Wherein I get to announce news that hasn’t officially been announced only because somebody else beat me to it and, well, it’s no longer news, now tell you what I’ve been itching to say for the past [undisclosed amount of time] because the news has been embargoed till now. Whew!

Update 10/28/2008: This post has been updated with information from the October 28 Muskegon Chronicle news story. See below …

Update 11/07/08: ChristianityToday.com interviewed Zondervan CEO, Moe Girkins, on the recent acquisition of the Bible Gateway and Gospel.com. See: “Why Zondervan Bought BibleGateway.com: CEO Moe Girkins wants to take the site beyond just verses. iTunes-style commentaries, anyone?” (Interview by Jeremy Weber)

Ever since Gospel Communications announced the closure of their Internet division and Web-hosting ministry (as I noted here), there’s been a lot of speculation about the eventual fate of the Bible Gateway, one of the most highly-visited sites anywhere (Alexa.com ranks it as #1,837 as of today). Friends from CTI speculated that it would get snapped up by one of the Bible Societies, friends on Twitter wondered whether it would fade away, others wondered who could do as good a job.

I’m happy to announce, though, that the Bible Gateway has been acquired by my own employer: Zondervan (which is owned by HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corporation). Though Zondervan hasn’t issued a press release yet, and it’s officially still a secret, Larry Tomlinson (DotComLarry) broke the news last Thursday at 1:32 PM via Twitter:

BTW, I couldn’t talk about this yesterday, but BibleGateway and Gospel.com has been bought by Zondervan publishers.
01:32 PM October 23, 2008 from web, view Tweet

dotcomlarry
Larry Tomlinson

Apparently, when a “confidential” announcement was made at the recent Internet Ministry Conference it was being streamed live online — thus, several Twitterers, live-bloggers, and stream watchers, uh, paid attention. :: whoops! :: So, that cat’s out of the bag, but there are still further announcements regarding the fate of the rest of the GospelCom properties waiting to be made. Viewing the Twitter stream regarding GospelCom, it does look like there will be some continuity of mission and purpose. Somewhere.

Meanwhile, there are big plans in the works for extending and expanding the Gateway. I don’t know what those plans are (I’m not privy to those official discussions, really), but the rumors are interesting. And, really, it’s just like putting peanut butter in your chocolate to mix a Bible gateway with a major publisher of Bibles and related materials (commentaries, exegetical tools, Bible studies, curricula, devotionals, and on-and-on).

I only hope that we keep the spirit of the original Bible Gateway’s mission alive and that it remains one of the most truly useful online Bibles ever created.

Update: Before I got a chance to post this, I received three pieces of communication. One came from Moe Girkins, my über-boss at Zondervan, officially announcing the acquisition internally. To my surprise and delight, I learned that, “In addition to BibleGateway.com, our agreement also gives us rights to Gospel.com, an online community of Christian organizations.” Even better, Moe writes, “BibleGateway.com will not be just a Zondervan initiative. Rather, our vision is for this to continue as truly cross-publisher and the result of a team effort of a wide variety of content providers focused on meeting the needs of Christians and seekers alike.” And just to help make the transition smooth, half-a-dozen or more GospelCom employees will be coming to work at Zondervan immediately.

The second piece of email came from long-time friend, Peggie Bohanon, of Peggie’s Place, who wanted to let her readers know about the acquisition. Peggie also let us know that the acquisition deal does not include the ministry Web hosting provision, which kept over 300 non-profit ministries afloat on the Web. Fortunately, there’s 5Q Communications to help with the hosting (founded by former GospelCommers, some of whom I’ve meet and can recommend as smart, quality guys). That is, in fact, where ol’ Peg-leg’s moving, herself. So, if you’re looking for hosting, they might be worth looking into.

The third piece of email came from Moe Girkin’s executive assistant, green-lighting my release of this news here, now. So, you (may have) read it here first.

Enjoy!

Update (10/28/2008):

Today the Muskegon Chronicle announced this story (by Clayton Hardiman, who also broke the news of GospelCom’s closing back on September 12), “Gospel Communications Online Sold.” Strangely, the main story is not yet online, anywhere, but here are some salient quotes from the paper:

The future of Gospel Communications’ ministries had been in a state of limbo since early September when the agency’s board of directors, promoted by at least two years of fiscal difficulties, informed partner ministries it would shut down its Web-hosting services. …

Gospel Communications … began operations as Gospel Films Inc. 58 years ago … [and] became the largest distributor of Christian films and videos in the world. …

As part of the acquisition, eight [GospelCom] staffers … have been hired by Zondervan to continue their work on BibleGateway.com.

(The article notes that the BibleGateway was born in 1995 and was developed by Nick Hengeveld. Actually, the gateway was announced to the world on Tuesday, December 28, 1993. It was then hosted at Calvin College, where Hengeveld was a student and network administrator. However, when Nick came to Gospel Communications as their first webmaster, he brought his gateway with him — much to the delight of his new employer, I’m sure. When Hengeveld left in 2006, his brainchild stayed behind.)

The Grand Rapids Press also weighed in with its story, “Zondervan acquires religious site BibleGateway.com,” by Julia Bauer. It pulled in a quote by CEO Moe Girkins:

“Our vision is for BibleGateway.com to be the premier online aggregator of Biblical resources, blending relevant content and community features for anyone searching for information to help them in their spiritual journey, wherever they may be,” said Moe Girkins, Zondervan president and CEO.

(Again, in the interests of full disclosure, if you haven’t noticed by now, I work at Zondervan, though not in the business unit that will be working with the Gateway.)

It’s an interesting time to be a part of Zondervan’s story!

Wherein I lament the failure to practice what good theology and biblical interpretation ought to have taught us: tongues-for-show only shows one thing: lunacy.

Surely, by now, everybody’s seen or at least heard of the WashingtonPost.com political cartoon by equal-opportunity skewer-artist Pat Oliphant that was automatically posted to the WP’s cartoon site on September 9 last. If you haven’t seen it, and if you are Pentecostal or charismatic, viewing it may make you angry. But if you feel so inclined, do check it out. (For coverage, check out the official A/G response, Christianity Today’s blog post, and the WorldNet Daily post quoting George O. Wood’s response.)

In it, governor Sarah Palin is lampooned as a typical kooky Pentecostal, hot-line to God in hand, standing before an appreciative audience, gibbering:

“Argle bargle glooka slobber blartogger gniff blerft gennikt klepwoop madurta wonka burble and like that …”

The Washington Post has apologized, of course, though not for accepting Oliphant’s cartoon (which they’re probably contractually obligated to do) but for its automatic posting to the newspaper’s comics Website.

Readers were right to complain … Political cartoons and comics aren’t selected at WashingtonPost.com the way they are for The Post in print; they are automatically posted.

Naturally, the religious right are furious — and none more so than my fellow Pentecostals. My own response upon first seeing it was disgusted disbelief that an intelligent political commentator/cartoonist could be so clueless about something so core to Pentecostal faith and practice.

But, then …

Now I’ve had a few days to mull it over, I think those of us inside the tongues-talking camp might benefit from a step back. Let us and breathe deeply for a moment, and consider: Oliphant’s political cartoon states nothing more than the truth from an outsider’s perspective — one that we should not only understand but expect. Especially when it’s our fault.

Yes, that’s right, I say it’s our fault.

I’m not saying that liberal angst over Palin is our fault, nor am I saying that the Democratic reaction against Palin is our fault. I’m simply saying that the public’s perception of Pentecostals as crazy wing-nuts babbling in tongues is entirely due to our undisciplined failure to practice church the way Paul recommended.

For years I’ve cringed every time I’ve heard one or another fired-up Pentecostal preacher literally demonstrate his or her ability to pray in tongues on command by shooting forth a nonsensical string of syllables and consonants recognizable as that peculiar Pentecostal patois of tongues and glossolalia. Public tongues and the abuse of tongues (and dare I say … the faking of tongues) has become so commonplace that we even joke about it in our inner circles. Once, my alma mater’s basketball team was on the road playing against a rival Pentecostal university. As legend had it, our travelling fans leaped to their feet with the rally, “We got the Spirit, yes we do! A-didi-a-didi how ’bout you?” Similarly, I’ve heard the wordplay bandied about, making fun of how cliché some of the sounds have become: “See me tie, see me tie my tie, see me tie my bow-tie,” or “Who stola my Honda?”

If we, ourselves, are taking tongues lightly, how can we be surprised when outsiders are dismissive as well?

Further, this is exactly the scenario Paul had in mind when he wrote this to the Corinthians:

“So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (1 Corinthians 14:24)

Yes, yes they will. And some of us will exclaim, “But of course they’ll think we’re crazy! They don’t get it! We’re being persecuted for righteousness’ sake!” But this is not Paul’s point, here. Being wronged for being right is one thing. Being wronged because you’re, well, wrong, is something else entirely.

Paul gave very clear direction on the the exercise of tongues as both a spiritual gift for the edification of the church but also as a private prayer language useful for personal edification. Our failure to recognize and heed those guidelines leads us to the situation we see with Oliphant and his cartoon: we have abused the gift of tongues, and the unbelievers think us mad.

Paul says tongues are for private use for personal edification and that any public exercise of tongues must be accompanied by an interpretation so that the listener may be edified and say “Amen.” Tongues, Paul says, are of no public use without an interpretation.

Tongues are not for public display of “religiosity” or to show off that one has favor with God. Tongues do not prove that one is divinely endowed or that one has special access to God. Tongues do not prove one’s holiness or spiritual “attainment.” But too often, they have become exactly that. A badge of honor and approval. If you have tongues, you’ve got “it.”

What’s worse, though — if you needed further demonstration that our current practice has strayed from the Biblical ideal — in typical Pentecostal congregations today, whenever someone speaks out loudly in tongues, the interpretation that follows (if there is one) is almost invariably is addressed to the church. It’s a message to the congregation. But, Paul clearly and plainly teaches in 1 Corinthians 14 that tongues are prayers directed toward God and that the interpretation, correctly given, will also be directed toward God. Tongues, when interpreted, are not identical to a prophecy. However, in our churches today, they are. (The tongues in Acts 2 required no interpretation because they were delivered in the hearers’ receptor language. The interpretation? “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” See Acts 2:5-13.)

If you disagree with me on these points, please read 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul’s meaning is quite clear, and his words quite pointed.

I’m not angry at Pat Oliphant, the Washington Post, or their cartoon. I’m saddened, because that ‘toon is a mirror reflecting our failure to heed Scripture.

(PS: For an excellent discussion of the role of tongues, a defense of tongues, and the proper exercise of tongues with interpretation in the church, see “Biblical Glossolalia” William Graham MacDonald (Enrichment Journal).)

Wherein I lament the passing of one of the Christian Web’s greatest and most popular Websites.

One year ago I interviewed for a job at Gospel Communications. There was an opening for a training specialist and I happily made it through the various rounds of interviews and reference checks. In the end, I was invited to Muskegon to visit the offices of GospelCom in order to give a trial-run 15-minute presentation to Brian Atkinson and his team of intrepid Web wonks. There were two other applicants before me, also giving presentations, showing their mad training skills. I didn’t get the job.

At first I was both disappointed and pleased. I did a fair enough job with my presentation that I was invited (and paid!) to give a followup, expanded presentation at last year’s Internet Ministry conference (”Relationship Blogging” and “Integrity on the Internet“). That was great fun. But, still, I didn’t land the gig, and I would’ve been happy to: GospelCom has been a great organization, and ever since I visited their offices for the first time back in the late 90’s I’ve been impressed with how effectively they dominated the Christian ministry hosting space and totally ruled the online Bible application concept.

But now, I’m filled with a different mixture of disappointment and relief. GospelCom is closing it’s online doors. For purely selfish reasons, I am relieved: Had I landed that job I would once again be looking for work.

I am not sure whether GospelCom was the first one to put the full Bible online, but it was certainly the first to do so in a way that made sense. The text was fully searchable, it was fast, it provided relevant links to broader scriptural context, they linked verses with audio clips, they had a mind-boggling array of translations, and I think they were the first to get permission to put the massively popular New International Version (NIV) of the Bible online. Even now, I think they might be the only one to host Today’s New International Version (TNIV) as well. It has been a Godsend and a great boon to Bible students and believers everywhere. Others have imitated it, but nobody has ever come close to improving on it, much less surpassing it.

All of that is coming to a close. It’s the end of an era. Or at least it feels that way.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen this announced online anywhere. I searched fruitlessly for it today, but haven’t seen it. This, despite the front page announcement I read in last Friday’s Muskegon Chronicle:

“Muskegon-based Christian media giant near close“

As far as I can tell, and from whatever scuttlebutt I’ve heard, Gospel Communications itself is not closing, but that remains to be seen. At the very least, the Internet portion of GospelCom will be going away.

Over the last few weeks I’ve noticed that my GospelCom social networking contacts have quietly been updating their online resumés and some of them have already listed new jobs as their current place of employment. Former coworkers of mine have related that some Bible Societies (likely the International Bible Society, copyright holder for the NIV and TNIV) have been bidding to purchase the Bible Gateway to keep it alive in one form or another. There will likely be big news to announce on this front in the next few weeks when the secret corporate handshakes are all done.

Let’s hope and pray that our hard-laboring brothers and sisters at GospelCom land on their feet. Michigan’s economy is in the tanks right now and it will take miracles for these capable people to find jobs quickly.

So last monday Ted Olsen at Christianity Today invited me to respond to the latest inquiries into Palin’s faith with a sensible description of who the A/G are and how we fit into the rest of mainstream evangelicalism. This is my attempt.

I’ll confess to being a little nervous when writing this. Not only would my denomination’s leadership see it, but probably a couple million people could find something to disagree over it. But, hey — have keyboard, will write.

So, here it is, have fun with it, and feel free to comment.

All You Need to Know About the Assemblies of God
A primer for Palin watchers and others.

From: http://christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/septemberweb-only/138-21.0.html

“She is a longtime member of the Assemblies of God. That’s all you need to know.”

That’s how political blogger Andrew Sullivan recently summarized Governor Sarah Palin’s faith background.

But entertain the crazy thought that some people might want to know more. What would we learn from the media about the Assemblies of God?

It’s “the evangelical experience on steroids,” “where sitting is an option but clapping is not,” where beliefs “stray a bit from the mainstream” and which “mainstream Christians don’t understand.” There’s the usual report of tongues, faith-healing, and “end times” — threateningly caricaturized as “a violent upheaval that … will deliver Jesus Christ’s second coming.” Combine “holy laughter, divine dancing, silver tooth fillings turning into gold, [and] the regeneration of a large intestine,” and you see why Palin’s childhood faith has been “deemed irrelevant by the liberal intelligentsia because it is regarded as fundamentalist and … irrational.”

Then again, news accounts of “rational faith” have been rather scarce.

The first wave

About one in four Christian believers worldwide are Pentecostal or charismatic, and the percentage is increasing daily. The World Christian Database says 8.7 percent of the world’s population is part of this “renewalist” group. The AG is one of the most prominent Pentecostal groups, it’s only a part of the movement. An AG study from 2006 found 60 million adherents in more than 300,000 churches worldwide. About 2.8 million of these are in the U.S.

The renewalist movement in the U.S. is often divided into three historical “waves.” The first wave began in 1901, resulting in the “classical” Pentecostal denominations, including the Assemblies of God. The second (”charismatic”) wave began around 1960, and the third (”neocharismatic”) wave around 1980. While there are doctrinal and practical differences between the various Pentecostal and charismatic believers, what is common to all is the conviction that the Holy Spirit is personally active, immanent, and works through believers by giving gifts (charisms) for ministry, evangelism, and holiness.

While some scholars have traced a thread of Pentecostal and charismatic expressions throughout church history, the modern renewal began with the “touch felt around the world” on January 1, 1901, when students of Charles Fox Parham were “baptized in the Spirit” and spoke in tongues after studying the Bible to prove or deny the validity of such an experience. The fledgling movement found its tipping point at the Azusa Street Revival, led by a former student of Parham’s, William Joseph Seymour. This California revival, from 1906 to 1909, is widely considered the true genesis of Pentecostalism and has been called ” America ’s most successful spiritual export.”

The first Pentecostal denomination to form (in 1907) was the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), led by Charles H. Mason. The body that became the AG formed in 1914.

What do they believe?

Today, the Assemblies of God is generally considered orthodox with beliefs common to many denominations — excepting mainstream cessationist groups. George Barna reports that among the 12 largest denominations, Assemblies of God adherents tend to have the highest “overall purity of … biblical perspectives.” They are more likely to be born again, to be “absolutely committed” to faith, to hold a high view of Scripture, to believe in a literal heaven and hell, to believe that Jesus was sinless, to believe that God created the universe, are more likely to pray, and are more likely to share the gospel with unbelievers.

Assemblies of God adherents are evangelical, believing in the need for personal salvation and the call to evangelize. They have a high view of biblical authority and believe in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. They are Arminian, believing that God-given free will is compatible with divine sovereignty. They believe that salvation is by grace and unmerited but is conditional on faith and on accepting the sacrifice and lordship of Jesus — and therefore, one can willfully fall from grace. They are thoroughly Trinitarian, rejecting the modalism as expressed in the Oneness or “Jesus’ Name”-only Pentecostal movement (e.g., the United Pentecostal Church).

Their essential doctrines are expressed in creedal form in their “Sixteen Fundamental Truths,” and expanded on in a variety of position papers available online. Their four core doctrines are a belief in salvation, divine healing, Jesus’ imminent “second coming” (along with the rapture, tribulation, and the millennial reign of Christ), and that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is a divine gift freely available to all believers.

This baptism is the core “distinctive doctrine” of the Assemblies of God, defined as a work of grace and an experience subsequent to and distinct from conversion (and not required for salvation), accompanied by the “initial physical evidence” of speaking in other tongues. This experience empowers believers for Christian witness, service, and holiness. Distinct from water-immersion baptism, Pentecostals see Spirit baptism as an immersion in the power, person, and experience of the Holy Spirit, and locate it biblically as promised in Joel 2:28-29, Mark 1:8, and John 16:5-16; made normative in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5; modeled in Acts 2:1-4; and universally extended as a gift to all believers in Acts 2:38-39.

Not just TV preachers

In addition to media-whipped anomalies such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Benny Hinn (all former Assemblies of God ministers), other AG churchgoers have gained national attention, including singer-songwriter Sara Groves, former U.S. Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), and Linda Smith (R-Wash.), and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

And, of course, Sarah Palin.

But while Palin may well have been “a longtime member of the Assemblies of God,” she has not regularly attended an AG church since 2002.

And a lot can change in six years.

Rich Tatum is a freelance writer who attends an AG church
and blogs at TatumWeb.com/blog/.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Used by permission

Related Elsewhere:

• You can interact with the commenters at the ChristianityToday.com article as well.
• The AG has a history page.
• At Azusa Remixed, Pentecostal and charismatic scholars discuss the movement’s history and contemporary debates.
• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a demographic portrait of Pentecostals in 10 different countries.

Update: Krista Tippett from NPR’s Speaking of Faith wrote to let me know about a program they put together which I think you’ll be interested in, too. She writes:

I love your piece on Azusa in Christianity Today and wanted to let you know that we made a very similar move on our show this past weekend to respond to the generalizations about Palin’s faith — and also point out that there are Pentecostals in key positions in the DNC and the Obama campaign. We’ve had a tremendous response to it:

Speaking of Faith: The Origins and Impact of Pentecostalism

Check it out, there’s an mp3 to download, you can stream the program, listen to other interviews with sociologist Margaret Poloma, Pentecostal historian Cecil Robeck, an exploration of the Master’s Commission, and more, more, more.

Wherein I reflect on gay marriage and just a wee little bit upon marriage itself. Please note, I really have no business writing this stuff. But I just don’t have the sense…

Okay, so during my one-hour drive home from work a couple days ago, I was listening to public radio and heard a story about a woman who was undergoing a divorce from her spouse — another woman. (Turns out it’s as hard to get a legal gay divorce as it is to get a gay marriage in some states. That’s why the story…)

Partway through her narrative, this lady described how, after the wedding, she and her lover stopped at a homey little restaurant for dinner, mentioning that they had just gotten married. A few minutes later the server delighted them when he arrived with compliments from the chef and owner, presenting them with flowers and champagne to celebrate their nuptials.

I paused. I reflected.

What if I had been that server? How should I have responded? (How would you respond?) Do I congratulate the new couple? Do I say anything that indicates happiness for them? Would this condone their relationship?

Or do I give them sacred stony silence and the cold shoulder of moral outrage?

Further, though I do not approve of their “marriage,” shouldn’t I stay silent at least? Why tell my manager, knowing that he will award the complimentary house bubbly? (Nevermind whatever I might think about the morality of drinking that “demon likker!”)

After un-pausing, I considered my reflections….

For myself, I think I would congratulate them, give them the best wine the house has to offer, and add them to my prayer list. (They’ll certainly need both!) Whatever else might happen during my service would be up to the Lord and any conversational opportunities that come up.

My moral example?

When slapped in the face and confronted with relational and governmental injustice, Jesus told his followers to turn their heads, offering the unslapped cheek as well. When pressed into service to carry a hated Roman soldier’s baggage for a mile, Jesus instructed his listeners to not stop at the end of the mile (which the law allowed) but to go even further — to go the second mile. When sinned against, Jesus told his disciples to forgive. And forgive again. (Again and again and again Finnegan.) When modeling how to pray, Jesus demonstrated a plea for God’s forgiveness predicated on our own proactive forgiveness of others sins against us.

If we’re to offer such unconditional forgiveness against personal injustices, what right do I have to hold sin against someone who hasn’t sinned against me, but against God himself?

I agree with my fellow conservative bloggers: We should fight hard to preserve the sanctity of the very concept of marriage in our culture, with the caveat that we haven’t done so well at preserving the sanctity of marriage within our own churches — more than half of us cannot bear to stay wed despite our protestations of holy, straight matrimony.

Thus, I also agree with others that we desperately need to clean up our own act and a good place to start is living holy lives, and leading and loving unbelievers to Jesus.

And building healthy, holy marriages.

Moral outrage? That’s easy. Beautiful, Christ-like lives? That’s hard.

No wonder so many of us are combative.

The study by Willow Creek was been years in the making but only splashed across the blogosphere with its sensational headlines late last year. (Read: “Mind-Blowing!” - “Painful!” - “Revolutionary!”) I’m not sure why CT is still doing stories on it at this late date except that their publishing schedule is generally 3-6 months out. (I first heard about the Reveal study in October.) [Update: I didn't read the intro to the article well enough! WC announced they are changing their Sunday service program. --R.] Whatever you think about Willow, mega-churches, or the so-called “Seeker sensitive” model — this report and its conclusions are a must-read if you’re in church leadership of any sort.

It’s easy to be critical of Willow for being “seeker sensitive,” and too many who’ve never been exposed to Willow are happy to critique Hybels & Co. But I think it’s important to note that the survey and its findings weren’t focused solely on Willow Creek. At least two dozen other churches (or more) were involved in the study — Willow was just the beginning, and the study continues.

Sadly, the results were consistent across the board. That’s what’s truly interesting about the study’s conclusions.

The main takeaway is this: numeric growth does not equal spiritual growth.

If we’re honest about it, the idea that numeric growth reveals a church’s health and its members’ own spiritual health has infected the American church for decades. The idea is captured in this sillogism:

Healthy organisms grow
Churches are like organisms
Therefore, healthy churches grow

But what this three-step dance of logic fails to take into account is that healthy organisms stop growing when they reach maturity and a size appropriate to their nature. In fact, an organism’s failure to experience a growth plateau is one evidence of sickness.

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. (Think: obesity, cancer, acromegaly, gigantism, etc.)

So, why?

I’ve bemoaned this elsewhere (on my blog, on email discussion groups, and at my denomination’s discipleship forum), but in my view the chief problem with most (if not all) of the churches I’ve attended has been a failure to encourage, challenge, and provide for spiritual transformation and discipleship in individual believers within a transformed community. And the failure to do that, I believe rests on a handful of factors — not always present in every circumstance, but often working together.

Churches are filled with members who’ve not become spiritually transformed because:

• The leadership believes numeric growth is an indicator of success
• The leadership believes financial growth is an indicator of success
• The leadership believes the quality of its programming is an indicator of success
• The leadership believes the members’ level of participation in programming is an indicator of success
• Transfer growth (from other churches) is as valuable as evangelistic growth
• Adherence to moral standards of conduct is an indicator of spiritual growth
• A greater variety of programs will attract more participants and induce spiritual growth

But, in my opinion, the three greatest moves (or cultural shifts) that create the stalled spiritual growth the Willow Creek study analyzes are:

1. The move from a Word-centered church to a worship- and/or fellowship-centered church,
2. The move from Word-based exposition from the pulpit to a topical attempt to engage attention, and
3. The move away from peer- and mentor-based discipleship as part of the church community’s DNA.

If I had to blame anything on these movements away from what has been historically and classically the strength and backbone of the church, I would point to three modern developments that have contributed to our cultural individualism and this failure to connect church community membership and spiritual transformation:

• The demise of the one-room schoolhouse,
• The ubiquity of the automobile and widely flung pseudo-communities, and
• The ubiquity of private immersive entertainment (starting with the portable radio, the television, and now the Internet).

Seriously, these things contribute. Let me briefly opine how (and, again, I welcome our comments and criticism). And let me say at the outset that just because these may be contributing factors, that doesn’t make them bad. More likely, it just means they’ve been poorly used.

The Demise of the One-Room Schoolhouse

When children were taught in the context of a community and in the dynamic mentoring relationship of a one-room schoolhouse, we didn’t have to talk about mentoring younger people: it happened naturally. The teacher could focus on teaching the older, more capable students as well as the young, but the older students would tutor and mentor the younger children at the same time. Brothers helped their little sisters. Big sisters helped their little brothers. All under the watchful eye of the teacher. If you spent 12 years in this kind of relationally-driven learning environment, it would influence your every approach to teaching, training, and learning. Why don’t more careers have journeymen and apprentices? Because our culture no longer acts as though careers or skills are best transferred in relationship. Instead, pedagogy rules, books liberate, and “information wants to be free.”

Information may be free, but discipleship is costly.

The Automobile and Pseudo-Communities

With the automobile came a renewed pioneer spirit. Not only could we “Go West!” once we were emancipated from the rule of our father’s house, many of us saw it as our imperative to get as many state lines between our parent’s and inlaw’s homes and our own domicile - whether that meant college out-of-state or marrying and accepting jobs in some far-flung corner of the country, few people now live in the same neighborhood as their parents. And fewer still invite their parents to live with them in their retirement. Yet this wasn’t uncommon at the turn of the century. People might move across the city, or to a neighboring town, but it took strong motivation to pack up and move completely out of the community one knew growing up. But the automobile made it possible to live as far away as one or two states over and still allow a comfortable commute to visit over the weekends and holidays. Now, families are content if they see each other only a few times a year. And with the car came the possibility of choosing a church community a half an hour to an hour away from one’s home. I’ve frequently attended churches that were 20-30 miles from my home, passing by perfectly good faith communities along the way. Which, of course, cater to similarly far flung “pseudo communties” of members whose domiciles may be spread out over thousands of square miles. When my closest church neighbor lives 10 miles away, am I truly living in community?

Going Solo

With the advent of solo entertainment devices, we completed the cocooning cycle that Faith Popcorn predicted nearly two decades ago. We can live virtually our entire day bubbled in a safe cocoon and we now get to take our cocoons with us in the form of internet-enabled, blue-tooth capable cars complete with AM/FM Radio, CDs, XM-Radio, built-in DVD players, and Internet capable telephony. From the cocoon of our home to the cocoon of or car, to the cocoon-like cubicle at work, many of us can honestly say we haven’t had more than an hour’s conversation with a close friend in weeks. If we have a close friend.

So…

Nothing can be done about these cultural shifts, but something can be done at our churches. We can resist the siren call to greater size, more numbers, bigger budgets and insist, instead, on reproducing ourselves. We can plant more churches, reach our to our local communities, talk to our neighbors, and focus on truly relational discipleship (which really needs to start with the leadership). We can scale back on the number and size of our programs and focus instead on building relationships, discipling our converts, being accountable and actually preaching the Word from the pulpit. We can focus on worship, not entertainment, on prayer and praise, not showmanship, on truly walking together in love and grace rather than small group exercises in futility.

Too often we leave our faith at the door when we climb into our SUVs for the drive home. How can we help it? It’s all we know, it’s all we’ve seen, it’s what our pastors do. Our churches inherit the DNA and style of their leadership.

If our members haven’t gotten the message that they need to pick up the spoon and feed themselves, as Bill Hybels laments at the RevealNow website, it’s not because they don’t know that’s their responsibility: it’s because they haven’t seen anybody doing it and growing from it to value it themselves. They’re not hungry for it, else they would belly up and feed from the trough of the Biblical buffet.

Further, even if the people are feeding themselves, church leaders are not absolved from the responsibility to lead just because a believer is now “on the path” to spiritual maturity. Just as parents still must provide guidance and proper nutrition for their hungry children well past their infancy, so much the shepherds of the local flock continue to provide good content to direct their charge’s attention and spiritual formation. Though Timothy was the Apostle Paul’s appointed delegate and personal representative (a sign of great trust, leadership, and maturity), Paul continued to minister to him with instruction, doctrine, guidance, and wisdom — even from prison while nearing his own death. (See both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.)

We must preach the Word, not opinions. We must disciple, not merely teach. We must walk in relationship and community, not simply attend church in proximity. This, I believe, is what the modern church needs most.

Well, that’s my $0.02 worth. Now, go and write likewise!

A few days ago, a friend from an Assemblies of God-oriented discussion group raised an interesting topic. Since I haven’t posted much here for a while, I thought I’d share my thoughts and joyfully invite your comments.

The Good Pagan

Carissa wrote:

« I think, and this is a lay person’s humble opinion, that a person can live a good moral life without knowing Christ as Savior. »

Amen, Carissa!

It’s a sad myth among us Christians that people can only act “good” by knowing Jesus when, in fact, Christianity is proof of the fact that good behavior is possible while not helpful at gaining eternal salvation. When the rich young ruler came to Jesus, he was not condemned by Jesus for bad behavior. The young man, in fact, kept all the commands since childhood. He said as much and Jesus, knowing his heart, did not call him a liar. But the law, for all its moral purity, is not enough because, as Jesus says, “No one is good — except God alone.” (See Mark 10:17-31.)

God has revealed himself not just in his Word but in creation as well, and many who do not believe in Jesus have perceived what is right and good through God’s general revelation. God has given a great deal of truth, knowledge, and wisdom to unbelievers, and we benefit from it every day.

When I fly safely thousands of feet in the air via a sturdy Boeing 747, I thank God for the pagans (and believers) who applied their knowledge to build that plane to fly safely. I thank God for their sense of ethics and morality in controlling quality and making constant inspections.

In short, I thank God there’s no such thing as a “Christian” airplane.

The better we understand this, the better and more winsome our conversations can be with unbelievers. I think.

Shortly after, Carissa followed up with some more thoughts, prompting me to pick up the keyboard again. …

Good People in Hell

When I wrote about the possibility of unbelieving folk exhibiting good moral behavior and enjoying God’s “common grace,” Carissa responded:

« There’s a friend of mine that refuses to believe in Jesus or God for that very reason. If you can live a good and moral life without Him, then why do you need Him? Especially with all the negative connotation “Christians” have on themselves. He also has a hard time with the fact that God sends “good, moral” people to hell. With as much love as I could, I explained that God doesn’t send people there, they chose to go there through His gift of free will. »

Sounds like you’ve had some great conversations! Keep them up.

True, individual Christians don’t always fare all that well when compared to individual pagans. Some believers act worse than some unbelievers. Some Christians, in fact, exhibit frankly evil attitudes and behaviors (just read the newspapers). We’ve all known believers who’ve cheated on their spouses, who’ve stolen, who cheat on taxes, who engage in risky behaviors, and who are addicted to vices. And yet we’ve all known unbelievers who are faithful to their spouses, who shrink at the thought of stealing, who pay their taxes honestly, who enjoy wise lifestyle choices, and who conscientiously abstain from alcohol, wacky tobacky, or thriftily avoiding gambling on the state lottery.

In any given church there are likely a handful (or more!) in whom we would be hard pressed to identify any holy behavior beyond that of appearing in church relatively sober and even-tempered on Sunday morning while a trip to the local pub might reveal a handful (or more) of relatively sober and even-tempered patrons who would be a joyful addition to any church’s membership roster. (Save for the fact that they don’t mind hoisting a tankard or two now and then. (Count among them C.S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, who met regularly at local pubs with their friends, The Inklings, to talk theology while swilling brew and inhaling smoke.)

But Jesus didn’t die on the cross, suffer the pain of our sin and separation from his Father, and rise again three days later so we could be paragons of moral virtue for our neighbors. He didn’t save us to be good — he saved us despite our paltry attempts at goodness. Our goodness doesn’t count for much. For no matter how good our best behavior is it is never ever good enough. Not when compared to the pure, unadulterated, undiluted, pristine infinity of God’s absolute, burning holiness.

That is not hyperbole.

Even the most faithful husband is guilty of moral adultery in his heart. Even the most even-tempered peace-nick is guilty of murder in his heart. Even the most honest policeman is guilty of theft via his heart’s jealousy. And the most abstemious tee-totaling librarian is guilty of the secret vice of addiction to the drug of self-conceit. Only God is truly holy. Only god is truly good. And the detritus of our holiest ambitions are steaming piles of rotten carnage when compared to the solar brilliance of God’s fiery righteousness. In his presence the holiest of all of mankind’s venerated saints would burn to a crisp without the protection of Jesus’ grace and protection.

What I most need reminding of when I start feeling good about my own efforts and my own false sense of purity is that Jesus’ sacrifice and victory over death doesn’t save me from Hell — it saves me from God himself. For without the debt of my moral bankruptcy being forgiven in full by God through Jesus, my eternal death would be the price I would pay upon entering eternity.

God’s holiness suffers no sin. In his presence sin will not be tolerated — the very hint of it would result in destruction. Only by submitting to the covering of the sacrifice and blood of Jesus will I be admitted into his presence. His death “covers” my debt. His sacrifice doesn’t magically make me good: it mercifully loans me his goodness.

The rest (being good) I must learn, with the help of the Holy Spirit, constant training, meditation on the Word, worship, prayer, service, and fellowship. That’s what discipleship is. That’s what sanctification is. That’s what growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ is. Hopefully, by God’s grace, in ten years I’ll be a “better” man, closer to being like Jesus, than I am now. That doesn’t make be a bad Christian now, or less likely to enjoy Heaven. It just makes me “on the way.” And that’s true for the new believer, the old believer, and the scarily ineffective believer who still does bad things while burning up grace minute-by-minute. (That’s me, by the way.)

In the scale of things, when compared to God’s purity, I am no more clean and worthy of eternal joy — now, or ever — than is bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, or Dahmer. Sure, compared to them, I look great. But on my own and compared to God, I’m in their league, not his.

You’re right. God doesn’t send “good” people to hell. They’re already there. It’s only by his grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy that we are saved from life without God by God himself.

May I ever be mindful of his grace and mercy.

Finally, there were a couple follow-up emails that I had missed and failed to respond to in my previous post, so I rounded them up and sent one final email.

As a follow-up to my recent post, I realized there were a couple other comments I wanted to chime in on, please forgive me if I act like I “have all the answers.” I don’t, but I do have a perspective, and I hope it helps.

Conversation with Good, Happy Pagans

Last Tuesday, March 11, Steven wrote:

« I’ve found that the “good” and the “moral” are the hardest to witness to. They don’t see their need for a Savior. Anybody else found that to be true? »

And Carissa followed almost immediately with agreement:

« Definitely… To be honest, I was kind of at a loss when my friend pulled that card. All I could think was, Jesus makes it better. »

Good Hypocrisy

I think it’s not the morally “good” people that are the hardest to talk to about faith. Rather, I think the morally “self-righteous” seem hardest to talk to — and that’s true whether they are believers or not. And when you read the gospel accounts, the morally self-righteous are the ones Jesus spoke most harshly to. Self-righteousness comes in many forms, I guess, but the worst are the religiously self-righteous, and they need to be help as much as the happily unchurched “good” folk do. Why? Because it seems the zealously good self-righteous crowd will be the the most surprised on the Day of Judgment. They will remind Jesus of the good things they’ve done in his name, the sacrifices they’ve made, and the moral acts they’ve performed. Instead, Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”

You’ll find that text in Matthew chapter 7. Interesting, that’s also the passage where Jesus makes the point that everybody knows, basically, how to be good, but that God is even better. He illustrates this by saying, “Look, compared to God, you’re evil — but even so, you know how to be good to your children. When your son asks for bread, you don’t hand him a rock to eat. God does even better than that!” (My paraphrase. See Matthew 7:9 and following.)

But their moral goodness toward their children, as I mentioned earlier, doesn’t count for much in the eternal scale of things because, in the end, only those who do the will of the Father in heaven will be counted as inheritors of heaven. What is the will of the Father? It’s not only obedience to his commands — his will is that everyone call on his name, repent, and confess Jesus Christ as Lord of their total life (John 6:40, Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19, Acts 17:30, Romans 10:9-10, 1 John 1:9).

Done vs. Do

See, the self-righteous believe that it’s what one does that earns a way into heaven. But alone among all religions stands Christianity teaching that nothing we do earns us eternal life. It’s only what has been done by Christ that works. All the rest, our obedience, flows from that, but even then it’s not to our credit for it is God who works in us and through us to do his will. (Philippians 2:12 and following.)

How Do We Know What Is Good?

For discussion with unbelievers, I believe it’s good to discuss the reality of good and evil to help introduce God’s goodness and what he considers evil. What’s great about this is that unless you’re a committed materialistic humanist who believes that all of life is merely “molecules in motion,” that we are simply advanced forms of protoplasm, then a belief in the moral good has to have something that informs it.

In other words, if we are simply massive collections of molecules, then ideas such as good or evil, right or wrong, or beauty and ugliness have no real meaning. If we are mere matter and nothing more, then it makes no difference whether you murder or love me, all that would matter is whether murdering or loving was useful for the moment. For the committed materialistic humans, there is no more literal value on a person’s life than a rat’s. Fortunately, few people outside academia or death-row are that fully committed to materialistic humanism: it takes a sociopath to truly believe that.

So, the good news is that since your friend believes in good and evil, half your work is already done. The question that you can wrestle with together is this: Where does he get his ideas of good and evil from? What justifies his belief that, say, murdering an innocent person is wrong while feeding the poor is good? How does he make this judgment? If goodness, beauty, and decency are to have any meaning at all, if there is some sort of moral law underpinning our codes of conduct, then where did we get this law from? Who, then, is the law giver? If your friend has ever experienced guilt, shame, or regret, ask him why? What made him feel this way? Would his life be better off if nobody ever felt guilt or shame from wrongdoing? What kind of a world would that be like? On the other hand, what kind of a world has rules for what’s good and bad and where violators are expected to feel remorse? And how would that kind of world merely evolve into being?

If God Is Good, Then…

If God, who created all these molecules, is the source of this universal moral code, then it makes sense to find out what his expectations are. And now! And, I believe, only Christianity points the way. Only Christianity describes a law-giver who not only created the universe and all that is in it, but also condescended to reveal himself to his creation not only generally, through nature and our own innate sense of right and wrong, but also specifically through revealed writings (the Bible), and personally in the person of Jesus Christ.

Further, in all other religions, what one does is the measure of one’s worthiness of reward. Only in Christianity is God the one who acts on our behalf to save us from the effects of sin. Only in Christianity is man seen as innately flawed and incapable of self-redemption. That’s why in nations influenced and shaped by Christianity, you’ll see checks and balances on power because Christianity recognizes that man is innately flawed and susceptible to evil. And that’s why when any other religious system is in political power in a nation, despots rise up and great evil follows. We only have to look at the Middle East to see this truth.

Embrace Doubt, Then Examine It

Finally, your friend’s doubts are healthy. But it might be helpful to talk about how his belief system is itself informed by leaps of “faith” that are essentially presuppositions and assumptions. For instance, in his view, people are (probably) basically good and that left to their own devices, people will usually make good choices. However, the reality is that people are heavily driven by self-interest and will often make bad choices, especially when manipulated by the need to be accepted, loved, praised, respected, followed, or feared. A number of psychological studies have shown this to be true, from subjects who thought they were giving volunteers electrical shocks to other subjects who abused “prisoners” in campus experiments conducted in the last century.

More…

There’s more that could be written on this, but I’ve already written too much. I encourage you to seek out Tim Kellers’ book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and C.S. Lewis’ classic Mere Christianity. I understand Chuck Colson’s recent book, The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters, also covers this ground nicely, though I haven’t read it yet. Also, noted and influential (former) atheist Antony Flew, after decades of leading the charge against Christianity, recently converted to Theism and now accepts the possibility that there is a God. He’s not fully Christian (yet!) but his account of his “conversion” may be helpful, it’s titled, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Regards,

Wherein I describe my first day on the job after a harrowing 14-month unemployment ordeal.

So, there hasn’t been much news on this blog lately, mostly because I’ve been busy, I’ve been distracted, and I’ve been unemployed. Somehow, not having a job makes me less productive in my blogging alter-life. Go figure.

Here’s the news: I’ve been hired!

I didn’t want to spend a lot of time talking about interviews and possibilities and potentialities, getting hopes up, and boring you with my uneven work possibilities. But after leaving Tennessee just before Christmas, I contacted Zondervan for a new open position I’d found on their website: Senior Editorial Manager. I expressed my interest.

Then I moved. Jennifer and the kids and I packed up and moved to Muskegon to live with my father-in-law while we sorted things out, worked on selling the house, and licked our wounds.

By the end of the month, I had a nibble from Zondervan. Then, in February, I got an interview. Then I was called back for more interviews. Then, finally, I got … the call.

March 10, today, was my first day on the job.

I have no idea what I’m doing. Yet, anyhow. As far as I can tell from the conversations I’ve had and the job description I’ve seen, I’m going to be a project manager/expediter for anything and everything produced by Zondervan’s Curriculum, Academic, Reference, and Resource division as well as their digital/online division. If it’s going to be a product, I’ll be pushing it through the system. I won’t be editing. Rather, I’ll be managing the stuff that editors are working on.

It’s a big job, but I’m happy to do it, and I’ll be learning a lot over the next few months, not only about the job itself, but about Zondervan, its 75+ year history, and its highly refined publishing process.

Word to the wise: Zondervan looks to be a great company to work for. Their benefits are phenomenal and their employee culture is great. Everybody is friendlier than tame puppies, and they’ve bent over backwards to make me feel really wanted and celebrated at the company.

Thanks to all who prayed for us and kept sending us helpful suggestions and encouragement. It has been hugely appreciated. We’re not entirely out of the woods yet: we still have accumulated debt, a house to sell, untreated medical stuff, and the need to move into our own home. But apart from that, God is really blessing us!

I couldn’t let the day end without wishing all of you a happy new year! Welcome to 2008!

I am safely tucked away in Michigan right now. My family secure and housing provided. Work has already begun to find work.

It’s going to be a good year. I’ll keep you updated.