The Explosive Potential of Discipleship
The Explosive Potential of Discipleship
Not only did Jesus disciple and tell us to disciple,[1] there is potential for explosive Kingdom growth when we focus on discipleship. If we want to be about the work King Jesus has called us to, we must not be about brand building, but discipleship building; we must be about discipleship, not entertainment.
Jesus had just three years to launch a global movement, the length of His public ministry. Just three years to reach people that would eventually reach the ends of the earth.[2] What would He do? There was no social media, no radio, no television, and public transportation was nothing like what we know. How would God’s plan to bless all nations through Messiah Jesus ever happen?
Jesus chose to invest heavily in just a few people and help them to become like Himself. That was His big cosmic plan. And it was utterly time-consuming. “But within seventy years, the cadre of people around Jesus had taken His good news into every corner of the Roman world. Do we have better efficiencies in mind?”[3] (If so, we’re foolishly not following the One who is Wisdom incarnate).
Westerners are in love with well-packaged mass marketing of the gospel. In church, as in advertising, growth is a numbers game about getting as many impressions as possible out to the masses. Mass communication and evangelism may have their place, but they show no signs of dramatically transforming the world. But Jesus gave almost all of His attention to intentionally discipling just twelve men, especially focusing on four of them. The results speak for themselves. Can we do better, investing in Christian mass messaging and once-a-week preaching services?[4]
What did Jesus’ discipleship look like?
Dann Spader identifies the major discipleship methods in Jesus’ life and ministry. Jesus tells us to make disciples and He shows us how to make disciples.
- Jesus was deeply committed to relational ministry.
“Every aspect of Jesus’ ministry was relational. To Jesus, relationships were not a strategy; they were part of being full human.”[5]
- Jesus invested early in a few.
He started slow to go fast.
- Jesus often slipped away to pray.
“More than forty-five times in the Gospels, Jesus escaped the crowds to pray.”[6]
- Jesus loved sinners profoundly.
- Jesus balanced His efforts to win the lost, build believers, and equip a few workers.
“Jesus poured His life into a few disciples and taught them to make other disciples. Seventeen times we find Jesus with the masses, but forty-six times we see Him with His disciples.”[7]
Discipleship is about Obedience, Not Knowledge Acquisition
The Great Commission says, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded,” not “teaching them to know a bunch biblical data.” Knowledge certainly has it’s place but it’s condemning if not applied (see Matt. 28:20). Knowledge should have its effect, for one, it should humble us. We must be mindful of our minds. Yet, sadly, “There is a misconception that if people know what is right, they will do what is right. Experience tells us that this is not the case, yet we function as if it is.”[8] We need more apprenticeships and less classrooms.
The Discipleship of a Few Led to the Discipleship of Many
Jesus did not just choose the educated and the especially gifted to be His apprentices. He chose common people like you and me. Yet within two years after the Spirit was given at Pentecost this ragtag group “went out and ‘filled Jerusalem’ with Jesus’ teaching (Acts 5:28). Within four and a half years they had planted multiplying churches and equipped multiplying disciples (Acts 9:31). Within eighteen years it was said of them that they ‘turned the world upside down’ (Acts 17:6 ESV). And in twenty-eight years it was said that ‘the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world’ (Col. 1:6). For four years Jesus lived out the values He championed in His Everyday Commission. He made disciples who could make disciples!”[9]
Despite the harassment and persecution the Church faced across the decades the movement continued to grow to some “1000 Christians in 40 AD, about 7 to 10,000 in 100 A.D., about 200,000 or a bit more by 200 A.D., and by 300 A.D. perhaps 5 to 6,000,000.”[10] People were discipled to follow Jesus and they did and the Jesus movement spread like wildfire.[11]
As Michael Green in his classic book, Evangelism in the Early Church, says,
It was a small group of eleven men whom Jesus commissioned to carry on his work, and bring the gospel to the whole world. They were not distinguished; they were not well educated; they had no influential backers. In their own nation they were nobodies and, in any case, their own nation was a mere second-class province on the eastern extremity of the Roman map. If they had stopped to weigh up the probabilities of succeeding in their mission, even granted their conviction that Jesus was alive and that his Spirit went with them to equip them for their task, their hearts must surely have sunk, so heavily were the odds weighted against them. How could they possibly succeed? And yet they did.[12]
How did they succeed? Well, it was clearly through the power of the Holy Spirit. He empowered these early Jesus followers to practice passionate discipleship.
If we make disciples as Jesus told us and showed us it may not look “sexy” or effective but at times Jesus’ ministry didn’t look successful either.[13] “A lot of disciple-makers feel successful when they have a large crowd of people listening to their teaching and following their lead. Catalyzing Disciple-Making Movements, however, requires disciplemakers to give up the spotlight.”[14] It’s about Jesus’ fame, not ours. It’s about making disciples, not fans.
We need to change our perception of success. We need to measure the number of leaders we train, the number of leaders those leaders identify and train, the number of people who are sent out to start groups, and the number of groups that replicate.[15] We need to be about building the Kingdom, not our kingdom.
Simple church structures that facilitate discipleship our essential. We need to do away with as much of the trappings of religion as we can. We must not sell Christianity as “cool.” If we make Christianity simply “cool,” what happens when and where it’s not “cool”? Cuddling Christians must also go. Jesus said, “If you lose your life, you will find it” (see Matt. 16:25; Lk. 9:24; Jn. 12:25). He didn’t say, “Following Me is a cool bonus.” Jesus is life and loving and following Him is what life is about.
Notes
[1] And note that the “going” Jesus is talking about in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20) is not a special event, such as a mission trip. Instead, we are to make disciples as we go to work, as we go to school, as we go out into our neighborhood” (Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 36-37).
[2] Jerry Trousdale, Miraculous Movements, 40.
[3] Trousdale, Miraculous Movements, 40.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 30.
[6] Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 14.
[7] Ibid., 36.
[8] Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 204. “Transmitting information in the discipleship process is imperative, but it is not the most important aspect of the disciple-making process. Disciples do not just know what the Master requires; they do what the Master requires in every situation regardless of the consequences.” (Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 204)
[9] Dann Spader, 4 Chair Discipling, 36.
[10] Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the gods: early Christian distinctiveness in the Roman world, 3.
[11] Rapid Church growth is still possible. J.D. Payne notes in his book, Discovering Church Planting, that when Francis Asbury, the Methodist minister, began his work in America there were some 600 Methodists in America, but at the time of his death there were over 200,000. Here’s a summary of some of what can be gleaned from early Methodism: 1) Abundant Gospel Sowing, 2) Evangelistic Zeal, 3) Contextualization, 4) Sacrifice, and 5) Simple Organization.
[12] Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 13.
[13] Jesus didn’t have a building or apparently much of a budget and He would often say things to disturb the masses to the point that they would leave. Yet, now reportedly 31.6% of the world’s population affiliates with Christianity.
[14] Watson, Contagious Disciple Making, 112.
[15] Ibid., 113.
Barriers to Church-Planting Movements
In J. D. Payne’s book, Discovering Church Planting, he lists various barriers to church-planting movements. Here’s five of them:
- Extrabiblical Requirements for Being a Church
- Overcoming Bad Examples of Christianity
- Nonreproducible Models
- Extrabiblical Leadership Requirements
- Planting “Frog” Rather Than “Lizard” Churches
(Frogs just sit and wait for their food to come to them but lizards go find the food. Churches should be less “come and see” and more “go and tell.” We should be evangelistic and not just invite people to come to church.)
Payne suggests “three particular shifts in order to help facilitate the rapid dissemination of the gospel the multiplication of churches” (J.D. Payne, Discovering Church Planting: An Introduction to the Whats, Whys, and Hows of Global Church Planting, 409).
1) A Theological Shift
Unless the Church is willing to return to the simplicity of the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, and define the local church according to the simple biblical guidelines-rather than Western cultural preferences-it is unlikely that there will be global expansion. The Church must come to understand the Great Commission more in relational terms and less in institutional terms; with a simpler organization and less in terms of structure and bureaucracy; with more emphasis on biblical accountability and less allowance for member passivity; with more priority placed on community and less on acquaintances; as more dependent on equipping and sending the people of God for mission and less of a reliance on professional clergy (p. 410).
2) A Strategic Shift
The Church must move towards “the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches,” and get away from thinking in terms of addition. I appreciate what J.D. Payne says in his book, Pressure Points: Twelve Global Issues Shaping the Face of the Church:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples.
3) A Methodological Shift
Church and church planting is often far too complicated to be readily reproducible. “We must advocate and apply simple methods that are highly reproducible by new kingdom citizens” (Payne, Discovering Church Planting, 411). “There is an inverse relationship between the degree of reproducibility and the technicality of church-planting methods.” Therefore, “Highly complex methods should be few in number and not the norm of kingdom citizens” (p. 412).
The Modern American Church is Sick
The modern American church is sick. Let me count the ways… Here I’ll just give two. I hate being doomsdayish. But the writing is on the wall.
Invitation/Evangelism
Sadly, many church leaders equate evangelism with church invitation. In his book Meet Generation Z, James Emery White talks about Michael Green’s book on the staggering growth of the early church. He says Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church had one huge conclusion: the early church “shared the good news of Jesus like gossip over the backyard fence.” Yet, right after this, White says, “In other words, a culture of invitation was both cultivated and celebrated.”
White, however, is not talking about sharing the good news of Jesus. He is talking about inviting people to a church service.
It’s not difficult… We create tools to put into the hands of people to use to invite their friends all the time… We celebrate and honor people who invite people all the time… Such tools can be something as simple as pens with the name of our website on them that people can give to someone. (Meet Generation Z, 151).
I know this is just a little quote but it does highlight that church leaders are stretching to try and get their people to invite others to church. That’s the big push. So, we make it so “It’s not difficult.” We seem to think, the people in the church are only so capable or faithful. We apparently can’t expect too much. We celebrate the faithful few who give their coworker a church pen and invite them to a Christmas Eve service.
The early church was willing to do more than give out pens with the church’s name on it. Let me get all nerdy and drop some biblical language facts. Do you know where the word “martyr” comes from? “Martyr” means someone who dies for their beliefs. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word which means “witness” or “one who gives testimony.” The early church was filled with witnesses—martyrs—who lovingly told others about Jesus, regardless of the cost. We celebrate and cultivate invitation to a church service. There’s a little bit of a difference.
This is what Michael Green says,
Communicating the faith was not regarded as the preserve of the very zealous or of the officially designated evangelist. Evangelism was the prerogative and duty of every church member. We have seen apostles and wandering prophets, nobles and paupers, intellectuals and fishermen all taking part enthusiastically in this the primary task committed by Christ to his Church. The ordinary people of the church saw it as their job: Christianity what supremely a lay movement, spread by informal missionaries. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 516)
He is clearly talking about evangelism, not invitation. They are not the same. He goes on:
Unless there is a transformation of contemporary church life so that once again the task of evangelism is something which is seen as incumbent on every baptized Christian, and is backed up by a quality of living what outshines the best that unbelief can muster, we are unlikely to make much headway through techniques of evangelism. People will not believe that Christians have good news to share until they find that bishops and bakers, university professors and housewives, bus drivers and street corner preachers are all alike keen to pass it on, however different their methods may be. And they will continue to believe that the Church is an introverted society composed of ‘respectable’ people and bent on its own preservation until they see in church groupings and individual Christians the caring, the joy, the fellowship, the self-sacrifice and the openness which marked the early church at its best. (Evangelism in the Early Church, 517-18)
Listen, I am not saying it is bad to invite people to church. There can be a place for that. But we should not equate evangelism and invitation. And we are all called to actually “gossip the gospel,” not hand out a handout.
Transfer Growth/competition within the Kingdom
How can a kingdom divided against itself stand? I’ve talked about this elsewhere but I think Jesus makes a good point (even if the context in which He said that was different. See Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24).
I heard a story from a friend. They overheard some other friends talking: “I saw the addition to y’all’s church. It looks great! How’s it going?” That’s when a kid chimed in: “My friends are coming from their churches because they’re not doing good.” I think, “From the mouths of babes” is appropriate here.
A lot of churches across America aren’t doing well. A 35,000-square-foot church building in my area with a 400-seat sanctuary just sold for $65,000. Some may celebrate that another church down the street is adding a multimillion addition, but where is the actual growth? Is it Kingdom growth? Are new people crying out Jesus’ praise who previously didn’t, or are we rearranging furniture?
I’m not saying there are no reasons to decide to go to a different church, there are. The way that we think about transfer growth, however, is important. Again, not to pick on James Emery White but his book’s on my mind and in my hand because I just read it. He talks about visiting a church over the summer which “was one of the most programming-challenged services I’ve ever attended.” He doesn’t specify but I imagine it wasn’t very smooth and maybe awkward at points. But he goes on to say that though the service wasn’t very good, his kids liked the kid’s ministry.
Here’s the lesson: you can drop the ball in the service but ace it with the kids and still have a chance that a family will return. But no matter how good the service is, if the children’s ministry is bad, the family won’t come back… Children are at the heart of your growth engine. (Meet Generation Z, 150).
Basically, we need to have better religious goods and services than the church down the street, and an important part of what we need to offer is a really good children’s ministry. Notice the goal is not discipleship of parents so that they love and teach their kids, and it’s not discipleship of the kids; no, it’s an experience for the kids.
Conclusion
I get it, I don’t want things to be bad or awkward. But maybe the whole paradigm is messed up? Perhaps church was never supposed to be structured with a stage and an audience to entertain? Perhaps the church was never meant to be something we attend or a building? Perhaps “we are family” was never meant to be a church tagline but a reality? Perhaps service is meant to be something that the church provides to the world and not something church leaders provide to church members?
I agree that we should do things well. But it is imperative that we do the right things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is often quoted by church leaders: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Of course, I agree with this verse. But this verse doesn’t give us carte blanche to use any methodology.
I appreciate what J.D. Payne wisely says in his book, Pressure Points:
With over four billion people in the world without Jesus, it is not wise to develop strategies that support methods which are counterproductive to the healthy rapid multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches. Just because there is much biblical freedom in our culturally shaped methods does not mean that all such expressions are conducive to the multiplication of healthy churches across a people group or population segment.
We should intentionally pursue what makes for rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
Is Christmas True?
Is Christmas true? Or should we assume Christmas is just a fairytale like Santa Claus?
Our starting places or assumptions have a big impact on the way we weigh evidence. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book, To Kill a Mockingbird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e., Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward, Tom was still convicted. Why? Because people were prejudiced against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it can happen when people consider evidence about Jesus too. But, if God exists and wants to be born as a baby, as Christmas says, then certainly God can do that.
The Bible says Christmas is true. It even says the “star” guiding the Wisemen is true. Are there actual reasons for believing in the historical accuracy of Christmas? I believe so. But will people openly weigh the evidence?
Honestly, there’s a lot to look at. Here I’ll just share two pieces to consider.
Jesus’ Biographies
Although the Gospel accounts in the Bible may not be exactly like our biographies today, they really are biographies. Or they certainly claim to be. They purport to give actual history about Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible has four historical biographies about Jesus, often referred to as the Gospels.[1] Two of them explicitly claim to tell us what Jesus actually did and said, and they claim to be based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:20-24). And so, Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian writer and philosopher, referred to the Gospels as “the memoirs of His apostles.”
This is what Luke says:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk. 1:1-4).
Luke is basically making the claim to be a journalist or historian.
The Gospels place themselves in a historical context. They don’t start with imaginary elements. There is no “once upon a time.” Instead, they give us identifiable time stamps. They say things like: “Augustus was emperor of Rome,” “Quirinius was governor of Syria,” “Pilate was governor of Palestine,” “Herod was king of the Jews,” and “Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin” (e.g., Matt. 2:1; 27:2; Mk. 15:1, 43; Lk. 2:1-2; Jn. 19:38). These were not made-up people or made-up positions. They repeat historical realities because the Gospels claim to be historical documents.
Many of the events that the New Testament writers wrote about were well-known. The Apostle Paul could tell king Agrippa: I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped your notice, since these things have not been done in a corner(Acts 26:26). The early Jesus followers did not follow cleverly devised myths about the Lord Jesus Christ but claimed to be eyewitnesses (2 Pet. 1:16).
C.S. Lewis knew a lot about legends and he didn’t think the Gospels read like legends. In Lewis’ own words: “Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”[2]
The “Star” of Bethlehem
Matthew’s telling of the story of Jesus includes a lot about a “star.” But if you read the account, he says things about the “star” that do not make sense if he is talking about a literal star. The way he describes what the “star”[3] does would not make sense unless he was knowledgeably aware of the peculiar movements it made. The star was “His star” and it “rose,” “appeared,” “went before them,” and rested “over the place where the child was.”
The sign in the heavens convinced the Babylonian magi—the NASA of the day—to pay a visit to Jesus. They were aware of the Jewish promise of a coming King and what was transpiring in the sky made them think something very significant was happening.[4]
What did the Wisemen see? This would be super random to include in a story about Jesus unless the writer knew it to be factual and significant. Otherwise, the writer could have said something simpler: “a bright and mysterious light shown down on the blessed child.” Instead, the author describes the movements of a beautiful comet, something like the Great Comet of 1811. The potential issue with describing something so seemingly outrageous is that it’s visible to a lot of people. Many people could have come forward and said there was never anything in the sky like that. But that didn’t happen. Instead, later on, Origen rightly identifies the “star” as a comet.
Here’s what Origen said (circa 248):
The star that was seen in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies. Yet, it had the nature of those celestial bodies that appear at times, such as comets…. It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of mighty changes in earthly things, such stars are apt to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars. … There is a prophecy of Balaam recorded by Moses to this effect: ‘There will arise a star out of Jacob, and a man will rise up out of Israel.’
Ignatius said (circa 105), “The light from this star was inexpressible, and its uniqueness struck men with astonishment.”
So, unless this event with the Wisemen and Comet happened, what would one gain by fabricating the story? The Babylonian Wisemen would not be popular with the Jewish people. The Babylonians took Jewish people into exile and were idolaters and the Wisemen were seen as magicians who practiced sorcery against the LORD’s command (Deut. 18:10–12; Mal. 3:5; Gal. 5:19–21). And so, the God/child receiving charity from such people would probably not be seen positively.
If your premise is that the whole story was fabricated and made up to fool people, why would the author have risked claiming such a visible and verifiable phenomenon? On the other hand, if you look at Matthew as a historical work, there’s nothing that should be excluded outright. For one, Matthew certainly gets king Herod’s personality right. The historian Josephus recorded what a gruesome man Herod the Great was. He put his favorite wife to death as well as three of his sons and killed other family members too.
The slaying of the 15 to 35 babies, known as “the Massacre of the Innocents,” referred to in Matthew 2 may not be mentioned in other surviving historical accounts but it is in keeping with what we know of Herod.[5] And again, why mention this historical datum if it wasn’t accurate? Wouldn’t it be possible as the account of Jesus circulated for someone from Bethlehem to hear about the account of the massacre? Wouldn’t the story of Jesus be on unstable footing if just one lie was found out? Why then would the author take such risks?
Imagine I wanted to lie and make you think I’m good at baseball. There are all sorts of ways I could do that. I could say, “I’m really good at baseball.” I could say, “I played college baseball.” But the more specific and fantastic I get about my lie the higher the risk. If I say, “I played baseball for the Yankees” you’re going to have lots of questions and you’re probably going to seek out verification. A nondescript lie is a lot safer and can still accomplish my purpose of making you think I’m good at baseball. The claims about Jesus are not like that. They are distinctive. They—especially in the first century—are falsifiable.
The biographies of Jesus go beyond saying “Jesus was good at baseball,” and even beyond saying “Jesus played shortstop for the Yankees and batted cleanup.” They give loads of information that could have been found to be false but were never proved to be false. Again, why include so much fantastical false information? And remember, the Jesus movement didn’t take decades to form.
Anyhow, I’m trying to stop writing… There are many reasons to believe Christmas is a true story. We’ve very briefly considered two.
Notes
[1] Gospel means “good news.” In Greek, it is euangélion (εὐαγγέλιον) and it is where my daughter, Evangelina, gets her name from.
[2] C.S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?,” 169 in God in the Dock.
[3] “Star” here is the English translation of the Greek word aster (ἀστήρ), and it’s where we get our English word “asteroid.” Aster can refer to various lights in the sky.
[4] See Colin R. Nicholl, The Great Christ Comet: Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 2015).
[5] Remember the infant mortality rate would have been high in that day and the massacre was all boys aged two and below so the number would have likely been relatively low for someone like Josephus to report
Rethinking Church: From Invitation to Evangelism
What if church were different? What if we evangelize instead of invite?
Admittedly, this is an old study, but in 1988 George Barna found that
Despite the fact that churches and para-church organizations have spent billions of dollars on evangelism. More than 10,000 hours of evangelistic television programming have been broadcast, in excess of 5,000 new Christian books have been published, and more than 1,000 radio stations carry Christian programming. Yet despite such widespread opportunities for exposure to the Gospel, there has been no discernible growth in the size of the Christian body.[1]
Could it be because invitation has replaced evangelism, and inviting people to the Christmas program has replaced dinner in our homes? The church was always supposed to incarnate the good news of Jesus and show the lived reality of His reign through Christian love. Francis Schaeffer went as far as to say that the love of Christians must be visible, for it is “the final apologetic.”[2]
Perhaps we must take a different approach than the church growth experts have promoted for decades. Instead of watching the neighbor’s kids, who is a single mother and in need of a lot of help, we are exhausting ourselves in the nursery supporting the church service. What if we did the opposite?! What if we didn’t serve in nursery, and instead knew and helped our neighbors? The church was never meant to be for itself. It exists to love Jesus and love others like Jesus.
The Bible tells us to “go and tell.” It doesn’t instruct us to “invite people to a building.” We are to be the church, not invite people to a building we’ve falsely labeled “church.”
“Letting our light shine” was never meant to become: “gather all the lights in the same building and keep them from the dark.” Too often, Christian life circles around propping up and keeping the institution of the church afloat. It becomes a vicious cycle. The church needs people at the “church” to keep the “church” going, all the while taking the church out of the world.
People often ask me, “Why is the world such a dark place?” Could it be, in part, because the church—the light of the world—has left the world and gone into a building? Sadly, churches are notorious for taking people out of actual outreach to put them on an outreach committee.
Further, we’ve hamstrung ourselves by encouraging and facilitating invitation over evangelism. Instead of the whole body being deployed in specific contexts where different people are specifically equipped to contextually share the good news of Jesus, we’ve allowed the onus to fall on professional clergy. Inviting someone to church is now the faithful thing to do. We’ve essentially taken an army off the frontlines where they are desperately needed and given a weapon to one person to wield from the stage.
UPS delivers packages to us, typically Amazon packages. What if UPS went around town and told us we could go to the distribution center one day a week between 9 and 11 AM and pick up packages? First, that’d be bizarre. Second, it would be very unhelpful and UPS wouldn’t be in business very long. Third, it would be a lot like our “evangelism” in America. Yet, as Bill Hull has said, “There are no commands in Scripture for non-Christians to go to church, but there are plenty about Christians going to the world.”
Instead of being missionaries, we expect those who would be part of the church to become missionaries. The responsibility is on them to cross boundaries and learn a new vocabulary. Instead of crossing the thresholds into people’s homes and inviting them into ours, we’re inviting them to a sterile church building. We’re inviting them to a strange and foreign institution. Jesus and Paul sought out people where they were, they didn’t invite them to a church service.
Jesus who is the good news, brought good news. He did not merely call us up to heaven. He came down from heaven—to walk, dine, and die for us—to bring us up. And Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21; 17:18). He has sent us not to merely invite people to a church building, but to compel people into the Kingdom.
Notes
[1] George Barna, Marketing the Church (Navpress, Colorado Springs, CO, 1990), 22.
[2] Bryan A. Follis, Truth with love: the apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, 58.
[3] Luke 14:23 says, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” but the context (note v. 15) informs us that the parable is about the Kingdom, and not any one church. It’s certainly not about a church building.
Are We Brokenhearted Over Our Societies’ Idolatry?
Are we brokenhearted over our societies’ idolatry? The Apostle Paul was.
Paul was in Athens and he saw that it was full of idols (Acts 17:16). When he saw that there were idols everywhere, he was cut to the heart. Paul was visibly grieved. He was greatly troubled.
In Paul’s day, Athens was home to a stadium and a large concert hall. Athens’s most prominent feature, however, was its numerous pagan temples.
One author around the time of Paul said that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. There was a great temple to Athena (the Parthenon), a temple dedicated to multiple deities, and the temple to the goddess Roma. There were other pagan sacred sites that have been found as well.
Then, as now, there is a lot of idolatry. There is a lot of suppressing the truth about God for a lie. There is a lot of worshiping what is created rather than the Creator who alone is worthy of worship (Rom. 1:25).
So, how did Paul respond and how do we respond when we see rampant idolatry?
Paul was not consumed with anger or with amazement as to how stupid people are for their idolatry. No. His heart was broken for them. He had compassion for them.
And his compassion pushed him to winsome conversation…
“So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17).
Paul apparently shared in a winsome way. People were interested in hearing from him. We see this because they took him to the Areopagus and said, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?” (Acts 17:19).
Paul had a heart for the lost and won a hearing with the lost.
It says that Paul walked around and looked carefully at their objects of worship. And something he saw gave him an opportunity to share the good news of Jesus. He saw “an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’” So, Paul was able to say: “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).
In sharing Paul even quotes from two of the “rappers” of the day. They actually were long since dead but his audience would have been familiar with them.[1] Paul took the time to meet people where they were.
Paul had a heart for the lost. He wept over their idolatry. And he also studied how to effectively speak into their lives. He “looked carefully at their objects of worship” and could even quote their authors.
Yet, he did so not just to be on the in with them, but to point something out. He wanted to see what they see so he could show them how to see.
We too deal with idolatry today. It’s perhaps all the more insidious because it’s less apparent. We have no temple to Aphrodite;[2] but we carry the equivalent in our pocket on our phone. Idolatry is alive and well. We just don’t see it well.
Do we have broken hearts over societies’ idolatry? And are we willing to wisely, winsomely, and lovingly wade into the fray? Are we willing to reason in the religious meeting places as well as the marketplace? Are we willing to be “in the know,” so we can help people to know?
___
[1] Epimenides of Crete (c. 600 B.C.) and the Stoic poet Aratus (c. 315–240 B.C.).
[2] Aphrodite was known as the Ancient Greek goddess of beauty, desire, and all aspects of sexuality. Aphrodite was known to be able to entice both gods and men into illicit affairs because she was so attractive. Aphrodite was honored as a protector of prostitutes.
*Photo by Douglas O
Christian Status
As Christians, Jesus is emphatically our Leader and Lord and His Kingdom is not of this world. His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom made up of people from Sierra and Senegal, Armenia and America, China and Czechia, Portugal and Pakistan, Mexico and Mali (and many many more). America is not and never will be Israel. And the paradigms and parallels that we try to place on America that are meant for God’s people will never work because they are not theologically accurate.
Christians belong to an entirely different kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world. The paradigms that people have that have Americans or Christian Americans as the promised people is gravely wrong. God’s promise to bless the nations is not a promise to America, it is a promise fulfilled in The Son of Abraham, Jesus. All the nations of the earth are blessed in and through Him.
Christian citizenship and allegiance first belongs to our Lord Jesus’ Kingdom, and only secondarily to any merely earthly kingdom. Our hope also needs to visibly be in the Lord Jesus, the supreme Lord of the universe that actually suffered as a servant for His subjects, and not in any earthly power. We work for change and we work with sacrificial love, but we do not have our hope wrapped up here.
As Christians, it is also important to remember, we work primarily at the heart level as Jesus did, and as surgeons do, not mainly on the symptoms level. Our overarching desire is to change the cause, pull the root. We believe primarily in transformation from the inside out and not mainly in the mere reformation of society. We don’t want to rearrange the furniture on the Titanic, we want as many passengers rescued as possible. We don’t mainly want to save America, we mainly want Americans saved. So, even while we work for progress on the policies we believe in, our hope is not in them. We know, as it says in the book of Revelation, the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven; it is not constructed here (21:2).
The Christian hero and hope is a seemingly powerless middle-eastern refugee carpenter with olive skin that was crucified as a criminal and rejected outcast. That’s who Christians identify themselves with and place all of their hope in. Not in the seemingly powerful people, politicians, or political parties who have technology and Ph.D.’s, money and influence, beauty and charisma.
Further, we should not even lead people to believe that our hope is in people or any earthly power. “The hope within us” that is supposed to be communicated and seen is that Christ is Lord (1 Peter 3:15). It may not always look like He is in the world around us, but the reality is that He is. Jesus rose from the dead and demonstrated in space and time that He is Lord and He is coming back soon. It is also important to remember that when we tell people about our hope in Messiah Jesus, that we do so “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
When the onlooking world sees Christians, they should see we have hope that transcends this world. “Christ in us”—not a mere person, policy, or political party—is the “hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). The exiles spoken of in Hebrews made it clear (11:14) that “they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God” (11:16). May that be clear for us too! May we make it abundantly clear that we are looking for and longing for the country the Lord has prepared for us (v. 14).
Gospel Motive Filter
How can we know if our motives are gospel-focused or not? In the below video I outline a way to filter out motivations that are not gospel-focused.
C. S. Lewis on Longing
Introduction
You can trace the theme of longing through most of Lewis’ writings. In some places, it is explicit in other places it is implicit. For example, Perelandra does not so much make an argument as much as make you desire and long to experience something of what Lewis wrote. When reading some of Lewis, we often find ourselves hoping what he writes about is true. Lewis’ argument is not really cognitive and logical as much as it is “kardialogical,” that is, reasoned from the heart. As Blaise Pascal said, “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.”[1]
It is also important here to look at what Lewis meant by longing or desire. Lewis himself said, “From the age of six, romantic longing—Sehnsucht—had played an unusually central part in my experience.”[2] Sehnsucht is a German term that communicates the longing that all of humanity has. It means “longing,” “yearning,” or “craving.” It is a way of saying, “something is intensely missing, there must be more.” Joe Puckett defines Sehnsucht this way:
The aching, and yet pleasurable, intense longing for a life that we cannot yet have but naturally and universally crave. It is the feeling of having lost something that we once had—giving us a sense of homesickness and discontentment with the less-than-ideal world we currently find ourselves in.[3]
Lewis was specially equipped to discuss longing since from a very young age he had experienced such longing and had the ability to write about it with apologetic force in both narrative and essay form. My thesis is that Lewis is correct, our longing does point us beyond this world. Our longing ultimately points us to the Lord and His coming Kingdom.
Good News Amongst the Raging Waters
It is Saturday. It is the day we remember Jesus laying in a grave. It is quiet, it is solemn, it is lonely. It brings sadness.
Many Christians are feeling Easter from a different perspective. We are not celebrating with our brothers and sisters Easter morning like we usually would. Our voices joining together with the heavens, singing praises to Jesus in celebration of His resurrection. His resurrection bringing salvation to this world signaling the church of Jesus Christ to disperse and tell the world the Good News.
Yet, here we are. Confined to our homes, it may be quiet or chaotic in your home, but we are far from our friends, family, and routines. We are feeling our need for comfort, peace and our weaknesses are on full display. We want the truth. We want justice. We want our voices to be heard. Each day uncontrollably slides across the ice with no clear path forward. Each day we may be grasping, trying to hold onto something that will stop the spinning and put us on a good path. But how do we, the government, or the world know how to steer a day?
We are the water, not the hand that controls the flow of the water. God has a plan and a purpose as he guides the water. God had a plan and purpose for Jesus as He approached the cross. It didn’t look good and it hurt but Jesus followed the Father’s plan. That plan saved humanity and gives us the reason we sing and declare His name into this world.
in X 