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?

This web site and I have grown up together. My brother Ricke and I volunteered to make the site for them in 2002; when we started their host didn’t have MySQL, so Ricke programmed a custom flatfile Content Management System for them (I know this is Geek-ese for most of you). Later the host installed SQL, and we moved to WordPress.

Word of God Web Site Screencap from 2002

I created the first Photoshop layout (right) for the site when we got started in 2002. The design has stayed pretty much the same; you can see the site to see how I updated the logo section to use WoG’s real logo, and made some changes to modernize the layout just a little. A few other changes were made at the request of Phil, the head of WoG.

Both Phil and I have been rather busy since 2002 and didn’t have this site as our top priority, so we’ve worked on it in fits and bursts (usually no more than a week long) for 8 years now. I graduated high school, went off to college, graduated college, and every 6-12 months we’d get a little more work done.

In November of 2009, Phil brought on a guy named Steve Lucchetti, and since then Phil & Steve have been filling in the nearly-completed site with content. I’ve put in about 17 hours of tweaking, final prep work, and transitions between servers and such things–as well as doing a little work here and there to prep a site made in 2002 to go live in 2010.

All in all, I’m really excited the site is finally launching. Their old site was unbelievably out-of-date, and even though this site is old, it’s on a new framework and has new content. So it’s as good as new. I’m happy for Phil’s work, Steve’s work, Ricke’s work, and my work (of 8 years!) to finally come to fruition.

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.

Happy birthday dude.

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.

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.

Sermon last week from my church about “One Accord”—I talked to my leadership team about this two weeks ago, but Mike is a much better speaker than I am.

It’s a little over an hour, so if you don’t have time, that’s cool, but I definitely suggest you read it—especially if you’re into politics.

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.

More here.

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.