Archives - Redeeming God

I used to think that the best way to evangelize was to preach in churches. I figured that most “Christians” were not actually “saved” and so needed to hear the “true gospel” (as preached by me), and once they believed it, they would then become “true believers.”

In other words, I thought that the most fertile soil for evangelism in the United States was among those who were already in churches. I saw the US as a mission field, and churches as the primary location to sew the seeds of the gospel.

As I have developed a missionary mindset, this thinking has changed. While I certainly believe that the US is a mission field, and while I do believe that there are many, many people who go to Christian churches who have not believed in Jesus for eternal life, I have found that the most common result of telling church goers that they might not be saved is a lot of angry church goers.

I think that the average person in the average church, even if they don’t believe in Jesus for eternal life, are not very receptive or open to anything I might be able to tell them. If they don’t believe in Jesus, but they do attend church, they are likely to have a “Pharisaical” mindset, and therefore, it is almost a complete waste of time, money, and energy to pursue them.

The much more fertile soil in the US are those who would never darken the door of any church in the US. They are the ones I am hoping to reach, and who are receptive to talking about Jesus, and His promise of eternal life to those who believe in Him for it. Trying to tell this message to people in churches seems to do very little except split churches.

So who are you talking to about the free offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus? Are they primarily “churched” people? If so, how’s that working out for you? Have you seen any “conversions” recently? How about church splits and angry board meetings? I’d say that if as a result of what you’ve said, you’ve made more people angry than you have seen people come to faith in Jesus, you’re probably sewing seeds on the wrong soil.

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 7)

By Jeremy Myers

True Sacrificial Giving

By Jeremy Myers

2 Comments

Many years ago, I read a biography about a famous Christian inventor who gave away 90% of his income. I remember hearing others speak of his “sacrifice” in awed tones: “Just imagine! Most people only give God 10% and keep 90% for themselves, but this man gave God 90% and only lived on the remaining 10%.” I was duly impressed as well, until I learned that the man earned over $10 million annually…in the 1940’s and 50’s. So while I am truly impressed by his generosity, he nevertheless still lived on $1 million a year…which in today’s economy, would be like making about $10 million. (See tables here.)

Then yesterday I read an article in a leading Christians news magazine about a plastic surgeon who gave up an income of $7-9 million here in the States to go help Ethiopians who have facial birth defects. He is now making $60,000 annually. That truly is quite a praiseworthy sacrifice! However, when you realize that the per capita annual income for an Ethiopian is $700, a $60,000 income in Ethiopia would be like making about $4 million annually here in the States (where per capita income is $46,000).

None of this is to criticize what these men have done or are doing. I do think they both went way above and beyond what the average person would do with their money. However, I think that God judges by a different standard than we do. Personally, I think that the person who is making $25,000 a year here in the states, and is barely able to pay their rent, but nevertheless gives $1000 a year to help others in need, is way more sacrificial than the men and women that get all the worldly praise and recognition.

(Some Christians might say, “Yeah, but $1000 still isn’t 10%. That Christian should be giving $2,500.” To this I graciously say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about. The 10% tithe is an Old Covenant principle used legalistically by some to steal from others so we can build bigger church buildings. And it never was even 10% anyway. It was closer to 30%.” But that’s another blog post…)

Anyway, I think God views giving much differently than we do. Is God pleased when rich people give away (or give up) large sums of money to serve Him? Sure. But I think He is just as pleased (if not more so) when people who don’t have much of anything at all, choose to use some of their money to help others. That, I am convinced, is true sacrificial giving.

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 6)

By Jeremy Myers

Rhizomic Believers

By Jeremy Myers

4 Comments

I had lunch today with several great people: Dr. Carl Raschke, author of The Next Reformation and the soon to be released GloboChrist, Tony Brown, author of the eventually to be released Poseranity, Stephen Hammond, pastor of Mosaic Arlington and co-director of Square1 Church Planting, Carey Gable, pastor of The Vine Community in Paris, TX, Nathan Laughlin, facilitator of the Open Circle Network, and Joe Bryan, NAMB missionary in Bonham, TX.

We came together to talk about Rhizomic Networks. Apparently, this is what Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, authors of The Tangible Kingdom, are doing in Denver with Adullam. A rhizome, from what I gathered, is a type of plant that spontaneously spreads through sending out shoots which then multiplies and sends out more shoots. Potatoes, vines, and St. Augustine grass are rhizomes. From what I gathered, rhizomes spread amazingly fast, are able to adapt to nearly any sort of climate or soil, and it is very difficult for the farmer to get the rhizome to go where he wants it to go. The best thing a farmer can do is figure out where the plant is naturally going, and then nurture it in that direction.

This can be applied to living as followers of Jesus. A rhizomic believer seeks to develop relationships, with no strings attached to that relationship. While the believer may desire to see others believe in Jesus and follow Him, if the friendship doesn’t go that way, we have to be okay with that, and maintain the friendship. Otherwise, it’s not a true friendship. But if we’re patient and observant in such friendships, we may begin to detect where God is at work in our friend’s life. But we can’t try to get ahead of God, or ahead of our friend, but should instead let God and that person initiate when, where, and how spiritual investigation takes place. In this way, discipleship is not something we have a program for, or something we can force on anyone, but is rather a product of God being at work in and through our genuine friendships with other people.

So the catch phrase of a rhizomic approach to friendship and church planting is this: “Where it goes is where it grows.”

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Reading the NT Wright (Part 2)

By Jeremy Myers

5 Comments

Yesterday I introduced a paper by NT Wright called “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” (By the way, this lecture was delivered in 1989 at Dallas Theological Seminary). Today, I want to summarize his conclusions.

After showing that the commonly taught methods of Bible study actually undermined the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Wright argues that since the Bible is a narrative, we must read it as a narrative. And as we read, we must see ourselves as part of the ongoing narrative as well. In other words, our part in the story is to continue the narrative. Our purpose in reading Scripture is to learn what has happened before, so we can continue the story in a similar way, with similar themes.

He likens it to a five-act Shakespearean play in which we are the actors, but we only have scripts for the first four acts. After reading, studying, and acting out the first four acts, learning the themes, plot struture, and knowing what has gone before, we we are to improvise the fifth act.

People who try to go back and do what was done before (like churches to try to return to the “early church days”), are like actors who, when they get to the end of act 4 in they play, rather than start in on improvising act 5, decide that the best thing to do is just repeat act 4.

Wright puts it this way:

…The five acts [are] as follows: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Israel; (4) Jesus. [The book of Acts and the Epistles] would then form the first scene of the fifth act, giving hints as well (Rom 8; 1 Cor 15, parts of the Apocalypse) of how the play is supposed to end. …[This] would of course require sensitivity of a high order to the whole nature of the story and to the ways in which it would be (of course) inappropriate simply to repeat verbatim passages from earlier sections.

Reading the Bible this way does not require extensive training or knowledge of hermeneutical rules or Bible study methods so that the “timeless truths” can be extracted and sytemmatized. Reading the Bible as a story is available for anybody and everybody, and as a way to see what part in the ongoing narrative they can perform.

In this way, Bible reading becomes thrilling, rather than scary and confining, because you are afraid of making a wrong step.

The little boxes in which you put people and keep them under control are called coffins. We read Scripture not in order to avoid life and growth. God forgive us that we have done that in some of our traditions. Nor do we read Scripture in order to avoid thought and action, or to be crushed, or squeezed, or confined into a de-humanizing shape, but in order to die and rise again in our own minds.

So try it! Pick up your Bible, and for now, put away your study notes and guides. Pick it up and read it as a story. Forget that you have read it before and know all the timeless truths that have been extracted from the text. Read it as a story – a story that is ongoing, and in which you play a part. Here is what Wright says in conclusion:

So what am I saying? I am saying that we mustn’t belittle Scripture by bringing the world’s models of authority into it. We must let Scripture be itself, and that is a hard task. Scripture contains many things that I don’t know, and that you don’t know; many things that we are waiting to discover; passages that are lying dormant waiting for us to dig them out. Awaken them.

…We must determine – corporately as well as individually – to become in a true sense, people of the book. …People who are being remade, judged and remolded by the Spirit through Scripture. It seems to me that evangelical tradition has often become a bondage to a sort of lip-service Scripture principle even while debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instead, I suggest that our task is to seize this privilege with both hands, and use it to the glory of God and the redemption of the world.

Reading the NT Wright

By Jeremy Myers

10 Comments

For many months now, I have been developing a new approach to reading and studying the Bible. It’s still in the “theoretical” stage, so I won’t stick my neck out yet by explaining what it is. I’m pretty excited about it though, because it has really helped in my understanding and application of various passages which have troubled me for many years. It drastically simplifies the “rules of Bible study” which few people can grasp and remember. People can get excited about reading Scripture, rather than worried about “reading it wrong.” Furthermore, all the various systems of theology seem to have their own rules for how to understand Scripture, which is not only confusing, but seems to suggest that theologians develop their rules of Bible study based on what they want the Bible to say rather than on some external, literary standard.

In other words, I am developing a Bible reading strategy that truly puts the Bible back into the hands of the people. Despite claims to the contrary, modern seminaries, scholars, and pastors have effectively set themselves up as the gatekeepers of biblical information. If you really want to know what the Bible means, you have to go to them. I think this is terribly wrong, and am working on a way to reverse this trend.

So it was with great excitement and interest that I recently read an by N. T. Wright called “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” I believe Wright is wrong with his “New Perspective on Paul” idea, but I think he is right on target with this and helped confirm some of what I have been thinking about a new (or old) approach to reading the Bible. Here are some quotes from his :

After reviewing the various popular views on biblical authority, he says,

When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation. …[But] is that really what the Bible is for? Is it there to control the church? Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?

Have you noticed this? Generally, “the authority of Scripture” is brought up in cases where leaders or teachers want to control people who are under their own personal authority, and bring them back in line with what they believe are the proper beliefs and/or proper behavior, but which generally originated, not from careful study of Scripture, but from their preconceived theology or foundational culture.

Wright continues:

But much of what we call the Bible – the Old and New Testaments – is not a rule book; it is narrative. …How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative? How, for instance, can the book of Judges, or the book of Acts, be authoritative? It is one thing to go to your commanding officer first thing in the morning and have a string of commands barked at you. But what would you do if, instead, he began “Once upon a time…”?

This is the fundamental problem in Bible study. How is a story authoritative? Wright explains three different ways that this question has typically been answered. I wish I could review all three for you, but I don’t have the space. Suffice it to say, in my Bible college and seminary training, I learned to use all three as “proper Bible study” methodology. And I always had a feeling that something was a bit askew with such methods. Wright basically shows that such methods make the results of Bible study authoritative, rather than the maintaining the Bible itself as authoritative. So in such cases, it is not really the Bible that is authoritative, but something else. Here is how he puts it:

The problem with all such solutions as to how to use the Bible is that they belittle the Bible and exalt something else. Basically they imply that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book and it is our job to turn it into the right sort of book by engaging in these hermeneutical moves, translation procedures or whatever.

This is what I was taught! Though never said in such a way, the basic view of “Bible study methods” is that the Bible cannot be taken as authoritative “as it is.” To truly apply it authoritatively, we must first use tools, rules, principles, and methods to boil it down, cut it up, slice, dice, flavor, rearrange, and systematize it. Only then, when we have our “timeless truth” can we apply the Bible authoritatively. I agree with Wright: This is a low view of inspiration, and it implies that God gave us the wrong kind of book.

What kind of book is the Bible? How should we read it? How can it be read authoritatively? Well, this post is already way too long, so I will tell you tomorrow what Wright suggests. Or, if you just can’t wait, you can go read it for yourself at the link I gave you above.

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 5)

By Jeremy Myers

Religious Conversations vs. Spiritual Conversations

By Jeremy Myers

6 Comments

When someone finds out you are a Christian, how do they respond?

As Wendy and I talk with people in our neighborhood, at the store, or down at the park, it often seems that the discussion comes back around to “religion.” Maybe someone asks what brought us to Oregon, and when they find out I am a chaplain, the subject moves to religion. Or maybe they find out that I used to be a pastor. Or maybe one of our girls is singing “Jesus Loves Me” at the top of her voice.

Anyway, however it comes up, Wendy and I have noticed that there are four basic responses.

Antagonistic Response

A very small percentage of people get somewhat antagonistic and imply that we are crazy for believing in God and the Bible.

Wendy and I are not offended or put off by this kind of response, and we are generally able to have great conversations with these people. The conversations are not always about Jesus or the Gospel, but that’s okay. We’re not trying to cram Jesus or the Bible down anybody’s throat.

Usually we find that the criticisms and concerns these people have with Christianity (and religion in general) are the exact same criticisms and concerns we have. Acknowledging and agreeing with their concerns often leads to a great conversation about Jesus.

Avoidance Response

About half of the people who hear the words “Jesus,” “seminary,” “pastor,” or “church” just want to avoid talking about religion, and quickly change the subject. That’s understandable, especially in light of many of the common “evangelistic” techniques that are popular today.

If they don’t want to talk about such things, neither do we. We aren’t one of those “Christians” who have to turn every conversation around to Jesus (e.g. “Oh, it’s your daughter’s birthday? Cool! You know who has a birthday on December 25th?”).

We always allow the other person to determine how much or how little they want to talk about spiritual matters. If someone simply doesn’t want to talk about God, Scripture, or Jesus, then neither do we.

Religious Response

Around 25% of the people respond positively by telling us how involved they are in church.

Generally, when they hear that we are followers of Jesus, they tell us what church they go to, how faithfully they attend, and how involved they are. I call this a religious response because they seem to want to emphasize to me that they are performing their religious duty.

Frankly, I have the hardest time connecting with these people, because once they know I have been a “religious” leader, it seems that all they want to do is talk about devoted and dedicated they are. I find that I am often the one trying to change the subject to sports or the weather, but they keep bringing it back to their own religious efforts (e.g. “Yes, it is hot, and I’m so glad, because I prayed for good weather today.”)

Quite often, these people quickly get around to asking where we attend church. I have struggled with how to answer this question for many years, because while we do not officially “attend church,” we feel that we are more involved with the Church than ever before, and are following Jesus in a more relational way than we ever did as regular church attenders or church leaders.

So now we simply say that we are trying to follow Jesus in a deeply relational way and that right now, we are taking a break from attending church so that we can allow God to lead us into what He wants for us. This is not only the truth, but it also avoids any sort of heated discussion about “forsaking the assembling of yourselves together.”

Usually, of course, when the person hears that we do not currently “attend church,” they immediately invite us to attend theirs. We never turn them down or say no, but thank them for the invitation, and tell them we will keep it in mind.

Again, the goal is not to convince them to leave their church or understand what we are doing and why. Since nobody persuaded or convinced us to follow Jesus the way we do now, I am pretty sure I can not persuade or convince others to do the same. Hopefully, the conversation I had with this person will lead to future conversations as well.

Relationship Response

One of the responses I enjoy the most comes from people who seem to have a relationship with God, but who may or may not attend a church. In fact, with these people, church rarely comes up.

I find that they are not too concerned about telling me all that they are doing for God in church. They are not focused on their own performance. Instead, they focus on how God is at work in their life, what He is teaching them, and where He has shown up in miraculous ways.

Sometimes they are apologetic about not “attending church” and I am able to affirm and encourage them that I don’t “attend church” either, but am able to follow Jesus in a more relational way just as they are.

Since some of these people have never heard a former pastor and seminary student praise them for “leaving the church,” this often launches us into a conversation about Jesus and religion.

Not all Conversations are “Religious” … but all are Spiritual

Do not misunderstand. The vast majority of my conversations with other people during my week have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, God, church, or the Bible. We talk about sports, work, family, politics, current events, or whatever.

I sometimes think that Christian writers and speakers give the wrong impression with stories like the ones I have shared above. People who read such articles think that if they are truly following Jesus, they need to be having spiritual conversations every day with people.

That is not true.

Well … actually … it is true.

You ARE having spiritual conversations with people every day, even if you don’t talk about Jesus, God, Scripture, or church.

When you begin to understand what life and church really looks like as a follower of Jesus outside of the framework of religion, you begin to see that everything is spiritual, every act is devotion, and every conversation is full of God.

Look at it this way: God is a relational being, and He created us for relationship, and so if you are building a relationship with somebody through a conversation you are having with them, or a way you are encouraging them to show them that you love them, then you ARE being spiritual.

Things get “religious” when we feel that we have to introduce God, Jesus, the Bible, or the church into every conversation.

When it comes to people who claim a connection with God, there are religious people and relational people.

Religious people focus on what they are doing for God and how they can force God into every conversation and relationship.

Relational people, on the other hand, focus on what God has done for them, and know that God is already in every conversation and relationship (even if He is not mentioned), so they can just love and enjoy the person standing in front of them right now.

The most spiritual conversations you will have are never planned or prepared. They don’t take place in a circle where everyone has a Bible in their lap. No, they take place at the grocery store, down at the park, with your neighbor over the back fence.

You do not need to go out looking for spiritual conversations with others. Instead, just recognize that the conversations you are already having ARE spiritual.

Check out this quote from David Bosch’s book Transforming Mission:

Kingdom people seek first the Kingdom of God and its justice; church people often put church work above concerns of justice, mercy, and truth. Church people think about how to get more people into the church; Kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; Kingdom people work to see the church change the world (p. 378. He is quoting Howard Snyder, Liberating the Church ).

That is similar to what I am trying to present here.

What are your experiences with having conversations with others about God and church? Do the four categories I present above pretty much fit your experience as well? What about this idea of not having to force God into every conversation? Does it make sense to realize that He is already in every conversation? What might you add to this description?

Riding the Wave

By Jeremy Myers

7 Comments

There are three kinds of people in the world, those who make waves, those who ride waves, and those who sit on the beach.

Wave Makers
Wave makers are those who innovate, create, and change the direction of culture and society. They are often well known, and people who know about them feel very strongly one way or another about them. Such people are catalytic, sparking great excitement or great contempt. Steve Jobs is a wave maker in the technology realm. Brian MacLaren is a wave maker in Christianity. He may be the father of the Emerging Church movement, and people who are aware of him think that he is either a genius or a heretic. I’ll withhold judgment for now.

There are really more wave makers than you might think. The problem with being a wave maker is that it is hard work, and often involves swimming against the tidal wave of tradition. As a result, most wave makers are never heard of, because most of them drown. Though wave makers are necessary and needed, being a wave maker is risky and tiring.

Wave Riders
The second type of person is a wave rider. This is the person who waits in the water for some brave soul to create the wave, and then they jump on for the ride. They are students of culture and can feel the subtle changes in the current of society. They look for patterns and new developments, and upon sensing them, paddle madly to catch the next big wave. The most dedicated wave riders will ride one wave for a while, and then paddle back out to wait for the next one.

There is risk in riding waves, but not nearly as much as in making waves. As such, there are always a lot more wave riders than wave makers. Most wave riders survive, but the drawback is that most of them do not become well known. A few will get book deals and prominent leadership positions, but most will just keep riding waves. Another drawback is that many wave riders are criticized for “going with the flow” and just following every new wave that comes along.

Sand Sitters
Finally, there are those who sit on the beach and watch it all happen while soaking up the sun. They are the sand sitters. They either “Ooh” and “Aaah” at the wave makers and wave riders, or criticize them and tell each other what they would have done differently if they were the ones out in the water, braving the sharks and rip tides. There is nothing really wrong with sitting on the beach, enjoying the rays of the sun. After all, the wave makers and wave riders need someone to cheer them on.

But sand sitters have the danger of getting burned. If they aren’t careful, never get out and splash around in the water, and fall asleep on the beach, they end up with nasty sunburns (Read 1 Cor 3:15).

So what kind of beach goer are you?

US Evangelism

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 7)

True Sacrificial Giving

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 6)

Rhizomic Believers

Reading the NT Wright (Part 2)

Reading the NT Wright

Hodges on Hebrews (Part 5)

Religious Conversations vs. Spiritual Conversations

Antagonistic Response

Avoidance Response

Religious Response

Relationship Response

Not all Conversations are “Religious” … but all are Spiritual

Riding the Wave

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!