I’ve long had conversations with people about the separation of people’s public personas and their private faith. As someone who’s determined to learn from all people and enjoy the contributions of non-Christians to society, I’d be a hypocrite if I said I’d never taken pieces of a public person without swallowing the whole.

But I believe we take it too far when we deign to remember and commemorate a person, and indignantly insist on our right to separate out only the parts of the person we like, brushing the rest of the person under the rug. It’s a mildly revisionist form of memory, which is bad to start with. It also reflects a foundational attitude toward the people being remembered: we want to remember your public persona (or, the parts of it that we like), and we demand access to that persona without the entanglement of your personality.

Tebow’s one example. The editor contends that since Tebow is being commemorated because of his athletic ability, his evangelistic side–which Tebow himself never separated from his athletic side, which could be seen in the eye blacks in question–was the reason for his commemoration. It’s not the end of the world for me if some video game doesn’t have Bible verses on the front; I completely support their right to put Tebow-sans-Scripture on the front of their game. But it’s the attitude of the author that gets me, an attitude which I’ve seen reflected in the nation’s attitudes towards other people we commemorate.

One example that I’ve seen often is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since we love having the inspiration of a passionate civil rights activist, we have dedicated a day to him; there are streets and civic buildings and ceremonies dedicated in his honor. However, we feel like we can celebrate the parts of him we like–civic hero–and throw out the parts of him we don’t–passionate preacher of God. For me, I just don’t see how you’re celebrating his legacy when you throw a party to remember what he did for you–and completely avoid mentioning why.

One good counter to my argument, which I’d love your thoughts on: if what I’m saying is true, must we also celebrate his alleged (or proven? I never really looked into it much) unfaithfulness to his wife? How do I feel comfortable throwing that part of him away? Any thoughts? Am I just being a hypocrite?

I took a class my sophomore year of college called “Biological Perspectives on Contemporary Issues.” It turned out to be, “Why Christians are wrong in all of areas of current debate, and scientific proof for why they’re wrong.”

In many cases, I agreed with, or at least could see some serious validity in, the professor’s points; I’m certainly not sold on anti-evolutionist creationism, let alone full-blown Young-Earth creationism. I’m not confident there isn’t a “gay gene.” I’m not some Bible-thumping homophobic backwaters idiot.

However, purely because of the way this professor thought–and thus led the class to think–I felt it my duty to disagree with him often and vocally.

This man had so much faith in the power of science to observe, describe, encompass, and power everything that ever happens that he–and in my mind, much of the scientific community–couldn’t see past the limitations of science.

As soon as I write this (and said it in class), it seemed like I’m some crazed anti-science “reason is wrong, faith is right” nut. I’m not. But science presupposes dozens of things, and as soon as you make presuppositions–assumptions–you are limiting yourself to only describe the narrowed view of the world that’s presented based on your assumptions.

One tiny, and probably very flawed, example I gave: science presupposes the non-existence of God. Right? So if something happens, and a scientist submits a hypothesis, and the entirety of it is this: “God sneezed, and then the stars came out,” this scientist would be mocked. It’s not a legitimate scientific area of study. Sure, you can think that, but can we measure it? No? Well then, science has no interest in it. Instantly, all things not measurable by mankind are outside of the range of science.

I’m not saying we can’t appreciate science, use science, study science, or anything. What I’m saying, and this is inspired much by my excitement in reading this article by C. John Sommerville, is that science is just a tool. It’s not full enough to form the basis for your entire worldview. It’s not capable of describing or measuring all things worth thinking about.

I wish this were longer. I just wanted to get out that one point before I force myself to sleep.

My new friend but long time admiree York Moore (InterVarsity’s National Evangelist) writes on “counting conversions,” a great collection of teaching about what distinguishes a “conversion” from a “decision,” which Jesus would be concerned about, which the Bible records, and what Jesus’ and the Apostles’ evangelistic messages looked like.

One thing that I really appreciated was the listing of the 10 things that York says were a part of every evangelistic message, in a diagram he calls “The Line of the Gospel.” He says that in every Gospel presentation in Scripture, 9 elements were present (and in most, 10 were present). The one that was left out of some was the moral law–but not, as we might assume, because they don’t want to offend people who don’t share their same conviction. Instead, the moral law would be left it if the person was already convicted of their sin.

So, starting with the somewhat-optional Moral Law:

• The Moral Law
• Sin
• Death
• Eschaton (this is my first time even hearing this word)
• Righteousness
• Death/Cross
• Resurrection
• Lordship
• Repentance
• Decision

I’ll let you follow as I walk through trying to process this. I’m hoping to find that somewhere else York has written a document further explaining this, but for now–and since I have no Internet to check or even to look these words up–you’ll see how my brain tries to process it.  NOTE: My understanding of all of this is very limited. That’s why I’m trying to read up on it. So please, correct me, teach me, expand my knowledge. I’ll even buy you lunch for it if you want.

The Moral Law

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. There’s a moral law written on all of our hearts, and none of us have or will meet up with it.

Sin

Sin is separation from God. I wish I had a better understanding here, because I’d normally say “sin is when you break the Moral Law”; yet I’m not really sure if that’s theologically correct. But I do know that it means separation from God, the giver of the Moral Law.

Sin is multi-faceted, and there are many words that we translate as sin. But there are some things for sure, as York writes: “We have been born into sin (hamartia) and have actively sinned against God and our world (hamartema) and are in the process of embracing a love for sin (hamartano) which will lead to our eventual absolute depravity and worthlessness (adokimus).” And each/every/all? of these elements of sin break our relationship with God, drawing us away from him and his desires.

Death

I also know the consequences (“wages”, to use Bible-speak) of Sin is death. If you sin, the consequence is death. And everyone sins.

Eschaton

OK. I know that eschatology has to do with studying and being aware of things to come (the end of the world.) So I’ll say this next step is sharing the reality of the return of the King and His judgment.

There will come a day when the King of the world will return to the earth and will judge the living and the dead. To those who are a part of him, he will say “welcome home.” For those who are not, he will say, “depart from me, for I never knew you.” The not folks are headed to a lake of eternal fire, along with Satan and his minions.

Righteousness

Here’s where I get confused. I would’ve assumed that righteousness and Lordship go hand-in-hand; making Jesus the Lord of your life ties nicely in with working out your salvation with fear and trembling, working towards righteousness. But that’s not it. Is this God’s righteousness? Is it Jesus’ righteousness while he was on earth? Is that, “An unrighteous man will sure not enter the Kingdom of God?” Not sure.

York is talking about Jesus’ righteousness here. I definitely don’t know everything there is to say here, but I do know that a good understanding of how our righteousness is obtained (imputed? infused? whatever?), we must start with the understanding of Jesus’ righteousness. Beyond that, I still have a lot to learn.

Death/Cross

OK, so Jesus died on a cross. But whereas our deaths pay for our sin, Jesus has a lot more power, and was able to take the consequence–the debt owed–for the sin of all people onto his back. Because of this, his death didn’t just pay for his sin–it paid for everyone’s sin. Ever.

Also, Jesus’ death was not just a normal death. Quoting York, “he was mercilessly beaten, scourged, spit upon and ultimately died at the hands of sinful men. Isaiah 53:10 tells us that it was the Lord’s will to “crush him,” thus signifying that Christ’s death was a result of God’s direct wrath and judgment, poured out on Him on our behalf.”

Resurrection

Foggy here again. I know the resurrection is vital in many, many ways–that it is a solid historical fact that gives proof to Jesus’ status as God, that it foretells our coming new life. But I want a better understanding of its significance in the role of this story and this evangelism, because I think I’m missing something.

Lordship

OK. I know that Jesus wants to be Lord of our lives. I don’t know if he ever says those words, but it’s clear that he wants that. “If you love me, you will obey my commands” is one. Another is the fact that the Kingdom of God is a place where God is King–so the thing that Jesus preached all that time was a place where he was the King, and people obeyed his command.

York referenced in his post “The Lordship of Christ,” and while that phrase seems like it would practically refer to what I wrote above, it looks like a broader concept–not just that Jesus wants to be our Lord, but that there’s no hope unless he is. “The Lordship of Christ is necessitated because any other captain at the helm will only lead us further into the deep seas of death and judgment.”

Repentance

Again, I’m a little fuzzy about the order here. Doesn’t Lordship come after repentance? Either way, I know that when he took the consequence of our sin on his shoulders, Jesus didn’t automatically apply that salvation (freedom from the penalties of our behavior) to everyone. Rather, he bundled up all that salvation and freedom as a present, and held it out to each of us. We need to accept the gift in order to reap its benefits, and when Scripture talks about accepting that gift, there are a few steps to it.

I’m not a Biblical scholar in this aspect, but I know that repentance, baptism, and public proclamation of your new status are all a part of it. I don’t know which is required when. But I do know that a part of both receiving the gift and of making God your King and Lord is repentance–turning 180º from where you were before. Walking toward sin? Turn 180º and walk toward God.

Once again, I know it’s more complex. But that’s what I have so far.

Decision

See! Once again, I’m confused with the order. Because the thing above describes decision–you have to decide to receive the gift. It’s not forced on you.

OK. Thanks for walking through that with me. I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on York’s model and on my experiences with it. Please teach me better theology! Show me where I’m dearly missing huge chunks of essential Scripture or practice.

Out of these commands, you find a Christian culture devoted to evangelism, obedience to Jesus’ teachings, love for the LORD, and love for other people. However, the American Protestant church is dominated by Evangelicalism, which (as the name implies) places priority on evangelism. This emphasis isn’t unfounded;  consider the importance Jesus placed on people being brought to know his father, the example of evangelism set by the earlier church, and the implications of someone’s death without knowing the LORD. The result is that I, like many of my generation, was raised seeing the primary goal of Christians as soul-saving.

Do you really love me, or are you just fulfilling your quota?
What I didn’t understand as a younger Christian is that evangelism is important in the context of the other commands. Many of us American evangelicals have forgotten the second half of “Love God, Love People” when we are following the Great Commission, which is why (among other reasons, I’m sure) Evangelicals have earned such a bad name in American culture. We yell and scream at the “sinners” because they “need to repent from their evil ways”–all true and Biblically supported, of course, and all in the name of love (“I don’t want to see them go to Hell!”)–but really practiced without any love at all. There’s no mention that we the preachers are also sinners; there’s no compassion, empathy, or even stopping to learn someone’s name.

In response to our bad name, a common sermon thread has emerged: “Don’t tell the non-Christians to come to us; let’s go to them!” It’s a great thought, recognizing that while Jesus went to the houses of the tax collectors, we’ve instead been sitting in our temples telling the “tax collectors” of our day that they’re not good enough to even come to our temples. What’s this meant for a lot of my generation, however, is that instead of just sitting in church in a Christian bubble, we instead push outward on our bubble and try to sort of just crush everyone else’s bubbles underneath ours. Instead of just sitting around at youth group, the youth group now goes out on campus and does cold contact evangelism (walking up to perfect strangers and asking/telling them about Jesus.)

Now, there’s nothing wrong with contact evangelism or street preaching. There are certainly times when the LORD prompts you to speak to someone you don’t know, and some people find that that’s a regular enough part of their lives (or feel like it should be) that contact evangelism, street preaching, and the like are where they best connect to people about Jesus. That’s fine. But there’s a much more foundational element of the Great Commission that we’re often missing.

If you’re an evangelical Christian, consider this: how many of your close friends aren’t Christian? Did you make any friends in your classes or at your job? Did you join any non-Christian clubs? Are you involved in any non-church social activities? Or is your entire circle of influence formed of Christians? My bet is that we’ll find that we’re a lot more immersed in Christian culture than we realize. Evangelism must be “talking about Jesus to a random stranger on the bus” because they’re the only non-Christians we ever see–hence our cold contact evangelism mentality.

To be “in this world but not of it”, we have to actually be in the world
What if there were a different way? What if, instead of just sitting on the outside of popular culture, and (in the words of Andy Crouch) condemning, critiquing, consuming, and copying it, we actually engaged with the world around us? What if we were around non-Christians, joined non-Christian groups, intentionally made friends with people who disagreed with us or don’t understand us?

My wife Tereva has always been frustrated with one aspect of the culture of our InterVarsity chapter: it is often the only campus group its members are connected to. People join our chapter and love the fellowship, community, teaching, and even the outreach, and they are content just to stay there. Rather, Tereva wants them to join other campus groups, get to know other people, go do extracurricular activities you love and make friends there. My intial response was to wonder why we wanted to encourage people to spend less time with our group, but I soon saw that even our “outreach” events were merely just us trying to expand the edges of our little bubble of IV culture.

My challenge to us
I always feel a disconnect when people are so super-hyper about evangelism and church culture but seem to know nothing about the people they claim to want to reach. There’s a definite need for all of us to realize that Jesus didn’t just talk about the Kingdom–he talked to people where they were. Talking to shepherds, he used sheep metaphors. In a religious culture that didn’t allow mingling with sinners, he sat and ate with sinners. When speaking to untouchable lepers, he reached out and put his hand on them while he spoke. In the same way also, meeting people where they are doesn’t just mean going with a group of Christian friends in Christian t-shirts and quoting small snippets of Biblical phrases that mean something to you and nothing to the person you’re talking about. It means getting into their culture, their situation, and putting yourself in places where you can learn from them before you start pushing your culture on them.

However, I’m not the only one who feels that disconnect with those church culture folks. I think I share that with a lot of the postmodern church, a lot of people my age who are the “intellectuals” and “cool Christians”–we’re proud of ourselves for actually knowing non-Christians and being able to engage in their spheres. Some marks of “cool Christianity” are embracing the freedoms that Christ very legitimately offers us, but valuing those freedoms over the call to ministry; when more of your discussions about Jesus are about how silly and legalistic the “church culture” people are, and less are about the person of Jesus and his call on your life.

My opinion is that John Kerry lost the ’04 presidential race because he didn’t actually have a platform to run on. His entire campaign was “at least I’m not George Bush,” and while it got him a lot of press, it wasn’t enough to actually convince people he had anything to offer. In the same way, “cool Christians,” we need to be more than just “the Christians that aren’t stuck in church culture.” Yes, it’s great that Jesus has given us freedom, and yes, I support the Biblical right to drink (in moderation), cuss (occasionally, but be careful with your heart and don’t bring your brother down just for your freedom), and to watch secular movies and listen to secular music. The freedom of the LORD and his desire for us to enjoy the world around us are very important; showing non-Christians that we’re not inviting them into a life of service to church, but instead a joy-filled life serving the King of the Universe is important. However, our lives need to be most devoted to the above-mentioned foundations of the true Church that obeys our King: evangelism, obedience to Jesus’ teachings, and love for God and others.

How can I be cool and still love Jesus?
Simple answer: You can’t. But what we can do is recognize that our lives should not be lived in church culture, and our lives should not be lived as a contrast to church culture. Rather, our lives should be lived devoted to Jesus, and we should recognize that different people will go about it different ways. Church culture folks need to learn a little bit from cool Christians about loving and understanding the people you’re called to reach; cool Christians need to learn a little bit from Church culture folks about devoting your entire being and existence to the work of the LORD without hesitation, shame or regret. Both sides need to step outside of their comfort zone and become a little more like the other side. Both sides need to stop judging the other.

I know this was fantastically long, and I hope it meant something. Thanks for reading it, and I’d love your comments, criticism, and suggestions.

I’m trying to figure out what I think about professional worship musicianship (the title/position/cultural entity, not them as people). There are a lot of things involved in this discussion and a lot of things that affect how I can look at the discussion. Here are a few.

• I’m a full-time employee of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a Christian campus ministry. I’m essentially paid (although, since I fund-raise, it’s a little more complicated than that) so that I can do all day the type of ministry that all Christians are called to, but have less time to do because of their full-time jobs.
• I love the worship leader at my church, Steve Adams. I don’t think he should be asked to do the work he does without being compensated.
• I believe someone could make the point according to Biblical precedent that no one should be “paid to minister” (the term “professional ministers” comes up often in these discussions). However, I believe that these sorts of arguments–at least, in the context of what I’m discussing here–forget that there’s also no Biblical precedent for “churches” like we have today, so unless you’re a part of a house church type movement, I’m not sure if I think this argument holds a lot of weight. Also, there was this guy in the Bible named Paul who set a little bit of a precedent here.
• I regularly enjoy the music recorded and written by professional musicians. I’m currently listening to music from Eddie James, and have benefitted greatly by the ministry of many modern Christian worship leaders/musicians–among others, Jason Upton and Fred Hammond.
• I make a distinction here between Christian musicians and Christian Worship musicians. I know that all Christian music can be called worship; however, a musician who is a full time musician who is a Christian is, in my eyes, different than a full-time worship leader/musician. Derek Webb writes desperately God-focused music, and while his music reflects more strongly a deep relationship with God than many mainstream worship leaders, I consider him a Christian musician, not a worship leader. Tell me if you think I’m wrong. I’d love to think more on this topic.
• I recognize that the previous point is debatable, as I have a somewhat tenuous distinction between the two. I have a very arbitrary distinction in my mind that is definitely a stretch and which I recognize as incomplete: I feel like Derek Webb and his compatriots (for an extreme, see Pedro the Lion’s David Bazan) have the freedom to have whatever relationship with God they have. They can have good days and bad days, they can question God and their faith, and they can show themselves as regular people. I don’t feel like worship leaders are given the same allowance to be human.
• Compelled to feel joyful: I would venture that every Christian, at one point in their lives, has sat in a Christian gathering while everyone else smilingly sang “You Give Me Joy” or another such song, and thought, “I have no joy! I’m such a hypocrite for singing this!” I would urge them to sing anyway, and see how God moves in their hearts. As a worship musician, I have a similar experience–yet it’s so much easier for me to sit and play the bass lines to “You Give Me Joy” without engaging at all in the lyrical/spiritual content of the song. This is definitely a danger.
• I recognize the value of smiling if you’re on stage at church. I also hate being told to smile, and cannot force myself to do so if someone’s required me to.
• I feel something of a weight when I’m in a church full of people dancing, jumping, and singing. On the one hand, I’m so happy that God means so much to people. On the other hand, I can’t say that I can confidently claim that the church is bringing that sort of joy out into the world. Yes! Given one or the other, I’d prefer people be joyful and passionate when they’re intentionally in fellowship and in God’s presence. But I feel like we can have both.
• Local versus Traveling: I also struggle some with the concept of the traveling worship musician. I spent much of my middle school and high school free time as a part of a very charismatic, spirit-filled group of worshippers who loved spending time in a literal upper room praying and singing and crying out, but who never (to my memory) helped a single poor person or saw anyone come to Christ. That same “worship culture”, for a desperate lack of a better word, is present in a lot of groups that jump and hoot and holler when their favorite worship musician comes into town, and they all have a big emotional Jesus fest, and then they go back home and do nothing. I’m not saying that anyone who goes to Christian concerts is bad! I’m saying that I worry that traveling musicians may feed into the subculture of Christian “worshippers” who are passionate at church and unengaged outside of church. Where local musicians/worship leaders are members of the congregations they minister to/with, traveling musicians don’t have the same connection. Again! I listen to worship CDs, I listen to other church’s podcasts, and I’ve been to plenty a worship concert in my day. I’m just somewhat troubled by the entire mindset of the traveling worship musician, and I’m struggling to find out why–and completely open to the conclusion that it’s just my personal issue.
• I may add more here. I feel like it’s a broader issue, but all this typing has made me forget all of my original thoughts about it.

The pastor of my local church body, Mike Patz, said something recently that I really appreciate. The gist was this: “I was thinking about watching Religulous [(a movie critical of religious people)]. Then I realized, I can criticize the church plenty on my own. I don’t need someone else to help me with it.”

In the same way, the last thing I want is for this to be a complaint session about the modern church. I’m sick and tired of “enlightened” Christians in my generation sitting around and complaining. Instead, I’m trying to develop a right theology so that I can be a part of bringing the church closer to Jesus, and would really love some people with more wisdom than me to share their insight into the areas of my confusion.

NOTES (added later)

• My friend Jeff asked “What’s a professional worship musician,” and then “What’s a worship musician?” This prompted me to think about what exactly makes one a worship musician–considering that “worship” certainly means more than music. Could part of my problem be a feeling that one can be a church/Christian event musician without being a true worshipper? I don’t know, but I definitely think that’s very close to the heart of the issue–at what point is there so much structure in something that it allows someone to “participate” in it without actually getting the point? Maybe it ties into my early  dislike for all things rigid and traditional.

“If you’re desiring Jesus, you’re already saved–the prayer is not only not necessary, it actually starts you off on crutches, thinking you can rely on your own ability and understanding to connect to God.”

Thoughts? If you’re still there–I know it’s been a good 2 months.

However, once again, Wikipedia has done that for me. I’d love to hear if anyone has convincing arguments otherwise, but this general interpretation section, especially in light of the Talmud section and the greater scope of the Christian narrative, seems to be pretty right on. I really appreciate the two sides of the issue–both that you cannot serve both God and mammon and that, if wealth is a sign of God’s reward, at least in Old Covenant thought, then no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven–without God.

But we believe in history;
the world is not a roll of the dice going toward chaos.
A new world has begun to happen since Christ has risen…

Jesus Christ, we rejoice in your definitive triumph…
    with our bodies still in the breach
    and our souls in tension,
    we cry out our first “Hurrah!”
    till eternity unfolds itself.

Your sorrow now has passed.
Your enemies have failed.
You are a definitive smile for humankind.

What matter the wait now for us?
We accept the struggle and the death;
because you, our love, will not die!

We march behind you,
    on the road to the future.
You are with us
    and you are our immortality!

Take away the sadness from our faces.
We are not in a game of chance…
    You have the last word!

Beyond the crushing of our bones,
    now has begun the eternal “alleluia!”
From the thousand openings of our wounded bodies
    and souls there arises now a triumphal song!

So, teach us to give voice to your new life throughout all the world.
Because you dry the tears from the eyes of the oppressed forever…
    and death will disappear…

–Jesuit Father Luis Espinal was assassinated March 22, 1980, in La Paz, Bolivia, by paramilitary forces. He wrote this meditation shortly before his death.

Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone–an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.

This morning I realized that, whatever the cause, it’s an instant cue for me to seek God. It’s great! I wish more mornings began with me desperately needing and seeking the Lord. I asked him to make it happen more often, although I wouldn’t mind if he kept the desire around but found a way to make it happen without me feeling like death in the morning.