This whole topic led [...]]]> Scot McKnight asks why Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Albert Mohler start a firestorm when they say certain things, while others, such as Tim Keller can believe and say those same things, but don’t get the same heated response. There’s an interesting discussion in the comments, which is worth reading.

This whole topic led me to think about something else, however. Is there a proper role for polarizing figures? I have started a few arguments in my time, but I don’t aim to be polarizing. I aim to bring people together. So I tend to look more favorably on the non-polarizing proponents of any position, those who invite conversation while suggesting new (or resuggesting old) ideas.

At the same time, I don’t think those who build consensus are sufficient to bring out the truth. There have to be voices that challenge the way things are done. There have to be people who generate the annoyance and anger that it takes to get people moving. As an egalitarian, I have to think that Mark Driscoll and John Piper may be good things for the entire discussion and even for my cause.

By this I do not mean that they are promoting my point of view by being radically on the other side. I could equally suggest that someone equally polarizing on my side of this particular issue might also have a beneficial role to play, however much they might annoy me. I’m reminded that the prophets were not always sympathetic, moderate people. They normally preached a radical message and did so often in radical ways.

You may object that the prophets preached truth in radical ways. Of course, those who do speak in polarizing ways all believe they are speaking the truth. But that’s not my point. I believe that people tend not to move due to moderate suggestions.  The preacher who suggests to his congregation that they really ought to be just a little more generous may find that they give only a fraction of that “little more.”

I think both extremists (in moderate numbers!) and polarizing people (again, in moderate numbers) do us a great service. Many of us would never move at all if we were not drawn or pushed away from their positions by their positions and manner of presentation.

I discuss identifying the extremes as an important part of thinking in my earlier post Moderate Thinking.

I’m always interested to see what others quote of what I say. I must confess that normally things I write that impress me don’t impress others (at least based on the number of views), while often something I bat off in a couple of minutes [...]]]> Is this a new high (or low) in narcissism?

I’m always interested to see what others quote of what I say. I must confess that normally things I write that impress me don’t impress others (at least based on the number of views), while often something I bat off in a couple of minutes and then forget about draws attention draws in multiples of the views and gets links and retweets.

In any case, nearly two years ago I wrote a post for my wife’s devotional list, and today she reposted it. It included a paragraph I want to quote:

… First, the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to challenge their world. They didn’t call for some little decision, such as going to church once a week, or attending a small group. They called on people to be transformed, and then to transform the world. Second, the power of the preaching involved both the Holy Spirit and the personal testimony of the disciples. They talked about what they knew and what they had witnessed (emphasis mine, but added today).

I’m wondering if I live up to that. No, that’s not quite it. I’m pretty certain I don’t, but I’d like to.

What about you?

Considering what we’ve heard recently about megachurches creating satellite campuses that receive the message from the senior pastor on the main [...]]]> Dave Black warns us today against the cult of the speaker. (With permission I’ve extracted the relevant portion as a post at JesusParadigm.com since Dave’s blog doesn’t allow linking to a specific post.)

Considering what we’ve heard recently about megachurches creating satellite campuses that receive the message from the senior pastor on the main campus via video. It’s not my intent here to point to any particular speaker as an example of being a celebrity preacher or of participating the cult of the speaker. Those of us without the temptation of multi-site ministry or television opportunities can be just as much tempted to pride, arrogance, or any of the myriad of other temptations that come with celebrity.

Dave’s post brought to my mind a concern I’ve had with many churches. I was a member of one church that had somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the average Sunday attendance in the lay speaker program. That’s a wonderful thing. But how often did any of these lay speakers speak? Not very frequently.

Now as we were constantly reminded in lay speaking classes, preaching on Sunday is not the only place in which we could serve. But in the same way I would remind pastors that preaching on Sunday is not the only way they can serve their congregations.

This was brought forcefully to mind a few years back when I invited a pastor to speak at a conference. He eventually had to back out because an emergency came up that kept him out of his pulpit for one week. He told me that he had a covenant with the congregation to be in the pulpit 50 out of 52 Sundays.

While I commend that pastor for being faithful to his word and for putting his beliefs into practice, I don’t think having “the pastor” or “the senior pastor” speak every Sunday is necessarily a good thing. It’s possible that other people in the congregation have something valid to contribute as well. But much more importantly, if we don’t learn to speak about the gospel in church, where will we learn?

If we want lay speakers (speaking “Methodist”) to learn how to speak, where could it be better to do this than at their home congregation? I know there are concerns about the quality of the preaching and the theological/doctrinal accuracy of the message. But one of the things a pastor could do would be to spend the time he or she might spend in sermon preparation helping a lay speaker prepare a sermon.

Then what about the substantial number of members of any church who are neither called nor equipped to present a sermon? There are many varieties of sharing, including testimonies. We have this kind of thing in the church from time to time, but why is it so rare?

I recall testimonies about the ministries of the church given over a period of four weeks. These were excellent. They gave me a better idea of what certain church ministries were accomplishing. It was great to hear from the people involved.

Recently we had a youth Sunday. We have one of those a year. Why is it just once a year? The young man who brought the message did an excellent job. I could stand to hear him more often.

We have many members who feel very inadequate to talk about their faith. Does not the example set by the Sunday service suggest that it requires a trained professional to present the Christian message? Does that example not encourage people to think that what they need to refer their friends and acquaintances to the pastor if they are to have a conversation about faith?

At my home church (First UMC, Pensacola), we are blessed with an excellent pastoral staff. I very much appreciate their ministry in preaching. But I wonder just how much that ministry might be expanded if more time were spent training members of the congregation to share in everything from a one minute testimony to a full sermon.

We often wonder why people tend to become pew sitters rather than becoming active. But isn’t the example of Sunday morning a suggestion that this is precisely the proper role for the “ordinary” church member? I think it’s worth considering.

Now my experience amongst Methodists is that most will just shrug their shoulders about worship on Saturday. They get a little more tense about soul sleep.

I have encountered a few Methodists who are like the one in the [...]]]> As an ex-SDA who is now Methodist, I just have to share this video:

Now my experience amongst Methodists is that most will just shrug their shoulders about worship on Saturday. They get a little more tense about soul sleep.

I have encountered a few Methodists who are like the one in the video, generally those who really have no idea what SDAs believe.

On the other hand, I’ve gotten some very interesting reactions from SDAs who discover I’m ex-SDA and now Methodist. At one meeting where I had brought one of our Energion authors who is SDA, I was cornered by someone at the book table afterward who said he simply couldn’t understand how one could ever have doctrinal disagreements with the SDA church. Take it from me—it’s really quite easty! It’s only fair to point out that our hosts at that church were embarrassed and apologized to me for his behavior, though I actually didn’t mind.

(HT: Spectrum)

There have been a number of posts that are critical of it as well, including a good one by John Byron, and a longer, but still interesting one at The American [...]]]> There’s a video that’s been making the rounds of the Christian blogs, in which pits Jesus against religion. Here it is:

There have been a number of posts that are critical of it as well, including a good one by John Byron, and a longer, but still interesting one at The American Jesus.

Another blogger I follow regularly, T. Michael Holcomb, has also created a video response, which is worth watching, though he gets into some more serious theological terminology:

I think that both the original video and the responses have some important things to say. But we do have a problem here, and it’s one of equivocation. We’re not keeping a consistent definition of religion. One responder notes that Jesus objected to legalism, not religion, but to the speaker in the video, legalism is inherent in religion.

I have little to add to the posts and videos I have linked. There is good religion and not-so-good religion. We should remember that the religion Jesus objected to (and did so as a Jew speaking of his own religion), was one God instituted in Hebrew scriptures. He opposed corruptions of it, such as legalism, but never said it was bad by nature.

At the same time, those very corruptions of religion, including legalism and the elevation of earthly authorities above God, are diseases that are rampant in American Christianity.

The institutional church needs to hear this and take action. If they can …

  Related Posts: William Barclay Commentaries Dangerous The Cross is an Offense Today Turning Point? What Turning Point? God Doesn’t Forgive? When Do You Get On Board? Powered by Contextual Related Posts ]]>

The greatest converting influence of all is a life which clearly and obviously is possessed of a power which can cope with the human situation in all its problems, in all its tragedy, and in all its pain. — William Barclay, Turning to God, p.41