Should churches educate their singles on how to use contraception?

Jenell Paris thinks so. In an opinion piece at Christianity Today called “Both Chastity and Contraception: A Sacred Compromise” (responding to this article), she recommends that churches “uphold premarital chastity as the biblical ideal, and encourage and educate unmarried singles about the effective use of contraception.” In other words, we ought to “educate” unmarried singles about contraceptives without “affirming” their use.

The sense of revulsion you feel when reading this imaginary scenario is probably rooted in your God-given, biblically informed, gospel-sanctified idealism regarding the exclusive nature of the marriage bed. And as Christians who believe in the good gift of sexual expression within the beautiful confines of the marriage covenant, we ought to be repulsed by any proposal that cheapens, threatens, or denigrates that ideal.

Telling singles they ought to turn toward Jesus and contraception is an implicit denial that repentance is integral to the Christian life. It’s like Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin some more.“

Working on children’s curriculum has been a big shift for me. Once The Gospel Project expanded to include all age groups, I suddenly found myself wading through reams of paper, editing children’s lessons to make sure they focused attention on Jesus Christ and what He has done.

I may not be experienced yet in developing children’s curriculum, but I am a father. And since my wife and I have the responsibility to disciple our kids, we know the message we want to give them at home as well as the message we want to see reinforced at church.

Children’s Curriculum Today

If you are looking for creative, fun-filled, and family-focused approaches to children’s discipleship curriculum, there are plenty of options available. But we’ve heard from a number of children’s pastors who are dissatisfied with what they’ve seen. Though they appreciate these offerings for their creativity and the way they connect to parents seeking to disciple their children, these leaders are concerned that the primary message we are giving our children is simply that they need to “be good.”

What sometimes gets lost in the journey through Bible stories is the good news of what Christ has done to save the lost. In other words, in focusing on behavior, we may be missing the heart-change brought about by the gospel.Even worse, we condition our kids to think that the Bible is all about them.

The Gospel Project for Kids is an attempt to bring a gospel focus back to children’s curriculum. In walking through the Bible stories chronologically, we want children to discover several truths:

Truth #1 - The Bible tells one big story.

When we take Bible stories out of context to glean moral lessons from them, we can leave kids with the impression that the Bible is much like Aesop’s fables—interesting tales with moral application.

But even though the Bible has moral application and does give us some terrific stories, it actually tells one overarching story. These stories fit together. They tell us the story of our world—where we’ve come from and where we are going.

We believe it’s important that children recognize how these Bible stories are connected.

Truth #2 - The Bible is about God.

Once we recognize that the Bible is telling us a great story, we discover that we are not the main characters. The Bible is first and foremost about God. He is the hero.

These stories provide us with moral application, yes. But before we get to application, we ought to ask, “What does this story tell us about God?” What attributes and characteristics of God are on display in this story? If the Bible’s big story is about God’s bringing about redemption of His fallen world, then what picture of God do we see in the smaller stories?

Truth #3 - The Bible points us to Jesus.

A statement I like to make from time to time (for shock value, I admit!) is “Bible study won’t necessarily change your life.” What I mean is this: Just because you know the Bible doesn’t mean the Word will bear fruit in your life. It is possible to know the Scriptures, read the Scriptures, revere the Scriptures, and study the Scriptures and miss the point entirely. Jesus told the Jewish leaders of the day that even though they had meticulous knowledge of the Old Testament, they had missed the truth that the Old Testament is ultimately about Him.

Whenever we study the stories of the Bible, we need to ask how they point us to Christ. The reason God’s Word changes our life is not because of our personal study but because in the Scriptures we are introduced to Jesus, the Author.

Truth #4 - The Bible calls for obedience that is grounded in the gospel and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, back to moral principles and application. Does the Bible have them? Absolutely. But biblical behavior should not flow from obligation and compulsion.

God cares about our hearts. Our hearts are not changed by the commands of the Law. Our hearts are changed when they overflow with love for the Savior. As we experience the grace of what God has done for us in Christ, our hearts are free to worship and obey.

It’s important that we take care not to give our children commands without showing them how the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, gives them the strength to obey these commands.

Conclusion

The purpose of our Bible study is to know God and make Him known. The Bible unveils Jesus Christ as the focal point of human history. All creation exists by Him, through Him, to Him, and for Him. Our children’s curriculum should exist for Him too. That’s the only kind of Bible study that will change your life.

Today, I’m excited to welcome two friends of mine to the blog for a conversation on the need for multi-ethnic congregations.

Derwin Gray is a defensive back who played safety for five seasons with the Indianapolis Colts and one season with the Carolina Panthers. He now resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is the founding and Lead Pastor of Transformation Church in Indian Land, South Carolina.

Juan Sanchez is pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, and one of the advisory council members and writers for The Gospel Project. 

Trevin Wax: Welcome to the blog, guys. First off, why even have this conversation about multi-ethnic churches? Why is this important?

Juan Sanchez: The glory of God. A few weeks ago, I laid the biblical-theological foundation for multi-ethnic churches over at Ed Stetzer’s blog. In essence, through Christ God is gathering a multi-ethnic assembly that will dwell in His presence for all eternity, under His rule, for His glory and our joy. God is greatly glorified as wise when we witness this multi-ethnic assembly being manifested in local congregations and functioning as one (Eph. 4). So, ultimately, this conversation is about the glory of God in Christ.

Derwin Gray: Absolutely, and the gospel paints a glorious picture of humanity reconciled to God through Jesus and to each other! Jesus said “make disciples of all nations (ethnos),” or different ethnic groups. The gospel demands that if different ethnic groups are around the local church, as missionaries, we should be intentional in reaching them. And the multi-ethnic church displays the “mystery of Christ” and the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:4-6,10-13).

Juan Sanchez: I think this conversation is important for another reason too. Due to various cultural factors, many churches were fairly segregated and remain so to this day. However, the church growth homogeneous unit principle (see Tim Chester’s helpful explanation) seems to have legitimized monoculturalism for the sake of evangelism. (I’m not fully knowledgeable about this history, so feel free to help me if I am missing the mark.) As a result, many churches remain fairly segregated for both cultural and evangelistic reasons.

I think that as our culture and economy have become more global and as international travel has become easier, we are realizing more and more that the body of Christ is diverse but that through Christ we have more in common with our Christian brethren throughout the world than with our unbelieving blood kin. Then we ask ourselves when we return from mission trips, if we have such a unity with brothers from different cultures and ethnicities in another country, why can’t we experience this same unity at home?

Trevin Wax: Do you think the homogeneity principle led to church growth but at the cost of multi-ethnic congregations? 

Derwin Gray: Great question. First, let’s define Dr. Donald McGarvan’s Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP). In essence, HUP teaches that people come to faith faster when people are of the same ethnic and socio-economic background. HUP has worked pragmatically and fits very well in our consumer Christianity context. But it has not nor will it ever produce local churches that reflect the ethnic diversity of what the new heavens and earth will look like. Pastors and leaders, our goal should not be pragmatism but God’s glory.

The HUP has become the standard ministry model of church planting and the church in general. However, in his eBook Should Pastors Reject or Accept the Homogeneous Unit Principle? Mark DeYmaz quotes Dr. McGavran as saying, “There is a danger that congregations…become exclusive, arrogant, and racist. That danger must be resolutely combated.” McGavran saw the danger of HUP when it was not used correctly.

Juan Sanchez: Here in Texas, it is not surprising to see a new cowboy church plant (I don’t think they are in the Acts 29 Network!). The idea, born from a legitimate and genuine desire to reach a group presumably not being reached by traditional churches, is that “cowboys” don’t go to “church” but they need the gospel too. Agreed! In this approach, utilizing the homogeneous unit principle, that like attracts like and provides an easier path for profession of faith in Christ, “cowboys” get together and do church in the “cowboy” way in order to reach “cowboys.” As a church like this grows, I would say that growth occurs at the expense of multi-ethnicity AND multi-culturalism. At the end of the day, I’m left asking, “Is this just evangelical consumerism?”

The solution is not to have “cowboy” churches composed of African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Anglos, etc. Such a church would be more homogeneous than they might realize because they are gathering around “cowboy culture.” The picture I see the gospel presenting is not a “cowboy” church composed of various ethnicities but a “cowboys” and “Indians” church – a church where formerly hostile parties, having nothing previously in common but hate for one another, now worship and share life together. In Ephesians 2, we’re reminded that the gospel brings together two formerly hostile parties and makes them into one new man.

Derwin Gray: I don’t think church size has much to do with the lack of ethnic diversity in local churches in America.  Transformation Church (TC) was planted two years ago. God, in His grace, has grown TC from 178 people to a thriving, dynamic, multi-ethnic, multi-generational congregation of nearly 2000. We’ve seen over 800 commit their lives to Jesus. In our case, we’ve grown large very fast; we attribute our growth to our commitment to biblical theology and missiology, fueled by the gospel. Our target audience is whoever lives within the scope of our local church; therefore, our ministry reflects the diversity of our mission field. TC is 60 percent white and 40 percent other.

Juan Sanchez: On a clarifying note, though the homogeneous unit principle may be applied ethnically – let’s plant a “Black” church, it seems to me that it is applied more culturally within current church planting circles. Whatever “target” group is chosen (i.e., upper middle class, artists, musicians, college students, generation X, Y, Z, etc.), everything is tailored to reach that “target,” and that group becomes the majority culture. So long as one fits into that majority culture (regardless of ethnicity), then they will fit into that group. I wonder if perhaps this is what is happening in some “bigger” churches. They may look different (ethnically diverse) when in fact they are really the same (mono-cultural). In this sense, bigger churches may tend to be as homogeneous as smaller churches but for differing reasons. Reminder – all this is anecdotal; I would love to see the data on this!

Trevin Wax: What do you say to the pastor who has a very homogeneous congregation but wants it to be multi-ethnic? Where do you start? How can one begin moving the church in a direction that more clearly demonstrates the glory of Christ’s lordship over all nations?

Derwin Gray: First, the leaders’ hearts must be seized by the biblical conviction that God wants the local church to be multi-ethnic whenever possible. Multi-ethnic church is not in addition to the gospel, it is a result of the gospel.

As a pastor, I had to work through this for myself in the Scriptures and in prayer. The question that drove me was “What does a first-century church look like in the twenty-first century?” I worked through Acts, particularly Acts 2:42-47, to try and answer this question. The most mind-renewing passage of Scripture for me was Ephesians, specifically chapters 2 and 3. That was life- and ministry-changing. One book that was particularly helpful to me in my biblical study was J. Daniel Hays’ From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. So, for the pastor, that’s where I would say to begin – the study of Scripture and prayer.

Derwin Gray: The next step would be to pray and fast for a leadership team at every level, from pastors to volunteers, to reflect the multi-ethnic diversity of the community in which God has placed you to be a missionary outpost (i.e., local church).

Hopefully, this process will bring everyone on the same page, allowing the leaders to address the congregation’s questions, not just you. This, then, is a direction from the leadership, not just the pastor’s latest “thing.” At this point, as a pastor, I would personally try to get my hands on every book written about multi-ethnic ministry and church to try to understand the practical dynamics involved in implementation. Choose the best and share one or two with your leaders.

Derwin Gray: I also think diversity in worship styles is crucial to developing a healthy, multi-ethnic church. It’s important to create a multi-ethnic ethos in the congregation. How do we do that? As the Lead Pastor, I must continually cast a God-sized, beautiful, compelling vision and teach from the sacred Scriptures that the outworking of the gospel produces a multi-ethnic, mission-shaped church.

Derwin Gray: I’d also recommend learning from leaders who have planted multi-ethnic local churches, such as Ken Hutcherson (Antioch Bible Church), Miles McPherson (The Rock Church), Efrim Smith, Mark DeYmaz (Mosaic). I’d love to help any leader who wants to plant gospel-centered, multi-ethnic, missional churches.

Juan Sanchez: Ultimately, we have to trust the Lord. He is sovereign, and only He can change you, the leaders, and the church. But remember that this is an issue of the heart and a renewed mind, first and foremost. You cannot concoct ethnic and cultural diversity in your church. You can’t announce, “We’re now a multi-ethnic church,” and expect that the next Sunday the crowd is going to be different. You also cannot concoct ethnic and cultural diversity where there is little.

Our call is to preach the gospel to all peoples and make disciples of them. A good question to ask is “How does the makeup of our church reflect the community that the Lord has sovereignly planted us in?” As your community changes, Lord willing, so should the makeup of your congregation if you are reaching those within your community regardless of who they are or where they come from.

After the Gospel Project webcast a few weeks ago, I had a video conversation with Jefferson Bethke (author of the street poem “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”) about student ministry. I thoroughly enjoyed spending some time with Jeff and sensing his contagious passion for Jesus and for people.

Jeff has been speaking to youth groups, high school students and college students for several years now. His advice to student ministers is to preach hard against sin and then preach the beauty of grace. My favorite quote from the video:

Why kids think God isn’t relevant or why they think they don’t need Him is because we’re not making sin big and we’re not making God big. And when you do that [make sin big], the cross is huge. But when you make sin small, then the cross has to be small, and God is automatically small.

Check out the 7-minute video here. If you’d like to sample The Gospel Project for Students for free, join the pilot project here.

A friend and colleague of mine – Marty Duren – is giving away copies of his book The Generous Soul: An Introduction to Missional Giving (see information below). To help him get the word out, I’ve asked him to join me for a conversation about how generosity is connected to the mission of the church.

Marty Duren: Thanks for the invite, Trevin. Many years ago, I was blessed to hear some really solid preaching by a number of evangelists on the biblical attitude toward possessions. Early in our marriage, Sonya and I committed to give from what God had entrusted to us, so over the years, we supported numerous missionaries, ministries, and whatever local church we attended. We really wanted to lay up treasures not on this earth.

During the past few years as the conversation around missional church, missional living, missional Christianity, etc. expanded, it seemed that the direct relationship to possessions was being overlooked, if not completely, then in a big way. If missional has to do with the believer’s partnership in the missio dei, then there is simply no way around the fact that this must impact our relationship to money and possessions.

Trevin Wax: I like the phrase you introduce in the book: “missional giving.” What do you mean by that?

Marty Duren: Missional giving is the idea that our relationship to money and possessions is subordinate to the mission of God, that all money we have under our control is under the control of God. We cannot say that we are on mission with God if our stuff is actively impeding that mission. To be a missional giver is to live in such a way that financial support of kingdom work is a planned priority. The thesis of the book is stated this way:

Marty Duren: Possibly the most important thing to come out of the missional conversation is the truth that all believers are missionaries in their country, culture, and context. This has contributed mightily to our exploration of cross-cultural mission work within our own cities and communities, leading us to embrace cultural distinctives rather than judging them. More and more, Christ’s followers see themselves, accurately, as missionaries.

When missionaries are sent into international contexts, there are expectations, both spoken and unspoken, that their lives will be sacrificial: lesser goods, lesser money, one car, less emphasis on possessions, and smaller houses. One well-known mission agency allows their missionaries to live only in homes up to 1,600 square feet in size. In virtually every instance, if a missionary demanded a U.S. sized home, multiple cars, a large yard, i.e., almost everything we as Americans expect, we would demand they either repent or come back home.

Why do we place expectations on missionaries we send to other countries but do not live according to the same expectations even though we are missionaries sent by God as well? How does the fact that we are in our home culture change the fact that we have the same gospel responsibility to our host culture as someone who travels to a new culture? It does not.

Marty Duren: Anyone raised in America is familiar with the concept of the American dream—the idea that anyone who works hard and is self-sufficient can be successful. Though it has been under some attack in the last 2-3 years, it stands as the concept of each generation doing better than the generation preceding it. The problem for American believers is that “doing better” refers, almost solely, to having more stuff. The American Dream too easily slides into a life of materialism.

This has nowhere been more clearly demonstrated than when the economy became mired in the Great Recession. Out-of-control debt—the result of buying, buying, and more buying—was a curse on followers of Christ as well as those making no claim to salvation. Mortgage foreclosures hit believers and churches alike. Our credit card debt, as a whole, was also enslaving.

It is not just the questionable theology of the prosperity gospel that is the issue or the followers of certain “health and wealth” preachers. It is the blindness to our own idol worship. It is so engrained that we do not see it as sin and are loathe to admit it if confronted. When we get a raise or a bonus, it is rare for the first response to be “I wonder if God has a purpose for this extra money He has sent my way…” Most of the time, the money is gone before it ever hits our checking account: new toys, new trinkets, bigger car, and the like.

Marty Duren: Because money is more tangible and it is easier to trust. When God says, “Wait,” but First National says, “No closing costs!” and MasterCard says, “Priceless!” we often reach for what we can touch rather than waiting for Him who is invisible. Even though God has promised to meet all our needs, our lack of patience leads us to the immediate gratification money provides. There are many ways that mammon is the exact opposite of God: God is power; money provides power. God requires faith; money replaces faith. God teaches patience; money provides immediacy—and so on.

Mammon is an idol that directly affects our lives every single day. Mammon is not like Baal or Molech—stone images to whom some sacrifice is made—instead, it affects virtually every decision we make: clothing, electricity, gasoline, size of house, style of car, vacation destination, sports, and hobbies. Literally, the list could go on and on. Part of what makes mammon so endearing is that it is interactive.

If we are not careful, we will make all of our financial decisions not on the basis of what God would have us do but simply on whether or not we can afford it. At that point, mammon is in control.

Marty Duren: Practical theology, yes. But this is not a book on balancing your budget or getting out of debt. It is not a how-to book. It is a “what is the truth and what does that require” kind of book. It is not an investment book, unless you count investing in the kingdom of God. Dave Ramsey and Ron Blue are safe.

Marty Duren: I would like to say it’s because I’m such a generous person, but that might not be accurate. It is actually two-fold: first, due to shifts in the publishing industry, my publisher is going out of business. Consequently, my book will be out of print until I either get another publisher or decide to self-publish it. Second, I really do believe the content is important enough to put into everyone’s hands, even if I don’t always make money.

To accomplish this, I’m making the book available in serial form on my blog. Each Thursday, beginning tomorrow, March 22, a new chapter will be available to read. It won’t be downloadable, but quotes for reviews or use in teaching will be allowed. It will stay up indefinitely unless an unexpected book deal were to require it to be removed. It will remain available in both the Kindle Store and the iBookstore at very discounted rates.

On Wednesday, LifeWay hosted a number of pastors and bloggers for The Gospel Project Webcast with Matt Chandler, Ed Stetzer, and J.D. Greear. I’m excited about rolling out the videos soon. You can watch the whole webcast here. 

Below are some of the best tweets:

God’s acceptance is what frees us from sin, it’s not God’s reward to us for resisting sin. @jdgreear #thegospelproject

— Joseph Stegall (@josephstegall) March 14, 2012

Bible stories become only kids stories and moralistic tales when we don’t connect them to the gospel. #thegospelproject

— Meredith Teasley (@MeredithTeasley) March 14, 2012

Hey friends #thegospelproject is trending worldwide #2 on twitter. Not incidental.

— Alvin Reid (@alvinreid) March 14, 2012

“We don’t want people on mission out of obligation we want them on mission out of passion” Trevin Wax #thegospelproject

— Marty Blakely (@3BCMarty) March 14, 2012

“A sure sign you understand the Gospel is what you do when you mess up”@MattChandler74 #theGospelProject #Truth

— Ron Edmondson (@RonEdmondson) March 14, 2012

“@samluce: We want to teach our kids so that if you shake them, they throw up Bible. @jdgreear #kidmin and vomit. #thegospelproject“/love it

— Jasmine Waring (@JazzyWaring) March 15, 2012

The point of #thegospelproject is not just to produce learners but also teachers & leaders. @edstetzer

— Philip Nation (@philipnation) March 14, 2012

‘The heart of a “deep” Bible study is the centrality of the Gospel.’ – @trevinwax #TheGospelProject

— benreed (@benreed) March 14, 2012

“I never want to preach a message that would still be true if Jesus hadn’t died on the cross.” @edstetzer #TheGospelProject

— Scott Connelly (@Scottvconnelly) March 15, 2012

students take calculus, biology, etc in school yet we think they cant understand the depths of who God is. #makesnosense #thegospelproject

— Jefferson (@JeffuhsonBethke) March 14, 2012

“@Jonathanakin: You worship your way into sin and have to worship your way out- @jdgreear #thegospelproject”

— Benjamin Bryant (@bendrumsbryant) March 14, 2012

As believers we need to act a little less we’ve arrived and more like God sent us @edstetzer #thegospelproject

— LifeWay Student (@StudentMinistry) March 14, 2012

“We’ve got to go deeper than the demons. ” – @trevinwax on going deeper than just knowing the bible. #thegospelproject

— Michael DiMarco (@dimarco) March 14, 2012

You have to teach morality in the context of the Gospel or people become self-righteous or beaten down – @MattChandler74 #thegospelproject

— Sam Luce (@samluce) March 14, 2012

In studying the bible, many of us “confuse minutia with meat.” – @edstetzer #thegospelproject

— Michael DiMarco (@dimarco) March 14, 2012

The only way we are freed from our desire for sin is a greater desire for Christ through the Gospel #thegospelproject

— David Chambers (@dbc1938studios) March 14, 2012

Photos from yesterday’s #thegospelproject webcast w/ @edstetzer @mattchandler74 @jdgreear @trevinwax – bit.ly/zHXkOD

— LifeWayNews (@LifeWayNews) March 15, 2012

Today I’m excited to welcome to the blog – Matt Papa. Matt is a minister and Christian recording artist based out of Raleigh, North Carolina, where he lives with his wife, Lauren, and two daughters. He serves on staff as a worship leader at The Summit Church in Durham and is currently finishing a masters degree at Southeastern Seminary. For over a decade, Matt has been writing and recording songs that are saturated with God’s Word. To Papa, a song is more than just lyrics and melody – it’s a sermon people will remember. Matt’s latest studio release, This Changes Everything, is a cry to put off empty religion and to embrace the radical call of the risen Christ.

Matt Papa: Yes! I believe we are beginning to see a revival of music with rich content for the church. The two primary places this is happening is within the Christian hip-hop culture (Lecrae, Trip Lee, Shai Linne, etc.) and in the modern worship pastor culture. Worship leaders are beginning to see themselves as worship pastors – caring deeply about song-theology and writing new songs of worship that feed the church. We’ve still got a long way to go, as much of the dominant and persuasive CCM industry is money driven rather than ministry driven, but I believe God is moving, and songs are being written that both perpetuate and memorialize this current season of gospel-renewal. And I say, “Go Jesus.”

Trevin Wax: Guys like you and me can come across somewhat critical of CCM, and sometimes rightly so. But I was recently revisiting some old Steven Curtis Chapman albums and noticed a heavy focus on grace, the gospel, etc. There are bright spots in CCM. What in CCM do you like?

Matt Papa: Some of the artists I like in Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) include Matt Redman, Phil Wickham, Matt Maher, Switchfoot, and Tim Hughes, although some would say (and I would say) these I have listed here aren’t quite “CCM.” They are contemporary artists and they are “doing Christian music,” but “CCM” has taken on a new meaning entirely in my opinion (I will explain in a moment).

The acronym “CCM,” in my opinion, no longer simply means contemporary Christian music. It has come to mean that style of Christian music that is heard on mainstream Christian radio, which can be characterized by words like poppy, chipper, and feminine in a musical sense…and words like shallow, safe, and imbalanced in a lyrical/spiritual/theological sense.

Trevin Wax: I hear you, and I share many of the same concerns. Do you think Christian radio is a lost cause? Is there hope for biblically rich, substantive lyrics on the radio? Or should we be thinking beyond radio anyway, as technology is offering lots of ways to hear music?

Matt Papa: I’ll answer your question in two parts. The first answer is regarding philosophy, and the second, strategy.

I think as Christians we must always live in the tension of knowing that the gospel will never be “popular” and yet always hoping that it will be. Jesus said the world would hate us, but Paul also said that we are to be all things to all people (i.e., be winsome). I think as Christians we have to hold to the truth that as long as we are living, there is no area of this world that is a “lost cause” because Jesus is alive and is strong enough to redeem anything and anyone. That said, I absolutely do think there is hope for Christian radio…and want to fight for that and pray for that. As it is underneath God’s sovereignty (like everything else), I should not be surprised if God moves and people repent and things begin to change…but as it is an element of “popular” culture, I should also not be surprised when the gospel is not explicit and Jesus is misrepresented. The Jesus of the Bible is not “popular.”

With respect to the second part of your question…should we be thinking beyond radio. I’ll answer that question with another question: Should movie-makers forget about the movie theatre since everyone is watching movies on their computers via Netflix and Hulu? I would say no. People may be going to the theatre less and less, but that’s where a movie gets major awareness and momentum. The metaphor may not be perfect, but it’s almost perfect.

Trevin Wax: So what’s the takeaway for those of us who are not involved in the music side of things? How can we encourage artists and musicians to compose great songs for the church? And how might we play a part in extending the influence of those artists and musicians into radio for increased exposure? We want to encourage and support musicians (like yourself) who are doing great work. Tell us how.

I’ll be doing a blog post on this topic in the days to come, but my short answer, at the risk of sounding vain and biased, is buy their music.

Artists/musicians, historically, have been modest, hard-working, blue-collar people who were mostly supported by patrons. In the middle ages, baroque, classical, and romantic periods, composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn (many of whom were worship leaders in churches) were financially supported by wealthy landowners or people of royalty. Patrons would give these composers financial support so that they could write music and do what they were called to do. Creating good art takes time. (On a side note: J. S. Bach, who had patron support, had 20 children and was a worship leader in 4 churches simultaneously!)

All that said, when you add Jesus and ministry to this mix, it can become extremely difficult to make ends meet. Art is already often pushed to the fringes of society in its importance, but when you add Jesus and the gospel, your possible “fan-base” immediately decreases by 70 percent because the gospel is by nature offensive.

For the church: the power of “song” is hard to exaggerate. Someone has said, “Let me make a nation’s (popular) songs, and I care not who make their laws.” Luther counted hymnody just under preaching in terms of theological formation. I say it this way: A song is a sermon people remember. People forget a sermon in a couple of weeks. They remember a song forever. That means if we as worship leaders and Christian artists are leading people astray with our lyrics, I believe we’ve got a lot of heavy millstones waiting for us. Songs and art have power, permanence, and influence, especially in the realm of theology. And it probably goes without saying but that which influences theology influences everything. ”What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us” - A. W. Tozer.

For the artist: I think it will forever be a struggle for those in ministry – whose “market” is the church – to discern whether God is using them or they are using God. Pray for us Christian artists that we would be servants, not rock-stars. That we would be ministers, not icons. That we would wash feet. That it would become our ambition to build the kingdom of God, and that God would bless us to the extent that we embrace His mission in the world and not our own. Pray for us that we would become increasingly biblical…unafraid to say things that should be said…unafraid to sing things that should be sung. And pray that we would be focused…we will have all eternity to write music…we must win souls.

I came across an article recently in The Wall Street Journal titled “What’s Wrong With the Teenage Mind?” It explores the cultural changes leading to a contemporary vision of “adolescence.” Of particular interest to me was the role of “apprenticeship” throughout history.

In gatherer-hunter and farming societies, childhood education involves formal and informal apprenticeship. Children have lots of chances to practice the skills that they need to accomplish their goals as adults, and so to become expert planners and actors. The cultural psychologist Barbara Rogoff studied this kind of informal education in a Guatemalan Indian society, where she found that apprenticeship allowed even young children to become adept at difficult and dangerous tasks like using a machete.

In the past, to become a good gatherer or hunter, cook or caregiver, you would actually practice gathering, hunting, cooking and taking care of children all through middle childhood and early adolescence—tuning up just the prefrontal wiring you’d need as an adult.

The article then pointed out the loss of this way of learning and its impact on society today:

Contemporary children have very little experience with the kinds of tasks that they’ll have to perform as grown-ups. Children have increasingly little chance to practice even basic skills like cooking and caregiving. Contemporary adolescents and pre-adolescents often don’t do much of anything except go to school. Even the paper route and the baby-sitting job have largely disappeared…

Of course, the author is not making the case that children today are less knowledgeable than children in previous generations. The results appear to be just the opposite. Still…

There are different ways of being smart. Knowing physics and chemistry is no help with a soufflé. Wide-ranging, flexible and broad learning, the kind we encourage in high-school and college, may actually be in tension with the ability to develop finely-honed, controlled, focused expertise in a particular skill, the kind of learning that once routinely took place in human societies. For most of our history, children have started their internships when they were seven, not 27.

The author concludes by pleading for the return of apprenticeship as a way of helping teenagers move forward into adulthood.

Instead of simply giving adolescents more and more school experiences—those extra hours of after-school classes and homework—we could try to arrange more opportunities for apprenticeship. AmeriCorps, the federal community-service program for youth, is an excellent example, since it provides both challenging real-life experiences and a degree of protection and supervision.

“Take your child to work” could become a routine practice rather than a single-day annual event, and college students could spend more time watching and helping scientists and scholars at work rather than just listening to their lectures. Summer enrichment activities like camp and travel, now so common for children whose parents have means, might be usefully alternated with summer jobs, with real responsibilities.

Evangelicals are talking a lot today about prolonged adolescence and the problems caused by this new phenomenon. I wonder, though, if the need for apprenticeship goes beyond application to teenagers and speaks to the very nature of discipleship in general.

If knowledge and learning in biblical times took place primarily through the role of teacher and apprentice, then perhaps when the New Testament authors place such a strong priority on teaching, they are not thinking merely in terms of lectures and sermons. Perhaps their vision of teaching also includes the idea of apprenticeship. If so, how should this affect our view of discipleship today?

I’m open to ideas. More on this tomorrow…

James MacDonald’s Elephant Room conference has stirred up celebration and consternation among evangelicals – and no wonder! MacDonald envisions a place where pastors and church leaders can bring private disagreements into the public eye, where leaders with varying theological viewpoints and ministry philosophies can come together and hash out their differences in light of the Scriptures. No easy feat.

I have decided to attend the upcoming Elephant Room conference on January 25, 2012, and then blog about the event. I will explain my reasons for accepting the invitation in a post tomorrow. But before considering the upcoming conference, I think it would be good to offer a few reflections about the first Elephant Room meeting. The conference took place on March 31, 2011, and featured eight conversations between seven pastors. (I collected some blog notes from each session here as well as various clips at the Elephant Room website and here.)

Debates and discussions have long had a place in the evangelical conversation, but the Elephant Room is different. Why? Because it captures so well the ethos of contemporary evangelicalism – for good and for ill. Here’s what I mean…

1. Evangelicals continue to affirm that the Scriptures are authoritative for church life and practice.

One of David Bebbington’s four characteristics of the evangelical movement is that we have a high regard for the authority of Scripture. This means that evangelicals seek to apply the authority of Scripture to all areas of church life and practice.

In the first Elephant Room, everyone at the table was united by the belief that when it comes to ministry practice, what the Bible says is most important. This is why, at the end of the day, evangelicals are unique in having these types of discussions. Many church leaders would shrug their shoulders at this event, having already dismissed the absolute authority of Scripture for all aspects of church life. Fundamentalists would avoid these conversations because their understanding of Scriptural authority would preclude them from associating with those who interpret the Scriptures in ways that lead to, in their view, aberrant ministry practices. The Elephant Room debates, however, make no sense apart from the underlying assumption that the Bible is the supreme authority for what we believe and what we practice.

You may be thinking, If evangelicals can and do have these discussions, what is unique about the Elephant Room? The simple answer is the face-to-face interaction. Whereas the leaders of different tribes within evangelicalism tend to talk at one another, it is rare to see leaders sitting down to talk and listen to one another. That brings us to the second snapshot.

2. Evangelicalism is not a tribe but a reservation where many tribes live.

A key assumption of the first Elephant Room is that tribalism is inevitable but not totally justifiable. In other words, it is normal for evangelicals to divide up into networks and tribes but unhealthy for our divisions to solidify to the point we no longer recognize other brothers and sisters who live on the same reservation (i.e., in agreement with the supreme authority of Scripture).

MacDonald uses the image of a family, a loud and opinionated group of people whose fierce arguments with one another are matched only by their fierce love and loyalty to one another. MacDonald believes that robust debate is healthy for brothers. Of course, the emphasis on brotherhood was the main reason why the upcoming Elephant Room became so controversial: MacDonald invited T. D. Jakes, a pastor who was raised as part of a denomination that denies the Trinity. I’ll address the Jakes issue tomorrow.

But for now, let me say in regard to the first Elephant Room that I appreciate James MacDonald’s willingness to host conversations with brothers who do things differently than he does. Contrary to what many think, the ability to sit down with believers from “outside your tribe” is not a sign of theological wobbliness but of steadfast conviction. It means you are firm enough in what you believe to be able to listen charitably to other points of view, even if you choose not to adopt those viewpoints.

3. Evangelical identity is contested, which leads to questions of association.

As a movement, evangelicalism is fragmenting. The notion of evangelical identity is contested and debated in books, blogs, and conferences. Many hope for a renewal of evangelicalism but disagree as to how to bring about that renewal.

1. One approach to renewing evangelical identity is that we embrace the diversity of theological options as part of the definition of being evangelical. This is the direction that leaders like Roger Olson would take us.
2. A second approach seeks to reclaim the center of evangelicalism (the gospel) by maintaining adherence to a core of theological convictions. The Gospel Coalition would be an example of “reclaiming the center.”
3. A third approach is to take prominent evangelical pastors with different philosophies of ministry and bring them together for conversation about their different methodologies. I place the Elephant Room in this category (and perhaps Catalyst and the Willow Creek Leadership Summit).

The Elephant Room approach differs from the first because it does not revel in diversity as being good in and of itself. Instead, the whole tenor of the discussion is that diversity should not be celebrated but challenged in light of the Scriptures.

This approach differs from the second by significantly broadening the core of what theological convictions and ministry practices must be held in common. Whereas the second approach takes pastoral associations very seriously, the third approach is less concerned with confessional identity and chooses instead to bring together pastors on the basis of a common commitment to the authority of the Bible, regardless of their methodological decisions.

What makes the Elephant Room interesting is that James MacDonald and other participants are official members of an organization that takes the “reclaim the center” confessional approach, even though the Elephant Room intends to influence a much wider swath of evangelicals. (This becomes even more clear when we consider the invitations for Elephant Room 2.) What does this mean? Put simply, options 1-3 are not necessarily incompatible options for renewal (though it’s rare to find people who agree with both 1 and 2). Participation in any of the three does not necessarily preclude participation in the others.

4. Evangelicals continue to unite around big personalities.

The proto-evangelicals of the Reformation and the Great Awakenings were attracted to big personalities. Just think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, and Spurgeon. The development of contemporary evangelicalism took place around key leaders like Billy Graham. Today, the Elephant Room reinforces the evangelical fascination with “big personality” preachers and teachers.

It’s interesting to note that one of the commonalities that united the pastors who participated in the first Elephant Room was that they all lead beyond their local churches. Each of them wields influence in movements that transcend their church contexts. Perhaps much of the camaraderie of the Elephant Room is based not in theological likemindedness but in a sort of “brotherhood of the trenches” – the ability to relate to one another and show the scars of being in leadership.

Have you ever noticed how former presidents (generally) refrain from attacking their successors and how presidents with radically different political views can be on such good terms once they are out of office? There is a bond among former presidents, perhaps because each of them knows firsthand the stress of being president. I wonder if the pastors who participate in the Elephant Room have a similar bond. They know what it is like to be shot at from all sides. (As an example, watch the reaction when Perry Noble mentions “internet bloggers,” and you see how quickly everyone is on the same page!)

The downside to this emphasis on big personalities was that the debates often steered toward entertaining conversation rather than substantive discussion. For example, David Platt laid out a view of money and possessions that James MacDonald affirmed. But then the conversation quickly turned to the soundbite issue of “giving kids goldfish crackers in church.” No longer was the conversation about the substance of Platt’s view but a caricature of his position. (My frustration with that segment led to this blog post.)

The same thing took place with the discussion on culture in the church. Driscoll and Noble were set opposite one another when it was clear that both are more alike than different on the issue of culture. And so the soundbite issue of using “Highway to Hell” in worship – an issue that illustrates the difference between ministry philosophies – took over the conversation.

5. Evangelicalism’s lack of ecclesiology leads to a divorce between theology and methodology.

When I watched the Elephant Room with church leaders, I was sharpened by the terrific conversations that followed. The videos were a springboard into discussions that pushed us to consider, in light of the Scriptures, why we do things the way we do them. What is the ministry philosophy that undergirds our methods?

The Elephant Room also made it harder to easily dismiss pastors who do not belong to our particular tribe. While no one changed their mind regarding ministry philosophy, everyone went away with new insight into the motivation behind the other approaches, even if they ultimately disagreed with those pastors’ choices. The Elephant Room took away some of our easy targets.

Watching the Elephant Room with laypeople was another experience entirely. Whereas church leaders took these debates as a springboard for robust conversation about ministry practice, church laypeople tended to relativize the discussion and see all methods as essentially equal, just different. I noticed that among laypeople, the Elephant Room discussions wound up legitimizing all the ministry philosophies represented, to the point that it didn’t matter what the choices were as long as the pastor’s heart was in the right place.

Frankly, I was surprised by this reaction to the Elephant Room, since the whole tenor of the discussion seemed to be these differences matter! So, I think the Elephant Room exposes a glaring weakness of evangelicalism in general, that our lack of ecclesiology leaves the door open for a total divorce between theology and ministry methodology. Instead of tracing the different methodologies back to the theology that gives rise to such distinctions, the Elephant Room makes it seem as if the theological core is sound and that the big issues relate to practice.

But if theology influences everything a church does, then there must be a stronger connection between theology and practice, between ecclesiology and ministry. It’s not that David Platt and Perry Noble disagree on practice alone; their theological convictions are what lead to differences in practice.

Conclusion

Too many times, when we disagree with a pastor’s actions, we judge his motives. We assume that brothers operating by a different philosophy of ministry must be motivated by numbers, by glory-seeking, or by theological ignorance. And while it is true that all of our hearts contain a mixture of conflicting motives – some pure and others sinful – we should assume the worst about ourselves and the best about our brothers. This is the strength of the Elephant Room. Listening to people from outside our own tribe should give us pause before launching into critique.

At the same time, assuming sincerity of heart and love for Jesus on the part of other church leaders does not mean that different ministry philosophies and methodologies are equally valid. At the end of the day, our faithfulness and service to the Lord will not be examined in light of our devotion to dynamic preacher personalities but by the actions we take in light of God’s revealed Word. Ideas have consequences. Ministry philosophy matters. People get hurt by bad theology and unwise practices.

So yes, theological humility reminds us that we do not have all the answers. But theological conviction reminds us that there is right and wrong, there are choices that are either wise or unwise, and that the Scriptures must guide how we think through these issues.

Tomorrow, I’ll offer a few reasons why I will be attending and blogging about the upcoming Elephant Room conference.

As I recently read through Crossway’s collection of the Letters of Francis Schaeffer, I was struck by how applicable Schaeffer’s insights are today, particularly in regard to evangelical movements, leaders, and doctrine. His counsel deserves to be heeded by those of us in the “gospel-centered” stream of evangelicalism.

With this in mind, I have selected some favorite excerpts from these letters and woven them together creatively. Using Schaeffer’s own words, I am imagining out loud what counsel he might give us today.

What Francis Schaeffer Might Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement Today

1. Make sure your loyalty to Christ supersedes any loyalty you have for the “movement.”

[Brothers and sisters,] I see the need for Christians across the face of the earth who are indeed brothers in Christ, standing on the fundamentals of the faith and separated from unbelief, to come into personal fellowship one with the other to the praise of our Lord. And yet how quickly such a thing can grow into that which is merely cold, formal, and dead. The cry of my heart is that God may have mercy on us.

I increasingly see the dangers involved in organization, and I do think that most of us get the cart before the horse. That is, we organize first and then go forward, rather than growing close to one another through spiritual and personal contacts and then letting whatever organization grow naturally out of that-as the tree puts forth the leaf and then the bud and then the flower as the Lord leads.

I don’t think [that the deeper spiritual walk is] in antithesis to an organization. And yet, I must say that it does seem to me that so often organization becomes a means to an end in itself. So often it takes so much energy to turn over all the machinery that the work never gets finished. And so often we put the machinery in the place of the Holy Spirit, feeling that if we can just get organized enough then the thing is sure to go on and be successful.

Of course, this is all very wrong, and not only wrong but wicked. We must realize that it is only the Holy Spirit who can give the power, and we must realize that the only motivation which pleases our dear Lord is our love for Him. Merely keeping machinery turning, and getting all mixed up in the self-aggrandizement that so often goes with a large organization, completely casts aside this primary motive of love to the Lord and a dependence then on the one source of true Christian power-the Holy Spirit.

The problem is not one of loyalty or lack of loyalty to a “cause” or “movement.” [The problem is that] loyalty to organizations and movements have always tended over time to take the place of loyalty to the person of Christ… We must urge each other not even to give final authority to principles about Christ, but only to the person of Christ.

2. Don’t let your orthodox doctrine be disconnected from a living relationship with the living Christ.

Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go on into a living relationship – and not as ends in themselves.

[Take the Reformation, for example.] The Roman Catholic Church had come to teach the wrong doctrines. And I feel that most of the Reformation then let the pendulum swing and thought if only the right doctrines were taught that all would be automatically well. Thus, to a large extent, the Reformation concentrated almost exclusively on the “teaching ministry of the Church.”

In other words almost all the emphasis was placed on teaching the right doctrines. In this I feel the fatal error had already been made. It is not for a moment that we can begin to get anywhere until the right doctrines are taught. But the right doctrines mentally assented to are not an end in themselves, but should only be the vestibule to a personal and loving communion with God.

The danger of orthodoxy, even true orthodoxy, is in falling off the other side of the knife blade: that is, in stating the intellectual position and then placing a period. What we must ask the Lord for is a work of the Spirit . . . to stand on a very thin line: in other words, to state intellectually (as well as understand, though not completely) the intellectual reality of that which God is and what God has revealed in the objectively inspired Bible; and then to live moment by moment in the reality of a restored relationship with the God who is there, and to act in faith upon what we believe in our daily lives.

3. Live in a way that demonstrates the holiness and love of God.

We must exhibit simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Anything else than this simultaneous exhibition presents a caricature of our God to the world rather than showing him forth.

We are in a day when evangelicals tend to let down the absolutes in the Word of God in doctrine and in life, and we must be careful not to contribute to this. On the other hand, we are in a day when other evangelicals are becoming more and more heartless, and we must be careful not to contribute to this as well.

The problem is in being those who insist upon the absolutes of God and yet show forth beauty to the world, which is strangling for the need of both absolutes and beauty. These things are beyond us in our own strength, but not in His strength as we allow Him to bring forth His fruits through us in this sinful and ugly world and generation.

May the Lord lead you that you not deny His existence through lack of faith, nor deny His character in either His holiness or His love.

4. Rely on the Spirit as you grow in your love for God.

[Remember that] the decisions of a growing work demand that the One who directs be constantly at hand.

It brings me increasingly to my knees – to ask that the Holy Spirit may have His way in my life; that I may not think just of justification and then the glories of Heaven (with merely a battle for separation between). [But that I may also think of] all the wonders of the present aspect of my salvation, and that they may be real to me in my life and ministry.

What a wonderful Lord we have, and how glorious it is to indeed have God as our Father, and to be united with Christ, and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Oh, would to God that our ministry could be under His full direction, and in His power without reservation.

God really is there. He really does exist, and He made us for Himself. Knowing that He is there, and therefore that we do not live in a silent universe, changes everything. To know that we can speak and that there is Someone who will answer fills the vacuum of life that would otherwise be present. And then, when we realize His love for us as individuals – that Christ really did die for us as individuals, for us personally – life is entirely different.

You need not be afraid to enjoy God. The beautiful thing is that He uses us, but never in the way a soldier would use a gun only to throw it down and take another. He uses us, but He always fulfills us at the same time.