Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Join the discipleship group
You are here: Home / Archives

Church Additions

Leave a Comment

One of the blogs I read daily is The Ongoing Adventures of the ASBO Jesus. The author is a pastor in the UK who writes a comic strip about Jesus, Christianity, and the church. Most often, I find his comic strips spot on.

The one below is true on multiple levels.

Additions

This is true first of all as he has shown it. The church has made so many additions to what the church is supposed to be and do, that we barely represent the church any more. We need to strip all this away, and get back to being and doing what Jesus intended.

But also, this comic strip could be true of the offer of eternal life, how to be a follower of Jesus, and just life in general. Simple is always best.

The Missional Imago Dei of Reformissional Glocal Cruciform Cohorts (WHAT??!!)

5 Comments

Thinking MissionalLark News, the Christian satire website, posted this humorous article about Missional churches:

Emergent leaders call for ‘missional re-understanding of Jesus-followership and Christ-focus imbued with passionate creativity and emotional authenticity,’ whatever that means:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — At a recent conference-like “gathering” of emergent church leaders, various factions sparred over competing visions for the future of the movement.

Leaders on one side called for “deepening and continuously beautiful efforts toward emotionally true self-divulgence and confession.” Other leaders countered with a call for “a theological re-purposing of our objective and subjective missionality within a framework of God-love.” Because few in attendance actually understood what either side meant, both ideas were tabled.

The sides did agree that emergent leaders should continue to take every opportunity to make casual, cool cultural references to popular television shows, movies and Internet phenomena to introduce quasi-intellectual spiritual points about the state of the American church.

They also pledged to maintain their reputation for being “more spiritually honest than the millions of people who attend institutionalized churches every week and blindly go along with the programs, sermons and mindset that make American Christianity the colossal failure it is today.”

After toasting themselves with various hyper-cool micro-brews, the audience adjourned to begin 7 and 8-hour theological bull sessions in their hotel rooms and local bars.

Conference organizers say they will meet again to do the same thing next year.

Emerging Missional Church

I laughed at this for several reasons.

The Mission of Emerging Leaders is Coining New Terms

I have read (and am reading) a lot of books by emerging church leaders, and it seems that when they don’t have a word to describe what they are trying to say, they just invent one. One term being thrown around today which is not mentioned in the satirical article above is “glocal” which refers to how Christians must be both global and local in their missional mindset.

Missional WordsThere was a time about a year ago, when I thought that if I heard the word “missional” one more time, I was going to throw up. Now, I have somewhat resigned myself to the fact that it is a term that is going to stick, and to a large degree, I am trying to live “missionally.”

One term that still gets me queasy, however, is “Imago Dei.” It’s Latin for “Image of God,” which I don’t mind at all. My question is, “Why use Latin, when the English is just fine?” There is only one reason I can think of: “Imago Dei” sounds smarter and cooler.

Emerging Church Isn’t so Relevant After All

The terminology of the Emerging Church brings up the second reason I found the Lark article funny.

One of the criticisms leveled at traditional churches by the “emergent/emerging” crowd is that they use too much technical language, theological terms, and Christian jargon that nobody understands. They say we should root out of our vocabulary words like “justification, sanctification, glorification, dispensationalism, eschatology” and other similar terms.

But ironically, they have gone and created their own vocabulary that nobody understands except those who are “in.”  And yet, people who are excited and intrigued by what the emerging/emergent churches are doing are willing to learn the terminology and begin using it themselves.

You know what this means? Getting our message heard is not about weeding out tricky terminology. It’s speaking and writing with a passion and excitement so that others are not only willing to listen, but also to learn and adopt the language.

Look at text messaging as an example. Text messengers have developed their own entire language. I understand very little of it, but those who want to communicate with other cellphone users have learned the language and terms and created their own sub-culture. To see what I mean, check out this list of texting acronyms.

So can you use words like justification and sanctification? Sure! These words are more Biblical than words like “missional,” “emerging,” and “glocal.” But whatever terminology you use, don’t speak and write in a way that is dispassionate and cold toward God, His Word, and all those in the world who are seeking direction (whether believers or unbelievers). While we want to be as clear as possible, if you use terminology that people don’t understand, they will try to learn that terminology if they catch your passion and vision.

In other words, if you cast a vision you are passionate about, people will follow, even if you use words like “glocal,” “imago dei,” “missional,” and “justification.”

And just in case you don’t know what “missional” means, here is some explanation. In a recent article, Brad Brisco shows how impossible this is. Missional is a whole new way of doing church. Here is an excerpt:

Despite the fact that missional language has been in use for at least a quarter of a century, it is being applied today in a wide variety of ways. Unfortunately, many times resulting in confusion. Some view missional as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian fad that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

I would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing craze prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus.

In other words … do you want to be truly “missional”? Great! Just talk like other people and use words that everyone understands. Speak to be clear; not to be cool.

Do you HAVE to believe in the resurrection? This woman did … sort of …

16 Comments

Resurrection of JesusI ran into someone this past week who would pose quite a dilemma for some, especially if we are trying to determine if people have eternal life based on what they believe. (NONE of us do that, do we?)

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, so I am throwing it out here for you to weigh in on…

It was a woman who called about some questions related to whether or not she had eternal life.

Asking the Kennedy Questions

As we talked, I asked her some diagnostic questions to help me determine where she was coming from.

I asked her that if she were to die tonight, if she were sure she would go to heaven. When she answered, “Yes” I asked her why. She said something along the lines that since Jesus died for all of her sins, and she has believed in Him, she gets to go to heaven when she dies. Though she could have been a bit clearer, this answer was initially satisfactory.

But I asked some follow-up questions as well, to see if she was in any way relying on her past, present, or future good works in order to earn, prove, or keep her eternal life. For example, I asked her if there was anything she could do in the future that might prevent her from going to heaven when she died. From her answers, she seemed certain that since she did nothing to earn her eternal life, there was noting she could do to lose it either. Though I am not the judge of her spiritual condition, I was once again satisfied with her answer. To the best of my knowledge, she understood that simply by her faith in Jesus, she had everlasting life which could not be lost.

Confused Christology

Then we started to talk about some of her questions, and in the process, she mentioned about how she knows Jesus is going to come again when He rises from the dead.

It was an odd way of phrasing it, and so I asked her what she meant. She stated that she knew Jesus died on the cross 2000 years ago for her sins, and that He was right now in heaven, and He was coming again in the future. I said, “That’s good, but what was it you said about Him rising from the dead?”

She said, “You know…when He comes again. He died, went to heaven, and when He comes again, He will rise from the dead.”

Wait… what?

Apparently, she didn’t know that Jesus had risen from the dead.

I talked a bit more with her about this, and as it turns out, somehow, here in America, she had never been told (or had just never understood) that Jesus had already risen from the dead!!! I didn’t even know this was possible, but I discovered she doesn’t read her Bible, and doesn’t go to a church that teaches the Bible much.

I asked her if she saw The Passion of the Christ, which she had. I asked, “Didn’t you wonder what was going on at the end of the movie when Jesus rose from the dead?” She said she didn’t think anything about it, because all it shows is Jesus with a glow around Him, and so she thought that was supposed to be Him in heaven, which matched her theology perfectly. (Go look at the end of the movie! She’s right. The ending is very vague.)

After taking her to some passages in the Gospels, and then to 1 Corinthians 15 (which Paul partly wrote to prove the resurrection has taken place), she said she now understood and believed that Jesus had already risen from the dead.

Did She Have Eternal Life?

So here is the question: Did she have eternal life prior to understanding and believing that Jesus rose from the dead? I say “Yes.” She was justified the moment she first believed in Jesus for everlasting life. I was able to disciple her some more this week and teach her some things about the Jesus she had believed in that she did not previously know.

However, even though I would say, “Yes, she had eternal life before she believed in the resurrection of Jesus,” there are lots of Christians who would probably say, “No.” They might argue that until she believed in the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus she does not have eternal life. Although she believed in her own sinfulness, the deity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and that she had eternal life in Him alone, she did not have eternal life until she believed the whole package. Even though she believed in a future resurrection of Jesus, this is not sufficient.

To me, this is incredulous. Antonio da Rosa has posed a similar situation as I have encountered here. He stated somewhere (I can’t find it now) that to consign someone like this woman to hell for not knowing all the Biblical facts about Jesus that are on a man-made list is the height of legalism. This woman believed in Jesus for eternal life, and by Jesus’ own promise, whosoever believes in Him, has everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Note as well that on this account, the woman is just like all the disciples of Jesus. The disciples believed in Jesus for everlasting life, but not a single one believed that Jesus would die and rise from the dead until after He died and rose from the dead! Does this mean that none of them really had eternal life until after the resurrection of Jesus?

No, again, this is an example of one of those central doctrines of the Gospel which help a person believe in Jesus for eternal life, but are not required for a person to believe in order to receive eternal life. Don’t get me wrong, without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. But one does not have to believe the entire Gospel in order to receive eternal life. Most of the Gospel message provides supporting facts and evidence for why and how Jesus can offer eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for it, and how to live in response.

But the single “message of life” in the Gospel is this: Whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Does this help you in your evangelism and discipleship endeavors? Does it help clarify the Gospel message? What do you think about this lady who didn’t know Jesus had risen from the dead? Have you ever encountered someone like this?

Do you have to believe that Jesus is God?

28 Comments

the ChristDo you have to believe that Jesus is God in order to receive eternal life? Some people think so because of what John says in John 20:31.

These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Since most people assume that “Christ”=”God” and that “Son of God”=”God” they think that it is required to believe that Jesus is divine in order to receive eternal life.

But is this assumption correct? Is it true that the title “Christ” (or “Messiah”) means “God”? How about the term “Son of God”?

“Christ” and “the Son of God” do not require divinity

Many people believe that the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” refer to the divinity of Jesus – the fact that He was God. While that certainly has been a popular view in the past, and is the “traditional” view, more and more students of Scripture are realizing this view does not fit all the Biblical data.

Instead, the terms seem to refer to the role or function of someone who is being used by God in a special way to carry out God’s will on earth. Here is what I believe about the terms “Christ” and “Son of God”:

The terms “Christ” (or “Messiah”) and “Son of God” did not originally refer to someone who was divine, but to someone who had a special relationship with God and was therefore given a God-appointed task, which was often related to some sort of deliverance. However, as Jesus performed His ministry as “the Christ, the Son of God” the terms grew in significance to include the idea that the God-appointed task of Jesus required Him to be God in the flesh. The Gospel writers (especially John) emphasized the divinity of Jesus to prove that everlasting life is freely given to those who believe in the name of Jesus for it.

I believe this for many reasons. First, the term “Christ” (or “Messiah”) simply referred to an anointed deliverer. In Jewish literature, mere humans were often referred to as “Messiah.” No Jewish person thought that the promised Messiah would be God in the flesh. They were looking for, hoping for, and praying for a human deliver who would be specially anointed and gifted by God to lead the Hebrew people back into their rightful place among the nations.

Support for this idea is seen in the fact that the disciples believed Jesus was the promised Messiah long before they believed He was God incarnate. But the disciples do not appear to understand that Jesus is God incarnate until sometime after Jesus rises from the dead. Even at the Last Supper, they ask Jesus to “reveal the Father to us” and Jesus says, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me? He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Secondly, regarding the term “Son of God,” it was a term that was commonly used for Kings, Emperors, and Caesars. It was thought that Emperors and Caesars were the offspring of a deity, but were not themselves deity. An Emperor or a Caesar could become a god once they died, but they were not considered to be fully divine while alive.

Much more can be said about this. But the point is that the terms “Christ” (or “Messiah”) and “Son of God” are not, in themselves, equivalent with deity. One could believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, but not realize that He was also God incarnate, God in the flesh.

What does this mean for John 20:31?

The Gospel of John is often seen as “the only evangelistic book of the Bible.” I am not completely convinced that this is the case. In fact, I think every single book of the Bible is “evangelistic” but this is primarily due to how I understand the word “evangelism” than anything else.

I believe that John, in his Gospel, is trying to get people to see that Jesus is God, and is possibly trying to inject more meaning into the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” than the average person in the first century would have understood or immediately grasped.

In other words, one of the primary purposes of John is to impregnate the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” with new meaning and significance that cannot be used of any other human throughout history.

If this is true, John is not trying to teach that believing that Jesus is God is how a person receives eternal life, but that believing that Jesus is God brings a person to the place where they can believe in Jesus for everlasting life. There is a vast difference.

While I don’t think a person necessarily has to believe that Jesus is God in order to receive eternal life, I do think that believing that Jesus is God will help get a person to the place where they understand why and how Jesus can give eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for it. A person does not need to believe that Jesus is God to receive eternal life, but why would they believe in Jesus unless they believed Jesus was God?

So while believing that Jesus is God may be logically necessary for receiving eternal life, it is not theologically required.

Yes! Jesus IS God

I do believe that Jesus is God, and I do believe that some of the later uses of the term “Christ” and “Son of God” in the New Testament refer to the divinity of Jesus.

Jesus is God! Jesus is fully divine.

But there is a difference between believing that Jesus is God and believing that it is required to believe that Jesus is God in order to receive eternal life.

I do not believe that to receive eternal life, one must grasp and understand the divinity of Jesus. According to Jesus Himself, He gives eternal life to everyone and anyone who simply believes in Him for it.

Of course, who would believe in Jesus for eternal life without understanding that Jesus is God? So in this sense, it is unlikely that anyone will believe in Jesus for eternal life without believing that Jesus is God, but once again, there is a difference between something being likely and something being required. After all, none of the apostles believed that Jesus was God until after Jesus had risen from the dead, but they did believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Anyway, let me get your thoughts on the subject in the comment section below, and if you want to learn more about how the gospel truth that Jesus is God fits in with the offer of eternal life through Jesus, take my online course on the gospel:

The Gospel According to ScriptureWant to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

Is Pastoral Theology Inconsistent Theology?

8 Comments

pastoral theologyI sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology; they have pastoral theology.

As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others.

However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the whole “pastoral theology” concept.

Not Pastoral Theology

In the minds of some today, the pastor who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed and consistent. Instead, they adjust their theological views to fit the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situational ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in.

Pastoral theology might be better to call it situational theology.

A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader

This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with another pastor. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before he expressed some some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had “pastoral theology,” not systematic theology.

When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:

I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”

Personally, I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise of eternal life? What did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this particular pastor thought that the man’s statement was fine, and so his story continued:

In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.

This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:

Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.

But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and that Christ had died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.

So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are contradictory, but he didn’t care, for his theology was “pastoral.” He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.

Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One

I do not believe such an approach helps anybody. Such contradictions only lead to confusion. This sort of situational pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.

Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear message about how to receive eternal life, he was also given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. He was told that to enter heaven, he needed to be monogamous. While there certainly are practical benefits and blessings for monogamy, the Bible nowhere lists monogamy as a condition for going to heaven.

So although this pastor thought he was telling this man what was necessary to get him to change his lifestyle, the message he gave was wrong. How practical, how pastoral was that? Doesn’t God know best?

And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. For although he might have been temporarily encouraged, he too was told to refrain from pornography and adultery if he wanted to go to heaven. Once again, the Bible never says this.

So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.

When pastoral theology becomes situational theology, it helps no one, and only confused those who hear it. If our goal in pastoral theology is to help those who are in our care to understand God and live according to His Word, wouldn’t it be best to have a theology that is consistent and which doesn’t shift with each new counseling session?

If we want to have true pastoral theology, we would be wise to give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.), and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true.

The Gospel According to ScriptureWant to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

What if you spent one year obeying the entire Bible? A. J. Jacobs did exactly that

18 Comments

year of living biblicallyJennie Yabroff reported in Newsweek that “After A. J. Jacobs spent a year reading the Entire Encyclopedia Britannica for his book “The Know-It-All,” he figured he had the yearlong experiment thing down. How much harder could it be to follow every rule in the Bible? Much, much harder, he soon discovered, as he found himself growing his beard, struggling not to curse, and asking strangers for permission to stone them for adultery.”

What I found most interesting about the article is some of the comments Jacobs makes in the interview. When asked how his life is now that he can sin again, he says, “I miss my sin-free life, but I guess I was never sin free. I was able to cut down on my coveting maybe 40 percent, but I was still a coveter.” Jacobs sounds a lot like the Apostle Paul, when he wrote, “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of coveting” (Rom 7:9). Jacobs, like Paul, realized that nobody can perfectly obey the entire law, and trying only makes you recognize your sin more.

When asked if there were any rules he was still following, Jacobs focuses on the Sabbath. He says, “I love the Sabbath. There’s something I really like about a forced day of rest.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that this is what Jesus tells us: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man  for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). God knows that we need to rest from our work, and life is better when we take time to rest.

The entire law, really, is to help us live life better with God and with each other. The great deception of sin is that we think it helps us live life to the full, but in reality, sin only gets in the way of truly living life.

Naturally, Jacobs found many of the laws and rules impossible to obey. For example, there’s a funny story in the interview about when he stones a man for committing adultery, but he doesn’t really stone him to death as commanded in Scripture. Of course, if he did, in our culture, he would be a murderer, which would be breaking other Biblical commands. This leads Jacobs to admit that “One of the lessons…[is that] there is some picking and choosing in following the Bible, and I think that’s OK.”

In other words, since God’s standard of righteousness is too high for us to realistically follow, we can lower the standard by picking which commands and rules to obey. How much better would it be to say, “We can’t come close to obeying all these laws, and since God demands perfect righteousness, I need to get it from somewhere else. Jesus lived in perfect righteousness, and tells us that if we believe in Him, He gives that righteousness to us” (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 2 Cor 5:21).

I pray that Jacobs comes to this conclusion. It is evident that the Spirit is working on him, for now that he is without the law, he admits that he feels “unmoored, overwhelmed by choice.” Paul did tell us that the law is a tutor, to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24-25). Jacobs lived under the tutor for a year, and we can pray it will lead him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

If you want to read more about this, you can get his book: The Year of Living Biblically.

Liquidating our Church Property

14 Comments

Liquidating our AssetsI attended a church planting Conference in Irving, TX a while back in which Todd Phillips shared that, according to current studies and using modern water purifying technology, $10 Billion could solve the world’s water crisis. This got me thinking about my earlier post related to Money, Missions, and Ministry.

Church Property Value is $500 Billion

I am not aware what the value of church property in America is currently, but I know that in 1931, the estimated value of church property in America was $4 billion. When you realize that the average home price in 1930 was $7,000, imagine how much churches are sitting on today? The average home value today is around $230,000, an increase of 3300%. So $4 billion in 1930 would be $1.3 trillion today. I have no clue how accurate this number is, but let’s say it’s less than half of that and call it $500 billion.

If only 2% of the churches in America sold their buildings, and put the money toward solving the world’s water crisis, we would have enough money.

But churches don’t want to sell their buildings. After all, where would they meet?

Churches Paying Taxes on their Property

Okay, then, here is another option. In 1930, it was estimated that since churches were tax-exempt organizations, they were being “subsidized” by the government at $250 million annually. In other words, if churches were being taxed, the government would receive $250 million from them annually (which is 6%). Again, I don’t know how tax rates have changed since 1930, but let’s say they haven’t changed at all.

If, in 1930, the government could have gotten $250 million by taxing church property (valued at $4 billion), then today, if our property value is only $500 billion, our taxes today would be over $31 billion!

So if churches in America decided that for ONE year, we would put aside only 1/3 of what we would owe the government in property taxes for that one year, we could solve the world’s water crisis in one year! Should churches do this (or something similar)?

Absolutely.

Will churches do this if made aware of the opportunity? Call me pessimistic, but probably not.

Maybe we could just spend less on sound systems.

Challenging my own Finances

So the question then becomes, “What am I doing personally to help solve the world’s water crisis (and similar needs) around the globe?” Rather than pointing the accusatory finger at the churches and their vast wealth, I need to take a hard look at my budget, and my possessions, and where my money is going. I may not have $50 million to put toward a building, but if I have $50 which I am going to spend on coffee this year (it’s probably more than that), maybe I should consider giving up my coffee so someone else can simply have water…

But that’s too convicting.

Would you invite this couple back to your church?

43 Comments

Holding Hands

Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!

As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the “churchgoing” type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and they don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.

But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, they put their arms around each other and hold one another close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.

During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.

After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”

What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?

Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.

Now, with that information, what would you say?

P.S. I originally wrote this post 10 years ago! It is interesting to compare the comments that came in back then with the comments that come in today. Be part of the historic conversation and add your own input below!

Gay Couple Holding Hands

Money, Missions, and Ministry

44 Comments

FBC DallasA pet peeve of mine has been how much churches are willing to spend on buildings, all in the name of “ministry.”

I used to live in Dallas, Texas, the mega-church capital of the world. There are more mega-churches in Dallas, TX per capita, than anywhere else in the world. One street I was driving down recently contained four mega-churches in a one-mile stretch.

I don’t mind the number of churches so much. What gets me going is how much these buildings cost. First Baptist Church in Dallas recently spent close to $50 million to construct a new “ministry” building! They say this will help them better reach the residents and people of downtown Dallas. Truly, I hope it is money well spent, and I wish them well.

But I often wonder what that $50 million could have bought in Africa or Papua New Guinea. If they answer by saying they were trying to reach the people in Dallas, then I wonder how many meals for homeless people in Dallas that $50 million could have bought? If they answer that they were trying to build a place for people to come for education and instruction so they could better their lives and get a good meal, then I have to ask why the building has “clever accessories” (that’s their term) along with 9000 square feet of exterior glass, state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment, wi-fi hotspots, beautiful stain-glass windows, comfy couches and lounge chairs, etc., etc.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not condemning mega-churches. I attend a mega-church. Many mega-churches are doing a lot of good in their communities and around the world with spreading the gospel. I just wonder if all of us (big churches and small churches alike) could be a little wiser with our money.

Churches and Money

I wonder if First Baptist Church in Dallas could have built their building for about $10 million less, and sent the extra $10 million overseas to plant about 2000 churches (It costs around $6000 to build a church in Africa). OR, what if they said to their donors, “This building will cost $50 million, but we need to raise $100 million so we can build churches overseas as well.”? What would happen if a church plant, from day one, decided to give at least 50% of it’s budget to missions?

The issue, of course, is “How do you define ‘missions’? By “missions” I mean anything that is helping you accomplish the mission of the church, which is to make disciples of all nations. If you can really, honestly say that you need a $50 million building to accomplish the mission God has given you in Dallas, then I say “build away!” It’s not what I would do with $50 mil, but if it is truly what you believe God has called you to do, go for it.

First Baptist Church DallasBut here’s what really gets me going… I read today about a church that has alerted its missionaries that after this year, the church will not be able to support them any longer. Why? Because the church needs a new auditorium and can’t do both. You can find out more about this here. Certainly, I don’t have the whole story, and this church definitely does not answer to me for how they use their money.

But one thing I know: American churches are the richest churches in the world.

Yet our primary use of the funds God has given us seems to be to construct bigger and nicer buildings for ourselves and our “ministry,” I am just not sure this is what Jesus had in mind when He said, “I will build my church.”

So what does your church budget look like? What does your church raise funds for? Whose kingdom are you building?

UPDATE: FBC Dallas recently pledged $115 million for further renovations.

2nd Update: The final cost came to $130 million

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

Follow me on X