A Rant to the Christian Alarmist

(Warning: here follows an epic rant...)

I'm more than a little annoyed and vexed by Christians who cite passages like Mt. 24 and list instances of local, insignificant weather phenomena and minor military skirmishes (in the grand scheme of things) and draw the conclusion that this must be the fulfillment of said prophecies about "wars and rumors of war", about "earthquakes and pestilence", about the end of the world, etc.

Consider: The world is bigger than your particular region. Even if you are in a zone where there is some catastrophe, that doesn't mean the sky is falling all over the planet. Additionally, thanks to the advent of the information age and the instant, global availability to know of every little catastrophe, it may seem to you like these things are manifestly more frequent now, when in reality it's only that you now have the ability to know about every corner of the globe immediately whereas you didn't before.

Society (globally) is not "more godless than it ever has been". In fact, it is actually more Christian than it ever has been. Africa was virtually an unreached, pagan continent 150 years ago whereas today the sub-Saharan part is predominately Christian (no comment on the health or sincerity of said Christians, but nevertheless...) China has over 100 million Christians, the majority of which are more sincere than your average "Christian" in lands where Christianity has been the default religion until late, and the Chinese church continues to grow. The countries where the church is growing at the fastest rates are places like Iran, Afghanistan, and the like.

Consider: In the days of the early church, the emperors married their sisters/mothers and also castrated boys and married them as "wives". Prostitution was a duty, pedophilia was acceptable, and literally throwing unwanted babies on the trash heap to be eaten by dogs was standard practice. Are you sure society is "worse than at any point in history"? Consider that the rate of military deaths over the last 15 years is at an all time historical low relative to the world population. Are you sure that "there are more wars/violence than ever"? Lastly, consider the promise of Christ in which He declares "I will build my church and the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it."

Dear Christian, before spewing your next panicky, doomsday rant (on Facebook or anywhere else), consider that the Church is bigger than your particular country and that its history is bigger than your current generation. Consider that the Church has always gone through hardship and persecution and that if you are not in this situation currently, you are the exception, not the rule. Consider that, while modern western culture has plenty of problems, it is certainly not worse than the Roman empire in which the early Church lived and thrived. Consider that, as Tertullian wrote, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," and that the death of lukewarm "Christendom" can only be a good thing. Consider these things and stop your alarmist panicking which makes us all look bad and fails to understand the history of the global Church or take seriously the promises of Christ. Thank you.

End rant.

Why I'm Glad the Church Is Shrinking

 

I had not actually planned to write a post on this.  I assumed that someone, or rather plenty of someones, would be offering up their thoughts on the silver lining of this statistical cloud.  I was surprised to find that in most of the commentaries and articles I read no one was doing this, but that most of what I was hearing was lamenting or coping strategies.  In case you missed the report, the official number of Protestant Christians in America has dipped below 50% of the population for the first time "ever" (by which I take it to mean since the European settlers ran all the Native American pagans out. ;)  The general reaction to this news from most Christians seems to be a mix of despair, self-castigation for not doing a better job, warnings of impending doom, and calls to redouble our efforts at discipleship.  Though this loss of majority privilege might certainly provoke some Christians to examine ourselves and how we are answering the call of the Great Commission to make disciples (something we should've been doing without statistical provocation), I believe it is no reason to despair, but, if anything, to be glad.

First we need to understand what this statistical shift signifies.  Is what we are seeing a mass exodus of true believers from the church?  A large-scale apostasy?  I'd wager not.  The fact is, the statistics show that 48% of America still self-identifies as Protestant.  If that number doesn't seem outright laughable, you have a poor definition of what Protestant means.  Nowhere near even that many are.  It used to be (and for quite a few Americans still is) that to be born in the USA is to be a Protestant.   There was a time when you couldn't get a bank loan without membership at a church, or at the very least a synagogue.  (Did we really think that policy was bound to make sincere and deep Christians?)  Wikipedia defines a Protestant as a member in "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth."  Do we really think that even close to 48% of the population of the country believe these things (with exception to the point about the pope ;)?  It would be wonderful, but such is not the case.

So what's happening is NOT a decline of real, Protestant believers, but a purging of nominal Christians.  This statistical decline depicts not the death of the church, but rather of Christendom: a society-wide structure based on some generic Christian values in which everyone considers themselves Christian by default, simply because they were born into the system.  But the reality is there are no default Christians!  You don't get to call yourself a Protestant just because you were born in America and hold some vaguely Christians understandings, the same way you don't get to call yourself a fish just because you were born in the bathtub and like to swim on vacation.  The issue is that in America, the default religion is Protestantism, the same way that in Italy it's Catholicism (88%) or in Ukraine it's Eastern Orthodoxy (around 70%).  But the truth is that in none of these countries does even a fraction of the population actually and sincerely believe in the teachings of its particular default religion.  That is, they are nominal - believers in name only.  So what is responsible for this trend in America?

One commentary on the new statistics from the linked article lays it out this way:

"'Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,' said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. 'In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be.'"  

In other words, now that you don't need to be a member of a church to get a bank loan, the people who were in the church only for superficial reasons linked with Christendom are leaving.  Nominal Christians no longer have to keep up the pretense because the belief that to be a decent American means you must go to church on Sunday has all but disappeared.  What that inevitably means is that, while the numbers of people who call themselves Protestant may be declining, the number of real believers is not.  In fact, there are at least two reasons why this trend is positive.

First, this presents an exciting opportunity to share the Gospel.  There is practically no one harder to share the Gospel with than someone who thinks they already know it but doesn't; with someone who thinks they are already a Christian but they aren't.  At least when someone says they are not a Christian or believe in "nothing in particular", there is a possibility of an honest dialogue.  But it is often much harder to tell someone who thinks he's a Christian that he needs to become a Christian.  I would personally much rather have a conversation with someone who recognizes Christianity and the Gospel as something they don't currently believe and is willing to debate it with me than try to convince someone who is simply putting on the Christian show that they are not actually a Christian.  History bears out this sharp and honest distinction as beneficial.  It was the prostitutes and thieving tax collectors who came to Jesus, not the Pharisees who thought they were already good to go.  It was, ultimately and generally speaking, the Gentiles of places like Corinth that were more open to Paul's message than the population of Jerusalem (though there were certainly not a few of the Jewish people who came to faith as well.)  Even in our own days, the growth rate of the Evangelical church is highest in countries that are NOT part of the Christendom structure.  Of course, the residual problem in America is that many of even those who no longer affiliate with the Protestant church think they know what the Gospel is.  Therefore, the exodus of nominal Christians from the church is not a panacea to this problem, but at least they aren't lying to themselves anymore about believing it, and that's a step in the right direction. 

The second reason we should be glad for this change is that, ultimately, this trend will beautify the church.  If those who are not serious about faith in Christ, those who were Protestant in name only or were so out of a vague sense of patriotic affiliation leave the church, that means that the people who stay will be more and more those who truly love Jesus and want to worship Him with their lives.  Granted, there will still be plenty of nominal Christians in the church unless some kind of serious persecution begins, but nevertheless, the trend of the church being pruned of dead branches will ultimately lead to a greater vibrancy, attractiveness to those outside, and therefore fruitfulness.  Pruning might be painful, but it is a reason for hope, not for despair.  It is a condition of life, not a mark of death.  It seems to me the reason that many Christians begin to panic over these statistics is that we, in a stereotypical super-size mentality, often confuse quantity with quality and think that bigger numbers must necessarily mean the church is better off when this is very contradictory to the biblical picture.  In fact, the stated preference of God in Scripture is that people who come in vain would do better to stop pretending and just not come (Mal. 1:10 and Rev. 3:15-16 come to mind.) 

So though the pruning process might not be fun, might entail some real pain for churches and truly require us to adapt in order to be witnesses in a "post-Christian" society, the truth is that society was never "Christian" in the first place, only "Christianized" and that this change is ultimately not something to fear or cause despair, but to applaud, because ultimately it just means that people are finally getting honest with themselves and others and that's something we should all be able to agree is a good thing.

social justice in the church: the necessity and the danger

Recently I've been hearing (and reading) lots of people take strong stances on the question of social justice in the life of the church.  These opinions are as varied as "if you're not actively participating in programs to serve the poor and marginalized, you're a horrible Christian", to "social justice is not the calling of the church and is a distraction from the Great Commission."

As for the idea of social justice being a distraction from the church's true calling, this just doesn't seem like a serious argument to me, or one with any biblical foundation anyway.  It really only requires taking a look at perhaps the one Christian who fulfilled the Great Commission like no other: the Apostle Paul.  When Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the other Apostles about how God had been working salvation among the Gentiles through him, fulfilling the Great Commission in an unprecedented way, their reply was that they "perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:9-10)  Far from being a distraction from the Great Commission, the early church and Paul himself looked on issues of social justice as inseparable from the Great Commission.  Their encouragement to Paul is not "make sure you don't let anything distract you from that, Paul", but rather that social justice MUST be part of the Great Commission.  Can anyone really read the epistle of James or 1st John and doubt the importance of social justice in the life of the believer?  I'm not going to attempt a full, theological justification of the necessity of social justice ministry in the church in this blog post.  If anyone is in need of convincing, I'd simply recommend reading Generous Justice, by Tim Keller.

However, I do believe there is a potential danger in the recent awakening to social justice.  That danger is not in the recognition of the need for justice, nor in our call to pursue it, but rather in the motives and goals we hold behind the pursuit.  It is no coincidence that the majority of the noise surrounding the church's call to social justice is coming from developed countries where there is a justice system in tact.  In the rare (read "western") corners of the world where justice is the accepted standard of society, there is a subtle temptation to import the value of justice from society at large into the church, without examining its form and source. 

If the ardor behind our pursuit of justice is the expectation of establishing a just system rather than out of love of our neighbor and to manifest the nature of the coming kingdom, we will burn out and not really be fulfilling the biblical call to social justice.  In other words, there is a danger of seeing ourselves as the fountainhead of justice rather than waiting expectantly for the returning Judge.  Western society, where this renewed call to social justice in the church is strongest, generally supports the value of justice for the individual (compared with the rest of the world anyway).  But has the growing cause of justice in secular society been born from spiritual insight into the character of God?  Is it not more likely the result of abandoning any belief in ultimate, eternal justice and hence there arises our need to create our own justice here and now?  And therein is the danger: that as the church pursues justice she will do so in a way no differently from society at large.  She will merely mimic the secular pursuit of justice.  The danger is that our pursuit of justice ceases to be a manifestation of love to our neighbor and a sign of the coming kingdom of Christ, and rather flows from a desire to control our circumstances, to mitigate our own suffering in the world, and from a lack of real belief in the ultimate justice of the Judge of the living and dead.  The truth is that our pursuit of justice can flow just as much from a lack of faith in the coming justice of God as it can from our obedience to the Judge and in conformation to His character.

The church is called to social justice, but we must understand why and from what motive.  The church is called to transformation into Christ's image and to love our neighbor, therefore social justice is not an optional activity for the Christian.  See, we can hardly pretend to be loving our neighbor if we are indifferent to his suffering (though many do).  This is the whole point of John's rhetorical question in his first epistle: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 Jn. 3:17)  John goes on to make the point that anyone who doesn't love his brother but says he loves God is a liar.  Therefore, it's true that if we neglect questions of social justice and shut up our hearts from others' suffering, we ARE horrible Christians.  But we must be sure that the motives behind our pursuit of justice are namely these: that we pursue social justice out of love for our neighbor, because God loves him or her and calls us to be conformed to His image.  We do so not in expectation that we as the church will be capable of creating perfect conditions where justice flourishes.  In fact, our attempts may not actually change the structures of justice at all.  Another way of saying this is that we pursue social justice as a manifestation of love, as a reflection of the kingdom of God in which Jesus will establish complete and ultimate justice.  We must not forget that we, as believers in Christ, though being the firstfruits of the inaugurated kingdom of God, are not currently in the fully realized version of that kingdom.  Neither is it through our efforts that this realization will come about, but through the return of the King to establish His kingdom. 

I have lived the last 10 years of my life in a country that lacks a just society (at least compared with North America or Western Europe).  Sons of millionaries and members of parliament rape and pillage (literally) whatever and whoever they want and are rarely called to account for it.  Workers in factories labor in conditions that would be considered animal cruelty in the west.  The honest are few and far between and usually suffer for their integrity.  Even rarer are those who would step up to defend the helpless for fear that they would be the ones to bear the blame (and history has often justified this fear.)  Corruption among those who are supposed to uphold justice is so pervasive that people openly joke about it. (One of those "we laugh so we don't cry" kind of things.) The government is interested primarily in stuffing its own pockets rather than caring for the welfare of its citizens.  And it is in that context that I am called to seek justice for my neighbors as a manifestation of love.  What must be the goal?  If the calling is the creation of a just society by my efforts (or even those of the church at large), there is cause for despair.  But if the calling is to come along side the victims, the oppressed, the marginalized and take their suffering as my own and to work to the extent of my ability to serve their tangible needs as a reflection of the coming kingdom where this will be realized, that pursuit of justice can be a true act of love regardless of the outcome.  Sometimes this pursuit yields results (my clout as one of only 2 Americans in the city does tend to improve the attitudes of the government employees I've had to deal with in seeking to serve others, and I am grateful for God's providence in that), but mostly not.  The danger of the pursuit of social justice as a goal in itself becomes very clear, very quickly.  In the framework of corruption and abuse of power, "justice" as an end in itself may never be achieved.  However, justice as a manifestation of compassion, empathy and love will not be diminished or frustrated by its practical results.  We must see that coming along side to take the suffering of the oppressed and marginalized on ourselves is already a victory as it manifests the love of the God who came to bear our suffering, regardless of if temporal justice is served or not.

thoughts?

community, autonomy and the resurrection

over the last couple decades society has experienced a huge disconnect.  you can see the recognition of this trend in just about any sociological work you'd care to get your hands on.  perhaps the most famous example of this is a book called bowling alone by robert putnam.  the title comes from the anecdotal evidence that today there are many more people who bowl than a couple decades prior, but less who bowl in leagues.  the illustration is meant to show the fragmentation and isolation of individuals in modern society.  putnam blames this tendency primarily (though not exclusively) on technology.  he is not the first to write of the isolating effects of technology, nor will he be the last.  it is probably one of the great ironies of the 21st century that though we are drowning in a plethora of connections, we feel the lack of connectedness ever more acutely.  however, to try to blame this shift on TV or the interwebs is a huge over-simplification.  certainly the high mobility and transient nature of modern society is another large factor.  we feel isolated because we move every few years to new places where we know no one and actually are socially isolated, at least for the first while.  people rarely factor in how much social capital it will cost them to get that better job to increase their financial capital.  another one of those millenial ironies i suppose. 

at some point we started defining what it was we were looking for with the word "community".  we worked on that for a while.  but once we realized that flinging a buzz word around wasn't helping us to create it, we did the most logical thing we could think of to help the problem: make a new buzz word.  that word today is tribe.  our shallow attempts at building "community" had ended in largely superficial solutions and just weren't enough.  we needed something with some more depth to it.  we had accomplished our goals for "community building" and were still left with a deep sense of isolation.  hence, we came up with "tribe".  we now attempt to create "tribe" in our companies (not to slam seth godin. he has some really interesting ideas.), tribes on the internet and tribes on tv.  the idea of tribe really does shoot at what we're all actual hungering for.  a deep, meaningful inter-connectedness.  cause the simple problem is, we're devastatingly lonely.

here's the thing: tribes (i mean real tribes, like the ones that wear hollowed-out vegetables for underwear and don't have iphones) are deeply interconnected  because of a very obvious but perhaps overlooked prerequisite: they NEED each other.  in a tribe there is a real, unglamorous dependence on one another for survival.  the connection they experience is not voluntary.  it is mandatory.  if the tribe doesn't stay totally inter-dependent, they die.  whether that's cause there's not enough food or cause another tribe destroys them makes little difference.  therefore they exist around a common purpose: the preservation of the tribe.  this highest goal is the same for each member.

this should already be enough to see why modern, individualistic society can never (that's right, NEVER) experience real "tribe" or "community" or whateveryouwannacallit without a radical shift in values.  the fact of the matter is that since the days of descartes, we have put the ultimate value in western society on our individualism and autonomy.  if you ask any modern, western urbanite "who gets to define your purpose in life?" you will most likely hear a single, oft-repeated answer: i do.  (isn't it ironic that in the attempt to be unique, people end up being clones of each other?)  as long as we continue to define the most important aspects of our lives autonomously, we will never experience tribe for one very simple reason: we don't believe that we actually need each other.  if real tribe requires a true dependence on others and we are out there defining the essence of our lives through independent, autonomous decisions, how will we ever develop a true sense of tribe?  short answer: we won't. 

i should insert here that in more traditional societies today (and even in western society a long time ago) there is no such delusion of autonomy and independence.  people are solidly convinced that they are not independent of each other.  historically this sense of tribe has been provided by, well, the tribe.  the family.  people were really dependent on each member of the family to contribute to the family's survival and prosperity.  along with this the common goal was the family's continuation.  modern society has largely shunned this goal as being too small for our life's purpose (and rightly so.)  despite being told by the materialist worldview that we have no other purpose than to propagate our own DNA, we refuse to believe it.

the dilemma we have is that on the one hand we want a real sense of tribe and inter-connectedness.  on the other hand we want to maintain our autonomy (or at least freedom) and not make that inter-connectedness itself the only common value.  now, you may have been thinking "what does the resurrection have to do with this?"  the answer is: everything.

Christianity is a uniquely historical faith in the sense that it depends entirely on historic facts: the death and resurrection of Christ.  every other religion, while having historical details, is not even close to dependent on its own history.  that is why all other religions are, in essence, philosophies and rules.  Christianity, however, is news of an historic event.  the upshot of this is that since it is news, it doesn't come like a bolt from the blue.  no one can just intuitively "figure out" the gospel, the same way you can't just meditate your way to knowing what's on the 6 o'clock news.  the gospel can only be received from another and passed on.

in other words, the historical nature of the gospel automatically creates tribe among those who receive it.  each person is literally dependent on others to tell them this news.  there is no way of receiving the gospel except through the community of faith.  this initial dependence establishes a paradigm for the rest of the Christian life: it cannot be lived alone.  we are dependent on others in the tribe to receive the gospel and dependent on them (though not in an exclusive, unhealthy sense) to grow further in the gospel.  this is why the Bible describes the Christian church with terms of deep inter-connectedness, such as, "you are all one body and members of one another."  on the other hand, the Christian community, while preserving the inter-dependence of tribe, keeps freedom in tact.  ultimately, you must make the choice to enter this tribe by receiving the gospel.  the tribe of the Crucified is about much more than self-preservation.  the goal (one which is sure of coming to pass) is nothing less than the coming of the Kingdom of God to the planet.  big enough goal?  the solution for our dilemma of wanting tribe yet also wanting freedom and bigger purpose is resolved in the gospel community of Jesus.

sadly, many Christians, while acknowledging the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and even agreeing that the gospel must come through others, deny its consequent paradigm: that growth in the gospel must occur in community.  this denial is rarely an out-right renunciation as much as it is evident in Christians' choices to avoid real community, to keep their relationships at church superficial or worse yet to come, sit through service like they would a TV show and leave with absolutely no interaction.  too many Christians are content to be a "body" with others in name only.  if this is the case with us, we need to recognize that though we assent with our lips, we are contradicting the consequence of the historical resurrection of Christ with our lives.

playground restoration

This summer our church took on some community service projects. One that we've completed was the restoration of a playground near our house.  As the Lord provides opportunities and resources for these projects, we hope to continue to reach out in this way to our community.  While the group of volunteers from our church was working on this playground, many people approached with amazement and asked why we would do this.  It was a blessing to share with them that Jesus loves our city and He told us to.  In a land where far too often people are happy to get ahead at the cost of ripping others off and the government is primarily concerned only about maintaining power for itself rather than caring for the public, it is truly counter-cultural to serve in a self-sacrificial way.  We believe God is using these projects to reach and convict hearts about the reality of the gospel.  If you'd like to be involved in sponsoring a project, please contact me, or visit our church's giving page.  Below is our vision statement for these community projects and a few pics of the playground we restored this summer.

Vision for Community Service Projects

As we enjoy the free grace and love that Jesus shows us, this necessarily births in us a desire to share that grace and love freely ("freely you have received, freely give." Mt. 10:8).  It is in allowing that grace to not only pierce our hearts but to be reflected through our lives and joining in His work to bless others that our enjoyment of Jesus is multiplied.

God came and gave grace to us who were undeserving and ill-deserving at great cost to Himself. We not only recognize but image that fact in serving others who have not asked for or earned it and at our own cost (of time, talent, and treasure). God "makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." (Mt. 5:45) In this active thanks for His grace, we are further rooted in it, as where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

Through these projects, we seek to live in love in a way that is received as such by those we serve. The most loving thing we could do for a person is to share the gospel with him. However, if he is not open, he will see it as us just trying to cram our opinion down his throat. If we show our love in a tangible way, it will give such a person cause to ask why. Scripture itself says "let us not love only in word and tongue, but in deed and truth." (I Jn. 3:18)

The culmination and goal of this is particularly to reach the world. It is these projects as an outworking of our own delight in Jesus, a manifestation of grace and a tangible act of love that is one way we seek to reach the world with the gospel. These projects will not themselves preach the gospel. However, they are a powerful witness that we as Christians have a truly self-sacrificial love for others and do desire the good of those even who reject us. Our hope is that these projects will be compelling in themselves as a manifestation of the reality of the gospel and open doors to share of the One who is the true Servant. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

Now the pictures...

before:

 in process:

after:

serving the city

this ukrainian independence day (august 24th) we continued the tradition we began last year of a church picnic / beach clean-up day.  our desire in doing this is to "seek the good of the city" (Jer. 29:7) and to show people the love of God in a very tangible way.  we believe that such community service is a vital part of reaching the city for Christ.  we have also been going out this summer and doing street witnessing every week, but the fact is that those whose hearts are not yet open to the gospel, though it is the greatest "good" we could do them to share Jesus with them, do not yet perceive it as such.  in taking on projects to practically do good on a level people who are not yet saved can recognize, we are able to show them the love and care of God in a way they can understand it.  since in ukraine there is really no concept of "littering" or "pack it in, pack it out", the parks and beaches all look about like this:

after a little of this...

(and by little i mean over 1,000 gallons (4,000 liters) of trash collected...)
the beach looked like this:

we had quite a number of people stop us and say, "this is great!  i wish everyone cared about our city like this.  why are you doing this?"  we were able to answer them simply "because Jesus loves this city and we love Him."  a few of the responses were ones of shock: "really!?  you guys are from a CHURCH!?  that's the kind of church i'd visit."  our desire is to take on other community improvement projects as God leads us and resources allow.  one thing we've had on our hearts for a long time is to repair some of the dilapidated playgrounds around the city and in so doing serve the mothers and young children that play there.  please pray with us that these seeds of simple service would grow in people's hearts to the glory of God.

four principles for christian unity

(if you're confused as to why there is a picture of bacon here, a) keep reading but b) why not!? :)

a few weeks back, we went through Romans 14:20-24 and looked at how to deal with your convictions and those of other believers.  i thought i'd share the principles from that passage on how to rightly hold and use your personal convictions as a Christian and how to treat another person in his convictions:

1) "all things indeed are pure."  in other words, if the Bible doesn't say something is sin, you can't universally define it as sin.  if the Bible is silent on a particular issue, or gives freedom, or doesn't set forth a specific stance, then no Christian (no matter how insightful he thinks he is) has the right to declare it as sin for all people.  there are plenty of things the Bible does say are sin, and pride is one of the most often repeated.  as soon as you take any of your personal convictions and try to force it on others, you have become a proud pharisee.  this includes areas like drinking alcohol, birth control, watching harry potter, eating bacon, playing cards, listening to secular music, using electricity (thanks amish! ... and no, i'm not worried about offending them.  they shouldn't be using the internet anyway. :), etc.

2) "whatever is not from faith is sin."  if you are personally convinced God doesn't want you to do something which the Bible is silent on, don't do it.  for you it would be sin!  the reason it would be sin is not cause the thing/action itself is wrong, but because, in as far as you are convinced, it would be disobedience to God, and that is sin.  keep your convictions.  live by them.  just don't force them on others because then you'll have a much bigger problem than eating bacon and watching harry potter. 

3) "it is good not to do anything by which your brother stumbles."  that is, if the option is between using your freedom to do what you want and serving your brother, go with the later.  we are given great freedom in Christ, not so we can do what we want, but so that in surrendering it for others, we may become more like Him.  the Cross of Jesus proves without a doubt that serving others is more important than standing on your rights.  but does that mean we have to stop drinking coffee, eating bacon, watching TV and using electricity just cause it might stumble someone?

4) "do you have faith?  have it to yourself before God."  to serve others with our freedom doesn't mean that we become as strict as they are.  it does mean that we use our freedom with discretion and readiness to surrender it for others.  the principle is not "if this might stumble someone somewhere, i shouldn't do it."  love doesn't exist in "theory", only in practice.  the principle is: "if this does stumble the person i'm with right now, then in his presence i will refrain."  use your freedom in places and ways it won't stumble others (at the least just before God... it won't stumble Him if you eat bacon. :)  does this mean we stop using freedom all together?  no.  does it mean we surrender it for the good of those who are stumbled by it?  yes.

if Christians would all apply these simple Scriptural principles, there would be a lot less petty fighting and contentions among the body of Christ. 

one disclaimer should be mentioned at this point:  if a person is attempting to set up their own convictions as law for others (which really means they are trying to set themselves up as god), we should contradict and break their convictions boldly.  if they are contradicting the will of God through their man-made convictions, we should ignore them.  Jesus often practiced this when the pharisees attempted to thwart the work and will of God by their extra-biblical convictions.  Jesus' response was to boldly contradict them and continue anyway with the work His Father was doing.

well, hope that was beneficial for someone out there.  feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

ministry is a whore

yes, you heard right.  i've been thinking lately about this idea.  it's no coincidence that the "whore of babylon" mentioned in Revelation is specifically a religious system. but why "whore"? ("and why does he keep using that awful word!?" :)   first of all, it's offensive.  and that makes it the right word.  if we had even the slightest idea how sickening and offensive it is to God when we replace relationship to Him with a system, we might see that this word is probably not vile enough. 

secondly, it paints a very accurate picture (and i'm about to get a little vivid, so be warned).  a whore is, in some twisted sense, a "wife-replacement".  that is to say, she gives the impression of intimacy without real intimacy.  she looks like she might satisfy, she goes through the motions of satisfying, but leaves only emptiness in her wake.  there is just enough similarity to distract a man from seeking true intimacy with a wife; to fool him into thinking he's got what he wants when in reality she is only drawing him further away from what he truly longs for.  this is a perfect picture of religion and, too often, of ministry.  it looks like we're serving God, while in reality we are replacing Him with our service.  it has the appearance of intimacy, but is really only a superficial act that widens the void.  it looks just enough like a relationship with God to keep us fooled, to keep us from seeking the real thing, while leaving only emptiness in our hearts.  we begin to think that maybe doing all these things is spiritual intimacy, but it is only a cheap whore. 

as we recently studied through the books of Kings in our Old Testament survey class, i was struck by an interesting detail.  after the kingdom of Israel was divided, the people almost immediately fell into idolatry (described by God through the prophets inevitably as "playing the whore").  now, in the northern kingdom, it says that Jeroboam, the first king after the division, set up two golden calves for the people to worship.  this, of course, was hearkening back to Aaron's rebellion while Moses was on Mt. Sinai when he also formed a golden calf for the people to worship.  Jeroboam made the same statement that Aaron did then: "behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."  the fascinating thing is that this was not a claim to worship another god.  it was a claim to be worshiping the true God, the God of Israel... only it wasn't Him!  it was a substitute.  later, when Jehu (the best of the northern kings) wiped out the false god Baal from the north, it says that, nevertheless, he left the golden calves.  in all the idolatry of Israel, it seems that the idol that had the strongest hold on the people was the one that was closest to the real thing.  

the interesting thing about these golden calves is that they are an appropriate picture of ministry.  the very first calf was made from the golden earrings the people offered to Aaron.  they literally made a god out of their own sacrifices.  the "calf" or bull is a work animal.  they symbolize work, productivity, etc.  and, they were much easier to worship than a God who couldn't be seen, who was apt to move His pillar of fire at a moment's notice.  they could always be measured (2 of them), and always kept where you want them.  

this is the temptation before many Christians today, especially before many ministers.  how many of us have replaced God with our service to Him?  it is a subtle trap, and therefore all the more dangerous.  we content ourselves to substitute true intimacy with the forms of intimacy: church attendance, ministry, perhaps even reading and prayer.  we have made a god of our own sacrifices and called it the God of the Bible.  ministry can so easily become that golden calf, that scarlet whore, because it looks so similar to the real thing and anyone looking on from the outside probably can't tell the difference.  but we know the difference in our hearts, because emptiness is the result.  it is the subtle replacement of Christ with Christianity. 

as a minister myself, i believe that it is vital to understand this.  if i do not constantly keep my heart in check, constantly return to true intimacy with my Savior, i will slowly allow ministry to take the place of God.  ministry provides a substitute spirituality, and usually no one else knows the difference except myself and Jesus.  i once heard a quote by C.H. Spurgeon that has stuck with me "the worst [temptation] is the temptation to ministerialism—the tendency to read our Bibles as ministers, to pray as ministers, to get into doing the whole of our religion as not ourselves personally..."  i am convinced that anyone who is enthralled with being in ministry should not be in it.  that is, if they think that ministry will somehow fulfill their longing for intimacy with God.  yes, when we remind ourselves of this ever present danger, and maintain our hearts in right relationship with Jesus, then ministry is a wonderful privilege and truly presents a unique ground for experiencing Jesus.  but without understanding the inherent danger in it, we will simply whore out our true intimacy with God until there is nothing left.

washing feet and loving others

(btw, don't you just love that Jesus is washing feet in what appears to be a german bar, complete with beer maids? :)

well, i thought i would share a little excerpt of what we talked about in today's study in Romans. it really spoke to me as i was preparing and i hope to others as we studied today. we looked at the phrase in chapter 13, "owe no one anything except to love one another". the word "owe" in the original greek is most frequently used of financial debt. it implies an obligation. (i'm tempted to start a rant on how Christians often ignore this and are as apt to live in financial debt as the next shmuck, but i'll restrain myself. :) the thing is, Paul says there is one thing we are obligated, indebted to give, and that's love to one another.

Jesus also uses this word in a very unique way at one point (most times he uses it in the financial sense, too). in Jn. 13, right after He humbled Himself to do the menial task of washing the disciples' feet, wiping them with the towel wrapped around His waist, He says to them, "You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought (are obligated) to wash one another's feet." now, we get that it's a good example and all, but why exactly does Jesus choosing to humbly serve these disciples obligate them and us to do likewise?

Jesus Himself gives the answer in emphasizing His role as "Teacher and Lord". the ancient, eastern culture that Jesus lived in was an "honor culture". if a person was in a position of honor, there was certain protocol. for example, if a king were to kneel before someone else in the presence of his subjects, the subjects would also immediately kneel before that person (i'm sure we even recognize this from a number of movies.) if a rabbi, a "teacher", were to humble himself through fasting, it was expected that his disciples would do the same. if a slave were to see his master, his "lord", begin to do some menial task, he would without hesitation come along and take over that work. the subjects/disciples/slaves were never to position themselves above their master (Jesus Himself states this in Mt. 10). if their superior were to humble himself in a given way and they did not, it was tantamount to saying "i am above my master/teacher/king", which in reality is a rejection of his position as lord. therefore, Jesus says, "if I, as your Lord and Teacher, have done this, you have a direct obligation to Me to humble yourself and serve in the same way, thus honoring Me."

this is vitally important to grasp in living out the Gospel. we often think of our love and service to others as what we give to them. Jesus completely contradicts this understanding. the fact is, our love and service to others does not tell primarily what we think of them, but what we think of Christ! our attitude towards another person, as disciples and servants of Jesus, reflects foremost our evaluation of Him, not of that person. to use the the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together, "among Christians there are no direct relationships. all relationship exists in and through Christ... any direct relationship is ultimately sinful." that is, as Christians, each one of our human relationships is mediated by and reflects upon our relationship with Jesus first and foremost. this is why we have a debt, an obligation to love one another, because it is a question of honoring or insulting our Lord. when we refuse to love and serve another person, we are essentially saying, "Jesus, i know you think he/she is worth dying for, worth Your life, but they aren't worth mine." in this way we are boasting against, insulting our Lord and, in some sense, denying His relationship to us as Sovereign.

the reason we do such a crappy job of loving and serving people so often is in part because we have failed to realize this truth. we attempt to love a person for his own sake, and of course fail when we realize that he is not capable of sustaining our effort to love him/her. we put that pressure on him and ultimately crush him with it. this is why Bonhoeffer said that all "direct" relationships are ultimately sinful (and as sin always is, ultimately destructive). relationship to someone who is unworthy can only be sustained and empowered if it is mediated by One who has the resources to command and inspire our love on His behalf. and since there is only One who is worthy, all relationships must exist "through Christ". to attempt to create or maintain relationship directly is to ensure our failure in this endeavor and to crush the recipient of our "love" under a burden he cannot bear.

it is this understanding that led John, who recorded the footwashing scene, to later write in his 1st epistle "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also." in other words, if a person thinks he loves God but is holding hatred, refusing to love his brother, he is lying to himself! the truth is that how we treat our brother has much more to do with Jesus than it does with our brother. in a very real sense, based on Jesus' position as Lord and His humble love, if we do not love our brother, we are not loving God. Jesus said that the 1st commandment was to love God with all your being and the second like it; to love your neighbor as yourself. as it turns out, the 2nd is so much like the 1st that we could really say they are the same commandment. loving our brother is not optional to loving God, nor even secondary to loving God. it is the same thing from a different angle. there is really only one commandment: love.

cc svitlovodsk video

so i've been meaning to post this video on here for a while. oddly, we have better and more consistent internet connection here in ukraine than we did in the states. this is a video i put together with pictures of people and events in our church as well as interviews with people to let them share how Jesus has worked in their lives since coming to calvary chapel svitlovodsk. the interviews are subtitled in english. enjoy and pray for us!

in addition, be sure to check out our church's website and podcast.

should the right to life lead to death?

you may have seen the tragic headlines this week about a 9-year-old girl in brazil who was given an abortion because she was raped by her step-father and became pregnant with twins. weighing in at only 80 lbs., the doctors concluded that to continue the pregnancy would've put the life of this young girl at serious risk and hence performed the abortion. the article explains that:

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, which has more Catholics than any other nation, but exceptions are allowed in cases of rape and when the mother's life would be endangered by giving birth....

The Catholic Church's archbishop for the area criticized the decision as against "the law of God" and excommunicated her mother, the doctors and other people involved in the abortion...

"The law of God is above any human law," Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the archbishop of Olinda and Recife, said...

"I believe the position of the church is extreme, radical and inadequate," Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao said on a government radio program.

"I am shocked by the radical position of this religion which, wrongly saying it is defending a life, puts another life in danger that is as important as any other."

later reports have confirmed that the vatican has upheld and defended the bishop's ruling of excommunication for those involved. now, i give serious props to the brazilian public for their strict abortion laws. also, kudos is in order for the catholic church which has held an unequivocal stance against abortion and homosexuality as sin, despite the ever-increasing unpopularity of those positions, even when many protestant denominations are willing to pander to popular opinion. however, this case certainly begs the question: "should the right to life lead to death?"

now, i'm not a brazilian doctor and i was not part of the medical conclusions, but assuming the facts are accurate, the point of the health minster is valid: are we willing to protect one innocent life at the cost of another? no matter what way you look at it, the whole situation is a sickening tragedy. but though the refusal of the catholic church to kowtow to moral relativism and the preeminence given to God's law over man's is commendable, one gets the feeling that they may be applying the letter of the law but missing the spirit thereof: namely, to protect innocent life. thoughts? comments? (and since this topic is a "flash-point", remember to keep the comments respectful... inappropriate comments will be deleted. ;)

celebrating the new year ukrainian style

for our church's pre-new year's talent show, lena and i decided to sing a traditional ukrainian folk song called "Pidmanula, Pidvela" in full-on ukrainian garb. anyone living in ukraine will know this song. for those of you who don't, its basically a guy singing about how he was supposed to meet this girl on each day of the week and she doesn't show. the translation is something like this (attempting to keep some sense of the rhyme):

on monday you told me
flowers we will go to see
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on tuesday you told me
forty times you will kiss me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on wednesday i was told
we'd walk among the marigold
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on thursday you told me
in sorrel walking we will be
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on friday you told me
we'd walk among the blueberries
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on saturday you told me
we'd work together, you and me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on sunday you were saying
we'd be going to a wedding
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

chorus (repeated between each verse):

you set me up
you let me down
you've turned my young mind upside down

next, the skit part we added. the guy (me) asks where she's been all week, and she tells him she's been at Bible studies and invites him to come to church on sunday. his reply is, "lena, i'd follow you to the end of the earth!" (that's where everyone cheers :) then the last refrain is our addition, where i sing:

on sunday you told me
at church service you'll meet me
i showed up and you were found!
you didn't set me up, didn't let me down!

hope you enjoy it!

happily behind the times...

i've recently listened to and read a number of works on the emergent church and the infiltration of postmodernity into the church.  statistics that churches calling themselves emergent are the fastest growing "movement" in christianity today speak volumes about the current state of the philosophical fabric of "the west". 

the trend towards postmodernity in america and europe (aka, "the west") is evident in just about everything.  i thought the other day about all the recent films i have seen that are as blatantly post-modern as a hammer to the forehead. the sheer amount of them is staggering. (must be part of that whole life-imitates-art-imitates-life thing.) 

perhaps you're asking yourself, "what exactly qualifies a movie as post-modern?"  well, the way i see it, the first conspicuous sign of a post-modern (pm from here) flick is that you get an overwhelming sense of the movie having no real plot.  there's no flow of events, just chaotic happenings.  there's no real climax to the film; people kind of do whatever they're doing for an hour and a half or two and then it stops.  next, everyone in the movie looks like they're on prozac for most of the duration of the film (or like they ought to be).  there is an overwhelming sense in the characters of purposelessness and loneliness.  and as the characters have no purpose, hence the absence of actual plot.  (the best, or worst rather, recent example i can think of is "friends with money".  if you were unfortunate enough to see it, you know what i mean.  if you didn't see it, i DON'T recommend it.)  the overwhelming message is "life doesn't have any meaning (and so neither does our movie)".  the literary critic fredric jameson says of pm art (film and other mediums) that it is "the transformation of misery into beauty" and that it contains a "deathly quality… in a way that would seem to have nothing to do with death ... on the level of content."  good description.  even in a pm film that has nothing to do with dying, the viewer is still left with the feeling of emptiness or death.

the whole pm system of thought (which i am not about to attempt a summary of in a blog entry) has slithered its way into the christian community as well.  hence, the birth of the "emergent" movement.  now, i'm not saying that EVERYTHING put forward under the "emergent" label should be tossed out.  the emphasis on cultural relevancy (or "contextualization"), personal relationships and actual experience of God (juxtaposed with mere ritual) are truly positive things (none of which, however require adoption of pm thought, merely acceptance of Biblical teaching).  the sad part is that the emergent movement in typical pm fashion, cuts the boat loose from the anchor of the soul, Christ.  the emergent movement promotes deconstructionism, redefinition, removal of what in the philosophical world is called a "meta-narrative" (what we'd simply call one objective truth for everyone), and a bag full of other problems.  (for a pretty good summary of the emergent movement, listen to this teaching by mark driscoll (formerly a leading member in the emergent community): click here.)

in contrast, ukraine is currently very much in the "modernism" mindset (which has its own problems, of course... materialism being one of the greatest ones.)  we've not caught up to the west in that area, thankfully.  ukraine is an odd mix of old and new.  in many ways this country is much like america in the 40's.  people are much more interactive within society (think like open markets, public transport, and neighbors borrowing things from each other like matches or sugar).  most everyone is convinced that there is an objective truth (though they certainly don't all agree what that is).  they are struggling to find an acceptable order in areas of politics, family, work, etc., rather than the trend to reject order.  there is, in general, an accepted understanding of moral absolutes, and even the existence of God.  at the same time, just about everyone and their mom has a cell phone, mp3 player (younger generation) and a dvd player at home.  the younger generation (30 and under) are starting to catch on to many of the techno-trends of the west as well as the philosophical propaganda of the west.  the moral/spiritual climate will likely change very quickly as the younger generation grows and the older generation dies off.  well, all that to say, it makes me really glad that we here in ukraine are way "behind the times".

on a completely separate note, me and lena, and the navarros and two married couples from our church were able to go up to kiev for a married couples' retreat in feb.  it was a great, refreshing time.  pray for God's strengthening of all the marriages in our church (i'm counseling with one couple currently and Jesus is definitely doing great things).  here's a pic from that retreat. 

from left to right: igor and anya dikiy, lena and tom navarro,
grisha and valya yaromenko, ben and lena morrison

new creations in Christ Jesus!

hey, just wanted to post pictures from the baptism we had last week.  its so awesome to see people expressing through baptism the truth that our old man is dead and we are living anew in Christ!

l to r: ben, kristina, marina, dasha, sergei, nina, alyona, tom

(and no, tom and i did not plan to wear matching shirts! )

- please pray for marina and dasha who are going off to university at the end of this month.  they are young believers who have been filled with the Spirit and are taking in the pure milk of God's Word.  pray they stay rooted and grounded in Jesus' love and make a priority of being in fellowship in their new cities (its a blessing that in both the cities where they are going, kharkov and kiev respectively, there are calvary chapels)
- pray for nina and her husband sergei (who got saved a couple days after nina!) - their son is under serious oppresion from the enemy (drug addiction, hallucinations, etc.)  pray for him to be set free.  pray also for nina and sergei as they are trying to decide where to fellowship.  after learning that they gave their lives to the Lord, an aquaintance of theirs is very forcibly trying to convince them to go to another church that has some serious false teaching.  pray for the Holy Spirit to guide their decision and not be pressured by man, but led by Him.
- pray for alyona's dad.  he was once on fire for the Lord and led a Bible study at their old church, but he is now on a drinking binge and was just taken to a state detox clinic.  pray for his restoration and God's peace in the family (who are all believers) during this time.
- pray for kristina - she is actually an orphan from the internat we go to.  she started coming earlier in the summer and actually prayed to receive the Lord at our service Jul. 15 (thanks for the bday present, Lord! )  the orphans are a very tough group and its very hard to not be influenced by the ungodliness there, but kristina desires to live for Jesus.  pray for her to be filled with His power and especially for battles with anger and help quitting smoking.


thanks for praying!