What I mean by this is simple: both Christians who are sheltered from nonbelievers and Christians who simply don’t know what to say to the nonbelievers in their life lack sufficient relationships to effectively lead people to Christ. In the first case, this is obvious. In the second, it is less obvious but, in my mind, accurate; if you don’t know how to turn normal conversation into an opportunity to share your faith with a particular person, you probably don’t know that person very well. I’m not saying you should wait until you could write a biography of that person before you begin evangelizing. However, it is most helpful to build relational capital (which translates into credibility) with your non-Christian friends and get to know them in a way which allows you to effectively critique their personal idols and contextualize the gospel message in a way that they’re more likely to understand and marvel at.

I have found that gospel conversations happen rather naturally with people as I get to know them as close friends. On the other hand, I know plenty of non-Christians with whom I’m a little uncomfortable when it comes to talking about my faith; I’m not sure how to approach the situation or go about evangelizing those acquaintances of whom I know little. This doesn’t mean I avoid tough conversations, but it does mean that I would do well to get to know these people and form deeper, more meaningful relationships with them.  But how? What are some practical ways I can get to know the nonbelievers in my life?

First, building meaningful relationships with nonbelievers requires quite a bit of time. A cup of coffee (or, if you’re like me, beer) every month or so usually won’t cut it. If I am truly trying to get to know someone and build relational capital with them, I want to come as close to living everyday life with them as possible. This may mean sacrificing my time, energy, and even money at times, but unless I’m willing to give a person a ride to work (even if I’d rather be at home watching movies) or feed them a meal (even if it means making an extra run to the grocery)—unless I’m willing to inconvenience myself for the sake of others—it is quite difficult to expect to have any significant impact in their lives.

With that being said, starting the process of building relationships with non-Christians isn’t as tricky as one might think. It requires a great deal of intentionality, but it doesn’t mean quitting your job and leaving the church just so you can spend time with nonbelievers. Instead, we should try to live missionally in everyday life; as we go about our normal, often mundane routines, we should always be thinking about the spread of the gospel. There are many practical things Christians can do to structure their lives in order to become more missional; with most of us, a few minor tweaks could make a world of difference. Therefore, without further ado, I’ve come up with a list of simple ways Christians can “tweak” their everyday lives to be more missional and build meaningful relationships with the non-Christians around them. If each of us did just one or two of these things, I think we’d be in much better shape when it comes to evangelism and mission.

Seven Ways to Live Missionally in Everyday Life

1. Find a coffee shop close to your home (preferably within walking distance, if possible) and frequent it on a regular basis (at least weekly, if not daily or almost every day). Get to know the staff and other regular customers; sit down with your coffee and read the paper there rather than getting it “to go” if at all possible.
   …
2. Join a club of some sort. It could be a gym, a parenting group, or an art class. Find something you love and you’ll meet plenty of non-Christians who share some of the same passions. Shared affinities go a long way in developing relationships.
   …
3. When you have to run errands, invite people along. You’d be surprised what people are willing to do when they’re bored! Try shopping with a non-Christian friend as you get to know him/her; it may even turn into a regular event. Or, if you’re having a cleaning day at your home, ask a friend if they’d like to come over to help. You can have quality time with other people even if you don’t see room for it in your schedule!
   …
4. Eat regularly at a certain restaurant or restaurants in your area; be consistent and do your best to go on the same night at about the same time if you can, trying to get the same server each time (and tip well, for God’s sake!).
   …
5. Get outside; go to parks, go on walks, or spend time in the yard. If you live in the city, try to walk to nearby places as much as possible. You’ll be amazed at how quickly faces become familiar. People who are outdoors are often very sociable and friendly.
   …
6. Attend neighborhood events and block parties whenever possible, even if you don’t know anyone else who’s going. If there aren’t any in your area, consider starting one.
   …
7. Have your neighbors over for dinner. Sure, it will be awkward at first if you don’t know them very well, but it can be a great way to open the door to otherwise hard-to-reach people. There are plenty of folks you may not see out and about but could become good friends once you break the ice and get them to come out of their shell. Inviting people into your home and showing them hospitality is a great demonstration of the gospel, as well.

For introverts like me, getting to know strangers isn’t always easy, and I know that many of us have complicated lives with families and rigid schedules that only add to our difficulty. However, if we live with intention, to the extent which our lives allow, I think much hardship can be averted. I fear that sometimes we’re so obsessed with figuring out how we can turn a conversation into an opportunity to preach that we often forget the importance of meaningful relationships and neglect to invest in building them. However, if we were only better at making friends, perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry so much about coming up with sneaky transitions into evangelism. We need to lay off the bait and switch, knock it off with the marketing, and stop making excuses for our laziness when it comes to programming mission into our daily lives. I, foremost of all, have fallen far short in this respect and can do nothing but pray for the Lord to change my heart and resolve to commit myself more fully to the mission of God, only by his wondrous grace.

Acts 17:1-8 (ESV)

As of late, I’ve been reading The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, where Lesslie Newbigin very clearly articulates the tension between the need to relate to society and the danger of becoming subject to society; in this respect, the phrase “in the world but not of the world” may easily come to mind. Christians have a definite responsibility to engage the world around them as well as the solemn warning to remain “unpolluted by the world” (James 1:27). The question that must be asked is this: how can Christians effectively reach out to their culture without bowing down to its idols?

Newbigin points out that society is—and always has been—subject to what sociologist Peter Berger has called “plausibility structures,”certain frameworks of belief and practice which determine the validity of the various ideas and truth claims one might encounter (8). For centuries, the reigning plausibility structure has been the modern, rationalistic metanarrative (which only recently has begun to exit Western culture, though it has by no means disappeared entirely). Given this, through some careful introspection Newbigin came to the eventual realization that, in his desire to make Christianity relevant and appealing to modern minds, he had begun to “domesticate” the Gospel, attempting to fit it ever so neatly into the dominant plausibility structure which acclaimed reason and science as the only legitimate means of discovering truth (3).

This sheds light on how much of modern Biblical “scholarship” has been, in essence, nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the radical Gospel message with the plausibility structures of Western society; instead of allowing the Bible to scrutinize us, we have scrutinized it, throwing out so many Scriptural truths simply because they are not “plausible” to us in our modern, rationalistic paradigm.

It hardly needs to be said that the domestication of the Gospel strips it of its very power and thus is not a valid way of fulfilling the Great Commission. It is impossible to make disciples with a tamed, neutered message devoid of any subversion or challenge to existing worldviews. Yet at the same time, sound doctrine, when preached into a vacuum, accomplishes nothing; it is ineffective to merely assert Biblical truths from the street corner without making a responsible effort to impact people’s lives with the Gospel. In fact, the very nature of the Gospel demands that it be used as a sword to cut others to the heart rather than bricks out of which one builds his theological fortress.  As Christians, we have a responsibility not only to preach the Gospel but to make disciples—the application and appropriation of that Gospel to the people around us.

Our goal, then, is not to domesticate the Gospel, but to contextualize the Gospel, just as Paul did. This does not mean we “clean up” the Gospel to make it less offensive to the culture around us; to the contrary, we allow the Gospel to critique and undermine the very idols so enthusiastically worshiped in our culture. This of course requires some tact, and engaging the culture is no easy task; as Jesus said, we must be “shrewd as serpents but innocent as doves,” meaning that we are to be clever and perceptive, yet also above reproach. Our aim should be to participate in culture with the purpose of subversion rather than syncretism; the Gospel radically transforms life as we know it, and thus we should strive to also be known as “men who have turned the world upside down.”

So how can we go about contextualizing the Gospel? First, we cannot allow our Gospel to be viewed through the colored lenses of our society’s plausibility structure. Instead, let us allow our Gospel to be the very lens through which we see and understand all such plausibility structures. In this, we much more equipped for evangelism.

In this respect, it is most helpful to think of the Gospel as the over-arching Biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption and restoration. God created a world which was good (creation) but has since been corrupted by sin (fall). Jesus came to atone for that sin (redemption) and is transforming the brokenness of this earth, until his eschatological return when everything will finally be set right again (restoration). When we think about our current cultural situation as part of this Biblical metanarrative, we can look at the values, institutions, and aspirations of our world and see the corrupting effects of sin in each area.

Communicating how sin has led to brokenness and devastation in our world is a good first step to proclaiming Jesus as the just judge and merciful healer, the agent of true change, and the rightful King who will make all things new when he comes in power. By showing the depravity and fallen nature of those around us, we demonstrate the need for Christ, and by drawing attention to the fact that our cultural standards are far less glorious than those of God, we undermine our society’s flawed system of values. Furthermore, by pointing out how good gifts from God (in creation) have been cheapened, corrupted and ruined (in the fall), we set the stage for God’s answer to the problem we’ve created.

We should ask ourselves three questions.

1. What are the values of our culture, to what extent do they reflect Biblical truth and how do they fall short of God’s standard?
    
2. What are the institutions or systems in our culture, how do they reflect God’s good creation and how have we corrupted them?
    
3. What are the aspirations and desires of our culture, how are they intended to be satisfied in God, and to what has our pursuit of satisfaction elsewhere led us?

In other words, Christians need to be able to demonstrate the difference between agape love and worldly “tolerance;” we must show how worldly standards of peace and non-violence fall short of God’s shalom. The idea is to see how we, as sinful human beings, are too easily pleased in certain worldly standards of “goodness” and how the infinitely good God has a higher, much more beautiful standard which is for our own well-being.

Also, we should show how the institutions of our society fall short of God’s purpose. We should treat marriage as a wonderful gift God has given us for our good—a gift which we have trampled upon, chauvinists and feminists alike. We ought to speak of government and authority structures as systems which, while corrupted by pride, greed and tyranny, were indeed intended for good, to protect the innocent and punish the wicked, with those in high positions serving the lowly.

In addition to this, we must recognize and display how our aspirations and desires are futile apart from Christ; we were created to worship, enjoy, and find complete satisfaction in God. After all, it is God who provides for us and sustains us; it is he—and ultimately he alone—who fulfills our basic human needs and desires for love, security and justice. Though we may try to seek satisfaction elsewhere, by other means (perhaps codependent relationships, the hoarding of wealth or global warfare, for example), we will eventually be left unfulfilled and empty unless we repent and believe in the Gospel.

And the Gospel? Simply put, it’s the overwhelmingly good news that Jesus triumphs in the end. It is the very answer to our broken, fallen world. It is the comforting fact that God, in his transformative power, is in the business of fixing our mistakes, restoring what we’ve destroyed. It’s the sobering message that though we have all rebelled against God’s rightful authority (and thus become his enemies) he has made a way for us to be reconciled.

This Christianity is no mere additive to our modern or postmodern plausibility structure. It is an entirely new plausibility structure which happens to be fundamentally different from anything we’ve ever experienced. We are not trying to force an oddly-shaped puzzle piece into a space in which it simply does not fit, nor are we trimming off the edges of our puzzle piece so that we can make it fit. The fact is that we’re operating with an altogether different puzzle. And what a puzzle it is! The humble are exalted, the exalted are humbled; the meek and mourning and poor in spirit are the very ones who receive blessing! Those who seek to be the greatest must serve the lowly. Those who seek to live must take up their cross and die.

Newbigin puts it quite well: “The Church…as the bearer of the gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure which is at variance with, and which calls in question, those that govern all human cultures without exception” (9). By taking a look at “gospels” of our culture, we may begin to demonstrate their utter failure to bring satisfaction, wholeness, peace, and justice to this world. And in doing this, we hope to lead a downcast, despondent and worn-out society to fall before the Most High God—the very One whose overtures they have so long ignored—in desperate and radical repentance. Let us be known, too, as men who have turned the world upside down.

°Reference: Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989)

1. The Linear (“Seeker-Driven”) Model

This model is by far the most common in the contemporary church today, but it is also the model I disagree with the most. Under the “seeker-driven” model, people are drawn to a weekly event (that is, a church service) through attractional “ministries” such as gourmet coffee, high quality music, and various entertaining gimmicks. The idea behind this model is to get as many people to come to a Sunday church service as possible and then try to herd them into small groups, where discipleship takes place. Thus, the mission of the church consists, for the most part, in this attractional method of marketing and promotion. Sunday services are mostly about reaching out to visitors and less about discipling the congregation; therefore it is common to hear topical sermons which are often watered-down from Scripture. This is done intentionally to make visitors feel welcome, in the hope that they may join the church and eventually plug into small groups where they will (ideally speaking) experience spiritual growth.

While this model is effective in bringing in large numbers of people, it also has many flaws, in my view:

• Spiritual growth is viewed as an assembly line, except the machinery often breaks down late in the process; this often means many churchgoers but few who are discipled.
• There is an overall view of “church” as a weekly event, rather than a community of people.
• Visitors to a service are often treated as numbers making up an audience of consumers rather than real people.
• Mission and discipleship are viewed as two separate processes which generally take place through well-orchestrated programs.
• Because of these things, church easily becomes a mere additive to a person’s life, rather than being central to all things.
• As a result, it is more difficult to stir members to participate in evangelism and discipleship; various programs, which try to fix this problem, thus become the lifeblood of the church. 

2. The Cyclical (“Missional Community”) Model

The “missional community” model, however, is a radically different alternative to the “seeker-driven” model of a church. Church is rightly viewed as a community of people rather than a mere event; Sunday services receive much less emphasis and become more like celebrations of family than altar calls. Within the larger church community, however, there are smaller “missional communities” which in many respects are microcosms of the church as a whole, being more than just small groups while still submitting to authority and leaders of the larger church (therefore remaining a little less than house churches). Thus, instead of treating people like consumers, this model treats them like neighbors and seeks to bring them into the community by means of interpersonal relationships, not bells and whistles. This requires that the members of the church take ownership of their faith and responsibility to make disciples, which may prove to be difficult. However, the idea of people reaching people is attractive. Furthermore, discipleship and mission are essentially understood to be two sides to the same process; both are accomplished by preaching the Gospel, which is the necessary curriculum both for believers (members) and unbelievers (non-members). In this way, the “missional community” model of church is cyclical in nature; as people are brought in to the community of faith by means of relationships, they also bring others into the community in the same manner, and the Gospel is preached to all as the source of spiritual growth. 

I feel like this model is pretty solid; I hesitate to say that there are “weaknesses” to it, but I do think that this model makes some things more difficult:

• The success of this model relies heavily on the church members rather than programs or systems. This means that if the community is not active in pursuing relationships and preaching the Gospel, it will become inward focused and fail to grow.
• Also, it is important to remember that society still generally sees Sunday as “church day,” and therefore we should be considerate of first-time visitors in our weekly services. 

3. The Overlapping (“Funnel”) Model

One other model which is perhaps viable is what you might call the “funnel” model, in that both weekly events (services) and small groups are designed to “funnel” new people into the church community, where discipleship takes place. This model takes a two-pronged approach and is, in some ways, a combination of the two previous models; it utilizes both attractional ministry (i.e. marketing) and relationships, although perhaps to lesser degrees than the other models. Mission and discipleship may be somewhat distinct from one another, but they are not nearly as disconnected as they would be in the “seeker-driven” model. Both occur in weekly events, as well as in small groups. You will see that I used a Venn Diagram to illustrate this. Also, like in the “missional community” model, the Gospel remains central to the discipleship process and is preached both to believers and unbelievers as the A-Z of the Christian faith. 

In many cases, I find that this model is followed by people who initially pursue the “missional community” model but (perhaps due to a lack of church growth or pressure to perform) end up only partially adopting the cyclical, “missional community” approach (they may even call their small groups “missional communities,” but they do not fully function that way; true missional communities are not an extension or ministry of the church but the very composition of the church). My question is whether or not this model is legitimate; does it achieve the best of both worlds or compromise between good and evil?

As of now, my feeling is that this third model is, in fact, legitimate; as long as the Gospel is the center of both mission and discipleship, I think it is viable. While I am not a fan of marketing, I do not think its use automatically disqualifies this way of doing things, as long as one is careful to avoid “selling out” in respect to attractional ministry. Furthermore, it seems that with this model, the health and growth of the church is less dependent upon the members of its community doing their job to evangelize, but at the same time, it is not completely rooted in programs or systems, either. This perhaps puts more stress on the leadership to disciple people, but an ample numbers of diverse leaders should be able to do the job. Then again, should the health and growth of a community not rely primarily upon its members? Does this model run the risk of hindering communal life? And is it really just trying to escape failure by putting its hope in structures and systems, or are the added structures and systems valid organizational tactics which aid in the cause of the Gospel? 

I don’t think that I would personally choose this third model over the “missional community” model, but I would much rather see churches follow this model fall victim to the seeker-driven craze. In many respects, I am still pondering all of this, and I continually find myself having more questions than answers. For this reason, I would appreciate any feedback. Feel free to alter my models, offer additional alternatives, or shoot down everything I’ve said. And in the end, may God—not any particular model for “doing church”—receive glory.

Amid the present-day milieu of  decaying modernity (and the subsequent increase of religious pluralism), I believe that there is a rapidly growing need for intelligent Christianity in America, a nation which appears to be earnestly pursuing the status of a “liberated” post-Christian society. It seems now that we are casting off the shackles of foolish superstition, we are free to experience true life—or so we think. The fist of dogmatism finds any fragment of legitimacy it once grasped now slipping right through its tired, arthritic fingers. 

Thus, in order to appeal and witness to this ever-changing culture, it is, in my mind, imperative that Christians are educated and equipped to effectively relate to and participate in even the most sophisticated societal discourse. This doesn’t mean just watching secular movies to “keep up” with what’s going on in the world. It requires significant learning in areas of philosophy, logic, and rhetoric which will enable us to truly engage those around us in an intelligent and level-headed manner, for the sake of the Gospel. I suspect that this is a bit controversial, and I am willing to dialogue, but let me at first list a few short reasons why I hold this opinion.

1. We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to people, not just into a vacuum. 
I understand that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12 ESV). I recognize that God can (and in many situations does) use the proclamation of Scripture alone to convict and convert people. However, we cannot misapply the fact that God’s word is powerful to excuse a lack of responsibility on our part. We are instructed to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and doing so requires some tact. Being able to understand a person’s worldview in order to carefully and shrewdly critique and subvert it allows us to communicate the Gospel more effectively. Furthermore, knowing what we’re talking about adds legitimacy  to our faith claims, especially in a society which no longer privileges Christianity nor takes it for granted.

2. Anti-intellectualism is not helpful to the Body of Christ.
If you know me, you know that I don’t completely buy into our society’s extreme glorification of a college education, and that I very strongly believe that salvation is by grace alone—not knowledge. However, the developing worldwide religious landscape consists of rapidly developing Pentecostalism, which is particularly flourishing in Third-World countries (albeit not absent in the U.S). While I rejoice that people are coming to know the name of Jesus, I am concerned over the potential for a dangerous misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit and a general disdain for rational decision-making. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-23, Paul encourages believers to use their minds in (rather than detach them from) corporate worship. God gave us a rational mind so that we might bring glory to him and edify other believers by using it appropriately.

3. Most people—even in the church—don’t have a Christian worldview.
Perhaps this is more indicative of a theological problem or a flaw in our discipleship methods, but Christians should be able to comprehend how the Gospel of Jesus should determine the way they view the world. Of course, we’re not going to agree on everything, but the foundational understanding that Jesus’ death and resurrection is so significant that it actually defines who we are and how we think about things needs to somehow be built into our discipleship processes. I realize that not everyone has the same I.Q., but most people should be able to learn how to view things through the lens of the Cross, at least on some level. By having a better education—particularly one which emphasises the Gospel as their metanarrative, Christians are better-equipped to think critically about and interact with the world around them, enabling them to recognize, avoid, and work more effectively in tearing down the idols of 21st century society. 

Of course, the problem is that there are very few systems in place (at least that I am aware of) which achieve this type of Christ-centered, intellectual preparation. Based upon my personal experience (and that of many like me), Bible colleges across the nation generally leave graduates ill-equipped to make a difference in (or even think critically about) society. And while some programs at secular universities may offer a more rigorous academic environment, they most certainly fail to promote a Christian worldview, thus leaving the average Christian very few opportunities to receive an education which will significantly aid them in their life of faith and fulfillment of the Great Commission. 

I’m not sure what needs to happen, but it appears to be an issue which must be dealt with by the local church. I know I feel a need to read more and do what I can to sharpen my mind, yet I still long for some type of training or preparation in the church which would help guide me in this. Throughout the centuries, a solid education has proven quite helpful to so many believers—from Paul to Luther and Augustine to Schaeffer. And sure, the present day perhaps has its share of theologians and scholars. But wouldn’t it be haphazard to ignore the need for educated Christians in each and every local congregation?

Our problem is that we’re simply reacting to culture. Many of us just try to copy it; others of us are fed up and simply abandon it. Yet neither of these approaches is healthy. Instead, Christians should be participating in the creation of culture for the sake of engaging and changing culture. If anything, we should be leading the charge in innovation and creativity, under the conviction that through Jesus, God is reconciling the entire world to himself. Not only can we bring God glory through creating beauty and utilizing our gifts, but we can greatly impact a world which desperately needs the gospel.

Tim Chester (The Crowded House, Sheffield, UK) has recently produced a series of blog posts concerning this very issue which have been quite successful in articulating the Biblical foundations for creating culture and demonstrating how such principles can be put into practice.

Here are links to the posts on his blog, in order:

Covenanted for Culture, Redeemed for Cultural Renewal

The Role of Christian Artists

What is True Art?

Cultural Renewal and Church Planting

I think any Christian—especially those interested in urban ministry, church planting, or the arts—will find these posts very helpful. I have benefited from reading them and recommend that everyone check them out (especially the first one).

Dr. Goheen has an excellent grasp on the over-arching story which has shaped modern Western society; I heard him speak about a year ago, and by the end of the first day of his conference lectures, I felt like my mind was already operating over-capacity. Now that I’ve had some time to think through things, I am coming to see the extreme importance of understanding our cultural story—that is, our metanarrative—in respect to impacting our society with the Gospel.

Any given person can only have one metanarrative, though they may know a number of other stories. It is our metanarrative, in fact, which determines the way in which we view and interpret all other stories. Therefore, if we accept the metanarrative of modern society—a story rooted in the Enlightenment, where reason is the hero and scientific or technological progress makes for a “happy ending”—we will find that all other stories (including the Gospel of Christ) are subject to our greater, over-arching metanarrative. This very thing caused the rise of liberalism in respect to Biblical studies, where modernism very much shaped the way people read the Bible.

A person’s metanarrative is the lens through which he will view all other narratives; it is his gopspel. However, if the Biblical story is our metanarrative, it will effectively critique competing, false metanarratives (such as the modernistic gospel of rational optimism).

In this, we can see the goal of our evangelism is not to only preach the Gospel as a laundry list of truths, but to subvert the false gospels (or metanarratives) which deceive our culture. It is too easy to embrace certain Biblical truths as long as they “fit” our existing worldview; many people will accept Scriptural doctrines insofar as their metanarrative allows them to be accepted. Thus, we get Christians who go to Sunday church services but live self-centered lives devoid of fruit; Christianity has become a mere additive to their pre-existing metanarrative.

However, the Gospel of King Jesus is not merely a series of doctrines, but an altogether different foundational understanding of the word. It is a new metanarrative, and until people allow it to destroy their existing metanarratives, they will not experience its power. “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 2:22-24 ESV).

With that being said, the present-day difficulty is postmodernism—”an incredulity toward metanarratives,” as famously defined by Jean François Lyotard. Because our society so blindly submitted to the false gospel of modernism, rationalism and humanism, we are now reaping what we have sown; from wreaking environmental havoc to creating weapons of mass destruction, our modernistic metanarrative has led us to despair. Thus, postmodernism recognizes the betrayal of the modernistic gospel and is highly skeptical, therefore, of all such metanarratives; any over-arching story which serves as a source of meaning and hope is highly suspect.

Of course, postmodernism is really a metanarrative of its own, as it defines the way in which we view the world; however, in this story, the antagonists are metanarratives themselves. To reach resolution, all such metanarratives must be reduced in power—they must become “just another story” rather than an over-arching gospel—and only when this happens, postmoderns believe, can society be truly free from danger. This explains why phrases like “whatever works for you,” “who are you to judge?” and “all roads lead to God!”  have become so immensely popular as of late.

What this leaves us with is a sense of meaning which finds its root in tolerance, passivity, and ignorance. Ultimately, it will only bring further confusion and despair. Yet for now, as evangelists, we face the dilemma of promoting a metanarrative—a radical one at that—to a world whose existing metanarrative tells them that we’re fools. If we’re going to have success, we must embody the gospel in all that we do—to truly allow it to become our metanarrative—and to live life in such a way that the truth of the Biblical story is made evident in our actions. Preaching the Gospel must involve the systematic teaching of doctrines, to be sure, but the power of the Gospel itself must not be restrained nor hindered by our unwillingness to unleash its earth-shattering, life-changing, mind-blowing nature to the world.

As of late, I’ve been pondering a certain quote (thanks Michael) by one of the most influential English authors of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton. It appears in an essay entitled “The Revolutions of the Young” in his Collected Works¹:

“The reformer… is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”

Chesterton, who converted to Catholicism toward the end of his life, was a brilliant man with an uncanny ability to be quite humorous and quite subversive at the same time. While his mention of “reformers” is not necessarily a reference to reformers of the Church—much less the Reformers, men like Luther and Calvin, with whom we in the Protestant tradition are so familiar— it most certainly does apply. Those who have a mind for reform can easily point out flaws in a given system; they know what is wrong, as Chesterton says, but they often lack the wisdom to demonstrate what is right. Great men like Luther and Calvin wrestled over such things for most of their lives. But certain reformers in today’s church—that is, church planters—often seem to expect things to change overnight, go exactly according to plan, and behave like clockwork. This is why Chesterton’s quote provides a very appropriate caution. We must be careful not to foolishly put our faith in our the assumption that because we, as church planters, know what is wrong with churches these days, we necessarily know what’s right as well.

Most often, church planters are good at recognizing problems in existing churches. However, being that most of us are young and immature, we often jump to conclusions and insist the only way to fix the problem is by starting a new church—one that does things right. There is a problem with this reasoning;  just because a man has the ability to recognize and diagnose a problem does not automatically qualify him as a leader or  justify planting another church. When your car breaks down, buying parts and building a completely new car is not usually the best solution, especially when you aren’t a skilled mechanic.

I am not saying that there are not situations in which church planting is justifiable. I think there is a need—a very great one—for communities that embody the gospel, preaching in both word and deed, and viewing all of life through the lens of the cross. Furthermore, I am not saying that church planters have bad intentions, nor that they are stupid. It takes an insightful and passionate man to point out some of the most detrimental problems in the contemporary church. However, most of us, being young and zealous,  must be very careful in what we do. So, I’ve come up with a few guiding principles which should help us avoid the most common mistakes and maybe, just maybe, get things right.

I am not saying that these ten tips provide a sure-fire way of succeeding, nor am I suggesting I have things “figured out.” These are only some of the conclusions I have reached; if there’s anything I left out, please, let me know. I would love to learn from you all, especially those of you who are more experienced than I. Ultimately, however, we must all recognize that we alone can’t get anything right, despite our most complex formulas and guidelines, and that’s why we find such hope in the gospel. Though we be helpless and blind, incapable of leading anything (much less the people of God) by our own ability, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, remains victorious. 

¹G.K. Chesterton, Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton (New York: Ignatius P, 1989) 475.

With that being said, the book of Job is perhaps a commentary on this very difficulty; while there may be many theodicies found within its pages, it seems to have far more to say about how the problem of evil and suffering is dealt with than it does about the problem itself. To be sure, one can inspect Job’s example and conclude that justice prevailed in the end; God not only made restitution to Job, but Job found himself more abundantly blessed than he had been prior to his suffering. Likewise, we can demonstrate how Job’s affliction served as discipline and worked to transform him into a more righteous man; pain, in this situation, led to greater good.  Yet even the most well-reasoned explanation of his suffering would have been quite insufficient to Job amid his agony; a real, concrete problem of evil demands more than an abstract, philosophical answer. For this reason, in spite of the counsel of his three “friends,” Job cries out to God himself for a suitable explanation (31:35). 

In fact, the book of Job perhaps serves more as a critique of theodicy than a source of theodicy; Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar defended God’s justice, often with very logical arguments and sensible reasoning, and yet God said of them in the end, “you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7 ESV). How can it be that the one with no answer to his own suffering is commended, while those with the best theodicies are under wrath?  Let the arguments of Job’s three friends first be considered.  

Eliphaz, the first to speak, offers a very simple hypothesis; “who that was innocent ever perished?” (4:7). Because Job is suffering, Eliphaz suggests, he must have sinned; thus Job himself is responsible for his own pain. This argument treats suffering as punishment and blames human freewill (as opposed to God) for evil; it would likely have resonated well with a Hebrew audience. However, not only does Eliphaz oversimplify the problem, but he becomes increasingly arrogant in arguing. He begins gently and obliquely, only indirectly referring to Job, but by his third speech, he does not hesitate to hurl insults and directly accuses him of specific sins.  Moreover, Eliphaz implies that he is somehow a prophet who has heard God’s voice and now speaks on his behalf (cf. 15:8, 22:22). Therefore, while Eliphaz offers what may seem like a decent theodicy, his ignorance is clear by the end of the book, and even worse, he does nothing to comfort his friend in need.

Bildad also offers a theodicy: “does God pervert justice?” (8:3). His argument is very pragmatic, insisting that if Job repents, God will restore his fortune; he even uses examples of history to demonstrate his point (cf. 8:8-19). However, as Job maintains his integrity, Bildad’s language intensifies. Certainly the idea that suffering may serve as a “wake up call” is valid; even Jesus uses examples of suffering to call people to repentance (cf. Luke 13:1-5). However, Bildad commits a logical fallacy by assuming that this is necessarily the case with Job, and again, the limits of his theodicy become evident.

Zophar does not offer nearly as complex an argument as the first two friends; in fact, one might wonder whether or not he gives any argument at all! Instead, he merely asserts himself (rather arrogantly, at that) and expects Job to change his mind. Like the others, he assumes that Job has sinned and thus is quick to clear God of any wrongdoing, yet he is perhaps the least compassionate of the three friends, verbally assaulting Job and even refusing to speak when his third opportunity arises. Therefore, whether he has offered an adequate theodicy or not is irrelevant; he is among the “miserable comforters” (16:2) who completely fail to listen to Job.

Certainly, the arguments of the three friends were flawed; assuming Job had sinned on the basis of his suffering is problematic. After all, if suffering always indicates sin, what might one say about Jesus? Perhaps the inclusion of Job in the Hebrew canon was to caution against this type of thinking. But is the book of Job critiquing only these three failed theodicies?  Or could it be that it demonstrates the limitations and weaknesses of theodicies in general? 

The Lord’s answer to Job out of the whirlwind could possibly be called autotheodicy. “Who is this that darkens counsel,” he asks, “by words without knowledge?” (38:2 ESV). As God begins to question Job, he reveals Job’s ignorance and limitations of understanding; “where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (38:4 ESV). In fact, the entirety of God’s answer to Job is designed to emphasize man’s utter weakness and inability to comprehend the things of God. At the end of the day, Job recognizes that he lacks the wisdom to make sense of his suffering but finds comfort in the fact that the Lord’s ways are above his own understanding. If one is to use this lens, then, to examine the earlier speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, it becomes evident why the Lord accuses them of speaking falsely; they boast of knowledge and understanding, yet they do not truly know. Furthermore, they hide behind their arguments as a means of avoiding the true responsibility of a friend: comforting the one who suffers.

Surely, the Lord’s speech to Job could be used to construct a theodicy based upon the sovereignty of God; the clay has no right to question its potter, one might remark (cf. Romans 9:20-21). Yet it would be foolish to take this argument and use it to escape the command to “weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15 ESV).  It was the three friends’ obsession with theodicy that rendered them “miserable comforters” to Job (16:2). This tendency to reduce evil and suffering to a purely rational problem—especially a problem to which one claims to possess the solution—is exactly that which the book of Job criticizes.

Of course, apologetics have a place in the academic world; to some doubters of Christian theism, a philosophical answer to the problem of evil in suffering may remove certain intellectual barriers to accepting the gospel. Yet no matter how strong the evidence may be, notwithstanding the most sound reasoning and logical argumentation, and despite  the most thorough and laborious philosophizing, one must realize that all theodicies are ultimately insufficient solutions to a problem that is far more concrete than anyone would like to admit. It is possible to have confidence in God’s goodness and justice, to be sure, but when it comes down to comforting those in pain—those who have truly, as Job, lost everything—sometimes the best answer one can give is simply, “I don’t know.”

1. Number of professional sports teams.
2. Use of tools and hardware.
3. Frequency of monster-truck rallies.

That’s it; no joke. Finally, the keys to true masculinity have been made known to us. And, thank goodness, it only takes three things: sports, tools, and monster trucks.

While I fully realize that this study was for entertainment purposes only, I must say that I don’t buy into the idea that Cincinnati is a manly city. Sure, sports may reflect the fact that God made man with a natural drive toward mission and conquest. Tools perhaps reflect man’s God-given nature to build and restore. And monster trucks, well, they could reflect the passion for strength and intensity that, once again, God built into man. But “macho-ness” is not manliness, and, while I realize this study was not intended to be serious, our society has some fundamental misconceptions about masculinity that are leading us down a dangerous path.

In reality, most men in our culture have no idea how to actually be men; fathers aren’t instructing their sons, the public schools sure aren’t teaching it, and good role models are hard to come by. Look at the way men are presented on television sitcoms; husbands are generally into “macho” activities but also happen to be complete idiots with no idea how to take care of their wives and families (specifically, I think of Tim Allen’s character on Home Improvement or Kevin James’ character on The King of Queens, but there are plenty of other examples). Therefore, our concept of what is “masculine” involves much of the following:

• Red meat
• Poker
• Chest hair
• Grunting
• Flatulence & the infamous “pull my finger” trick
• Cars or, even better, trucks
• Beer
• Laziness
• Blood & sweat, but never tears
• Hunting
• Video games
• Intellectual and emotional shallowness
• Belly flab
• Primitive camping
• War, weapons and the military
• Clogging up the toilet
• Starting firesand, yes,  
• Sports
• Tools
• Monster truck rallies

Of course, not all of these things are necessarily wrong; however, when they supplant true masculinity, there is a problem. In fact, many of us try to fake real masculinity through them; we reject the purpose that God has given us and try to replace it with a few behaviors that we think will make us look like masculine men. To be sure, we can enjoy red meat, beer, camping, and sports, even to the glory of God, but when we turn to such things to escape our calling as men, we are only fooling ourselves. Poor masculine leadership is essentially what started and now sustains the feminist movement. This city needs men who will step up, be responsible and intelligent, provide for their families, lay down their lives for their wives, discipline and train their children, and, above all, preach the gospel. And unfortunately, I have yet to see this in any significant capacity. Sorry Cincinnati, I don’t think you’re really that manly.

I do want to add a caution, however, to what I’ve said. It’s quite easy to blog about masculinity and even make controversial statements that don’t go over too well in a hyper-egalitarian society. The difficult thing, however, is to practice what we preach. We are lazy, prideful, sinful human beings, and unfortunately, we can talk about masculinity all we want without getting anywhere. It’s easy to think that being masculine requires that we boldly announce our views of manhood to the world, but ultimately, the problem is not a philosophical one, but a pastoral one. It involves real people, not just ideas, and getting into arguments over the web is not only fruitless, but it often constructs unnecessary barriers between us and our opponents. Should we be bold and forthright about our convictions regarding biblical masculinity? Absolutely. I am not suggesting compromise. However, we must not sacrifice meekness in the name of boldness, and we must not reduce a relational problem to an academic one. Furthermore, our desire to see change should begin with the relationships around us. We want to fight battles that can be won, not battles that only serve to further escalate the war. In postmodern America, this will take some tact, but above all, it will require legitimacy, sincerity, dedication, and careful and intentional relationships with those around us. So, with that being said, who wants to go camping?

¹This study was apparently done by Sperling’s BestPlaces as part of a promotion by Combos snacks. Obviously it is not serious research.

First of all, overpopulation is mostly a myth. Ever since Paul R. Ehrlich published The Population Bomb in 1968, it has been blamed for all sorts of problems. Yet most experts predict the world population to peak in the mid-2000s and then, interestingly enough, begin to decrease due to sub-replacement fertility rates. Particularly in the Western world, we’re already having too few children to even replace ourselves, and this decrease in fertility rates is expected to continue and spread worldwide.

Even more, the current population of the earth could fit into the land area of Texas alone, with each person having as much space as the floor space of a typical home in the United States; even then, the population density would only be about that of present-day Paris¹. Sure, some of the our cities are overcrowded, but over 95% of the land in the world is still empty. We are not running out of space; people generally just live in crowded cities because they offer a higher quality of life with more job opportunities. 

So, if space isn’t the problem, are we saying that there are just too many mouths to be fed? After all, it’s impossible to deny the fact that poverty plagues so many third-world countries, and one might expect that population growth would only exacerbate this problem. Some have even predicted massive worldwide famine as a result of overpopulation. Yet a 2001 UN Report on population asserts that “over the period 1961-1998, world per capita food available for direct human consumption increased by 24 per cent, and there is enough being produced for everyone on the planet to be adequately nourished.”² That’s right—everyone on the planet. Hunger in the world today is the unfortunate result of the mismanagement of food resources, economic hardship and tyrannical, self-serving governments. There’s more than enough food to go around; it’s just not getting around. It has nothing to do with overpopulation, and avoiding childbearing in an abundant nation like America does nothing to help the situations of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia. If we really care about world hunger, instead of wasting our efforts on avoiding (or terminating) pregnancy, we should be pursuing ways to supply the impoverished world with food. 

A more recent trend, however seems to try to link childbearing and the destruction of the environment. At age 25, a British woman by the name of Toni Vernelli had an abortion because she wanted to “reduce her carbon footprint” (read the story here). She was completely sterilized two years later. “I didn’t like having a termination,” she said, “but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.” If killing an innocent child because you believe it would be “immoral” to burden mother earth isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. Still, the idea of saving the planet through avoiding children has become rather popular. The reasoning behind it is that more people means more pollution and consumption of resources, but the aforementioned UN Report concluded that “in general, population growth appears to be much less important as a driving force of such problems than is economic growth and technology.”² Furthermore, what sense does it make to allow the human race to fizzle out in an effort to save the world? Isn’t the whole point of preserving the environment centered upon the purpose of human beings enjoying it and benefiting from it? If we’re gone, what good is it to have a healthy planet orbiting around the sun?

Thus, people argue that it would be irresponsible to breed based on erroneous reasoning with a lack of factual support. But should we be all that surprised? Both the overpopulation argument and the environmental argument are simply-cover ups for the real depravity in our heart: we hate children.

Many people have said that it’s “selfish” to have children in today’s world. Obviously, those people don’t have children, because having a child demands incredible sacrifice on the part of the parents. Moreover, it’s the decision to avoid childbearing which is more often self-centered; we think kids get in the way of graduating from college, fulfilling career dreams, traveling the world, and having time to ourselves. Even Toni Vernelli claims to “have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children” in the article mentioned earlier. Let’s be honest—our society hates children because they get in the way of our comfort; raising kids will require us to lay down our lives. Unfortunately, children have become inconveniences in a culture which demands convenience, and nothing hinders the American dream more than the responsibility for another life.

Perhaps some of our problem is just misinformation or flawed logic. We see images of poverty, look at our crowded cities, and assume our world has an overpopulation problem. The media loves to strike fear into our hearts and cover nuts who claim the apocalypse is coming because it draws an audience. But there comes a point where we must realize that we’re not just ignorant; we are vile, twisted, sinful human beings who will make any excuse to live in rebellion against God. The Bible clearly portrays children as a blessing; the psalmist exclaims that  ”children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Psalm 127:3 ESV). Yet we have taken them to be a curse, a punishment, a misfortune.

With that being said, I am thankful that, while we flee childbearing and abort our babies (4000 a day in the United States alone³), our heavenly Father welcomes every new addition to his family. Instead of sacrificing his children, God sacrificed himself—the ultimate expression of love and selflessness. How wicked have we become, to think of the joy and blessing of childbearing as irresponsible, unethical, and stupid!

I am wholly in favor of fighting poverty and taking care of the environment; we have been entrusted as stewards of this world and have a responsibility to do so. However, the recent trend to view having children as part of the problem is simply atrocious; Christians must draw the line at this point. Find effective ways to end poverty and preserve the earth; don’t use these cop-outs to have abortions and avoid bearing children. Ask God to change your attitude, to break your heart over the tens of millions of aborted babies every year. Realize that childbearing is one of the most efficient ways to make disciples and add to the family of God. And remember that while everyone else is trying to stop this world from ending, we’re anxiously awaiting it, living in hope of the day when, in Christ, all things shall be made new.

__________________________________

¹Jim Peron, “Exploding Population Myths,” Fraser Forum, October 1995, Fraser Institute, 2nd Floor, 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, B. C., V6E 3M1, (604) 688-0221.

²”World Population Monitoring 2001,” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, 2001. [89] p.

³ You can find this statistic and more at http://www.abort73.com.