Jesus-Keller-Pink-Christensen Mashup

Some would argue that the truth of Scripture must remain pure, unadulterated by the taint of culture. Others would remind us that the truth of Scripture can only be understood and expressed in the context of some specific culture.

When people fight for the “pure gospel,” they are always fighting for an expression of the gospel in a culture that they “feel at home” in.

The question is not whether to comprehend the gospel in cultural terms. The question is whether we do this intelligently or unwittingly. If we are not aware of this process, we tend to selectively adapt culture and the gospel to each other, keeping the parts that we find most comforting and comfortable.

When the gospel is expressed appropriately in a particular cultural context, it speaks both prophetically and reassuringly.

When this is done badly, the result resembles neither the gospel nor the culture.

Inasmuch as all truth is God’s truth, I would like to pull together elements of truth expressed in several different contexts. So I suggest the following mashup of Jesus, Tim Keller, Daniel Pink & Clayton Christensen.

(A mashup is a song, video or web application that combines information from several sources and fashions it into a new article with added value.)

Some time ago I did a post about a book by Daniel Pink called A Whole New Mind.

Pink says that nowadays people are looking for

• Design as well as function
• Story as well as argument
• Synthesis as well as focus
• Empathy as well as logic
• Play as well as seriousness
• Meaning more than material accumulation

I also mentioned that Tim Keller identifies these characteristics of a missional church:

• They use vernacular language.
• They engage the culture and re-tell the culture’s stories in the context of the gospel.
• They train their people theologically for public life and vocation.
• They create a Christian culture that is both counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. (It cannot be neatly categorized as “liberal” or “conservative.”)
• They practice Christian unity as much as possible in the community.

My previous post about the three books written by Clayton Christensen included the following ideas:

• Look for people who are trying to solve the problem for which you have the solution.
• Strategy evolves. The first version of the strategy is rarely effective.
• Success kills off innovation.
• Focus on the “low end.”
• Keep things simple.

With this background, let’s look at some of Jesus’ statements and actions as they illustrate some of the same ideas.

Jesus used stories

Matthew 13:34 says, “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.”

Jesus was a storyteller. Narrative was at the center of Hebrew life. The very identity of the Israelites was rooted in the account of Abraham, Moses and David. Yet today, Christianity is often thought of as a system of doctrine and regulations.

People are searching for compelling stories. In 2004, Americans spent more than 33 billion on movie tickets and home movie rentals.

And so the church gives them Seven Steps to Live at Your Full Potential and Nine Secrets of Healthy Relationships.

Jesus provided a solution to those who knew they had a problem

Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17).

The religious establishment was expecting the Messiah to come with all the trappings of power and piety. But Jesus did not fulfill the cultural expectations of the insiders. He did not look for followers among the religious establishment. He sought out those who were at the margins of society, people who were not good enough, rich enough or connected enough to participate in the current system.

When Jesus encountered the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” (John 5:6). The man answered, “I have no one to help me into the pool.”

The man thought he had a getting-into-the-pool-first problem. He was trying to solve that problem. Jesus provided a solution to his real problem. Notice the difference between the approach of Jesus and a market-driven approach.

Yet he doesn’t try to convince the satisfied to accept his solution.

In John 9, he encounters another man who is trying to solve his unable-to-work problem by begging. Jesus restores his sight even though his condition was congenital, once again solving the underlying the problem.

The Pharisees denied that they had an unable-to-see problem. Jesus replied that in that case he was could not help them.

Jesus emphasized meaning over material possessions

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.”

Then he tells his listeners not to worry about food, drink or clothes. He calls them to focus on the Kingdom instead.

Jesus enjoyed life

Jesus was accused of too much partying (Luke 7:34). His first miracle was providing wine for a wedding celebration. Jesus told Martha to relax and enjoy his company (Luke 10:40­–42).

Jesus simplified God’s expectations

The religious establishment had erected an elaborate system that required experts to understand and keep the Law. The people were told that they could not please God without the assistance of these experts.

On one occasion, one of these experts tried to trap Jesus while asserting his own superiority in handling the Law (Matthew 22). Jesus cut through the conundrum with two simple commands: Love God and love your neighbor.

I’m sure we could find other examples of how Jesus embodied more of these concepts. If you can think of any, feel free to add them in the comments.

Pastor Rod

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

Christensen & Innovation

There are many who think that all innovation in Christianity is essentially heresy. They are like the proverbial man who gets married hoping that his wife will not change.

I am of the opinion, however, that innovation is not only a good thing, but it is inevitable. What appears to be “holding the line” is innovation in disguise.

I don’t want to take the time or the space to make a detailed argument. Besides, it would all be a waste of effort. Those who are opposed to all innovation will not be persuaded by anything I might say.

So I will address those who see innovation as good and even inevitable.

Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School, has written several books on innovation in business, The Innovator’s Dilemma, The Innovator's Solution & Seeing What’s Next. These are primarily focused on why some new products were successful and why others were not.

While I have been quite vocal that the church should not be operated like a business, I do believe that we can use insights from all fields of learning within the church.

All truth is God’s truth, after all.

Christensen is not concerned with the process of coming up with ideas. He wants to know how to develop ideas into successful products or services.

Template for shaping disruptive ideas:
Target nonconsumption. Look for a set of consumers who are trying to get a job done, but because they lack the money or skill, a simple, inexpensive solution has been beyond reach.

Leverage the low performance hurdle. Since these new customers compare the disruptive product to having nothing at all, they are delighted to buy it even though it may not be as good as other products available.

Make it “foolproof.” Deploy technology not to make the product more sophisticated, but rather to make it as “foolproof” as possible so that customers with less money and little training on the product can begin using it.

Lock in and take over. As a new value network forms around the new consumer market, certain channel partners will come to depend on your product to fuel their own need for disruptive growth. In addition, consumers will begin to use the product in new venues. Over time, the disruptive product will improve in quality, attract more customers, and take over the leadership position in that category.

Here are a few other quotations from his books:

“When searching for ideas with disruptive potential, look for ways to help customers get done more conveniently and inexpensively what they are already trying to do. Don’t invent new problems for customers to solve—they won’t reprioritize what’s important in their lives just because your product is available.”

“The resources, processes, and values that allow your core business to thrive may well prevent great new ideas from succeeding.”

“Don’t assume that your initial strategy is the 'right' strategy for a potential disruption.”

“Be impatient for profits, but patient for growth. Demanding early profitability will save years of losses that come from pursuing the wrong strategy for a long time—and help your team hit upon a truly viable strategy more quickly.”

Those of you with a missional mindset will see applications right away. In fact, there are so many different ways to use these findings in pursuit of a missional agenda that I cannot even begin to list them all. Let me make just a few observations.

“Target nonconsumption.” Too many churches are trying to compete with other churches. They are trying to produce better and more diverse programs. In this situation the mega churches will always “win.” But our real competition is not other churches but the activities that people do instead of “church.” (I know this is over simplified. But those of you who "get it" understand my point. I don't have the space to explain it precisely to those who don't.)

“Don’t invent new problems for customers to solve.” People are already trying to get “jobs” done. The strategy for the church is to show people that Jesus is the solution for “problems” they are already trying to solve. Traditionally, churches have tried to convince people that they needed “church.” Most people do not think that they have a “lack of church” problem.

“Leverage the low performance hurdle.” If we truly target nonconsumption, then people will be comparing our “product” to nothing at all. The typical seeker-church strategy is to try to convince people that we are “just as good.” But what if the church becomes the channel through which people receive something they were unable to get before? What if the church becomes the agent through which God transforms their lives?

“Make it foolproof.” This has an obvious application to church planting. Neil Cole advocates planting churches with as little structural, financial and leadership overhead as possible. Most attempts to start new churches require enormous investments of money and other resources. But that doesn’t seem to be the strategy that was used in the early church.

“Lock in and take over.” This is essentially what the early church did. It was very much a new market disruption. It was composed of the marginalized and ostracized. These people often became respectable. Then church became legalized in the Roman Empire. And before long we have Christendom. Now “the church” is the establishment.

Success kills off innovation. The very things that make an established church attractive to its members will prevent it from taking the risks that a start-up church is forced to take.

Strategy evolves. One of the important findings of Christensen’s research is that new businesses almost never get their strategy right in the beginning. But because they don’t have unlimited resources, the successful innovators are forced to test and refine their strategy. In the church we often confuse theology and methodology. Because our message is timeless, we assume that our methods will be as well.

“Be impatient for profits, but patient for growth.” This again applies to church planting. Most strategies try to build a big church right away. Instead we should seek to quickly establish a vital, self-sustaining church. Because the investment is low, we can afford to make more attempts. Because the resources are limited, the church planting team is forced to test all their assumptions quickly.

Christensen points out that established companies try to force innovations into their existing markets. In other words, they try to fashion the new idea to make it attractive to their existing customers. Ditto for the church. Pastors are pressured to “serve” their existing members. New ideas are evaluated on how well they will meet the needs of current members.

I hope that your brain is starting to spin with the implications of these ideas. I don’t have the luxury of spelling them all out in detail. I suspect it would require a full-length book to pull that off.

Maybe we can develop this further in the comments. Let me know what you think.

Pastor Rod

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

Update: Comparison of some of these ideas with the words and actions of Jesus.

Don’t Try This at Home

I have been trying to develop a missional mindset and, more importantly, a missional lifestyle. I’m trying to lead my church into a missional approach to ministry.

As I mentioned previously, this is a huge gamble. And it should be.

I maintain that following Christ should feel like a gamble. If it doesn’t feel like a gamble then we’re probably not really following him. We are probably just trying to get him to bless us as we pursue our own way.

It is important, however, that people in a congregation know what they are getting themselves in for when they become “missional.”

David Fitch, author of The Great Giveaway, has compiled a list of warnings about the cost of doing missional ministry. I have included it here along with some of my comments (and a few minor edits):

Ten Things Anyone Who Joins In a Twenty First Century Missional Church Plant Should Not Expect

David participated in starting a missional congregation “from scratch.” These are his observances from what he experienced. I suspect, however, that any congregation that seeks to operate missionally will have similar experiences.

1.) Should not expect to regularly come to church for just one hour, get what you need for your own personal growth and development, and your kid’s needs, and then leave till next Sunday. Expect mission to change your life. Expect however a richer life than you could have ever imagined.

Missional life is demanding but also deeply fulfilling.

2.) Should not expect that Jesus will fit in with every consumerist capitalist assumption, lifestyle, schedule or accoutrement you may have adopted before coming here. Expect to be freed from a lot of crap you will find out you never needed.

Some times we will feel like the rich young ruler who was told to sell all his possessions.

3.) Should not expect to be anonymous, unknown or be able to disappear in this church Body. Expect to be known and loved, supported in a glorious journey.

4.) Should not expect production style excellence all the time on Sunday worship gatherings. Expect organic, simple and authentic beauty.

Some times the “commitment to excellence” gets in the way of true excellence.

5.) Should not expect a raucous “lights out” youth program that entertains the teenagers, puts on a show that gets the kids “pumped up,” all without parental involvement. Instead as the years go by, with our children as part of our life, worship and mission (and when the light shows dim and the cool youth pastor with the spiked hair burns out) expect our youth to have an authentic relationship with God thru Christ that carries them through a lifetime of journey with God.

This seems like a landmine to me. Parents really need to think this through.

6.) Should not expect to always “feel good,” or ecstatic on Sunday mornings. Expect that there will ALSO be times of confession, lament, self-examination and just plain silence.

7.) Should not expect a lot of sermons that promise you God will prosper you with “the life you’ve always wanted” if you’ll just believe Him and step out on faith and give some more money for a bigger sanctuary. Expect sustenance for the journey.

8.) Should not expect rapid growth whereby we grow this church from 10 to a thousand in three years. Expect slower organic inefficient growth that engages people’s lives where they are at and sees troubled people who would have nothing to do with the gospel marvelously saved.

9.) Should not expect all the meetings to happen in a church building. Expect a lot of the gatherings will be in homes, or sites of mission.

10.) Should not expect arguments over style of music, color of carpet, or even doctrinal outlier issues like dispensationalism. Expect mission to drive the conversation.

This doesn’t mean that there will be no arguments or disagreements.

O AND BY THE WAY Should not expect that community comes to you. I am sorry but true community in Christ will take some “effort” and a reshuffling of priorities for both you and your kids. Yes I know you want people to come to you and reach out to you and that you’re hurting and busy. But assuming you are a follower of Christ (this message is not for strangers to the gospel) you must learn that the answer to all those things is to enter into the practices of “being the Body” in Christ, including sitting, eating, sharing and praying together.

Jesus said that potential disciples should count the cost of following him. (Do most of us experience any “cost” of following Jesus?) Those who seek to live missionally need to take a similar inventory.

As for me, I’m all in.

Pastor Rod

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

Missional Gamble

Texas Hold-’em has grown in popularity over the past few years. Most people today know what the phrase, “All in,” means. I have to admit that I’m intrigued by the game. The mathematical aspect reinvigorates a part of my brain that got a lot of use in high school but little since. I am also drawn in by the psychological aspect.

Fortunately, I never play this game for money, or I’d probably be addicted. When I play with pretend money online, I can usually guess what cards the other players have. I can usually build my virtual chip stack without much difficulty. But sometimes aggressive players force me to make calculated gambles.

I am forced all-in with cards that most of the time will result in a winning hand. When I’m all-in and the cards don’t fall right, my play money is wiped out. But when the cards do fall or when I guess correctly that my opponent is bluffing, I feel a rush as the virtual chips pile up.

I can see how people get addicted to this stuff.

I think most of us would like to find something that we could go all-in over. That’s essentially what Jesus said was required to be his disciple. He said, “If you want to be my apprentice, you must go all-in. You must give up all your potential plan-Bs and follow me wherever I take you” (Luke 9:23, Pickett Loose Paraphrase Version).

But we’ve reduced following Christ to entering into a contract for an eternal retirement plan and showing up at club meetings once a week.

It’s time we went all-in for Jesus and for his kingdom.

Faith, in biblical perspective, is not the acceptance of conventional standards of behavior, and it is not primarily an effort to safe our own puny souls: it is the exciting venture of faith in which we bet that God really is, that this is his world, and that he is like Jesus Christ.
Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come.

Following Christ should be scary, risky and exciting. We should be pouring all we have into his kingdom. We should be looking for new opportunities and ways to participate in the work that God is doing in this world.

Every church should have a Research and Development department; that is, a forum for dreaming, where nothing is impossible and no thought too outrageous. And every authentic missional church will experiment like mad in order to find new and accessible ways of being the people of God.
Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come.

Now that’s something to get excited about.

What if we turned our churches into “skunk works”? What if our church buildings resembled the offices of an advertising agency more than a museum? What if we acted as if we really believed that God is all-powerful and everywhere-present? What if we took Jesus’ words seriously? What if we took Jesus seriously?

Let’s pray the prayer of the early Christians: “Sovereign Lord, you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. . . . Now, Lord, … enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:24, 29–30).

Pastor Rod

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

Two Restaurants

Imagine that you are a patron of a restaurant where you get poor service and inferior food. Frequently, the waitress ignores you and procrastinates in taking your order. She is rarely friendly. And you often get food that you didn’t order.

While the food is always edible, it often looks as if it’s just been thrown on the plate. The chef has a tendency to overcook everything. He couldn’t prepare al dente pasta to save his life.

And the prices are higher than anywhere else in town.

How long do you think you would continue to eat at this restaurant?

Before long you’d start asking your friends where they eat. You’d ask them how the food is there. You’d enquire about the quality of the service. You’d compare prices with “your” restaurant.

You might even shop around and try different places. But you would be foolish to stay at a restaurant that wasn’t satisfying when there were several good alternatives.

Imagine a different scenario.
You’ve been eating at a particular establishment for several years. This place doesn’t even have a menu. You rarely get any input into what is served. What’s more, you are expected to eat whatever is served, whether you like it or not.

And the service is poor. When you need something that doesn’t happen to be on the table, you have to go into the kitchen and get it yourself. You are required to bus your own table.

So one day you tell the waitress, “It’s nothing personal, but I’m looking for a different place to eat. I know you’ve tried your best. But, Mom, I just don’t feel that I’m getting the nourishment that I need. Tommy says that his mother makes an outstanding meatloaf. I owe it to myself to try it out.”

So why don’t we shop around for different families? Because a family is more than a dispenser of domestic goods and services. We belong to families. We don’t enter into service contracts with our parents.

Of course in extreme cases, some do have to leave their families. When there is neglect or abuse, this becomes necessary. But this is the exception.

Churches are more like families than they are like restaurants.

Imagine having this conversation with your father:

“Dad, I know you are a good parent. But I’ve found a better deal down at the Johnson family. They don’t require any chores. And their curfew is not until 1:00 a.m. I really appreciate all the things you’ve done for me, especially the time you stayed in the hospital with me when I had that terrible fever. But it’s time for me to move on. I have to think about what’s best for me. I hope that I’ll be able to stop in from time to time. I really wish the best for you and Mom. I’ll be back later to pick up my stuff.”

Yet parishioners have this conversation with their pastors all the time.

We’ve turned the church into a dispenser of religious goods and services. We evaluate churches by what they can do for us and for our families. We look at the programs and services they offer, and we weigh that against what they require of us. Then we enter a loose contract with the winner, binding only until we find a better deal.

We think that the purpose of a church “worship service” is to meet the private, individual spiritual needs of the members of the “club.” We pay performers to entertain us and make us feel better. We hire a leader to listen to God for us and to tell us what God’s wonderful plan is for our “club.” We make our own special rules for membership so that our “club” can maintain its “distinctives.”

If the church is going to be the church, then the leaders and the “members” need to stop thinking about it as a dispenser of religious goods and services. We need to start thinking of it as the Body of Christ, the family of God, the Kingdom of God.

Pastor Rod

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

Missional Leadership III

So far I’ve focused on what missional leadership is not. Let’s consider what it does look like.

Missional leaders lead from earned authority. The words “because I’m a pastor” should never be used to solicit compliance from church people. True authority is always earned.

If the words that come from one’s mouth are full of God’s wisdom and insight, people notice and follow, regardless of the speaker’s position, title or diploma.
Neil Cole, Organic Church

Missional leaders lead by serving. The primary way we earn authority is by serving. Jesus called us to serve one another. He said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all (Mark 10:42–44).

Our theology says that we should lead from below, but all our models say we should look and act successful.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Missional leaders are more like shepherds than CEOs. Missional leaders are true leaders, but they lead a community. And this community must be engaged in the work of the Kingdom as it senses God’s calling and identifies the ways in which God is already working.

An important role of a missional leader is cultivating an environment within which God’s people discern God’s directions and activities in them and for the communities in which they find themselves.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Rather than the leader having plans and strategies
that the congregation will affirm and follow, cultivation describes the leader as the one who works the soil of the congregation so as to invite and constitute the environment for the people of God to discern what the Spirit is doing in, with, and among them as a community.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Missional leaders are driven by theology rather than pragmatism. There is an idea that pastors don’t have the luxury of doing serious study. That is to be left for those living in ivory towers. In the real world we just need to get busy and find out what works. But pragmatism leads to theological error. Pragmatism leads to moral failure. Pragmatism leads to a human agenda.

More than ever, pastors need to be theologians.

Their beginning point is grounded in a theological understanding and conviction of what the church should be and do. It is not simply about building a reputation, a ministry, a following, or a great church, but it is about a deep conviction that is grounded in the Word of God.
Ed Stetzer & David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code

The work of theological reflection in a profoundly changing culture must be reintroduced into the daily practices of pastoral life.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

The Christian leaders of the future have to be theologians, persons who know the heart of God.
Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership

Missional leaders prepare for the future rather than plan for the future. The future is uncertain. We cannot predict it with any certainty. We need to be prepared for the future. But we cannot force the future to take the shape we think it should take.

The better (and biblical) approach to the future involves prayer and preparation, not prediction and planning.
Reggie McNeal, The Present Future

[A leader must be able to] thrive in the midst of ambiguity and discontinuity.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

We are in a period that makes it impossible to have much clarity about the future and how it is going to be shaped. Therefore those leaders who believe they can address the kind of change we are facing by simply defining a future that people want, and then setting plans to achieve it, are not innovating a missional congregation. They are only finding new ways of preventing a congregation from facing the discontinuous change it confronts.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Missional leaders take the long view. One of the problems with American business is that its leaders often live for today. They try to make the quarterly numbers look as good as possible. In doing so, they often sellout the long-term prospects.

This is no different in the church. Pastors are encouraged to find quick answers. They feel pressure to submit good statistics. This year needs to have better numbers than last year.

But missional leaders buck the trend. They make their decisions with a view to the long-term impact on the Kingdom.

Missional change is not a short-term problem solved by pragmatic programs. Instead, it entails forming an alternative imagination over time.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Missional leaders focus on people. Most leaders focus on programs. But missional leaders focus on people. They focus on the people already in the congregation. They focus on the people in the community. Jesus never let his plans prevent him from addressing the needs of people.

The key to innovating new life and mission in a congregation is not so much a strategy for growth as it is cultivation of people themselves.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

Again, I’ve only had time to give a brief sketch of these ideas. Let me know what you think. What would you add to the list? Do you disagree with anything that I’ve included?

Pastor Rod

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

Part One, Part Two

50

This weekend I will celebrate my 50th birthday. As milestones go, this is a pretty big one. Milestones are good opportunities to reflect on the past. They provide an occasion for reminding ourselves of what’s really important.

So I thought I’d take some time to list a few of the things that I’ve learned in my first fifty years.

Relationships are more important than anything else. When I look back over the past half-century, the things that mean the most to me are the relationships that I have. Possessions, accomplishments and experiences pale in comparison with the people that have enriched my life. And the most important relationship, which provides ultimate meaning and significance to my life, is my relationship with my heavenly Father who loves me more than all the others I am connected to.

The things that you can count are not the things that count. Success is hard to quantify. If you can count it or measure it, it’s probably not that important. The number of digits in my salary or my bank account have nothing to do with my success. The number of people who show up to hear me preach on Sundays is not a measure of my success. The number of hits on this blog do not determine my success. All these things are good, but they are not directly tied to my success. I have come to believe that success is more about faithfulness than anything else.

How you finish is more important than how you start. No one really cares who led lap 43 of the Indianapolis 500. A good start is nice. But finishing well is the key. In each of the “seven letters” of Revelation, Jesus commends “the one who overcomes,” the one who is faithful to the end. Woody Allen said that 90% of success is just showing up. But I would say that 100% of success is not giving up.

Strengths are more important than weaknesses. Most people focus on weaknesses rather than strengths. When kids bring home their report cards, parents tend to focus on the bad grades instead of the good grades. Most employee evaluations imply that the greatest opportunity for improvement is by overcoming deficiencies. The church health movement teaches that congregations grow only to the level of weakest of five, six or ten functions of a healthy church.

But I think that we’ve got this all backwards. The Gallup Organization has demonstrated that we produce the greatest results when we focus on using our strengths rather than on improving our weaknesses. And this doesn’t even take into account the damage that is done by the negativity generated by the focus on weaknesses.

Few people really understand leadership. Our society idolizes “strong,” aggressive, ambitious people as great leaders. Getting things done is considered a key component of leadership. Charisma has become currency of clout in our celebrity-crazed culture.

Even pastors are encouraged to take their leadership philosophy more from Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Attila the Hun than from Jesus. Pragmatism trumps theology. If Joel Osteen has such a big church, he must be doing something right.

Empathy is the secret to . . . everything. If you want to be an excellent teacher, you need empathy. If you want to be an excellent salesperson, you need empathy. If you want to be an excellent leader, you need empathy.

It may be possible to fake empathy, for a while. But it’s so much simpler just to really care about people.

Empathy even makes you a better driver.

Truth is elusive. I am strongly opinionated. And I believe that my opinions are correct. But I know that I’m wrong about some things. As N. T. Wright says, “I just don’t know which are wrong.” I try to remember that my commitment is to the truth and not just to my idea of the truth. If my understanding of the truth changes (and it does from time to time), then I must accept this refined awareness of the truth. Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said, “Truth is something so noble that if God should turn aside from it, I could keep to the truth and let God go.”

The little decisions are the important ones. Most of the time, we make the right choices when we know that the decision is important. The problem is that many decisions appear to be insignificant at the time and only prove to be important long after we make our choice. Every choice we make also changes the options that we have available for future choices. The weight of a lot of little choices is greater than the weight of a couple of big choices.

The most important things cannot be earned. I cannot make myself valuable. I cannot make myself loveable. I cannot make myself significant. These things (self-worth, love and significance) can only be accepted as a gift. Ironically, the more I try to earn them, the less likely I am to get them.

There might be few more things that I could add to this list, but these seem to be the most important—right now. Tell me what you would put on your own list.

Pastor Rod

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

Missional Leadership II

I have a new candidate for what to put on my gravestone:
The church is not a business and the pastor is not a CEO.

These two ideas have done untold damage to local churches, to individual Christians and to pastors.

Congregations have been split apart as a result of attempts to emulate the strategy of a celebrity pastor. Long-time church members have been vilified because they did not fit with the pastor’s “vision.” Pastors have ruined their health and their family life trying to be charismatic leaders.

The church has borrowed business models from the world and applied them wholesale to the affairs of the kingdom. How many businesses do you know that give their product away without demanding money? (See Luke 6:30.) How many banks make loans without expecting repayment? (See Luke 6:34.) How many CEOs get their jobs by moving down the corporate ladder? (See Mark 10:43.)

Yet we act as if strategic planning, statistical analysis and hard work are the primary ingredients to “success” in ministry.

Modernist thinking has reduced the “I Am” of the Exodus to the “God of the gaps.” But the church has done something much worse. We’ve relegated God to a “genie in a bottle” who we call on when we need a little extra boost to meet our goals.

Here are some prophetic quotations for today’s church:

Not only do we not need God to explain the universe, we don’t need God to operate the church. Many operate like giant machines, with church leaders serving as mechanics. God doesn’t have to show up to get done what’s being done.
Reggie McNeal, The Present Future

A congregation is not a business organization, nor is it meant to be run like a minicorporation through strategic planning and alignment of people and resources around some big plan.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

We need to lead in ways that are different from those of a CEO, an entrepreneur, a super leader with a wonderful plan for the congregation’s life.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

There is a lack of theological depth in much of the contemporary church planting and church growth movements because these are movements of techniques, paradigms, and methodologies without genuine biblical and missiological convictions.
Ed Stetzer & David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code

To accomplish spiritual results we do not create the future by visioning it or by mobilizing people to create our picture of what the future will be. I am directly criticizing a predominant teaching among Christian writing and leadership seminars that promote the importance of vision. My criticism of them is they do not use “vision” the way the Bible does, and their teaching tends to promote flesh acts, not Spirit-led leadership.
Brian J. Dodd, Empowered Church Leadership

How many of us have experienced the drivenness of a leader having been caught up in his or her vision? I speak with some remorse and regret for times that my “visionary dreaming” has left me “proud and pretentious,” judgmental and disapproving of the believers God has called me to shepherd and to care for. I have spoken with too many pastors who seem content to drive people out of their church because they do not fit with vision. This is not the heart of the Good Shepherd.
Brian J. Dodd, Empowered Church Leadership

Our theology says that we should lead from below, but
all our models say we should look and act successful.
Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader

In this post I have focused on the negative, what leadership is not. I will address what I believe leadership should look like in the church, but it is necessary first to eliminate these assumptions that have polluted our thinking about leadership within the kingdom.

Tell me what you think.

Pastor Rod

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

Part One, Part Three

Missional Ministry Modes

I’m currently reading The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. This appears to be an excellent blend between theory and practical ideas.

One helpful section lists four ways that missional congregations are seeking to partner with God as he works in their communities:

• Proximity Spaces,
• Shared Projects,
• Commercial Enterprises &
• Indigenous Faith Communities.

Proximity spaces are places (or events) where Christians and not-yet-Christians can have meaningful interaction. Examples include cafés, coffee houses and even pubs.

Shared projects are cooperation between Christians and an existing community activity where Christians and not-yet-Christians can develop relationships. Instead of starting their own ministries, these congregations are participating with community organizations to provide services to the community.

Commercial enterprises are effective ways to do ministry. Many communities are not interested in a new church, but they might be interested in a new business that invests in their community. This business then becomes the vehicle for ministry.

Indigenous faith communities are small congregations that grow out of the other ministries. Many would call these communities house churches. They are made up of the converts and inquirers produced by these ministries.

The years ahead will be exciting for those who pay attention to what God is doing in their community and who are willing to step outside the traditional ways of “doing church.”

Pastor Rod

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

Breaking the Missional Code

I just finished an excellent book by Ed Stetzer and David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code. In the right hands, this can be a useful resource. I do agree with Steve McCoy that some people who do not understand missional thinking will be tempted to use this as more church growth advice. In some places, I think the authors may have slipped into that mindset themselves.

Here are a few key quotations:

Breaking the code is a discipline of seeing your context through missional lenses and then exercising faith by taking the necessary risks to live the Great Commandment in such a way that you can fulfill the Great Commission.

When we talk about missional churches we are not referring to a certain form, expression, model, type, or category of church. We are talking about a church that seeks to understand its context and come to express that understanding by contextualizing the gospel in its community.

I find this a good explanation of what it means to be missional. Some people equate Emergent with Missional. While there is some overlap, they seem to be two very different things.

Overemphasis on technique can undermine solid missiological thinking. There is a lack of theological depth in much of the contemporary church planting and church growth movements because these are movements of techniques, paradigms, and methodologies without genuine biblical and missiological convictions.

This has long been one of my complaints (before I ever had a handle on what missional means). Too much in the church is driven by pragmatism. We bow at the altar of bigness and “success.” The gospel is often interpreted as a way to get ahead in business or sports.

I highly recommend this book. It has many practical suggestions for discovering how to implement a missional ministry in your unique environment. But you must remind yourself that this is not about Church Growth or Church Health. It is not even about evangelism as it is commonly understood.

Pastor Rod

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

Non-Missional Assumptions

Reggie McNeal in his book, The Present Future, lists some assumptions that are widely held within the church which are also antithetical to a missional mindset.

• If we do church right (according to our current ideas of church) then people will flock to our church.
• If we grow our churches, then we will automatically start to make a difference in our communities.
• If we make our people better church members, then they will naturally do effective evangelism.
• We need more people in our churches to do church work.
• The more people are involved in the church, the better disciples they are becoming.


• The better we get at planning, the better we will be at missional effectiveness.

Some of these assumptions are so deeply engrained in our programs and systems, that we cannot escape them unless we start over. Many long-time church members will think that some of these assumptions are straight from the Bible. Many of the denominational programs and emphases are rooted in one or more of these assumptions.

So what do you think?

Do you agree with Reggie’s list? Do you have other assumptions that you think should be added to the list?

Pastor Rod

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

Missional Leadership

A missional approach to Christianity requires a new model of leadership.

Some of the models that have been effective in the past are no longer viable. The strong, “visionary” leader is more at home in the corporate world than in the missional church. The great communicator may sell lots of books and look great on TV, but he is not equipped to lead a missional movement. The effective organizer is a genius at generating activity, but he is an obstacle to organic development.

Len Hjalmarson suggests that the follow traits are what we need in leading the church forward in this time of cultural transition.

• Instead of leading from over, we lead from among.
• Instead of leading from certainty, we lead by exploration, cooperation and faith.
• Instead of leading from power, we lead in emptiness depending on Jesus.
• Instead of leading as managers, we lead as mystics and poets, “speaking poetry in a prose flattened world” and articulating a common future.
• Instead of leading from the center, we lead from the margins.

I want to address each of these suggestions in turn.

Instead of leading from over, we lead from among.

This is what Jesus was modeling when he washed the disciples’ feet: “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:13-15).

The first responsibility of a leader is to define responsibility. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.
Max De Pree

Our most consequential failures in ministry are often failures in relationships. Who we are in our relationships with people generally trumps what we do for people.
Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God

Instead of leading from certainty, we lead by exploration, cooperation and faith.

This quotation expresses the common view of leadership:

Leadership is knowing what to do next, knowing why that’s important, and knowing how to bring appropriate resources to bear on the need at hand.
Bob Biehl, Increasing Your Leadership Confidence

But that is not the kind of leadership needed in the present situation.

We are not the healers, we are not the reconcilers, we are not the givers of life. We are sinful, broken, vulnerable people who need as much care as anyone we care for.
Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus

Instead of leading from power, we lead in emptiness depending on Jesus.

The church has trained its leaders to use the tools of the world. Leaders are encouraged to seek power. Of course they will only use that power for the advancement of the Kingdom. But power is not the method of the Kingdom.

A casual observer may more easily compare much of what masquerades for Christianity with Nietzsche’s power ideal than with Jesus’ focus on vulnerability and service and Paul’s conviction that God’s power most often shows through our weakness.
Brian J. Dodd, Empowered Church Leadership

There is a world of difference between being productive and being fruitful, between striving to build Christ’s church and allowing Christ to build his church through you.
Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God

Instead of leading as managers, we lead as mystics and poets, “speaking poetry in a prose flattened world” and articulating a common future.

We’ve reduced the gospel to seven steps to a great life.

To address the issue of truth greatly reduced requires us to be poets who speak against the prose world. . . . The only proclamation that is worthy of the name preaching is not moral instruction, or problem solving, or doctrinal clarification. It is not good advice, nor is it romantic caressing, not is it a soothing good humor... It is rather the ready, steady, surprising proposal that the real world in which God invites us to live is not the one made available by the rulers of this age... This offer requires special care for words, because the baptized community awaits speech in order to be a faithful people.
Walter Brueggemann, Finally Comes the Poet

Instead of leading from the center, we lead from the margins.

The Gospel is aimed at the outcasts, those who are at the margins of society. The church is most effective when it is at the margin itself.

Mission, then, is not essentially a human activity undertaken by the church and its leaders out of obligation to the Great Commission, gratitude for what God has done for us, and the desperate plight of the world. It is God’s own mission in which we are invited to participate.
Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God

These are just some sketchy comments. I hope to address these issues more completely in the future.

Pastor Rod

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

Part Two, Part Three

Being Missional

The current buzzword right now in the church is “missional.”

But what does that mean?

Friend of Missional describes a missional church:

A missional church knows that they must be a cross-cultural missionary (contextual) people in their own community.
A missional church is orthodox in its view of the Gospel and Scripture, but culturally relevant in its methods and practice so that it can engage the world view of the hearers.

A missional church seeks to participate in the work of God’s Kingdom in the culture in which it finds itself.

This sounds similar to the seeker sensitive approach. But it is rather different. Mark Driscoll explains that the seeker sensitive church sees itself as the dispenser of religious goods and services. Then it tries to reach its market with those goods and services. The demands of the market determine its strategy and possibly even its message. A missional church, in contrast, is counter-cultural in nature. While it seeks to understand the culture and proclaim the gospel in terms of that culture, it maintains its essential cultural distinctives. The seeker sensitive church tries to bring people in to events. The missional church goes out into the community. (Here’s a bit more explanation of the differences.)

Tim Keller identifies these characteristics of a missional church:

• They use vernacular language.
• They engage the culture and re-tell the culture’s stories in the context of the gospel.
• They train their people theologically for public life and vocation.
• They create a Christian culture that is both counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. (It cannot be neatly categorized as “liberal” or “conservative.”)
• They practice Christian unity as much as possible in the community.

Unfortunately, most Christians will see this as a new strategy for evangelism. It is more accurately, a new (newly articulated) strategy for being the church. In an “evangelistic” church, evangelism is an activity and a program. In a missional church, evangelism is a natural part of being the church. In an “evangelistic” church, compassionate ministries are done in order to earn an audience for evangelism. In a missional church, these ministries are done for their own sake.

Scot McKnight summarizes Rick Richardson’s book, Reimagining Evangelism, which could be described as an outline of evangelism as done in a missional context:

1. Evangelism is collaboration with what God is doing by listening to God, praying to God, and working with the Spirit.
2. God is raising up witnessing communities more than witnessing individuals. Belonging comes before believing.
3. Developing friendship through conversation is what it is all about instead of downloading information and content about the gospel. The current generation, we’ve been told over and over because it is true, does not trust the church; it will trust credible people. Become a friend. Do what you love with nonchurched folks.
4. Tell a story of God’s power and gospel realities. Stories are containers big enough to tell truth. Logic isn’t as effective as it once was. Connect your story to the stories of others.
5. Talk about a Jesus who is outside the box. Jettison the cliche Jesus. . . . He confronted religious elitism, consumerism.
6. The gospel is good news for the here and now and not just the there and then. The gospel is spiritual and physical, individual and communal, personal and social, human and cosmic, people and nations. It is good news for all of this.
7. It is an invitation to a wedding and marriage. He means it is a journey rather than an event. . . . If salvation is union with Christ, then a wedding is a good image for what we are invited to because it leads to a marriage.

In the developing word, the church is missional without being told to be.

Bob Roberts at the Glocalnet blog explains:

There are no talks, lectures, research, explanations or steps on what is “missional” and how to be more “missional” from the emerging church in the East—it’s just what and who they are. If you called them that, they wouldn’t know what you’re talking about. It’s fascinating. We’re dissecting the word and concepts, forming lectures and teachings on what it is, mapping out plans on how to be “missional,” and most of us have never even experienced it.
Their philosophy is based more on discipleship where people know who Christ is and follow it together—never expecting big results. In the West, we fund, plan, and strategize our focus on starting something that grows into a movement from a single church, be it big or small, and often we get the growing church—yet, not the movement.

Being missional is not a strategy for building your church. It is a strategy for being the Church and building the Kingdom. Being missional is not a strategy for being more effective in doing evangelism. It is a strategy for making evangelism a natural expression of living among a post-Christian culture. Being missional is not a new system of programs and strategies. It is a mindset that allows each congregation to incarnate the gospel in the culture in which it finds itself.

Pastor Rod

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

Update: Here’s some more excellent information from www.missionalchurch.org (HT: The Blind Beggar).

Many missional congregations are growing in numbers. But the missional church vision is not a technique or a way of increasing market share; it is a way of understanding the true calling of the church. It is a way of life for the church. Rather than merely focusing on a congregation’s size, the missional church vision calls us to focus on the reign of God.

Key to the identity of a missional church is being an alternative society within the dominant culture. When the church proclaims and is a sign of the reign of God – whether by loving enemies or welcoming those on the margins – it will be a contrast community in the eyes of the world.

Churches that are in the world, but not of the world, take a lot of risks – physical, financial, social. They are not universally liked. These churches are able to take risks for the sake of the reign of God because they depend on the Holy Spirit for power to witness. These congregations spend a lot of time in prayer. They also know that, even if they experience rejection in the short run, the final victory belongs to God.

Real Choice?

Did you choose to start reading this post?

You may have gotten here as a result of a search you did at Google. You may have clicked a link at someone else’s blog. You may have this site listed in your favorites. No matter how you came here, did you feel that you had a choice whether to read this entry?

This may seem like a foolish question.

But there are several different people who would argue that you were predetermined to read this article. Some of them are materialists who believe that the human mind is just an illusion, that our actions are completely determined by our genes and our environment. Some of them are philosophers who say that determinism is philosophically necessary. Some of them are theologians who say that libertarian freedom is an affront to God’s sovereignty.

What is necessary for someone to have a real choice?

We generally don’t consider a choice made under coercion as a real choice. But maybe a better way of thinking about this situation is to consider it a real choice made between limited options. A person who is threatened with death if he doesn’t renounce his faith in Christ still has a choice. He can choose apostasy or death.

No one has unlimited choices. I am limited by the laws of physics. I am limited by my previous choices. I am limited by the particular time and place to which I was born. I am even limited by the choices my parents (and their parents) made.

Would you consider a choice made under some kind of influence a real choice?

Our legal system considers certain choices made while suffering from “mental defect” as free from responsibility. In other words, it considers them not real choices. While we might think that some defendants use this strategy to avoid punishment for willful crimes, we would agree that some people are not morally responsible for their actions because of limited faculties of reason.

What about a choice made after some kind of brainwashing or programming?

When an individual is conditioned to follow the will of another person, we no longer consider that person to have a choice. We call these people victims of mind control. They may not be threatened with any coercive force. But they have been trained to behave according to the wishes of another person. Yet they would feel that they are making free choices.

Back to our question: Do you have real choices?

“Scientific determinism” would say, “No.” It is primarily based on Newtonian physics. The idea here is that everything has one or more causes and is strictly determined by those prior events. But the development of quantum mechanics has introduced probability into the deep structure of the world. This aspect of the issue is beyond the scope of this blog (and my brain).

It would appear that the philosophical determinists and the theological determinists are two completely different groups. The theologians start with the Bible after all. The truth is, however, that this is strictly a philosophical issue. (At this point I can hear some of my Reformed friends shouting through my DSL connection.)

What do I mean that this is strictly a philosophical issue?

First, the arguments of the philosophers and the theologians are essentially the same. While the theologians may have a different starting point, they follow the same basic line of reasoning as the philosophers who hold to determinism. Second, the theologians’ interpretation of the Scripture is shaped by their prior philosophical assumptions. They claim to be taking the Bible in its “plain meaning,” but those who start with different assumptions see an entirely different “plain meaning.”

In order to avoid the charge of attacking a straw man, I want to list some quotations from two highly respected proponents of theological determinism:

Understanding the Will, by Douglas Wilson

No man is capable of making a choice contrary to the strongest desire of his heart.

If the choice were not his strongest desire, he would not
have chosen it.

It is nonsense to talk of a free will, as though there were this autonomous thing inside of us, capable of acting in any direction, regardless of the motives of the heart. . . . Choices made apart from the desires of the heart? They would be an exhibition, not of freedom, but of insanity.

And what is a free man? He is someone who is free from
external compulsion and is consequently at liberty to do what his heart desires. . . . Under the superintendence of God, all men, Christian and non-Christian, have the freedom to turn left or right, to choose chocolate or vanilla, or to move to this city or that one — depending entirely upon what they want to do. The foreordination of God does not violate this; it is the cause of this.

It is impossible for a true choice to be autonomous in the sense of being independent of our heart desires. If there were a choice for which no reason at all could be given, we could no longer call it a choice.

The Bible teaches that God superintends the choices made by men. He may do so immediately through providential intervention or mediately through the use of secondary agents.

Man, as creature, is free to do as he pleases. He has this freedom only because God grants and sustains it —and perfectly controls it.

Answers to Objections to the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner.

If we admit free will in the sense that the absolute determination of events is placed in the hands of man, we might as well spell it with a capital F and a capital W; for then man has become like God, — a first cause, an original spring of action, — and we have as many semi-Gods as we have free wills. Unless the sovereignty of God be given up, we cannot allow this independence to man. It is very noticeable — and in a sense it is reassuring to observe the fact — that the materialistic and metaphysical philosophers deny as completely as do Calvinists this thing that is called free will. They reason that every effect must have a sufficient cause; and for every action of the will they seek to find a motive which for the moment at least is strong enough to control.1

Since man is a rational agent there must always be a sufficient cause for his acting in a particular way. For the will to decide in favor of the weaker motive and against the stronger, or without motives at all, is to have an effect with out a sufficient cause.2

God so governs the inward feelings, external environment, habits, desires, motives, etc., of men that they freely do what He purposes.3

Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as a mighty river carries a piece of wood.4

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature.5

No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent be would have to reason something like this: “If I am to die today, it will do me no good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not eat.” Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live, He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly of refusing to eat.6

Hence, only a person who has not examined this doctrine of Predestination, or one who is maliciously inclined, will rashly charge that it is Fatalism. There is no excuse for anyone making this mistake who knows what Predestination is and what Fatalism is.7

Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute opposite and only alternative.8

Let me make some quick observations.

Predestination teaches that God “governs the inward feelings, external environment, habits, desires, motives, etc., of men that they freely do what He purposes.” How is this any different than our victim of brainwashing? Inserting the word “freely” does not make these actions free. If God determines the conditions that determine the actions then he is determining the actions.

Boettner says that Predestination is nothing at all like Fatalism. He says it is “its absolute opposite and only alternative.” The only difference between the two is that in one case things are determined by a person and in the other case things are determined by an impersonal force. In the end, the results are the same. It matters little to the question of freedom whether the “agent” of determinism is God, an impersonal force, or a super-intelligent alien race.

Individuals are free to do what they want to do but they are not free to change what they want. God changes what some people want in order manipulate their actions to fit into his plans. Freedom to be controlled by something that you have no control over does not sound like freedom to me.

This theology reduces the will to a mathematical formula. The will is not an agent according to this thinking. It is the slave of the single greatest desire of the heart. This robs the term will of any real meaning. It also strikes me as an extremely naïve understanding of desires and aversions as processed by a human being. This concept, by the way, comes from Thomas Hobbes who said, “Liberty and Necessity are consistent; as in … the actions which men voluntarily do: which, because they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty, and yet, because every act of man’s will, and every desire, and inclination proceed from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual chain (whose first link is in the hand of God the first of all causes) they proceed from necessity” (Leviathan).

Boettner finds it “reassuring” that the “materialistic and metaphysical philosophers” hold a position very similar to his. I would suggest that this is not a good thing. It indicates that his position is determined more by his assumptions than by some direct statement of Scripture.

Doug Wilson is guilty of bifurcation in this statement: “It is impossible for a true choice to be autonomous in the sense of being independent of our heart desires. If there were a choice for which no reason at all could be given, we could no longer call it a choice.” We must choose between

Our choices are completely determined by our single strongest desire.
Or we have absolutely no reason for making our choices.

Maybe we like several flavors of ice cream and decide to choose rocky road today. Does that require that we like rocky road the best? Does it even require that we like rocky road the best today?

To think of choice in this way is to rob the term of all its meaning. There is no choosing to be done. All is determined by our strongest desire.

Wilson says that man is “free to do as he pleases” and that God “perfectly controls” what he wants. In other words, an individual is free to do what he wants to do, which is what God wants him to want to do. No matter how many steps you put in the middle, God dictates this person’s actions. How can this be called freedom and language still have any meaning?

Boettner objects to free will because it makes humans into “a first cause, an original spring of action.” Is this not what it means to make a choice? Is this not an essential part of being human, that we have an influence on the future? In Boettner’s system, a human being is a cipher, entirely determined and programmed by a sovereign God.

We’re back to a false choice. Boettner says we must accept that humans are completely programmed to act and to will by God. Otherwise we are left only with the option that humans become God. There are many alternatives he is ignoring. Why cannot humans be initiators of “causal chains” without overriding God’s ultimate power? Is God’s sovereignty limited so that he can be in control only if he orchestrates ever minor detail?

Boettner says, “No man can be a consistent fatalist.” Yet the very argument he uses against Fatalism is equally effective against Predestination.

It seems to me that the God of Wilson and Boettner has an awful lot in common with the “God” of Deism. He lives outside the chain of determinism and sets everything in motion to achieve the ends he has in mind.

I began this post with several “desires.”

• I wanted to focus on the bankruptcy of the word “choice” as used by certain theologians.
• I wanted to keep the argument focused on the philosophical issues.
• I wanted to cut through some of the obfustication that surrounds this issue.
• I wanted to avoid an acrimonious tone.
• I wanted to create enough controversy that it would stimulate helpful discussion on this issue.
• I wanted to provide some new insight into an old dispute.
• I wanted to keep the post to a reasonable length.
• I wanted to make a new post because it has been too long since my last one.

I fear that these competing desires have kept me from realizing any except the last one.

Pastor Rod

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

God, Time & Freedom

Let’s shift gears into something more philosophical.

I’ve been discussing some of these issues over at a friend’s site. I’m also in the middle of a philosophy class that I’m teaching for IWU’s College of Adult and Professional Studies. So it is no surprise that I’ve been thinking about God’s relationship to time and about human freedom to make real choices.

The traditional view holds that God is outside time. This is so widely accepted that to question it appears to be flirting with heresy. Yet I feel that there is something wrong with this view as it is commonly held.

I also have the sense that the Open Theists are on to something important. But this position has some problems of its own and is labeled heretical by many Christians.

It seems to make sense that time began at creation as Augustine suggests. In the same way that God is “outside” creation, he would also be “outside” time. Of course, if the biblical account is true, then God must be able to “enter” both creation and time. Otherwise he would be reduced to the “god” of Aristotle.

It is difficult for us to imagine any existence outside time. It is not unlike the difficulty a deep-sea fish might have imagining life on “dry land.” And we must be cautious when we speculate about “how things work” outside time. But let’s see if we can make some sense out of this.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument the standard position that God is outside time and that he knows the future exhaustively.

In the standard view, God sees all of time “at once.” He sees the “past,” the “present” and the “future” in what we would call “now.” If God knows the future in every detail, then the future must be “fixed.” In other words, we cannot do anything contrary to what God already knows we will do in the future. Consequently, we are not free to make real choices.

However, we seem to have the sense that our choices are free and that they are real. Some would argue that this is only an illusion. Others say that “libertarian freewill” is an affront to the sovereignty of God. Some resort to a philosophical sleight of hand that essentially has God manipulating our wills leaving us “free” to do “what we will.”

But these explanations are not very helpful. Some are worse than the problem they try to solve. I maintain that they seem satisfying to their adherents only because they’ve repeated them so many times and gotten “comfortable” with them.

I think I may have a new angle from which to address this issue. At least it’s new to me. I haven’t seen it anywhere. However, if it is true, I am probably not the first one to think of it. If I’m the first one to formulate it, it’s probably not true.

I believe the problem is created when we collapse our view of the future and God’s view of the future.

For God, the future already exists. It is “fixed” much in the same way that the past is fixed for us. From God’s perspective the future cannot change.

However, for us the future does not yet exist and is “flexible.”

As long as we look at the future only from God’s perspective, we don’t run into any difficulties. And as long as we look at it only from our perspective, everything is fine. The problem arises when we combine these two perspectives. Then we run into paradoxes and contradictions.

We are left with, “If God knows the future exhaustively, how can we make free choices?”

The Open Theists say that God does not know the future exhaustively. They say that this is a statement about the nature of the future not about the nature of God. They say that the reason that God does not know the future is because it doesn’t exist until we make our choices in the present. Their critics argue that this reduces God to less than all-powerful and all-knowing. But if the future doesn’t exist, then God is not diminished by not knowing it.

But I don’t want to get sidetracked into a discussion about Open Theism. I just want to borrow the idea that the future doesn’t exist until it becomes the present.

We assume this as we go about our lives. We are confronted with a decision and make a choice. It could be a relatively insignificant choice about where to eat dinner. Or it could be a bigger choice about where to live or work. We agonize over many of these choices as if the future will be (partially) determined by what we decide.

The problem comes in when we insert the data about God knowing the future.

In programming language, this is a “data mismatch.”

If you told a computer to divide 25 by a ham sandwich, you would get an error. These are two different kinds of information. You can perform math on a number. You perform other operations on a ham sandwich. But they don’t belong together in the same operation.

Our view of the future and God’s view of the future do not belong together. Our view is from within time. God’s view is outside time. The future is still open to us because it does not yet exist.

Another way to get at this is by using the framework of relativity. Einstein has shown that there is no absolute “now” or “public time.” By combining our “now” and God’s “now” we are treating them as if they are the same. This is what creates the paradox.

These are just some ideas. Let me know what you think. It seems to make sense to me. But you may see a fatal flaw in the logic. Or you may raise some questions that I haven’t considered.

Pastor Rod

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

Jesus the Student

Many people read Luke 2:41–52 and think that Jesus is challenging the teachers in the Temple. He comes to Jerusalem as a child of 12 and instructs the people who were supposed to be the experts.

But let me suggest to you a different way to read this passage.

Jesus wasn’t a teacher. He was a student. 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. “They found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.”

It would not be hard to image him also challenging the standard interpretations, “What if this passage is talking about this?” But this is primarily a story about Jesus’ development as a child on the verge of becoming an adult.

If you still aren’t convinced, look at verses 40 & 52:

And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Between these “bookends,” Luke recounts this story told to him by Mary (verse 51). Jesus is preparing himself for the mission that lies ahead.

Pastor Rod

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