the preacher speaks somewhat more to non-Christians, the Christians present learn how to share the faith. This is extremely important today. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians to just share the gospel without doing apologetics. The old canned quickie training programs cannot prepare a Christian for dealing with the range of intellectual and personal difficulties people have with the Christian faith.

They need to hear the preacher week in and week out dealing winsomely and intelligently with the problems of non-believers. This is excellent "training". On the other hand, when the preacher speaks more to Christians, the non-Christians present come to see how Christianity "works". More deeply secular "po-mo" non-Christians tend to decide on the faith on more pragmatic grounds. They do not examine in a detached intellectual way. They also are much more likely to make their commitment through a long process of mini-decisions. They will want to try Christianity on, see how it fits their problems and how it fleshes out in real life.

Any failure in behavior in Christians is due to unbelief. The antidote to unbelief is a fresh telling of the gospel. So, if a sermon is Christ-centered in its exposition and application, and if it is oriented toward a) dismantling the unbelief systems of the human heart, and toward b) re-explaining and using the gospel on the unbelief – then it will be highly illuminating to non-Christians even when it is aimed primarily to Christians.

(Keller also has some interesting things to say about math theory and the church. If you want to dig deeper check this out.)

This is heady stuff. Even my brain hurts. So what is your reaction?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

How To

Here’s a suggestion about how to go about “evangelism” at Emerging Evangelism: "For people who want to know what incarnational ministry looks like there is only really one way to go about it. I offer a three step process to success (cheeky grin) in incarnational ministry:

  1. Stop the frenetic activity. Close your eyes and breathe deeply. Take a seat and have a good look around (you will need to open your eyes again for this bit). If you only see Churchey people when you are looking around, you need to go and sit somewhere else. Try the pub.
  2. Ask your self what Jesus would have done to interact with the people you see. Banish all those ideas for evangelistic events, get them out of your mind, its not about that. How would Jesus have spoken to them. What would he have worn. Who would he be mixing with.
  3. Now go and do it.

The principle of incarnational mission is simple."

So what do you think? Does this make sense? Do you think it is oversimplified? Do you think it is not intentional enough? Do you think it follows the example of Jesus? Is this the way he would do evangelism today?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

What’s the key to evangelism?

Here are some interesting quotations from a Christianity Today article:
To a culture of people that believes they "go to heaven" based on whether or not they're morally pure, or that they understand some theological ideas, or that they are very spiritual, Jesus is completely unnecessary. At best, He is an afterthought, a technicality by which we become morally pure, or a subject we know about, or a founding father of our woo-woo spirituality.

Maybe the Gospel of Jesus, in other words, is all about our relationship with Jesus rather than about ideas. And perhaps our lists and formulas and bullet points are nice in the sense they help us memorize different truths, but harmful in the sense they delude, or perhaps ignore, the necessary relationship that must begin between God and us for us to become His followers. And worse, perhaps our formulas and bullet points and steps steal the sincerity we might engage God with.

Becoming a Christian might look more like falling in love than baking cookies.

(This article is an excerpt from Donald Miller’s book, Searching for God Knows What.)

So what do you think? Do we have problems with evangelism because we’re going about it all wrong? Is it possible that our own faith is mechanical because we think of it more like a recipe than a relationship? Is it possible that we’ve made it about going to heaven when it’s really about something completely different?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Some deep thinking on evangelism

There is an excellent post over at The Christian Mind about adjusting the presentation of the gospel for particular cultures. (This post is essentially a summary of a lengthy post by Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church: Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs.)

WARNING: This involves some serious thinking.

Dr. Keller defines defeater beliefs as a culture’s “common sense consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people.” Because these deeply-entrenched beliefs are assumed to be true, people hastily dismiss the Christian faith since it contradicts them.


I recommend that you read the summary and then, if your brain is not hurting too much, read the full article.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Friendship Evangelism?

Here are excerpts from two blogs. Both of these people reject Friendship Evangelism, but for very different reasons.

Passive Friendship Evangelism Committee: "Words from Dr. William Willimon: ‘We, as the church, need to mock the world, instead of being so accepting and encouraging of it. We celebrate sin, by honoring sinners.’"

The Martin-Weber Chronicles: What Would You Say? Part 2: "I reject the idea of ‘friendship evangelism’ even after all my years of being indoctrinated with this method of evangelism. If I began a relationship with this person there would be something other than me wanting to convince them of anything, we would have to share life on some level. My faith would never be a secret, but I wouldn’t be trying to manipulate conversations to not-so-subtly point out how they need God. I would seek to be in genuine relationship with this person, no hidden agenda. I do however believe in 'worship evangelism' and always be striving to live a life of worship- no apologies."

So do you agree with the first guy that “Friendship Evangelism” is too passive and too accommodating? Or do you agree with the second guy that “Friendship Evangelism” is too manipulative?

I don’t want this just to be a poll. I’d like it to be a discussion. Tell me why you feel the way you do.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Preaching to Ourselves

Maybe the best approach to evangelism is to start with ourselves. Instead of fighting the culture wars and telling people they are sinners, maybe we should be “converting” our own souls.

Here’s an excerpt from a recent
sermon by John Piper. It was given after his cancer surgery and before his five-month sabbatical:
When we are apart now for these next five months, would you do this, dear Bethlehem? Just as the elders will see to it that the gospel is preached in this pulpit, would you see to it that you preach the gospel to yourself? Pray to God for the light you need in your heart, and preach to yourself the truth that you need in your soul.

Sounds like good advice to me. What do you think?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Judgment Evangelism

I read this statement by Brian McLaren over at postmodern breakfast food: "We’ve created an environment where the only way Christians can relate to others is to tell them 'You’re going to burn in hell.' Think about that."

Ouch!

Selling Amway

Why does evangelism feel like trying to sell Amway?

You’ve had the experience. One of your friends invites you over for “dinner.” Then he wants to tell you about a “wonderful business opportunity.” You can tell that he is enthusiastic about it. But it sounds like a hassle. You’d have to change your whole life and build it around this “business opportunity.” The whole situation makes you uncomfortable. And you wonder how this is going to change your relationship.

All you have to do is exchange “wonderful plan for your life” for “wonderful business opportunity” and you have
most people’s experience of being “evangelized."

Why do you think this is? What can we do to make it different?

(Here’s
one guy’s idea. Here’s another twist on the “dinner” approach.)

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Friday, March 10, 2006

Back to Basics

It may seem odd to talk of returning to the “old way” when this blog is only a few weeks old. But I have taken us off our original path with the discussion of a lot of theory.

In the future, if there is a need for a theoretical discussion, I will post it at the
companion site. I will try to keep these posts concise and challenging.

This is one of the problems we have in the church. We spend so much time arguing over theory and positions that we have little time to focus on putting into practice what Jesus taught. And that is what this blog is about.
How do we put into practice what Jesus taught?

We’ve reduced Christianity to tips and techniques. We turned God’s grand story into a collection of propositions. We’ve limited “the Kingdom of God” to something that we participate in after we die.

Jesus called us to be salt, but we’ve tried to be pepper instead.
We’ve irritated the world over the wrong issues.

So from now on I’ll try to stay focused. A (sacred) ox may get gored from time to time.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Last Word

Here’s the last post on this issue.

When the Bible says that God does not change, it usually means that
God can be trusted to keep his word or that his character is unchanging. The idea that God cannot change in any way does not come from the Bible but from Greek philosophy.

But here’s the important point we’ve been building to throughout this too-long discussion: Even though God is the same today as he was in the time of Abraham (for example) our understanding of him continues to improve and develop.

Do we think that the universe is different today than it was in the time of Newton? Or course not. But our understanding is very different.

It is foolish (and somewhat arrogant) to think that any generation has discovered everything there is no know about God. Just because we have not received any new scriptures does not mean that our understanding of God cannot be refined.

Certainly any “new understanding” must be judged against the Bible. And many “new understandings” have been little more than repackaged heresy. But we shouldn’t be afraid to take a fresh look at the scriptures.

While God has not inspired any new scripture, we do have a more accurate Bible than our great-grandparents had. We also have much more information (from archaeology and other sources) about the language and culture of the time of the Bible.

While this is the last post on this topic, I will be happy to respond to questions or comments here.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

“God is perfect so he cannot change in any way”

This has been so widely accepted by Christians that it must be true. But we saw earlier that the Bible depicts God as “changing his mind.”

Some might argue that God is “pretending” to change his mind to shape people’s behavior. But in
2 Samuel 24:16 and Psalm 106:45 this explanation doesn’t seem to apply.

If the Bible shows a God who interacts with his people and adapts his behavior in response to their behavior, where did we get this idea that God is unable to change in any way?

It comes from Greek philosophy.

According to Greek philosophy, anything that is perfect cannot change. If it changes, it either becomes more perfect or less perfect. If it becomes more perfect, it wasn’t perfect to begin with. If it was perfect, then any change is change away from perfection.

On the surface this seems to make sense. But it is based on an assumption that all change is either change toward or away from perfection.

Plato believed that the real world was the world of “ideals.” These were perfect “forms” that were reflected in the imperfect objects of the visible world. Because these “forms” were perfect they did not change. And the highest “form” was the form of “goodness.”

When this philosophy was adopted by the later Christian theologians, God became the highest “form.”

But this reduces God to an unchanging, impersonal force (Star Wars?). However, the Bible reveals God as living and personal. What is unchangeable is his character: his faithfulness and love.

The Greek thinkers saw the world as shaped by an immaterial, timeless, unmoving, impassive and changeless principle. This principle was in some sense “divine.” When Christian theologians in the early centuries started to explain God to the world, they used this language to describe God’s greatness and his superiority to humanity.

But this is not the biblical language, as we have seen.

When the Bible talks of God’s unchangeableness, it is either talking about the reliability of his word or the unchangeableness of his character.

One of the most powerful expressions of this is found in 2 Timothy 2:11-13:
If we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we disown him, he will also disown us;
if we are faithless, he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.
This is not the unchanging, impersonal force of Greek philosophy. This is the living, personal God of the Bible.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Hebrews 13

In order to understand what the author means by “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” we should look at the immediate context.

He tells his readers that they should be content with what they have and not get caught up in striving for money and possessions. They can do this because they have the promise of God: “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”

He tells them that they can live with confidence. Because God is on their side, they do not have to be afraid of what people might do to them.

Then he reminds them of the example of their leaders, many who remained faithful even to the point of martyrdom. While leaders might come and go, Jesus Christ remains in power and authority forever.

So the meaning of “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” is that he is King and Lord and that he will rule into the new age. His power and authority will never diminish. His love will remain constant for all eternity.

To attempt to make this statement say more than this is to miss the point the writer is trying to make. We cannot extrapolate from Jesus’ life on earth to how he functions now as the ruler of the Kingdom of God. We cannot say that because he did (or did not do) certain things in his earthly ministry that he will operate in exactly the same way today.

These issues must be settled using different information.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Actually, a strictly literal translation would be, “Jesus Christ, yesterday and today himself, and into the age.” (The word “himself” is often translated “the same.”)

So does this meant that Jesus Christ never changes in any way and that he has always been the same?

Let’s plug in a couple of verses from Luke’s Gospel:
And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him (Luke 2:40).
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52).

Luke makes it clear that Jesus grew physically, socially and intellectually. He implies that he also grew spiritually. The passage between these verses tells about Jesus' first visit to the Temple. It is often misunderstood by assuming that Jesus was teaching the teachers and embarrassing them with his tough questions.

But here’s what Luke writes:
They found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers (Luke 2:46-47).

The picture Luke gives us is one of a precocious student who has an unusual grasp of the subject and who is voraciously taking in everything the teachers give him. It would not be hard to image him also challenging the standard interpretations, “What if this passage is talking about this?” But it is primarily a story about Jesus’ development. If there was any doubt, the two framing verses (40 & 52) should settle the issue.

Paul also talks about a rather significant change that took place:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness (Philippians 2:5-7).

So whatever the writer of Hebrews means, he cannot mean that there has never been any kind of change in the Son (the second person of the Trinity). He set aside his divine nature and took on “humanness.” As a child, he grew and developed, refining his understanding of his mission in the process.

Yet John starts his Gospel with these words:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2).

The Word has always existed and was actively involved in creation. So that there is no doubt about who John is talking about, he writes in verse 14:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So in some important way, Jesus Christ is unchanging, even though in other ways he does (or at least did) change.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the passage in Hebrews to see if we can tell what the writer is trying to say in the context of his letter.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

God’s “word” is reliable

Let’s look at the first of these verses:
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19).

The majority of the verses that refer to God’s “unchangeableness” refer to the reliability of his word. When God promises something, we can count on it. This is what is in view in the passage in Malachi.
“I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and
have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 3:6-7).

Also in Psalm 110:4:
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

(The identity of Melchizedek is not important for our discussion, but you may want to want read the Wikipedia article for more information about him.)

Samuel told King Saul:
“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change
his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind” (1 Samuel 15:29).

But we run into a problem here. The context of Samuel’s statement is that God has changed his mind. God made Saul king of Israel. Then he decided that this was a “mistake” and chose David as king instead. A few verses later Samuel says, “The Lord was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel” (v. 35).

Now here’s the interesting thing. The Hebrew word translated “grieved” in the New International Version is translated “repented” in the King James Version. This is the same word translated “change his mind” in verse 29.

Samuel is telling Saul that God changed his mind about making Saul king but that he will not change his mind about changing his mind.

It gets even more interesting in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

God is putting everyone on notice that he reserves the right to change his mind. And this is the same word again (nacham) which means “to repent.”

But this is not a capricious change of mind. And that is the point. We can trust God to keep his word. But that doesn’t mean that he can never “change his mind” or announce that the conditions of a promise have not been met.

So let’s recap what we’ve discovered so far.
  • When the Bible says that God does not change it usually means that his “word” is reliable, that he can be trusted.
  • But he still reserves the right to “change his mind” when circumstances warrant it.
  • So the phrase “God does not change” even when applied to God keeping his word has exceptions and “small print.”
  • At least when it means “God does not change his mind,” we cannot treat the statement, “God does not change,” in a rigid, “legalistic” manner.

So what do you think? How does this change your view of who God is and how he interacts with humans?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Monday, March 06, 2006

What does the Bible say?

Let’s start by looking at what Bible has to say about God and change. Here are few verses that talk about God’s “unchangeableness.”

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19).

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows (James 1:17).

“I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

So what do you think these verses mean?

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Sunday, March 05, 2006

“God does not change.”

This is a statement often made but rarely understood. Just what does it mean that God never changes?

There are actually several possible meanings of this simple phrase:

  • God’s basic nature and character are fixed and will never change.
  • God is perfect and complete as he is so he cannot change in any way.
  • God’s ways of interacting with humans will remain the same because God never changes.
  • What it means to be a Christian never changes because God never changes.
  • What it means to be the Church never changes because God never changes.
  • God’s “rules” will never change because God never changes.
  • Our worship of God should not change “with the times” because God never changes.
  • Christians should not accommodate to the changing culture around them because God never changes.
  • What was true in the days of Noah, Abraham, Moses or Paul remains true today because God never changes.
  • We already know everything there is to know about God (this side of heaven) because God never changes.
  • What the Bible means never changes because it is God’s Word and God never changes.
  • Any new way of understanding the Bible is misguided because God never changes.
  • God cannot change his mind because he never changes.
  • God will never go back on his word because he never changes.
  • Any “innovation” in theology is a departure from the truth because God never changes.

You may be able to come up with even more possible meanings for this statement. If you do, please add them as a comment.

So what do you think? Do you agree with all these statements? Over the next several days we will examine this in detail. In the meantime, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Saturday, March 04, 2006

What’s with the “word verification”?

When you post a comment, you are asked to type in the letters which are displayed as a graphic. Why is this necessary?

This is to prevent the people who fill your e-mail inbox with spam from doing the same thing here with comments. Many people set up their computers to troll the Web looking for blogs and discussion boards where they can post spam. They have their computers programmed to automatically make the necessary keystrokes to post the comment. The one thing they cannot do is interpret the graphic and type in the correct letters.

I know this makes it a little more complicated for you to post your comments. But I think you would agree that it is worth the extra trouble to keep the spammers from bombarding us with ads about erectile dysfunction and porn sites.

Thanks for making the extra effort to submit your comments and questions.

Pastor Rod

“Helping you become the person God created you to be”

Two Questions

When I was a freshman at college, I took a course called Inductive Bible Study. In this course I learned something that has been of enormous value to me in understanding and applying the Bible to my life and my ministry.

As I have tried to show in some of the previous posts, it is not always a simple thing to determine what the Bible means. Sometimes the “obvious meaning” is not correct. Sometimes we have to do a considerable amount of research before we can determine what a passage means.

But in the midst of this complexity, there is an approach to understanding the Bible that keeps the purpose clearly in mind.

This approach consists of two questions:
  • What did the writer intend his original readers to
    understand?
  • What, if anything, does this have to do with me?

Too often, students of the Bible try to answer both questions at the same time. This leads to much confusion and misunderstanding. Answering the first question requires more time than most people realize. Notice that it refers to the author and the original readers. This requires us to do some work in understanding who the author was. Then we must determine who the original audience was. Finally, we must try to understand what this passage would have meant to them.

All these things must be answered to a reasonable extent before we can focus on the second question.

And notice the phrase “if anything.” Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it automatically applies to your life. I know you’ve heard pastors and teachers say the opposite, but a little common sense will tell you that this can’t be.

There is no direct application to your life of Numbers 26:20-22.

Now I’m not saying that it is not true or that it is not an important part of the Bible. All I am saying is that it has no direct application to your life. Any attempt to force one would do violence to the text.

Armed with these two questions, you can start to improve your ability to understand and apply God’s Word to your life.

Pastor Rod

      “Helping you become the person God created you to be”

      Friday, March 03, 2006

      The Bible as story

      The best way to understand the Bible is to read it as a grand narrative. Sure it has parts that that are written in other forms than narrative. But even those parts serve the big story. (Moby Dick and many Tom Clancy books are examples of narratives that have large sections of non-narrative material as a part of the narrative.)

      We have tended to turn the Bible into a collection propositions or a resource for tips and techniques.

      But the Bible is essentially a story, from beginning to end. It begins with the story of God’s creation of the universe and human beings. It tells the story of how things went terribly wrong in the Garden. It tells of how God selected key individuals to prepare the way for his plan of the redemption of his good creation: Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jesus.

      This story reached its decisive moment in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

      But that was not the end of the story. The story continued with the establishment of the Church on the day of Pentecost. And we’ve been given a glimpse of how the story ends with the new creation in the New Jerusalem.

      Understand what I’m saying here. I’m not suggesting that this is an alternative way to read the Bible or an interesting way to get a new perspective on God’s Word. I’m suggesting that this is the proper way to read Scripture.

      When we reduce the Bible to something less than narrative, we’re missing the point.

      So what do you think?

      Pastor Rod

      “Helping you become the person God created you to be”

      Thursday, March 02, 2006

      Why I hate Mardi Gras

      You would expect a pastor to say that he doesn’t like Mardi Gras. But you might be surprised why I don’t like it.

      Is it because of the excessive drinking? Not really. There are many other situations when people drink too much and hurt themselves and others because they are intoxicated. I’m not in favor of excessive drinking. But that’s not the reason I hate Mardi Gras.

      Is it because of the nudity? Nope. There’s just as much nudity at Spring Break. (And I have to admit that it does appeal to my hormones.) Sure, women flashing their breasts in public is not a healthy expression of sexuality. God has a much better, and more fulfilling, way to express and satisfy sexual desires. But the nudity is not the reason I hate Mardi Gras.

      Is it because of the debauchery? This is nothing unique to Mardi Gras. People engage in all sorts of self-destructive behavior every weekend. They have been duped into abusing God’s gift of sex for a few moments of titillation, when God wants us to enjoy a lifetime of intimacy and fulfillment (with a fair amount of pleasure in the bargain). No, sexual decadence is not why I hate Mardi Gras.

      I hate Mardi Gras because it reinforces several lies of the Evil One.

      The lie that “holiness” is about
      deprivation (Click links for details.)
      The lie that “holiness” is dull and boring
      The lie that we have to give in to temptation so that we can resist temptation in the future
      The lie that
      forgiveness is cheap

      That’s why I hate Mardi Gras. It’s not just “a little harmless fun.” It’s propaganda by the Enemy to keep people from finding the life that God wants them to enjoy.

      Pastor Rod

      “Helping you become the person God created you to be”

      Wednesday, March 01, 2006

      Should we take the Bible literally?

      The truth is that there is no one who takes the Bible literally. Some cults do teach that God has hands (Ex. 24:11) and feet (Lev. 26:12). But I know of no group that teaches that God has wings (Ruth 2:12, Psalm 17:8).

      Any honest person must admit that he takes parts of the Bible figuratively.

      The important question is when do we take things literally and when do we take them figuratively. Sometimes it is obvious. Sometimes we have to look at the context and historical background to decide. And sometimes we really can’t tell for sure.

      What we should seek to do is take the Bible “at face value.” When it claims to be speaking literally, we should take it literally. When it indicates that it is speaking figuratively, we should take it figuratively. When we are not sure, we should carefully consider all the possibilities and make a humble choice realizing that others might come to a different conclusion.

      Some believe that it is more pious to take any particular passage literally unless it is impossible to do so. This is the philosophy of the authors of the Left Behind series. But this results in strained interpretations. For instance when Revelation says that the moon will turn to blood, is that to be taken literally? When God turned the Nile to blood, does that mean that it turned red and became undrinkable? Or does it mean that leukocytes, erythrocytes and platelets were flowing in its banks in a medium of serum?

      In the last example, it is easy to say, “The Nile turned to blood,” and to think of it as actual blood—if you are reading this account in the way one would read a fairy tale. Anything can happen in a fairy tale. And sometimes Christians will say with an air of piety, “God can do anything.”

      But if one reads this account as a news report of an event that happened today, it seems more “real” that God caused the Nile to be contaminated (possibly with a microorganism) and that is what resulted in the red color and what rendered the water undrinkable.

      This does not mean that the second interpretation is less faithful to the inspiration of Exodus. It may mean that it is more faithful to the inspiration of Exodus and to the idea of God working in the real world.

      Pastor Rod

      “Helping you become the person God created you to be”

      Not all Scripture is created equal

      John states his purpose for writing his gospel in John 20:31. It written so that those who read will have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing this they will have life in him.

      The purpose for writing the book of Job is very different. It is written to address the problem of evil, not necessarily to give a pat answer. We would be foolish to expect the words of Job to carry the same weight as the words of John. In fact, God repudiates the words of Job’s friends and to some degree the words of Job himself.

      The book of Proverbs has still a different purpose. It is a collection of wisdom. It is not a book of promises. It is not book of formulas that can be applied in a mechanical fashion to one’s life. One must have the wisdom to know when and how to apply these wise sayings.

      For example Proverbs 26:4 says not to answer a fool. The very next proverb (26:5) says one should answer a fool. This is not a contradiction. Sometimes the wise thing to do is to remain silent. Sometimes the wise thing to do is to speak up. One must exercise wisdom to know when to do what.

      There is a similar contrast between Proverbs 10:15 and Proverbs 18:11.

      These are not mistakes. These are not inconsistencies. These are true statements that require wisdom to know when they apply to different situations.

      Does this mean that we are free to dismiss portions of the Bible we find inconvenient? Of course not. Neither does it mean that we apply all parts of it in the same way disregarding its original context and purpose.

      Pastor Rod

      “Helping you become the person God created you to be”