Monthly Archives: May 2008

 

May

31

2008

Trevin Wax|4:06 am CT

Leading a Romanian Teen to Christ

I wrote earlier about the mission team that came to Romania from my home church in January 2001. Hosting 40+ Americans in my own territory was a blessing, but also burdensome, not because of the American team, but because of my struggles with the language. Things weren’t working out. I felt stretched to the max as I tried to help my home church accomplish their mission work in the Romanian villages. But many good things were also taking place.

By far the most important event of the week for my long-term ministry in Romania was a conversation my brother and I had with one of the teenagers in my home village. Valentin was one of the teenagers who had been coming to our services for a while now. He was actively participating in our youth meetings. His dad had just gotten baptized the summer before, and his mom and sister were already believers.

One thing kept Valentin from becoming a Christian: he didn’t think he could give up everything from his old lifestyle. He told my brother and me one that he could give up the parties and drinking and all that went along with that lifestyle. But he didn’t think he could give up a certain vice that had a grip on him.

Valentin was afraid that if he decided to live for Christ and then went back to even just that part of his old lifestyle, he would make his family, his church, and the Lord ashamed. So, he told us that he would try to rid himself of the vice first, and then decide to become a Christian.

I told Valentin that day that I didn’t think he could give up the sin. A strange expression flashed across his face. He had expected some encouragement or some words of advice that would help him make his decision. Perhaps he had expected me to say, “You have to give it up! It’s not God’s will for your life.” But I didn’t say any of those things. I agreed with Valentin that he would probably never be able to escape the clutches of the sin that held him captive… by himself.

I shocked Valentin by agreeing with his assessment in order to change his mindset, a typical Romanian perspective, that sees works as preceding faith. You have to do this or stop doing that before you can trust Christ for salvation. I wanted Valentin to understand that this was the wrong way to think. You can’t do good and you can’t stop doing bad until you have trusted Christ. God takes the first step towards us; not vice versa. In order to be a Christian, you don’t work your way to a decision. You merely say “yes” to the transformation that God wants to bring in your life.

There was no doubt that Valentin wanted his life to be changed. He wanted to be saved. He wanted to be baptized. Even then, it was clear. But he was held back by the gnawing sense of unworthiness and helplessness. I tried to get Valentin to understand that the unworthiness and helplessness that he was feeling was precisely the sign that God was doing a work in his life! He had to understand his state before God as helpless, sinful and unworthy – and in the brokenness that came from that, begin to experience God’s healing.

Valentin later told me that our conversation that day radically changed the way he looked at salvation. Instead of looking at salvation as something to attain by “doing something,” he saw salvation as something God “has done” and that our “doing something” follows salvation. The next evening, at the evangelistic service my church held in the village, Valentin trusted Christ. He was baptized that summer, and he entered Emanuel University as a Theology student a year later. Over the years, he became one of my most trusted friends and co-workers, often helping me lead worship and preach in other churches. God did do a mighty work, but it only came after Valentin entrusted his life into God’s hands.

The week of that mission trip, even though there were times of frustration and doubt, God still worked! I sometimes feel like from an organizational standpoint, He worked in spite of us rather than through us. Some of the details turned out to be disastrous during this trip. But God still moved in a mighty way. And for that I was humbled and grateful.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

 
 

May

31

2008

Trevin Wax|3:16 am CT

Costly Forgiveness

“The Cross is not simply a lovely example of sacrificial love. Throwing your life away needlessly is not admirable — it is wrong. Jesus’ death was only a good example if it was more than an example, if it was something absolutely necessary to rescue us. And it was. Why did Jesus have to die in order to forgive us? There was a debt to be paid — God himself paid it. There was a penalty to be born — God himself bore it. Forgiveness is always a form of costly suffering.”

- Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York, NY; Dutton, 2007), 193. HT – Fred Eaton

 
 

May

30

2008

Trevin Wax|3:24 am CT

True Story 5: Conclusions

A Christianity Worth Believing InJames Choung’s True Story seeks to remedy the incompleteness of traditional presentations of the gospel by filling in the central aspects of the biblical Story (kingdom, mission life, church) that we have tended to leave out. Yet as he takes on this worthy challenge, Choung downplays and minimizes other aspects of the biblical teaching on salvation (atonement, personal sin against God, holiness, Law), omissions that ultimately prove detrimental to his gospel presentation.

One aspect that I do like about this presentation is its invitation to nominal Christians (like people in the Bible Belt) to begin to follow Jesus in his mission in the church. Choung’s outline challenges nominal people to repent, join a church and make Jesus Lord of their purpose and mission. Choung teaches that the church is the vanguard of hope for this broken and damaged world, in Christ, who is making all things new in his Kingdom. Those inside and outside the church need this challenge to align their lives with God’s Kingdom.

As we bring this series to a close, I’d like to speak briefly to the reasons why Choung thinks we need new gospel presentations. (Let me state clearly that I appreciate Choung’s initiative in thinking through these issues. We do need to rethink how we share the gospel. I do not, however, think we need a new gospel.)

Here’s what Choung believes is wrong with the traditional presentations. First, they may cause us to have judgmental attitudes (18). After all, if everything is about who’s in and who’s out, it can cause Christians to be smug and confident in having their eternity all figured out.

Secondly, traditional presentations may lead toward legalism (19). If the emphasis is on God desiring perfection, then we always feel like we’re never measuring up. We can’t make the grade.

Third, traditional presentations fail to address the injustice perpetrated by Christians in the world. Apologetics matter today, especially because people are wondering if Christianity is good for anything. We must address the record of the church, a record that is quite ugly at times.

Choung critiques traditional evangelistic strategies for focusing on formulas that make the soulwinner feel like “an actor in a bad B-movie who still faithfully delivers his lines” (22). Diagrams are then taken as symbols of the gospel itself instead of just a way of presenting the gospel (194) (although ironically, Choung puts forth his own diagram!).

So how does Choung’s presentation correct these deficiencies?

Regarding judgmental attitudes, Choung seeks to present a gospel that doesn’t sound so exclusive (193).

“In a day when the main spiritual question is no longer ‘What is true?’ but ‘What is real?’ or ‘What is good?’, the gospel as most of us have learned it doesn’t sound like good news” (193).

Since the gospel no longer deals with the afterlife, the judgmental exclusivity of Christians is gone.

Regarding legalism, as I mentioned before, Choung never mentions the holiness of God. The idea of a holy God demanding perfection is gone, curing us of legalism. (Ironically, legalism is not cured by lessening the Law’s demands but by seeing the demands satisfied in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Jesus.)

Regarding the issue of Christian injustice, Choung includes social action as part of the gospel itself (27). So the question of Christians doing good in the world comes into the very heart of the gospel message in order to answer the charge that Christians have often done wrong in the name of Jesus.

Choung advocates we return to an emphasis on the community of faith. I agree with him here. Most gospel presentations have been so individualistic as to leave little room for the Church. But Choung’s reason for adding the emphasis on community puzzles me:

“A gospel that highlights community in a culture that longs for intimacy and friendship will feel more relevant to today’s culture” (198).

This statement begs the question: Are we highlighting community because of its relevance or because it is true and is part of the biblical witness? I hopefully assume that Choung’s answer would be, “Because the biblical gospel includes the coming together of Jew and Gentile since Jesus is Lord of all (Ephesians 2).” But it seems to me (at least from the context of his statement) that Choung is taking his cue from what the culture thinks is relevant, and then shaping the gospel to fit the cultural demands.

Another revealing statement comes from a Thai woman who has heard Choung’s presentation of the gospel and expresses her approval. She then says, “I don’t have to make my friends feel like sinners to share the gospel with them” (221). I do not want to misrepresent James Choung or his motivations, and I believe he is truly passionate about seeing people come to faith in Christ. But I cannot help but wonder if, in the end, the entire True Story project has the unintentional effect of removing the offense of the gospel.

If the outcome of our gospel presentation allows listeners to avoid the issue of personal sin, then we have completely missed the boat. The gospel answers more than the problem of individual sin, yes. But it never answers less. And to excise the offensive nature of our sinfulness and God’s holiness from the gospel is to remove the stumbling block. At this point, we are not being more faithful to Scripture, but less.

James Choung’s True Story helpfully points out some of the deficiencies of our gospel presentations. We would do well to incorporate many of his insights into our presentation of the gospel. But True Story fails, not in what Choung adds, but in what he takes away. At the end of the day, I believe the traditional presentations (for all their flaws) are actually more complete than the gospel of True Story.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

 
 

May

30

2008

Trevin Wax|2:57 am CT

In the Blogosphere

Joe Carter has some excellent thoughts on the forgotten vice of gluttony.

Justin Taylor interviews Darrell Bock about his book, Dethroning Jesus.

C.J. Mahaney with some excellent exhortation to fathers on setting the right example on family vacation.

R.C. Sproul has changed his mind. He’s now a six-day Creationist.

Robbie Sagers on how to avoid gossip.

Living in an age of distraction.

Michael Spencer reflects on how God is Jesus.

Tullian on Kingdom Citizenship

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Maria Chapman Memorial Service

 
 

May

29

2008

Trevin Wax|3:11 am CT

True Story 4: The Truncated Cross

As we continue our journey through James Choung’s new book, True Story, we turn to the question of the cross and resurrection. How do the two main events of Christianity fit into Choung’s gospel presentation?

We saw yesterday that Choung leaves out the biblical emphasis on God’s holiness and his righteous Law. Once we eliminate these two aspects of the biblical teaching about God, we are left with a truncated view of Jesus’ death on the cross.

Here is how Choung describes Jesus’ life and death:

“Jesus started his resistance movement to restore the world for better. But he had to do it a certain way. Instead of violent overthrow and killing others, he let his enemies kill him. If this world was diseased by evil and sin, then Jesus went right into the center of it and took it all onto himself. He died brutally. And in death he invited us to put to death the evil in us. All evil and its consequences died with Jesus on the cross. The Bible says we die with Jesus.” (147)

Later, Choung says that “Jesus gets infected and dies on the cross” (211).

Notice that Jesus’ death does not accomplish anything for us; it merely provides us with an invitation to come and die with him. Consider the following statement:

“Everything bent and wrong with us dies with him. That’s what the Bible calls our old selves. But everything that’s right comes back to life in him, our new selves.” (134).

Is Choung saying that there is something inherently good in us that comes back to life? Is he saying that in Jesus’ death only our sins are taken care of? What about the righteous status we need in order to gain access to a holy God? Without a picture of God’s holiness and the demands of God’s Law, these aspects are left undefined.

I agree with Choung that “the work of the cross is way too big to be explained by one theory” (134). I have often written about the danger in reducing the atonement to one particular theory instead of seeing the cross in all of its biblical brilliance. But there is a difference between saying that we need several atonement theories in order to capture the whole biblical teaching (my view) and saying we should dispense with all the theories because none of them are accurate (which appears to be Choung’s view).

Choung never advises us to ditch all the atonement theories. But he implies that we should go in this direction since he does not put forth any atonement theory at all. He repeats the tired caricature of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse” (51). But instead of correcting the misperception, he abandons that theory altogether and says, “By calling that story the central one, [evangelicals] missed the bigger picture, the truer picture – quite possibly the core of our faith” (51).

The atonement theories are not merely historical inventions! They have basis in the biblical text. And history does not back up Choung’s bold statement about the ransom theory being the earliest (134).

Choung critiques evangelicals for only clinging to one atonement theory at the expense of the others and creating an incomplete picture of the cross. I critique Choung for relativizing all the theories to the point that our only choice is to abandon them all, creating an even more incomplete picture of the cross.

Once the atonement theories disappear, we are left with the vague description of Jesus being “infected” so that we could die to our evil and have our goodness rise again. This weak description leads to the embrace of something akin to Catholicism’s “infusion of grace” instead of imputation of righteousness. “[Jesus] injects us with immunity to inoculate us from sin and evil” (148). “We are being invited into Jesus’ death and resurrection so we can die to our evil selves and live a new life – forgiven and loved. He’s our teacher and we follow his ways.”

So with God’s holiness, his wrath, his Law, and his righteousness absent from the picture, Choung’s presentation still leaves us wondering why Jesus had to die. He is clear on why Jesus died (to invite us to die with him and rise to new life). But he is unclear as to why Jesus had to die. Why do we need Step 3 in Choung’s presentation? Why can’t we go directly from the Fall to the Mission Life. Choung says:

“We need to be transformed so we can take evil full on and not be corrupted by it. We need to go through Jesus…” (170)

Jesus is our power for overcoming sin. But the question still remains: why did he have to die? Why couldn’t the Holy Spirit empower people apart from the cross? Was Jesus’ death the climax of his life, the moment his entire life was pointing to? Or was it something that just happened as he “got infected?”

Ultimately, Jesus is seen as a moral teacher. When you excise his substitutionary death from the picture, you’re left with a man who “started to teach people the way we all should live” (120). “Jesus became one of us to teach us – to show us in word and deed how to truly live… He was a master teacher” (124).

So with Jesus as a moral teacher, Christianity is reduced to “a new way of living, a new way of relating and a new way of organizing” (144). And salvation is not God rescuing us from our sin, but God helping us change our lives. “We need a cure to help us become the people we truly want to be” (107). This sentence leaves me wondering: What do we truly want to be? Without the emphasis on God’s holiness, we are left with a vague description on who we want to be, not who God wants us to be.

When Choung leads someone to the “What next?” stage of presenting the gospel, he says:

“First start to trust Jesus with your life… Admit that we have contributed to the evil on the planet and that we need forgiveness. Receive Jesus’ forgiveness and invite the Holy Spirit into your life. Then, join a community of people who are trying to follow Jesus and bring this new nation into reality.” (178)

Is it just me or does this not seem strikingly similar to the presentations we have grown up with? For all of Choung’s critique of current evangelistic strategies, when it comes to the What do I do? part, he sounds very much like the evangelists he critiques.

I hope this post has helped to point out some of the missing aspects of Choung’s gospel presentation. Though I found much to be commended in Choung’s book, I cannot help but conclude that this gospel is actually less complete and captures less fully the message of the gospel than do many of the traditional presentations he rejects.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at some of the reasons Choung has for writing this book.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

 
 

May

28

2008

Trevin Wax|3:42 am CT

True Story 3: Sin, Punishment, and the Long-Lost Law

Yesterday’s lengthy post detailing all the helpful contributions to evangelism from James Choung’s True Story might leave some wondering if there is anything left to say. I commend Choung for much of what he has added to his presentation of the gospel, but I am distressed over what he has omitted in the process. Today and tomorrow, I will address some of the troubling aspects of the book.

First off, in order to make his case for the necessity of a new gospel presentation, Choung creates a caricature of contemporary strategies. He sets up a straw man evangelist who would say something like: “No lives needed to change… Believe in your mind; confess with your lips; accept the truth in your heart – and Jesus would make sure you got into heaven. Such a faith had nothing to do with life here and now but only the life to come” (33). Does such an evangelist exist?

Choung’s “Caleb” wonders if the entire Christian church has been “duped” (51). The current strategies are portrayed as virtually worthless, incomplete, and formulaic. But isn’t Choung advocating a strategy as well? For all of the book’s resistance toward formulas and strategic gospel presentations, it seems ironic to be introduced to a new strategy for presenting the gospel. I agree that the previous gospel presentations are incomplete. But Choung has not yet proven that his own presentation is necessarily better.

Many of our gospel presentations have indeed emphasized the afterlife to the exclusion of the mission life. We need to balance these two aspects. But in Choung’s presentation, the afterlife practically disappears. Hell is completely absent from the picture.

Choung anticipates this objection: “I’m not saying that afterlife isn’t important” (196). Indeed. But why never mention it? Choung avoids the talk about the afterlife because the gospel needs to be made “more relevant” (197).

“The gospel needs to sound like the good news it really is instead of a static message concerned only with the afterlife and thus divorced from everyday realities” (202).

I suppose if a plague were sweeping across our nation, killing hundreds of thousands of people and we were all faced with immediate death, the afterlife question would suddenly become relevant again. Would it then be appropriate to shift back from the emphasis on “mission life” to “afterlife” questions?

But let’s leave aside the absence of heaven and hell from Choung’s presentation. Let’s look closely at what Choung affirms about sin. For Choung, sin is not primarily an offense against a personal, holy God. The essence of sin is selfishness, not rebellion (78-99), a view that closely resembles Horace Bushnell and Friedrich Schleiermacher, forerunners of last century’s liberalism.

To be fair, Choung does not deny that sin is also against God. At one point he potently describes our sin as giving the Designer “the big middle finger” (108). But sin is not primarily against God, as is clear from Choung’s emphasis on what sin does to us.

Idolatry does come into the picture, but our sinful idolatry is ultimately about our damaging ourselves and others because of selfishness (91). Sin is not primarily against God, but against ourselves and against creation. Perhaps that is why Choung places more emphasis on ecological destructiveness of our sins against creation than he does on God’s holiness or glory (74-75, 108). Equally telling, more space is given to humanity’s sins against women than against God himself (96).

How does evil manifest itself? In judging others and oppressing people (85). Humans are given free will to choose to be a blessing or to choose evil and be a curse. Notice the subtle shift. Our sinful choices are not seen as bringing the curse of God against us, but as bringing our own curse against others.

Where does our sinful nature come into play?

“A sinful nature – like damage or disease, a general leaning in our spirit that makes it easier for us to damage all things in the planet, our relationships and our own center of being: our souls” (92).

Again – no God, no personal offense. Sin results in cursing ourselves, not in coming under the just judgment of God.

It follows, then, that the punishment for sin must also be reworked. In Choung’s presentation, punishment for sin is seen as a natural consequence stemming from the damage worked by our own selfish choices. Notice that punishment is not active judgment from a personal God. We are not suffering under God’s curse. We’ve cursed ourselves.

“Since God had designed the world so that everything in it could bless and serve everything else, following our own selfish designs gummed up the works and stalled the engine” (91).

What is God’s response to our sin? Certainly not wrath or anger. “God saw the evil on the planet and his heart broke” (119). Choung is right to see God grieving over the state of our world. Yes, God grieved at the wickedness on earth during the days of Noah. But then what did he do? He sent a flood that would purge the world of wickedness. He displayed his wrath against the world. Choung only presents part of the picture.

The main issue here is that God’s holiness is completely absent from his gospel presentation. Nowhere in the book does Choung mention the holiness of God. Therefore, our problem is that we fear God. When we are rescued, we are changed in how we view God and relate to him (in that we realize we have been foolish to be afraid of him) (210). Nothing necessarily changes in God’s relationship to us.

Because God’s holiness is absent from this book, the Old Testament Law disappears too. For all of Choung’s noble intention of capturing the entire Storyline of Scripture, he skips completely over the Mosaic Law. The Old Testament (after Genesis 11) is gone. So there is no discussion of God’s holy Law and no people of God who have been commissioned to reflect the holiness of God.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at what happens to Choung’s view of the cross once God’s holiness and Law disappear from the picture.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

 
 

May

27

2008

Trevin Wax|9:52 pm CT

Maria Chapman Memorial Service

A moving news video featuring Steven Curtis Chapman and family at the memorial service for their daughter, Maria. We grieve with those who are grieving, and yet we grieve with hope.

HT – Zach Nielsen

 
 

May

27

2008

Trevin Wax|3:35 am CT

True Story 2: What I Liked

There is much to be commended in James Choung’s True Story. Caleb (the young man in the narrative) asks important questions that we would do well to consider.

“What if we don’t have the right gospel? I mean, the complete picture,” he asks his youth pastor. Is the gospel only about being saved from something? What are saved for? (45)

These good questions deserve biblical answers. Choung’s “Caleb” is not the only young person asking these questions, and the pastor in the book is not the only church leader that has so simplified the gospel that he has little to offer in response.

I appreciate the emphasis that Choung places on worldview issues. One of the strong points of True Story is that Choung does not assume that the unsaved have a Christian framework. Whereas previous gospel presentations focused on the Christian message for a nominally religious, loosely Christian society (i.e. “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life), Choung rightly sees that such presentations are no longer as effective when the very identity of “God” is up for grabs!

The emphasis on worldview leads Choung into some good apologetics. When Caleb is conversing with Anna about sinfulness and selfishness, he does so by pointing out the inconsistency of her plea for “justice” in certain areas, while wanting to hold on to a relativistic framework (83). Yet Choung very clearly stresses how important it is for Caleb to remain humble even as he picks apart his friend’s flawed worldview (85).

Choung rightfully insists on the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture. Over and over again, the book’s protagonist goes back to “the sources” (52). When Anna argues against the Bible’s trustworthiness, Choung helpfully responds to the postmodern objection by showing how everything we know about the past is based on trust (53-54).

But Choung does not merely argue for the Bible’s historical trustworthiness; he rightly relies on the Bible’s content. He takes us back to Jesus’ definition of the gospel (124-125). He seeks to recapture the gospel within the framework of the Bible’s meta-narrative (199).

The most helpful aspect of Choung’s new presentation of the gospel is its starting point. Instead of beginning with “something is wrong with you,” Choung begins with the fact that “something is wrong with the world.” (55-56) This truth often served as the opening declaration of many a Billy Graham sermon. C.S. Lewis famously argued that if we sense that something is wrong, it must be true that we were made for something right – a different world, a world of Shalom (58). By beginning with the cosmic picture of a world gone bad, Choung is able to foreshadow the gospel that ends with a world renewed (139).

Choung’s treatment of sin has many problems (which I will address tomorrow), but the one helpful aspect of his proposal is that he sees sin at multiple levels. He avoids the trap of many conservatives, who see sin only at the individual level. And yet he also avoids the trap of liberals who tend to see sin as merely systemic. Choung helpfully navigates through the fundamentalist-liberal impasse by showing how sin manifests itself at multiple levels (106). He also states very clearly that people are slaves to sin (107).

Choung does well to emphasize an inaugurated eschatology – the idea that the Kingdom of God is already present, but not yet in its fullness (130-131). We live in the time between the times, as if we were in the middle of a construction project. The future is assured and has already begun, and yet we are still awaiting its fulfillment (151). Most gospel presentations skip over the kingdom completely. Choung helpfully restores this aspect to his gospel presentation.

Choung defines faith as trust, like walking on someone’s back (136). Faith is not merely head knowledge or mental assent. The gospel includes a call to transformation in the present, in which faith works itself out in a changed life (196). For all his many questions, the protagonist (Caleb) clings desperately to the traditional understanding of the gospel of grace and forgiveness of sins (31).

Choung is also right to point out the missional outlook that accompanies the call to salvation. After all, Jesus gives people a mission right after he calls them (“fishers of men,” for example) (160-162), so that salvation has a decidedly missional direction (198). We are not saved in order to only receive God’s blessing, but in order to spread God’s blessing.

Choung also emphasizes the Church. Christian faith is expressed in community. Accountability and service through the local church is not an option (197). Many gospel presentations fall short at this point. Choung’s doesn’t.

As you can see, Choung’s presentation has many commendable aspects. I hope that readers will incorporate some of the above emphases into their own presentations of the gospel. Choung puts his finger on many of the weak spots in traditional gospel presentations. He is right to seek to capture more fully the biblical portrait, and yet, as we will see tomorrow, I believe his missteps actually make his gospel presentation less complete than the traditional presentations he is critiquing. We’ll take a look at the negative aspects of Choung’s True Story tomorrow.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

 
 

May

27

2008

Trevin Wax|2:54 am CT

Gospel Definitions: Rick McKinley

“Sometimes it seems as though we find two gospels in the New Testament-the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus. The gospel of Jesus is usually taken to mean His announcement of the kingdom and the life He embodied in His loving actions toward the world. The gospel about Jesus refers to his atoning work on the cross and His resurrection, through which we can receieve the forgiveness of sin through our faith and repentance.

“I believe, however, that the two are actually one gospel and that when we lose the tension that comes from holding both together, we experience an unhealthy and unbiblical pendulum swing in our faith.

“If all we value is the salvation gospel, we tend to miss the rest of Christ’s message. Taken out of context of the kingdom, the call to faith in Christ gets reduced to something less than what the New Testament teaches. The reverse is also true: if we value a kingdom gospel at the expense of the liberating message of the Cross and the empty tomb and a call to repentance, we miss a central tenet of kingdom life. Without faith in Jesus, there is no transferring of our lives into the new world of the kingdom.”

- Rick McKinley, This Beautiful Mess 

 
 

May

26

2008

Trevin Wax|8:16 am CT

LifePath Class in Sunday Newspaper

(Photo)

The Sunday School class for 20- and 30- somethings I lead here in Shelbyville was featured on the front page of the local paper on Sunday! Here’s an excerpt:

“Twenty-somethings are searching for truth,” said the Rev. Trevin Wax, associate pastor at First Baptist Church. “They want to know why Christianity is true, why it matters, and whether it’s really good.”

Wax believes that church should be a place where people can ask questions. Since he started his twenty-somethings Life Path Class in February 2007 he’s tried to answer life questions for the folks to which he ministers.

Read the whole article.