This End Down

UPDATE: In response to some things I’ve learned from York’s Facebook post, I’ve updated and struck through some of these points. Additions in italics. Also, you should read York’s post. He gives five problems — causality, culpability, consequence, categorization, and conceivability — as reasons for why the truth about sin must be a part of our evangelism.

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.

Recently I’ve become very aware of some factors influencing the representation of Black characters in American TV & Film. Since I moved to Florida, got involved with InterVarsity, and made some incredibly gracious Black friends who’ve worked with me to help me understand how much different much of their experience has been from mine, I’ve become much more aware of the racialization of the world around me. But I don’t watch a lot of TV or movies, so that’s one arena in which I’ve stayed blissfully unaware… until recently.

Pause for a moment. Racialization is not the same as racism. I first read the term in Divided by Faith, an incredible book that gave me so much understanding and wisdom and research and fact (to add to the personal testimony I’d gained) about the race situation in America and in the church. Racialization as I read it is not the same as racism; racism is a knowing dislike of and unfair negative approximation of a person’s worth because of their skin color, ethnicity, etc. (which in our world fall under the social construct “race.”) However, many people have told me that white people who don’t get super-involved with race issues, etc. are racist. I always clashed with that. Instead, Divided by Faith presents the concept of a racialized society–one that has distinct lines drawn along the boundaries of race. More black men in prison, segregated churches, different health rates and hiring rates and educational quality, etc. So, you can exist in your happy white world, unaware of what’s going on with people of ethnic minorities, and you can think great things about them–you’re not a racist. Yet if you aren’t actively learning about and doing things to end racialization, you’re still allowing a racialized society to persist–which isn’t any a lot better.

Back to the original point: I’ve been making some comments recently on Twitter about Black characters on TV. Essentially, I like to watch TV while I design web sites–it distracts me just enough to keep from getting bored, but it’s not stimulating enough to slow down my work. I’ve been watching a lot of normal shows recently–not advanced, award-winning shows that are on the forefront of social commentary, but plain old normal shows–and I’ve noticed a trend across all of them: Black people are accessories.

It’s sad. It’s a terrible thing to admit. And, growing up, I would’ve told the person saying what I’m saying now to stop whining. But there’s something to this. In these shows I’ve been watching, the Black characters fall into a few simple categories:

• The mean girl’s follower best friend
• The drug dealer
• The young kid from the projects who’s trying to make his way out playing basketball
• The “mammy”, the homely, simple, sweet but a little sassy mother/neighbor/grandmother/landlady
• The voodoo mystic (usually African, Haitian, or from New Orleans)

There are certainly others, but I can’t tell you the last time I saw a consistent Black character with depth that didn’t fall into some strong stereotype. Smallville had Petey, but he disappeared right quick. I know there have been others–everyone can name a show with a Black president or a Black best friend. But in general, I’ve been more and more disappointed the more I see.

Obviously, this is excepting movies and TV intended for Black audiences. From what I can gather, I once would’ve been able to point to BET, but now it seems to be shirking its original intention of giving Black Americans A) real roles for the actors/characters and B) programming that meets them where they are.

Anyway, that’s where I’ve been coming from. I find that I’ve been mentioning this a lot recently, and I decided it was time to really write something about it and see if people wanted to say anything about this, teach me more, learn from what I’ve learned, or whatever else.

*Edit*: If you’re interested in learning more about these topics, two of the best sites (in my opinion) are UrbanFaith and Racialicious. UrbanFaith looks at national issues from a Black Christian context; Racialicious is devoted to all things racially motivated/striated. One note: Racialicious contributors are very comfortable with sex and some language that might make some people uncomfortable, so visit if you can handle it.

If you’re interested, first watch the video, and then read Tereva’s response she e-mailed them.

Whoopi, Sherri, and Hasselback on The N Word

As an African American woman, I would like to thank Elisabeth Hasselbeck for her empathy and concern for not only the Black community, but for the unification of humanity. As Whoopi stated in the controversial episode discussing the ‘N’ word, we do not live in the same worlds. There are prejudices that I will undoubtedly undergo because of my race, but, are we not called to correct the past wrongs of our history? I believe that Elisabeth’s yearning is for us to mend the bridges that our past has attempted to destroy, and the ‘N’ word has caused nothing but emotional strife and suffering.

I hope that the View’s audience did not walk away thinking that Whoopi and Sherri’s perspectives are accurate representations of African American thoughts and attachments to the word. How can we embrace something that has such negative connotations? By continuing to embrace the ‘N’ word, we are furthering the wedge of segregation and racism, by stating that it is ‘ok’ to make allowances for some people’s use of the word and not for others. We are also stating that is ‘ok’ for us to perpetuate self hatred, but it is not ok for others to hate us because of our skin. Can we get any more hypocritical and ignorant?

Is this the kind of world that we want our children to inherit?  A world where they are to continue living lives separate from their peers, mates, co-workers, friends, family, because they follow an unspoken rule of conduct? It’s absurd. You can NOT strip shame away from a word that has been used for hundreds of years. It is inextricable at this point. Whoopi, Sherri, listen to your female counterparts. The color of their skin does not strip them of their credibility, nor their wisdom, and desire to rectify situations that hurt our communities and world.

I’d love to do a huge amount of Biblical and etymological research into this concept, but I’m at work and need to keep working. But here’s my frustration (and yes, this is in response to the whole Lakeland Outpouring ordeal.)

We aren’t supposed to judge people. Judge not lest you be judged, Plank in your eye, and all that. People who God have used mightily in the past have ranged from those who occasionally disobey God to people who are seriously messed up–David, Samson, Solomon, Martin Luther King Jr., and plenty of other people. If you read anything about the lives of “revival” preachers and honestly about other people God have used in the past, they’re all messed up people. The gifts of the Spirit–big, powerful, crazy things–are not necessarily accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit in individual leaders. Why? Because God uses messed up people to work his will. If he didn’t, whom would he have to use? I’m constantly arguing this, and I’m constantly a proponent of seeking the good in what God’s doing, not the bad in how people are messed up.

However, we are called to be wise. We are called to discern between good and evil spirits. We are called to not be misled by false prophets. We are told there will be false prophets among us, wolves among the flock. We have a responsibility to see that the people of God are being led well, and that they are not being misled–especially away from God and/or toward oppression or bondage. And if we are wise, we will be aware of the potential for bad teaching, bad leadership, and things that don’t lead toward God.

Therefore, we have two primary responsibilities, whether or not we’re responding to a situation like this: to seek God, and to help others seek God. If the Lakeland Outpouring is a big revival that’s sparked, led, and inspired by God, then our response is to participate in any way we can and to encourage others to do the same. But if there are spirits or leaders who don’t point toward God, we cannot in good conscience sit back and say “Well, God will deal with them.” How do you think God will deal with people who oppress his people? By judging them on judgment day? Yes; however, God calls us now to draw people out of bondage and oppression and fear and the world, and if we see people in the name of God leading people away from God then we need to be the first there to stop it.

Am I saying that the Lakeland Outpouring is not God? No. I never have. My first response to it was positive; I started with the assumption that it was a legitimate move of God led by legitimate seekers of God. It’s only been through my attempts to discern wisely and Biblically and lovingly that I’ve come to see a lot of very worrying things about the man who stands in front of the pulpit throughout the entire meetings, the man who directs the movement of the meetings and controls the microphone. So am I saying its leaders are imperfect? Absolutely. But that’s a given.

God is moving in Lakeland. People are seeking God in Lakeland. Real healings (seem to be) happening in Lakeland. These things are very good. Todd Bentley is leading poorly in Lakeland (not just his past–he’s doing it now.) Some people are faking things in Lakeland. Lakeland itself seems, from friends I’ve spoken to in Lakeland, to not be affected at all by a “revival” in its midst. These things are very bad. Therefore, we need to respond wisely.

I don’t have a point. I don’t have an agenda. I don’t even have a solution for these things I’m writing. I’m just trying to figure out what my response should be. I’m not for or against the Lakeland Outpouring. I’m for people seeking God, and I’m against people being misled. I’m for the Kingdom of God coming into our world, and I’m against Christian bubbles and sensationalist church meetings that have no impact on the world around them.

Finally, a somewhat related note on the word “revival”: I put it in quotes because it’s a hugely dangerous word, one whose misuse has convinced far too many people that a true revival looks like a bunch of people in a big Christian orgy seeking God together. I’m sorry, but something that doesn’t bring about the Kingdom of God isn’t a revival. Therefore, if a revival is breaking out somewhere, I think (my personal opinion–correct me if I’m wrong, this isn’t hugely researched and I’m not a scholar in the history of revivals) that the surrounding areas should be affected. If revival breaks out in Lakeland, then the city of Lakeland should be transformed. People should see God’s glory and want to repent and then follow and glorify him. (Berry tells me that many historically significant revivals have been characterized by individuals repenting and then receiving the work of the Spirit in their lives; he characterizes revivals by three things: Repentance, Faith, and then Mission). Sinners repent, sick healed, poor restored, widows and orphans and the oppressed and aliens freed and loved. Is that happening now? No, no, and more no. Might it happen? Please, Jesus, work mightily in the hearts of those people who are desperately seeking you and move them to make a difference in that city and in their home cities. Yes, it might, and I pray that it will.

Since the days of the early church, history has led us to an unfortunate understanding of the word minister as a professional, seminary-educated leader. This leads the rest of us to think that ministry is an extra, a volunteer aspect of our lives. Kingdom resources are often wasted because those who do not do official “ministry” simply pour all of their skills and talents into self-growth, success or making money. More Christians should see themselves as ministers first in whatever job they do and seek to maximize their effectiveness as kingdom workers, regardless of position or title. [...]

If we believe that God is everywhere, there is no such thing as a secular job. We should never think of our work as being separate from our lives of faith. Any job, as long as it is not in opposition to the laws of God, can be a matrix for our real, central call–to be fishers of men and women. Work should be an act of worship, a vehicle for purpose, creativity and joy rather than simply a utilitarian act in order to secure food, housing or education.

From Following Jesus Without Dishonoring Your Parents

At church this past Sunday, the pastor was preaching about money, and at the beginning he asked everyone to raise their hands if they liked money. A lot of us sheepishly did, acknowledging that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and that we were probably about to be told that we shouldn’t; some people didn’t raise their hands, holding out that, because of their frugality, it was somehow an indication that they didn’t like money.

Well, not my mother. She was quite comfortable with her hand up in the air, and she looked at me and laughed. “I like money!” She then proceeded to show and tell me over the span of the weekend that the reason she likes money is not for driving fancy cars, or wearing fancy new clothing, or for fancy jewelry, or for financial stability and security, but because she likes giving it away. Yes, that’s right. She told us about keeping $1 bills in her purse and the joy of handing them out to people who needed them (or just who were asking). She showed joy in being able to take care of me, often telling me that she was sad that I didn’t live at home because she could never buy me groceries or anything the way she can her other chilluns.

I don’t know why, but the joy she got from giving made a profound impact on me, almost more than any sermon on stewardship could. I just thought you might appreciate it as well. That’s all.

(She pointed out when I asked her about this post that Johannes is generous… and Abbie… and Ricke… and plenty of people I know… which is true. This is just a story about me loving my mom. )