"I believe the process of church discipline saved my life. When my marriage unexpectedly fell apart, my church held up the gospel before my eyes through the process of church discipline. When my wife abandoned me, my elders didn't."

This is the testimony of a man whose wife committed adultery and then left him. The tale, like all stories of broken marriages, is deeply grieving. "I had been left without reason by a woman who no longer regarded the teachings of Scripture on marriage." To this day she has not returned. The marriage is over, and she has been excommunicated from the church.

Right now I don't want you to focus on the tragedy. I want you to look instead at the beauty that quietly appears in a healthy church amid such tragedies, like catching a glimpse of Jesus' face in a crowd. Focus on the community of people who loved a man and his unfaithful wife---of all things---through church discipline.

This man, a new friend, told me that his elders did two things:

"First, they pursued my wife with a gracious, firm call to repentance. Forbearing in their timing, sensitive in their decision-making, and erring on the side of patience, they were slow to move but sure of how they would respond if she chose to remain in her sin." He knew they loved his wife deeply, precisely because they begged her to abandon the way that leads to death.

Not that church discipline is always loving. Recently, in fact, I received an email from someone else who has been disciplined by pastors who believe their decisions are always sacrosanct. There's a recipe for abuse.

Still, if a Day of Irrevocable Assize awaits us all, then you must agree that it is loving to wave your arms---wildly if you must---at anyone sprinting toward the cliff. It's unloving to stay silent (Prov. 13:24; 27:5). Church discipline, which begins with private remonstration and reluctantly goes public with excommunication, is just such a waving of the arms: Please, stop! Bridge out!

Pursuing the Sinned-Against

Yet here's what I also want you to see: This man's church did more than pursue his unrepentant wife. They pursued him, the sinned-against.

He explains, "Second, they pursued me, a member in good standing who was willing to do anything to see his marriage restored, with gracious, firm, and constant reminders of the gospel." And this pursuit, he said, "led to an extraordinary subjective experience of God's grace in and through his church."

Really? You experienced God's grace as your wife was disciplined?

Take notice: "When my wife left, my pastor was there to remind me that God had not forsaken me, but, rather, had forsaken his own Son in order to join himself to me.

"When flooded with doubt, erratic emotions, and overwhelming loneliness, my elders reminded me of God's sovereign, fatherly care for me.

"When, by the work of the Holy Spirit in my life, I was able to extend grace and love to my wife despite the almost inconceivable hardness of her heart, I heard them say, 'You are walking well.'

"When it became clear that my wife was committing adultery, they reaffirmed their commitment to walk with me through the entire process."

Does that make sense? When you are sinned against, especially with sin of any significance, it can feel like the universe has lost its balance. The scales of justice are off. As you stagger and reel, you need someone to say, "Yes, the scales are off. That was unjust."

I was once involved in counseling a woman whose husband had cheated on her. An older brother advised me to assure her not only of God's love, but of God's hatred for the sin. "God hates what your husband did. He's against it. He grieves with you." Yes, sin is first godward, but don't forget the human element. Empathize with the hurting like Jesus did (Heb. 2:17; 4:15).

And here is where church discipline comes in. It's one thing to have an empathetic counselor say, "I'm so sorry." It's another thing to have King Jesus' formally authorized representative on earth, the local church, publicly recognize the injustice as an injustice (see Matt. 18:17). It brings Christ's own loving, affirming face into the crowd of your supporters: "Wherever two or three are gathered, there am I with them" (Matt. 18:20).

This is what my friend saw and felt: "Never have I had such an acute sense of God's grace to me as when I stood on the 'other side' of a case of church discipline. There is no greater gift that the church can give to its members who have been victimized by sin than to rightly, graciously administer church discipline in accordance with the teachings of Scripture."

Beauty in Strange Places

Can you see it? The beauty of Christ's love in this strangest of places? Few sins reach with destructive claws so deep into a heart as adultery. It's like the sharpest of knives cutting into the tenderest of spots. Yet it's right there in that torn spot that Jesus would have the church show up, bringing affirmation and healing. It does this, in part, by addressing the sin honestly and explaining Jesus' strident opposition to it.

A church's process of discipline says to the person who has been sinned against, "Right there in that deep, deep place where you feel most torn open, you, who are made in the image of God, have been wronged. We, his royal representatives, know an injustice has been done, and we want you to know that God sees it. Indeed, he feels it because it's against him, too. He's with you. What's more, he would have us, his beloved children, tell you that he loves you and is for you in that deep, deep spot. Nothing can separate you from his love, not even your spouse's betrayal."

Do you see it? How the face of Christ shows up even here---in the pursuit of both the sinner and the sinned against.

Editors' Note: Weekly communion may be standard in Anglican churches, but it's become a badge of honor in a growing number of Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Is this a good trend, and should other churches celebrate the Lord's Supper every time they meet on Sunday? We solicited three perspectives to help you make up your mind. See also:

• Ray Van Neste: Three Arguments for Weekly Communion
• Eric Bancroft: We Celebrate the Lord's Supper Frequently But Not Weekly

**********

This essay maintains that none of the approaches to the question of frequency of communion (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually) are self-evidently the "right" one, given the fact that the New Testament does not directly address the frequency question. Dogmatism on the subject cannot, therefore, be warranted.

We cannot make direct appeal to the three Gospels, which record Jesus' institution of this meal, for the Synoptics record no statement of Jesus bearing on the frequency question.

One might infer that the connection of this meal with the annual Passover, observed by Jesus with his disciples, implies that we should maintain an annual equivalent to that Passover. Is such an idea hinted at in 1 Corinthians 5:7? Not likely. Again, there is Paul's own seeming elaboration of Jesus' words given at 1 Corinthians 11:25-26: "Whenever you drink it." But what frequency is that?

There is a third Scripture: Acts 20:7, which some claim records the Lord's Supper as a weekly observance. It does say, "we came together to break bread." Is not Acts 20:7 therefore a support for weekly communion? This will depend on the meaning of "break bread," an idiom used more than 20 times in the NT (most notably in Acts 2:42 and 46). About this idiom, there are two concerns.

First, in the vast majority of its NT occurrences, the idiom refers to the sharing of food. It is used in describing Jesus' miraculous feeding of the multitudes in Matthew 14:19. We see it in the account of Paul, eating with fellow survivors after shipwreck in Acts 27:35-36. In Acts 20, it appears twice: in verses 7 and 11. There is no compelling reason for concluding that "breaking of bread" means more than shared food in this episode. After all, a visit from the notable apostle Paul certainly provided an occasion for a shared meal. John Calvin, acknowledging this established meaning of "breaking of bread," tried hard to sidestep that meaning here. After all, a congregation large enough to require "many lamps" (v. 8) and to require a listener to perch on a window ledge (v. 9) was too large to feed at church. Well, perhaps! There is no compelling reason to understand the Acts 2:42 and 46 references to the "breaking of bread" any differently. Especially verse 46 describes rounds of shared meals enjoyed house by house.

Second, we ought to ask more questions about the adequacy of the idiom "breaking of bread" for a ceremony consisting of two elements. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul is discussing the meaning of the broken bread and the cup of thanksgiving. Each represents a "fellowship" or "communion" with Christ (perhaps the "fellowship" referred to in Acts 2:42?). Why should the holy meal---instituted by Christ with bread and wine---be adequately referred to solely as "broken bread"? For example, in Acts 10:41, Peter speaks explicitly of being among those who "ate and drank with Jesus" after Easter.

In sum, Acts 20:7 provides no adequate basis for claims about weekly observance. It may not refer at all to the Holy Meal. In any case, it is a piece of narrative about a single place and single occasion.

Arguments from History

"But wait," some will say, "we have second-century witnesses reporting weekly communion meals." This is true and yet not conclusive. The Didache and Justin Martyr's First Apology indicate that weekly administration of the Lord's Supper existed. But it is unwise to extrapolate from records of isolated places towards some supposed universal practice.

Are we content to rest in the statements of the NT? Thoughtful Protestants do not employ Patristic writings to establish matters about which the Scriptures themselves are reticent.

"Ah, but Calvin favored weekly communion!" This appeal is made by a growing number who like to cite Calvin's opinions as decisive. By 1559, Calvin favored "at least weekly" communion (his views had fluctuated somewhat earlier). He believed that this was an early church practice; yet his preference never prevailed in Geneva. But the vital questions for us are, "What scriptural basis did Calvin provide for his preferred view?" In the Institutes: Acts 2:42; in the Acts commentary: Acts 20:7. "Did Calvin's contemporary co-Reformers agree with him?" Not especially. "Do the common doctrinal confessions of the Reformation era endorse Calvin's view?" In a word, "no."

Doctrinal and Pastoral Questions

Two basic concerns remain. First, what is the proper relationship between the preaching of the Word and the ceremonies Jesus instituted? Historically, Protestants have judged the proclamation of the Word to be absolutely essential to salvation, and the administration of the two ceremonies to be only relatively essential. We make the distinction not to disparage these ceremonies, but in light of such Scriptures as Luke 23:43 and 1 Corinthians 1:17. The Word of the gospel can stand alone; the ceremonies cannot because they "lean on" the Word and derive their meaning from it. Frequent communion is not, therefore, essential, even if we consider this desirable.

Second, Christians today increasingly compress the Lord's Day into one hour. It was not so, formerly, when there were two gatherings: one chiefly focused on believers and another more focused on the not-yet believing. This state of affairs is now almost gone. Increasingly our single services are all-purpose. Calls for more frequent communion must thus balance distinct concerns:

1. Does the Word remain central in our services, addressing both believers and unbelievers?
2. Are the ceremonies that "lean on" the Word offered with suitable frequency?

An insistence on weekly communion both goes beyond the NT evidence and compels congregations---with multiple bona fide priorities---to attempt too much in that always more compressed hour of the Lord's Day.

In sum, we honor the command of Jesus to remember him with bread and wine by a periodic observance tailored to local church realities.

For Further Reading

C. K. Barrett, Church, Ministry, and Sacraments in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), chap. 3.

John Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1559 ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), IV. xvii. 43-44.

Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966, reprinted 2003).

Didache Sections 9, 10, 14.

I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 155.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, chaps. xvi, xvii.

Tom Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, eds., The Lord's Supper (Nashville: B&H, 2010).

Editors' Note: Weekly communion may be standard in Anglican churches, but it's become a badge of honor in a growing number of Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Is this a good trend, and should other churches celebrate the Lord's Supper every time they meet on Sunday? We solicited three perspectives to help you make up your mind.

• Kenneth J. Stewart: The Frequency of Communion Calmly Considered
• Eric Bancroft: We Celebrate the Lord's Supper Frequently But Not Weekly

**********

I am an avid proponent of weekly communion for our churches. This practice is not directly commanded in Scripture, so I am not accusing others of sin. The issue is the pursuit of "best practice," what best fits the patterns found in Scripture and makes best use of the resources God has given us.

First, then, I think there is strong evidence of a pattern of weekly observance in the New Testament. Already in Acts 2:42, we see communion listed as a central piece of Christian worship. The four activities listed here are not four separate things but the four elements that characterized a Christian gathering. One of the key things the early church "devoted" itself to was the "breaking of bread," i.e. the Lord's Supper. The wording suggests that each of these activities occurred when they gathered.

Perhaps the most striking reference to the frequency of the Lord's Supper occurs in Acts 20:7: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."

Paul, on his way to Jerusalem has stopped at Troas. Here "on the first day of the week" he meets with the local church, and Luke directly states that the purpose of their gathering was "to break bread," i.e. to celebrate the Lord's Supper. This passage need not mean the Lord's Supper was the only purpose of their gathering, but it certainly is one prominent purpose and the one emphasized here. The centrality of communion to the weekly gathering is stated casually without explanation or defense, suggesting this practice was common among those Luke expected to read his account. These early Christians met weekly to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Of course the longest discussion of the practice of the Lord's Supper is in 1 Corinthians. Many issues can be raised here, but the fact that abuse of the Lord's Supper was such a problem in Corinth strongly suggests the Supper was held frequently. Could it have been such a problem if it only occurred quarterly? Is this the sense that arises from the passage? Notice the wording of 1 Corinthians 11:20: "When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat." It is widely agreed that the terminology "come together" here is used as a technical term for gathering as the church. This wording suggests that when they gathered they ate a meal which they intended to be the Lord's Supper.[1] Though they are abusing the Supper, their practice (which is not considered odd by Paul) is to celebrate each time they gather. Even the wording in 1 Corinthians 11:25, "As often as you drink," which is often used to suggest frequency is unimportant, in context actually suggests frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper. Commenting on this verse, Gordon Fee notes, "This addition in particular implies a frequently repeated action, suggesting that from the beginning the Last Supper was for Christians not an annual Christian Passover, but a regularly repeated meal in 'honor of the Lord,' hence the Lord's Supper."[2]

Centerpiece of Worship

Second, in practical terms, in our man-centered age where so many services are shamefully devoid of any meaningful reference to the cross, could we not benefit from a move to a regular use of the Christ-ordained means for reminding us of the cross? If we want to be gospel-centered why not make the Christ-ordained portrayal of the gospel a centerpiece in our weekly worship? In an increasingly "visual" age might we not benefit from regular use of the visible, tangible portrayal given to us by Christ? In a day seemingly interested merely in Our Best Life Now, do we not regularly need the Christ-ordained means of reminding us of the Lord's return and the wedding feast of the Lamb? Might not the Bride be more pure if regularly reminded of the coming wedding? In the end, the issue, to me, is not whether or not we have to celebrate communion weekly but that we have the privilege to do so.

Questions will quickly arise on how to do this. Some doubt that this can be done well. Many Baptist churches in Scotland do this, and the practice flourishes. Also, my church has practiced weekly communion for about eight years, and members consistently testify that their appreciation of communion has only increased. We are often told by people who move away that they particularly miss weekly communion.

A typical argument against this idea is, "If we do this so often it will become less meaningful." At first this has the appearance of wisdom; but with just a little pondering the illusion fades. Do we apply this reasoning to other means of grace? Are we worried about praying too frequently? Reading the Bible too much? Shall we be safe and make biblical preaching less frequent? These practices become rote not because of frequency but because of lazy minds and hearts and the lack of robust biblical proclamation alongside the ordinance.

Some also say we can better appreciate communion when we set aside only certain Sundays for it and on those days focus directly on communion. However, we do not need more elaborate observance or contrived production, but regular observance of this simple rite tied into the regular preaching of the Word. We do not need to "build it up" with any extras. We need to preach the gospel and then display and participate in the gospel in communion.

Last, communion at the close of each service has a way of tying the service to the gospel. Too easily a well-intended sermon can end up preaching only the commands of Scripture, failing to undergird the people with the hope of gospel provision and power. The Table anchoring the conclusion of the service has a way of shaping all that comes before it, focusing on the cross of Christ and his return as our hope and joy. Unbelievers are also confronted visibly with the gospel as they see the work of Christ portrayed before them and yet are reminded that these benefits are only available to those who believe.

With these benefits, why not celebrate communion weekly?

---------------------

Note: A fuller version of my argument in the broader context of the practice of communion can be found in The Lord's Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes (B&H, 2011), ed. Thomas Schreiner and Matthew Crawford.

[1] So also Howard Marshall, "The Biblical Basis of Communion," Interchange 40:54, "it would seem that when the members assembled 'as a church' it was specifically to eat the Lord's Supper."

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 555.

Recently I argued that a Christian minister ought not officiate at wedding ceremonies for unbelievers. These weddings, I contended, represent the trivialization of the Christian ministry and a loss of pastoral courage. Since then, I've received lots of queries about funerals. Should a Christian minister preach the funeral of an unbeliever? That's a very good question.

Some of the saddest moments of my ministry have been in funeral homes, preaching for people I didn't know. Early on in ministry, I became the "go to" minister for a local mortician when one of his deceased passed away with no religious affiliation. I've seen almost empty chapels, with no one to do the eulogy but me. And I've seen full chapels of family members who clearly hated the deceased. I had one deceased woman's daughter tell me there was nothing positive she could think to say about her mother, nothing at all, except that she did feed the birds in her backyard.

Do I think it was biblically acceptable to preach those funerals? Yes. Would I do it again today? Yes.

A funeral is an entirely different matter than a wedding. A wedding is about the near future (near meaning the next 30 to 70 years or so). A funeral is about the past, and about the ultimate future (the resurrection from the dead). A wedding is the witnessing of vows, the calling together of a covenant between two persons. A funeral doesn't call any reality together. It commits the body of the dead to the earth and awaits the resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Having said that, I do think the funerals of unbelievers represent a test for pastoral courage, but in a very different way. Some ministers are tempted to become family chaplains in the funeral home just as in the wedding chapel, prattling on about Aunt Flossie walking on streets of gold when everyone knows Aunt Flossie was a militant atheist.

Courage doesn't mean announcing the arrival of the deceased in hell. You don't know that. I once heard an impressive sermon about how the thief on the cross's family probably all died never knowing that he was redeemed. One simply doesn't know the kind of plea for mercy that may be prayed out, perhaps even in the nanosecond before death.

Still, the funeral of an unbeliever ought to be a somber affair. The minister ought not speculate on the destiny of the deceased (except in very rare and exceptional circumstances) but should proclaim the reality of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He ought to speak of the certainty of death, of the quickness of life, and of the horror of the judgment seat. And then he ought to offer Christ to every hearer, clearly explaining how to know Jesus.

In some ways, a Christian pastor is fulfilling the very essence of his calling when he preaches an unbeliever's funeral. He is remembering in thanksgiving a life of one made in the image of God. He is there to interpret the reality that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23).

This week The Gospel Coalition welcomes you to join us in an exciting new series called Commending the Classics. We're thrilled to welcome Wheaton College professor Leland Ryken as a sort of literature scholar in residence to guide us as we read classic books together. Every week he'll lend us his decades of learning to help us understand why these works have come to be regarded as timeless treasures. Have you ever thought, I've heard that book is great, but I'm intimidated to read it myself without any help? Then we've designed this series precisely with you in mind. You get the benefits of a reading community who will help you along and a gifted professor who will answer your questions.

We've conceived the series with your schedule in mind, so we're focusing on shorter works you can finish in a matter of weeks or months. Keep on reading God's Word along with good theology and history and let Commending the Classics whet your appetite for thought-provoking fiction. We'll start with the much-discussed mid-century classic The Stranger by Albert Camus. Hear from Ryken on "Why Christians Should Read Camus," grab a copy of The Stranger, and join us in an adventure that promises to challenge, confound, and ultimately cultivate our understanding of and compassion for the world.

If you need even more encouragement to spend at least a little time with us on this series, hear from these Christian leaders about how the classics have shaped them.

**********

John Mark Reynolds, provost of Houston Baptist University and author of The Great Books Reader: Excerpt and Essays on the Most Influential Books in Western Civilization:

There is pain in old books. It is a easy to fool myself. I break from the snares of the world, but even Bible reading is done through the assumptions of the age. It is not the faults of the age that trap me, but the alleged virtues. My spiritual grandparents stand warning me of the folly of easy assumptions. Our age looks for diversity but forgets how hard it was to produce our present unity.

There is joy in old books. When I read old classics of spirituality different assumptions are thrust on me. The sin of Adam cut me off from my spiritual ancestors and made a chronological loneliness, but old books allow them to speak even though dead. It is lawful necromancy to read old books.

Every year I read That Hideous Strength. Why? C. S. Lewis warns me that no "inner ring" is worth my soul. Jane Eyre teaches me that duty is the best and surest path to a grand passion. Wuthering Heights reminds me that love can be corrupted and do great evil. Lord of the Rings gives me hope that small people can do great things for the Good. Pilgrim's Progress points me to spiritual adventures and reminds me that the world is not my home. Finally, Crime and Punishment gives me hope that some pain is redemptive and that God will make sure that treatment is available.

John Piper, pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church and Council member for The Gospel Coalition:

Editors' Note: Everyone has an opinion about youth ministry. Parents, pastors, and the youth themselves have expectations and demands that don't always overlap. But the rash of dire statistics about the ineffectiveness of youth ministry has prompted rethinking in these ranks. So we devote one day per week this month to exploring several issues in youth ministry, including its history, problems, and biblical mandate. The Gospel Coalition thanks Cameron Cole and the leadership team of Rooted: A Theology Conference for Student Ministry for their help in compiling this series. Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama, will host their 2012 conference from August 9 to 11. Speakers Ray Ortlund, Timothy George, and Mary Willson will expound on the conference theme, "Adopted: The Beauty of Grace."

**********

I have walked for ten years with Allen, who was my closest Christian friend in high school. During our senior year we were "on fire" for God and set out to walk with Christ throughout college. After our freshman year, I watched my poor friend weep often about why he did not experience Christ in a real way. His youth ministry had sold him a message that faithful obedience before God would yield an experiential intimacy and spiritual euphoria, which he failed to encounter. In spite of tireless religious striving, Allen felt as if his pursuits resulted in a tumbling spiral into a deep, dark void.

Not surprisingly, Allen became disenchanted with Christianity and the church. Only after ten years of courageous waiting and honest reflection has he been able to re-engage church without resentment and wounding. He synopsizes his youth ministry's message with a story, which his youth pastor used to tell kids. The story basically involved a sad man, sitting in a corner, disappointed and hurt by his children, who he wished would come pay attention to him. The youth pastor explained that the man in the corner was Jesus, who remained displeased with his children when they failed to spend time with him or when we disobeyed his commands. In sum, we are a disappointment to God unless we perform spiritually.

Based on my experience in youth ministry, if I had to identify the greatest theological problem in the field, it would be the absence of the gospel in teaching on sanctification. Most youth ministries faithfully preach justification by faith in Christ alone. In fact, I may even credit youth ministers with being more faithful than senior pastors in helping their flock understand Christianity as saving relationship rather than cultural religion. However, in the space of sanctification, youth ministry often focuses on emotional exhortation and moral performance. A legalistic tone frequently characterizes the theology of sanctification in youth ministry.

So why does youth ministry tend to be legalistic?

1. We want to see results.

Mark Upton, a former youth worker and current pastor at Hope Community Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, offered these wise words to me when I started youth ministry: "If anyone asks you about your ministry, tell them you will let them know in ten years." Like any ministry profession, youth pastors want to see changed lives. At the same time, youth pastors need to view themselves as sowers, planting gospel seeds for harvest down the road. (I know this personally as in times of despair I just want to see the kids "do something" to affirm that my ministry has worth.) Wanting validation for their tireless labor, youth ministers occasionally focus on behavior modification as a means of providing tangible proof of the efficacy of their ministry. A kid carrying his or her Bible to school, signing a chastity pledge, or sporting a WWJD bracelet may appear like signs of spiritual progress---the fruit of ministry labor for a youth pastor---but if these actions come out of a student misunderstanding Christianity as a code of behavior rather than heart transformation through the Holy Spirit, then they do not necessarily reflect lasting life change.

2. Kids are as destructive as nuclear warheads.

All kidding aside, kids have skewed filters for risk management and make destructive decisions. Very few youth pastors go through a year without the death of a teenager in the community where they serve. Many youth pastors preach moralism over the gospel in order to protect students from self-destruction. Unfortunately, law-driven ministry often yields the opposite of its intention; law and pressure often inflame rebellion.

3. Parents want moral children.

A gospel-centered youth pastor in South Carolina once told me that parents were his biggest opponents to him fully preaching the gospel. After several years of teaching the radical grace of the gospel, parents complained about a lack of concentration on drinking, sexual abstinence, obedience to parents, and "being nice." They viewed the message of grace as antinomian and as a license for kids to pursue hedonism. Parents rightly want moral children, as do youth pastors. Sometimes, families view the church exclusively as a vehicle for moral education, rather than spiritually forming them in Christ, and put pressure on youth and senior pastors to moralize their children. Many parents view the law alone as the catalyst for holy living, rather than law and grace, and want the youth ministry to embrace this same theology.

4. Many pastors are young in their faith and theology.

When I first started leading Bible studies as a volunteer, my messages usually included a reminder that we needed Jesus for salvation and then a list of moral directives. Over time, as I started to grow in scriptural and theological knowledge, I started to see the gospel of grace and the Holy Spirit as the drivers of sanctification. Tremendous mentoring from all of the pastors at my church and their encouraging and funding my seminary classes played the most influential role in this maturation.

Many youth ministers are young, both in age and in their faith. Given all of the other responsibilities that adult pastors must juggle, nurturing the theological and spiritual development of the youth pastor can be overlooked. Furthermore, churches often view the youth department as entertainment and relationships but not a serious teaching ministry. If churches fail to take seriously the theological development of their youth pastor and to view youth ministry as a teaching and discipleship ministry above all things, then the message likely will lack biblical or doctrinal depth and contain a law-driven message.

**********

Also in the series on youth ministry:

• A Brief History of Youth Ministry by Dave Wright
• MTD: Not Just a Problem with Youth Ministry by Brian H. Cosby

"God is love," the beloved apostle wrote (1 John 4:8). But if God's love so describes his character and permeates his Word, why doesn't this theme receive greater emphasis in evangelical systematic theologies? And what about those who value love but may be intimidated by a phrase like "systematic theology"?

Gerald Bray's new volume, God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology (Crossway, 2012), is a welcome gift to the church. Despite its substantial size, it is a remarkably readable resource. I corresponded with Bray, research professor of divinity at Beeson Divinity School, about the significance of God Is Love---both the book and the reality it explores.

What are the unique contributions of God Is Love among other evangelical biblical and systematic theologies?

God Is Love is very different from any other systematic theology on the market today because it takes the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura seriously. It is not just a question of backing up everything from the Bible but of trying to convey God's self-revelation in the Bible in a biblical way. That God is love seems to me to be the most fundamental principle of Scripture, but it has so far not been the basis of any systematic presentation! Why not? I start with God as love in himself, then discuss the creation as an act of love, sin as rejection of God's love, and salvation as a revelation of God's deeper love. This is the gospel message, so it should be our theology too.

In other ways, the book aims to reach the kind of people who cannot or who will not read systematic theology, because to them it is too technical and confusing. I have written for ordinary, educated non-specialists. I have also aimed to reach people in developing countries and to deal with issues like demon possession, astrology, and polygamy that most people in the West tend to ignore, even though they are issues for us too. God Is Love is itself an act of love, reaching out to those of God's people who have been left behind in the current theological debates and who do not know where to turn for guidance.

Why did you choose God's love as the overarching framework for the book?

I chose it because it seems to me to be what the Bible is about, what the average Christian experiences of God, and what the world is crying out for. Love is on everyone's mind in a way that something like divine sovereignty (or even grace) isn't, and we have to reach out to people where they are, not where we might want them to be.

Why did you choose not to interact with any literature besides the Bible? In what ways did that affect your writing? Did anything unexpected arise as a result?

The Bible is the source of our faith and will remain so when all other Christian books have been forgotten. It is the only book that you can be sure every reader of God Is Love will have and be able to check for him/herself. A lot of people are suspicious of systematic theology, because they think it leads us away from the Bible into obscure arguments that have divided the church. I cannot claim to have avoided those arguments completely, but I want the Bible-based reader to be able to relate to a coherent presentation of the Christian faith that is squarely based on it. No doubt there will be those who disagree with my interpretations of Scripture, but at least we are talking the same language!

What does 1 Corinthians 13 reflect about the eternal nature of God? How can a "jealous" (Exod. 34:14) God be loving if "love does not envy" (1 Cor. 13:4)?

Envy is a covetous desire for something that we are not entitled to. God is only "jealous" in the sense that he wants us to worship him and not idols. This is not envy, because God is entitled to our worship, but idols are not. The real problem is that human language finds it hard to distinguish these two things and so we use the same words for both, even though they are quite different.

What was the most difficult chapter or section for you to write, and why?

Every section has its challenges, and I wrestled with them all at one point or another. But I would have to say that in the end, it was the last bit, about what will happen in the future, that I found the hardest. Historians like myself are always being warned not to make predictions, and so we have an in-built hesitation when it comes to prophecy. Apocalyptic literature has often been misunderstood, and unfortunately there are many people for whom a particular view of the millennium is an essential ingredient of their theology. I do not want to dismiss such people or their views, but neither can I endorse one of them as "biblical" in a way that others are not. This is tricky!

Who are your formative theological influences? Whose thought influenced you, even if we don't see them quoted in this work?

I have been shaped by the fathers of the early church, especially Augustine, whose great book on the Trinity may be said to have inspired my theme and the title God Is Love. I have also learned a lot from Anselm of Canterbury, from Martin Luther, and from John Calvin. Of modern writers, Jim Packer and Martyn Lloyd-Jones have been great influences, because they are both deep thinkers, and they both want to be practical and communicate. I have not quoted either of them directly, but if some readers think those men could have written certain passages---I would not blame them for everything!---I shall nod in agreement. Anglicanism has also influenced me, because it is no-nonsense "basic" or "mere" Christianity, as John Stott and C. S. Lewis put it. But I have learned a great deal from Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox too. Very Anglican, you might say.

**********

God Is Love is available for purchase from Westminster for $25.58 or Amazon for $25.98.

Editors' Note: Everyone has an opinion about youth ministry. Parents, pastors, and the youth themselves have expectations and demands that don't always overlap. But the rash of dire statistics about the ineffectiveness of youth ministry has prompted rethinking in these ranks. So we devote one day per week this month to exploring several issues in youth ministry, including its history, problems, and biblical mandate. The Gospel Coalition thanks Cameron Cole and the leadership team of Rooted: A Theology Conference for Student Ministry for their help in compiling this series. Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama, will host their 2012 conference from August 9 to 11. Speakers Ray Ortlund, Timothy George, and Mary Willson will expound on the conference theme, "Adopted: The Beauty of Grace."

**********

That a youth ministry "teaches the Bible" does not necessarily mean it teaches the gospel. Many mistake the gospel with moralism---being a good person, reading your Bible, or opening the door for the elderly in order to earn God's favor. But the gospel is altogether different.

This is a problem across the youth ministry landscape. It's not because teenagers and youth leaders have misunderstood the church's teaching of historical-confessional, gospel-infused Christianity. It's a problem in youth ministry wherever the American church has not preached Christ crucified and has catered to a pragmatic, entertainment-driven, and numbers-oriented model of church growth.

According to sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, most American teenagers believe in something dubbed "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" (MTD). [1] Within this MTD "religion," God is a cosmic therapist and divine butler, ready to help out when needed. He exists but really isn't a part of our lives. We are supposed to be "good people," but each person must find what's right for him or her. Good people will go to heaven, and we shouldn't be stifled by organized religion where somebody tells us what we should do or what we should believe. [2]

MTD isn't a religion like Islam or Buddhism, but rather a melting-pot belief among American teenagers. Historic distinctions between denominations like Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists are not as important to teens because they see their Christian faith as just one aspect of their lives like anything else---be it sports, friends, school, or family. Its preacher is American entitlement and its sermon is a me-centered message about a distant, therapeutic god who wants teens to be good and happy.

Alternative to Entertainment

I sat in a Waffle House one early morning, talking with a dad who had caught his son looking at pornography. His family had just transferred from a nearby church that spent through the roof creating the most spectacular show in church---complete with fog machines, strobe lights, and professional musicians writing Christian lyrics to Lady Gaga songs. In between the dueling DJs, this family was starved for the Bread of Life. But despite their burnout over endless entertainment, they didn't know an alternative.

"I just think you need more games," the dad told me across a very syrupy waffle. "If you had more games and funny skits, then my son would have been at church, not looking at porn." I was shocked! Here was a man who had left a church over too much entertainment and now wanted it back. I realized that MTD wasn't just a problem in the culture of American teenagers, but in the culture of the American church. The larger influence of a success-over-faithfulness model of American Christianity is having devastating effects on youth ministry.

Kenda Creasy Dean, in Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, argues that American teenagers have bought into MTD, not because they have misunderstood what the church has taught them, but precisely because it is what the church has taught them. She writes,

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism has little to do with God or a sense of divine mission in the world. It offers comfort, bolsters self-esteem, helps solve problems, and lubricates interpersonal relationships by encouraging people to do good, feel good, and keep God at arm's length. [3]

When this self-help theology is combined with a sola-boot-strapia sermon from TBN, we start having teens singing, "God Is Watching Us from a Distance" while---at the same time---wondering why Jesus isn't fixing their parents' marriage or their problems with cutting.

MTD isn't just the problem of youth ministry; it's the problem of the church. And American Christianity has become a "generous host" to this low-commitment, entertainment-driven model of youth ministry.

Counter to the Gospel

Think about those three words, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. They run counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ in every way. We are not saved by earning our way up the good-works ladder, nor is God the divine genie dispensing wishes at command. He's not a distant "clock-maker," sitting back to watch it all play out, but the personal Immanuel who became man to seek and save his bride. The gospel says that Jesus has accomplished for you---through his life, death, and resurrection---everything that God has required of you; thereby, securing eternal life for all God's people, and received by faith alone.

This is where the importance of method comes to the forefront, which (unfortunately) is often disassociated with theology. While our theology of the gospel should inform our method, the American church---to a large extent---has practiced just the reverse. The question on many youth leaders' minds is, "How do we get bored teenagers into the church?" The question should be, "How are we to faithfully plant and water the gospel of Jesus Christ for his glory and our joy in him?"

Many youth ministries have engaged in direct competition with the world to woo and attract students by all sorts of gimmicks and giveaways. In fact, a large church in the Atlanta area recently gave away iPods to the first 100 youth at a lock-in! But is that the method God has given us to draw young people into a deeper, richer, more meaningful relationship with Christ?

There Is Hope

There is hope, however, because Jesus will build his church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. There is hope because God is in the business of saving and sanctifying teenagers through the ministry of Word, prayer, and sacrament. God has given us means of grace---not just to reap the benefits of their content and application---but as the way in which we plant and water the gospel, looking to God to provide the growth. These means of grace should inform how young men and women are drawn into the church---youth who are disillusioned by the gimmicks and fog of an entertainment-driven world of empty pleasure.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has said, "The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced the ultimate, and it has let you down." Like a political pendulum, the experienced "high" from self-centered experience and rampant consumerism fails to provide rest for the restless soul. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can call the prodigal out of the trough and satisfy his longing heart.

MTD remains a problem in youth ministry because it remains a problem in the American church. It channels the method of ministry from gospel to gimmick. But the later English Puritan John Flavel points to God's far better plan: "The intent of the Redeemer's undertaking was not to purchase for his people riches, ease, and pleasures on earth; but to mortify their lusts, heal their natures, and spiritualize their affections; and thereby to fit them for the eternal fruition of God." [4]

**********

Previously in the series on youth ministry:

• A Brief History of Youth Ministry by Dave Wright

**********

The missional church in the United States is not missional enough. The local focus of mission is shortsighted. If we only make disciples who make disciples in our cities, thousands of unengaged, un-discipled peoples of the earth will not hear the gospel. To be sure, many ethnic groups are migrating to cities, which brings some of the nations right into the neighborhood. However, there remain many ethnic groups that do not migrate to Western cities. Western churches must send missionaries, not only across the street, but also across the world.

The State of Global Mission

Shockingly, 80 percent of deployed missionaries go to already evangelized areas. Consider these staggering statistics:

• Roughly 30 percent of the global population is unevangelized and largely untargeted by so-called missional churches.

• This amounts to about 1.6 billion people not hearing the gospel in 38 different nations. [1]

• There are still at least 13,000 unreached people groups and millions of people who have not heard a first proclamation of the gospel. [2]

Thousands more do not have the Scriptures in their language. Add to that the incalculable corruption in many nations that fosters poverty, disease, crime, sex trafficking, and so on. Other frontiers of mission must not be lost in the missional movement of the West. We need churches that will be missional both locally and globally.

What if I'm in a Small Church?

The global task of mission can sound overwhelming to small churches and church plants. It is challenging enough get individualistic, consumer-oriented, image-conscious Christians on mission in America. In small churches, a tiny band of committed people does everything from (and in plants, from scratch!). The small church pastor wears multiple hats of pastor, apostle, counselor, strategist, small group leader, and much more.

Naturally, the immediate mission field is more pressing than the distant mission field. These leaders should be commended for attempting to fulfill part of the global mission of the church at a local level. They love their neighbor, transition consumers to missionaries, and build a church all at the same time, which is incredibly demanding. But because this task is so great, and resources are so small, engaging our global neighbor is almost unthinkable!

Four Phases of Progressive Global Mission

In my church-planting experience, I found it necessary to adopt a progressive approach to global mission. It is unreasonable to expect a small group to adopt an unreached people group in the Middle East or to support a missionary when they can't even support their pastor's salary. So how can a small church be globally minded?

Looking back, I now see four phases to our progressive approach to global mission. I have also noticed other churches follow a similar progression. The first phase was exposure. Early on we deliberately introduced the church to the global mission. We began at the core team phase by meeting missionaries, visiting Burmese refugees, and praying about the needs of the global church. We took a rather generic, shotgun approach.

The second phase was experimentation. As we grew, we tried out international student ministry, presented unreached peoples needs through sermons, and planned short-term, exploratory mission trips. We also focused more funding on global mission, still unsure where it would lead.

The third phase was decentralization. In addition to our missionary equipping for local mission, we wanted our church to support missionaries in other countries. As our missional communities multiplied, we created Adopt-a-Missionary profiles so they could pick a missionary to support. We encouraged each community to consider adopting a missionary whom they could support financially, relationally, and prayerfully. To this day, some missional communities don't participate; others are very active. We're okay with that because we're slowly growing into keeping the global in missional, while remaining focused on our immediate mission in Austin. Decentralization is an important part of becoming globally minded because it puts local missionaries face-to-face with global missionaries (sometimes through Skype). This decentralization helped us introduce global mission the basic level of church. It got it down to the level of DNA.

The fourth phase was strategic partnership. We forged a partnership with indigenous pastors in Uganda and took three trips over three years to learn and serve the Ugandan church. We also mobilized the whole church through Uganda Sundays, prayer cards, and updates. We looked for a strategic partnership, moved forward, then celebrated at home each time a team returned. To recap, the four phases were exposure, experimentation, decentralization, and strategic partnership.

We still have a long way to go. We are about to send our first long-term missionary to Hong Kong, where we hope to formalize a strategic partnership. Are we a top ten global mission church? No way. Are we getting global into missional? Slowly. Does our church understand missional is both local and global? I believe so. But if we rely on "phases of progressive global mission," we are doomed to failure. We're doomed because we neglect the motivation for mission. Why should we participate in the global mission of the church? How does our part fit into the larger, sweeping history of mission?

Advance and Retreat of the Church

Church historian Kenneth Latourette (1884-1963) noted that the church has a history of advance and retreat, what he called "the pulsations in the life of Christianity." Lautorette points out that the history of the church is a history of oscillating influence, spreading the gospel across the globe over the centuries. This has resulted in new expressions of the Christian faith over time and across cultures. It is amazing to consider the diversity and uniqueness of the gospel throughout space and time among the peoples of history! Today, expressions of the gospel are exploding in Africa and Asia.

These new expressions of Christian faith are more than intriguing. They are, in fact, an expansion of God's glory. You might think that God's glory un-expandable and already complete. Not according to Jonathan Edwards. In The History of Redemption, Edwards argues that God's glory is incomplete:

God looks on the communication of himself, and the emanation of the infinite glory and good that are in himself to belong to the fullness and completeness of himself, as though he were not in his most complete and glorious state without it. Thus the church of Christ is called the fullness of Christ: as though he were not in his complete state without her.

God's glory in an incomplete state? His glory is not full? Sounds awfully unorthodox. What is Edwards saying?

Full Expression of God's Glory

If Edwards is correct, the full expression of God's glory can only be completed through the history of redemption. The history of redemption cannot be completed until "the end has come," and the end will not come until "the gospel of the kingdom has been preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations" (Matt 24:14). God's glory is expanded when the gospel is translated into the many cultures of the world, entering new ethnicities, idioms, and habits. It will take the breadth of history to display the diversity of God's glory through the advance of the church.

However, the church also retreats. Our passion for mission wanes. Even with the resurgence of missional ecclesiology, we fail in sharing and showing the gospel in our own cultures. Clearly, the missional church is not enough, not only in its scope of mission, but also in its motivation for mission. When the motivation of the church is mission, we are destined to retreat, tire out, and fail. What, then, should we do? Throw up our arms in surrender and blend fully into our cultures with the hope of missional memory loss?

We need a greater, more captivating motivation than "missional church." When the motivation for mission is mission, people will revert to consumerism. However, if our missional endeavors are motivated by something greater, more certain, than our oscillating passion for the advance of the gospel, then there is hope. If the history of redemption will not come to a close until God's glory has been completed, then the assurance of mission starts and ends, not with the church, but with God! God's commitment to his own glorious expansion throughout space and time is the hope of the world. The hope of mission is not the church; it is Jesus committed to ushering his full, redemptive reign over all space and time, including every people.

As we bring missional failure and success to the feet of Jesus, we will be increasingly motivated for mission by his mercy and his might. We need to be increasingly captivated by the expanding glory and beauty of Christ among the nations. Missional church is not enough. We need Jesus' insistence on the spread of his redemption throughout history for his glory. We need his commitment to his complete glory breaking into history to complete the display of the riches of his grace.

In order to keep the global in missional, we must linger on God more than mission. We need the very same gospel we seek to advance in order to advance it. We need Jesus to carry us into the depths of God's character, beauty, and excellence where our imagination will be captivated and our affections thrilled. From this place of awe the mission of the church will advance and God's glory will be completed among the nations.

I have often been asked, "How can our church, small group, or family better serve missionaries?" I get lots of churches that ask similar questions. They start with great intentions but have poor follow-through.

Missionaries, obviously, are human; we miss home, we sin, feel neglected, raise our kids poorly, have bad prayer lives, and so on. Just like we did when we weren't missionaries. The hard-to-swallow truth is that we are out of sight and out of mind. Our friends, family, and brothers in Christ don't see us every day, their lives move on without us, and we become forgotten by those who used to care for us and love us.

Most missionaries knew this would happen when we left for the mission field. People don't sign up to be missionaries for the fame, glory, and additional friends. It is no surprise, but I am shocked at how much it hurts me. I am surprised how much it hurts to be forgotten.

If I could ask for one thing of a church or small group or a family it would be for them to show some interest in my family and me. Send a small care package of stuff we miss twice a year. Give me a call once every other month. Send my kid an electronic iTunes certificate on her birthday and Christmas so I can be reminded someone other than me cares a little about her. Ask me about my marriage and my spiritual life, because both are probably suffering. Send me an occasional e-mail and tell me you prayed for my family today.

That being said, my family and I would continue to do missions work even if we never heard from another person in the United States. And I know the same goes for all eight missionaries on my mission team. But we want to be loved, and we want to know people are thinking and praying for us. If my team members were reminded that others care and pray for them, they would have strength to endure the hard days.

As leader of a mission team and a former elder in my home church, I would love to see each missionary on my team have at least one church that loves them and shows interest in them. In my four years on the field, half a dozen churches have told me that their church has a new plan to better care for their missionaries. They explain, "I have been assigned to care for your family." And few have followed through. I pray that each missionary serving on the field has one church, or small group, or pastor that shows interest in them, their lives, their faith, and their struggles.

When William Carey volunteered to be a missionary, he implored those who sent him, "Remember that you must hold the rope." Missionaries must go, and senders of missionaries must remember to hold the rope.