, , ,

Transformed by a Miracle of Grace

Yesterday in our PrayerMinder, we were led to pray for our leaders. Pastor Mark—in his video—asked us to think of the politician we don’t like (whoever he or she may be, and on whichever side of the line they are), and begin to pray for them. I was thinking about this as I was reading an old devotional this morning, which opened by speaking about the redemption of Saul of Tarsus. 

It is very important for us to consider that prior to his conversion, the early church was probably praying to God regarding Saul of Tarsus. But they were probably praying for God’s wrath and Saul’s destruction, as he was making havoc of the church through persecution. But God’s intent was not Saul’s destruction, but his salvation.

Years after his conversion, when he would come to be known as Paul the Apostle, he would write:
 
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
– 1 Timothy 2:1-4

In times like these, especially during an election season, it is easy for us to become irritated, upset, frustrated, and angry about politics. But might I encourage (and exhort) you to—first of all—pray for the salvation of our leaders. God desires their salvation. And if they were transformed (as was Saul of Tarsus) by the grace and power of God, their worldview and politics would change too. 
, ,

Cultural Destabilization

A couple Sundays ago I shared from Deuteronomy 3 about the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. These two-and-a-half tribes inquired of Moses that they might receive the lot of their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan River. Effectively this possession was outside of the Promised Land, with a natural barrier (the Jordan River) dividing them from their brethren. 

Commentators, scholars, and Bible teachers have been divided on this story for a very long time. The question of whether or not this division of the nation of Israel was according to God’s will, or not, will be answered (largely) according to how one views the sovereignty of God. Be that as it may, from an outcomes point of view, the division was ultimately not the best. 

Almost as soon as Israel had rest in the promised land, and the men of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh were released to return to their possession, the natural division between the two-and-a-half and the nine-and-a-half tribes descended into conflict. My third and final point in the message two Sundays ago was “Division in the nation inevitably leads to conflict.”
 

It is almost shocking how quickly division can lead to conflict. Every married couple knows this. If you and your spouse are divided on a decision, idea, or opinion, the division can lead to conflict in seconds. In more than twenty years of pastoral ministry, I’ve been a mediator—in counseling situations—between divided parties on many occasions. Countless times I’ve observed that division not only leads to conflict, but conflict fuels more division resulting in greater conflict, until things spiral out of control. 

This is where we are as a nation. We are divided. Jesus said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt. 12:25) I am deeply troubled by the things that I am seeing in our nation. I think you probably are as well. While I am generally an optimistic person, and have (ultimately) an optimistic vision of the future (when Jesus returns and rules), the current conditions of our nation are troubling. 

King David wrote: 
Hear my cry, O God;
Attend to my prayer.
From the end of the earth I will cry to You,
When my heart is overwhelmed;
Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

It is believed that these words were penned around the time that the King’s son, Absalom, mounted a coup against his father, leading (nearly) to a full civil war. Division leads to conflict. And during this time, one of the greatest things we can (and should) do is pray. 

I want to encourage you to pray. Pray for our nation. Pray for our leaders. Pray for those that are desiring justice. Pray for those that are oppressed. Pray for those that protest. Pray for those in law enforcement. Pray that God would move the hearts of men to be humble, and to turn to God in faith. 

At the end of last year I sensed that 2020 was going to be a year of chaos. At that same time I attended a meeting led by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church. During the meeting, Pastor Rick said, “Wherever there is conflict and chaos God is getting ready to move.” Pray that God would move to bring true peace and order our chaos.

Beginning July 1st we are going to be seeking the Lord in prayer for thirty-one days. During that time, Pastor Mark will be providing daily direction on ways in which you can pray. I want to encourage you to do two things. First, consider social distancing from social media (and maybe even the news media) for 31 days in July. Second, follow along with us as we seek the Lord in prayer during that same period of time. If you’d like to receive our daily prayer-minders, subscribe at prayerminder.lifeinconnection.com. 
, , , , ,

Let Justice Run Down Like Water

The voice of your brother’s blood
cries out to Me from the ground.
                                                        – Genesis 4:10

I am ashamed that this week we, as a nation, are known for the words “I can’t breathe.” My heart breaks that George Floyd died crying out for mercy, as he did this week. I don’t know all the details of what happened leading up to the moments that George Floyd died. We may never fully know. And the details will never justify his death. But the fact that this happened as it did, I find myself thinking, “We can do better.”

In his 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. quoted the Prophet Amos, “But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). We can do better. We can pray for better. I think we would all agree that George Floyd’s blood cries out “let justice run down like water.” 

I do not believe that this terrible happening defines who we are as a nation in 2020. But it does remind us of how much we need the unifying mercy and grace that are only ultimately found in Jesus, through the gospel. And only when He rules and reigns will the cry of of the prophet Amos be fulfilled. 

Lord Come Quickly! 

Blessings,
Pastor Miles

P.S. I know that some will be tempted to read way too much into the words above. I ask that you stop, wait, and pray before you respond. I’ve thought and prayed a lot about what to say, if anything, as it regards this situation. Additionally, I would encourage all of you who name the name of Christ to not engage in arguments on social media at this moment. We would do well to remember the words of the apostle James, “the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). 
, , , ,

Constitutional Crisis

If you are paying attention, I think you will agree that the discourse in the United States over the last two years has been divisive. The vast majority of the division is political. But the partisan divide has manifest in the form of fissures of racial division, socioeconomic division, division between white and blue collar sectors — you name it; there are deep divides in our nation.

Though no one individual is to blame, where this division is concerned, the argument could be made that one of the chief conductors, at the head of this discordant orchestra, is our Commander in Chief, President Donald J. Trump. Merely highlighting this, and using his name, will be enough to cause some to stop reading and write me off just two paragraphs in. Please don’t. This isn’t about President Trump — neither for or against. But it is about an issue that he’s helped ignite into an outright wildfire, having to do with what some refer to as a “constitutional crisis.”

A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

The American President has an open disdain for the “fake news media.” I feel strange even writing that, though I’m quoting him in doing so. But his contempt for his critics in the press has stirred quite a response from those in and among the media outlets he criticizes. As Newton’s third law states, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” There has been an equal and opposite reaction for sure.

The press has responded to the president with equally hard-hitting editorial, comment and reporting. That is to be expected. And quite frankly, it is what we (if you are an American) should want. In the U.S., the press is sometimes called “the fourth branch of government.” It is the “Fourth Estate.” Thus when President Trump, this year, called the press “the enemy of the people,” he set a depth-charge that rattled the media establishment.

You might not like the president. You may not like the press. The fact is, neither has high approval ratings (actually, the president’s approval rating is nearly double that of the media). But both play an essential role in our republic, and both are constitutionally established. Therefore, when the president’s rhetoric targets the press, the fourth branch sounds the alarm, “It’s a constitutional crisis!”

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Perhaps you think that response is a bit extreme. There are those who have told me that the president is joking when he says these things. If not kidding, “It’s just rhetoric, playing to his base, but certainly not to be taken seriously.” On the other side, his words are considered dangerous, “a dog whistle inviting violence against the media,” and absolutely “unpresidential.” Wherever you land on this issue, you cannot argue that the press, and it’s freedoms, is not enshrined in the Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution makes very clear that, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” While not unique only to us, the constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of speech and the press are quite distinctive of the United States. We should be grateful that we have such rights firmly established, and we should be united in our opposition to any individual or group that would seek to restrict them.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that there is any serious attempt, in 21st century America, to restrict or “abridge” the freedom of speech or of the press. Sure, there are outliers and fringe dissidents who tweet and blog their objections. Indeed, the president has used his freedom of speech to do so. But I’m not yet convinced that such things have significantly harmed the press. No more so than their own bias and missteps have damaged them. And there is no legislative move on the freedoms of speech or the press.

But while I have yet to see any true attack — in recent times — against the freedoms of speech and the press, the same cannot be said for attacks against another aspect of the First Amendment.

THE FIVE RIGHTS

If one carefully reads the First Amendment of the Constitution, it will quickly become clear that the single, 45-word sentence contains five liberties or rights:

1. Freedom of religion

2. Freedom of speech

3. Freedom of the press

4. Freedom to assemble peaceably

5. Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances

In our day, nearly every time one appeals to the First Amendment, it is regarding the freedoms of speech or the press. Both of these liberties are important and even essential. But as our culture shifts, and as it becomes increasingly secular, there seem to be those who forget, or at least overlook, the first words of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

While I’ve seen no serious attack upon the freedoms of speech or the press, that is not the case where the free exercise of religion stands. That’s not to say — and I don’t intend to say — that the free exercise of religion is legitimately threatened. It’s not. At least not at the moment. But it’s undoubtedly been attacked.

To this point, the freedom of religion has not seriously been threatened because (1) the vast majority of Americans are still quite religious and (2) the Supreme Court has — so far — consistently upheld religious liberties. Though, the margin has been rather thin. And one of the chief reasons so many Christians voted for Donald Trump, while not strongly supporting him, was to maintain the slim Supreme Court margin.

THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY

I am a wholesale supporter of the freedom of speech and the press. I don’t always like what people say, or how they express themselves; but I support their right to do so. I often disagree with the positions and perspectives of some in the media, but I’m grateful for the press and — for the most part — the work that journalists do.

As I said previously, we should be grateful that we have both free speech and a free press, and we should be united in our opposition to any individual or group that would seek to restrict these liberties. But I would have much more sympathy for those in the press if they were as ardent in their defense of the first right of the First Amendment as they are for the second and third. Unfortunately, that does not always seem to be the case. In fact, many of the journalists that are the most alarmed by the president’s rhetoric have been the least vocal in defense of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, the Masterpiece Cake Shop or the California crisis pregnancy centers, when their First Amendment rights were infringed.

FINALLY, A NOTE TO THOSE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS.

It is important we recognize that Paul understood his rights as a Roman citizen and wisely called upon them at the opportune time (Acts 22:25). We face a temptation to be silent. We can be afraid of rocking the boat. But the fact is, we need to be resolute about our faith, even if there is the potential of suffering as a result of doing so. But we also need to be vocal about our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is a reason that the founders determined to make it the first of our fundamental rights. But if we are silent when it is brushed aside, we may wake up one day to realize its power has all but disappeared from our society.

, ,

Act As if God Exists

Back in June, I wrote an article on “Why Jordan Peterson Matters,” and why Christians should take notice. My article got pushback from some Christians who — though I’m not sure they thoroughly read it — incredulously questioned why CalvaryChapel.com would run an article on Peterson, or why a pastor (me) would encourage people to listen to or follow such an individual. If one read the article, they would know I didn’t do that. That said, the conversations and feedback I received, and something I’ve heard Peterson say several times, got me thinking. I hope it might do the same for you as well.

In a recent interview on the PBS show “Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,” Peterson was asked a question, the gist of which he’s received many times before.

“I want to ask you about your personal faith. Christians who watch you have listened closely, over the last two years, about whether you self-identify as a Christian or not. … Why not take on this question of the existence of God?”

That is precisely the question that many Christians (and atheists for that matter) would like Peterson to give a concrete answer to. But his response, though not as clear-cut as they’d like, has been consistent for a very long time. And in the “Firing Line” interview, he gave a slightly amplified version.

“It isn’t obvious what belief means. People think that what they believe is what they say they believe. I don’t believe that. I believe that what people believe is what they act out. And so I said, ‘I act as if God exists.’ That’s a sufficient statement as far as I’m concerned. You know, what’s the old saying? ‘By their fruits, ye shall know them.’ Same idea, right? It’s a matter of action and a matter of commitment. It’s not a matter of me parading out my explicit statements about a metaphysical reality that’s virtually impossible to comprehend. You risk when you reduce, and I’m not willing to do that. And I’m not interested in providing people with easy answers.” (emphasis mine)

DON’T REDUCE IT TO A SOUND BITE

Immediately before giving that answer, Jordan said, “It’s not something to reduce to a sound bite, fundamentally.” I think there is a lot of truth to that. But that’s exactly what we often desire. We want the simple sound bite. The 240 character or less, tweetable proposition. Whether you’re a Christian or not, we like everything boiled down to broth, when in reality, these meaty issues require something far more substantial.

Unfortunately, our culture has been continuously digesting milk and not solid food for several generations. That is true among Christians, just as it is outside the church. In his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves To Death, Neil Postman concluded that this was a product of broadcast television. It’s an issue that a preacher in the 1960s hit on when he said:

“And so it wasn’t long until it got to our generation where the whole plan of salvation was to give intellectual assent to a few statements of doctrine, and a person was considered a Christian because he could say, ‘uh-huh’ at four or five places that he was asked to. And if he knew where to say ‘uh-huh’ someone would pat him on the back, shake his hand, smile broadly and say, ‘Brother, you are saved.'”
— Paris Reidhead, Ten Shekels and a Shirt

Have we reduced it all that much? Thankfully, I’m finding that many of the people I interact with want more than mere one-liner propositional platitudes. I’m hopeful they’re not outliers.

MORE THAN MENTAL ASSENT

Like it or not, Jordan Peterson’s answer is quite good: “I act as if God exists.” I took note of it the first time I heard him say it, and it has been stuck in my mind ever since.

As the Apostle Paul was testifying before Governor Felix in Acts 24, he said, “I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.” Paul is effectively saying, “I act as if God exists.” He had hope in God, and in His promised resurrection, which caused Paul to live differently both before God (in whom he trusted) and man. Paul’s testimony is an echo of what James writes in his New Testament Letter.

“But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” (James 2:18-22).

It is not enough merely to say “uh-huh” to the question, “Do you believe in God?” Belief cannot be a casual mental assent. It must become a conviction, resulting in action. Faith, if it has not works, is dead.

ACTIONS PROVE OUR TRUE FAITH

On a few occasions, I’ve met with “believers” that are actively living in an adulterous relationship. They say they believe in God, but they act as if He were not there. The same is true for the Christian who perpetually looks at pornography. Or cheats on their taxes. Or lies to their spouse. Or lives a prayerless, thankless, anxious, hopeless life. It would be far better for one to act as if God exists than to simply say that they believe in His existence. Or better yet, say that you believe He exists, and let your actions say it too. Let’s not forget, it was Jesus who said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” Or the most frightening of Christ’s sayings: “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'”

The devastating reality is that many professing believers are, unintentionally, practical atheists. Such practical atheism is one of the realities that make many atheists all-the-more steadfast in their unbelief. It strengthens their unbelief when you say you believe in God and live with little or no regard for His command or glory.

It is because of this that over the last seven to 10 years, I’ve stopped asking people to “believe in Jesus,” but instead to “trust in Him.” That may seem like nuanced semantics to you, I assure you, it’s not. The meaning and value of the word “belief” has diminished in our modern vernacular. “Belief” seems now to connote something of a loose, intellectual acknowledgment of an idea. But “trust” implies a certitude of confidence and conviction, which compels dependence, hope and expectation. When I ask someone to trust in Christ, I’m asking them to entrust themselves to Him and to act in accordance with His resurrected existence.

, ,

Science Denier!?!

Our culture loves to pigeonhole, label and straw-man nearly everything it disagrees with. Which means, if you’re a miracle-believing Christian, then in the eyes of a growing demographic, you are branded a “science denier.” And in 21st century Western Culture, because of the high value placed upon “science,” that’s among the worst things you could be accused of. But foundational Christian teachings such as the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, will earn you the badge faster than just about any transgression.

Read the rest at CalvaryChapel.com …

, , ,

Why Jordan Peterson Matters

I have watched, somewhat in awe, over the last couple of years the rise of Jordan Peterson on YouTube, through podcasts and other media formats (books, blogs, etc.). I haven’t always been sure how to classify him or categorize his ascent. He’s not a Christian, at least not in an orthodox sense. Though I’ve heard him self-identify as a Christian, he would make a distinction. He would probably call me, and others like me, a “fundamentalist.” In some respect, that’s not far off, though every time I’ve heard him use the term, it seems to be dismissively, if not pejoratively.

Peterson is a celebrity by accident. He did not aspire to notoriety, but he’s certainly achieved it in the last year. He currently has over 700,000 Twitter followers and 1.2 million YouTube subscribers. His most recent book, Twelve Rules For Life, has been an Amazon bestseller since it’s release in January (it’s currently number two after nearly six months). As I write, Peterson is speaking nightly, nationwide, to sold-out crowds, on what is an extended book tour. Tickets cost as much as $600 apiece. Also, he’s pulling in an estimated $80,000+ a month from Patreon supporters. The once clinical psychologist, a professor at the University of Toronto, has no reason to ever return to the classroom or his clinical practice.

As I said previously, I’ve been intrigued since I first heard of him. I began following him when he first rose above the radar over a controversial Canadian legislative bill in the fall of 2016. He has a lot to say, and much of it reverberates with Judeo/Christian tones. Which is precisely why Christians should take notice. In watching and listening to him, several things come to mind. Five of which beg more in-depth consideration.

LONG-FORM MONOLOGUE IS NOT DEAD

For as long as I’ve been preaching (20 years next year), voices in our culture have been saying that preaching, especially long-form monologue, is dead. Those promulgating this perspective have told us that the collective attention span in the West has devolved. Americans, raised on 30-second ad spots and 22-minute television programs cannot handle more than 25-30 minutes of preaching, they say. Many of the same voices tell us that dialogue is essential for the 21st century westerner. “You cannot give a message from a platform; it needs to be a conversation in a circle.” Peterson proves that’s not true.

In the summer and fall of last year (2017), Peterson gave a series of 15 lectures, in the Book of Genesis, on the “psychological significance of the Bible.” He “preached” more than two and a half hours each time, to some 500 listeners, all of whom paid admission to come. He’s since promised that he will pick the series up again in the future with the Book of Exodus. If that happens, I’m certain of three things. First, he’ll need a larger venue. The 500 seat theater was already too small a year ago. His following has only increased. And the live audience pales in comparison to the millions of views the recorded lectures have received on Youtube. Second, he’ll charge a lot more for admission. By his admission, he’s an “evil capitalist.” Simple supply and demand will require much higher costs of entry. Third, his messages will not get shorter. Peterson loves to talk, and he’s found an audience of people who are longing to listen. In this he’s proved long-form monologue preaching is not dead

WESTERNERS ARE INTERESTED IN SCRIPTURE

Another cultural lie we’ve been told for the last 20 years: “The Bible has no place in our [post]modern society. We’ve advanced beyond its archaic ideas, views and teachings.” Really? Not only is that not true, it’s not true by a large factor.

Just this week (June 12, to be exact), Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning, came out in audiobook format. It’s more than 30 hours of audio, read, of course, by the author. It’s an instant bestseller. In print, it’s 564 pages. Much of it goes back to Scripture, and it’s significance. I guarantee that most of the consumers of this audiobook are males, ages 20-40.

Now, it should be noted that Jordan Peterson’s interpretive lens for Scripture is not something with which any preacher I know would be comfortable. He approaches the Scriptures from a purely allegorical and mythological angle. He does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. He does not use a historical, grammatical, interpretative method. As far as I can tell, he does not take the Scriptures literally, and he questions much of its history too. He is not an evangelical Christian. He is a Christian only so far as he sees value in the Christian ethic and the mythological narrative of the Bible. But, he’s gathered a large following of predominantly educated, millennial, male westerners. The very segment that Christians both need to reach and have had a hard time reaching over the last two decades. And the fact that he’s gained a devoted audience with this demographic leads to my final three considerations.

GOD IS NOT DEAD IN ACADEMIA

Peterson’s rise informs us that the need for classically trained, academically minded Christians is greater than ever. This isn’t a new observation. Groups like Francis Schaeffer’s L’abri, more than 40 years ago saw this with prescient clarity. Ravi Zacharias’ International Ministries has sought to address it for more than 20 years. Christians in the 21st century western world need to think and speak the academically oriented language of higher education, and they need to enter academia as missionaries.

Many in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields are atheistic, or at the very least agnostic. The arts and humanities are almost worse. But that does not mean that God is dead among academics or in great academic institutions of the West. There are strong holdouts with well-reasoned Christian faith in the academy. But we need many more Christians to step into the academic sphere and “contend earnestly for the faith.”

It has been said that “the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” I think that’s true, and being that it is, Christians cannot vacate the academic domain. Especially when you consider, that many of the great universities of the West, were originally founded by individuals with a strong Christian faith.

In seeing this reality, I am more than a little discouraged by my own experience. Twenty years ago this week, I graduated from high school. And when I did, I didn’t enroll in college or university, partly because of the discouraging tone of Christian leaders I esteemed. More than a few of the Christians who influenced my decisions at that time exhibited a suspicion and distrust of higher education. I know now that was not a helpful attitude. Be that as it may, as the Church moves further into the 21st century, we must realize that we need to adjust, as our culture has changed.

CHRISTIANS NEED A NEW AND PASSIONATE APOLOGETIC

The apostle Peter said, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” This we are to do in meekness and with respect. The concept of an apologetic arises almost solely from this verse. The word translated “defense” in many English translations of 1 Peter 3:15, is the Greek word apologia. It could also be translated “give an answer.” Christians have been doing this effectively for 2,000 years. But the answers are always in response to the changing questions of culture.

The questions of culture change continuously from generation to generation. Every worldview endeavors to answer these questions coherently. The far-reaching growth of the Christian faith from the first to the 21st century proves, I believe, that it’s answers are the most compelling. That is a truth that will not change, even if the pressing questions of culture do. And though the specifics of those questions vary, at the level of abstraction, the most important issues of meaning and value all fall under five essential headings: origin, identity, purpose, morality and destiny.

After listening to his lectures, watching his interviews and reading his books, I think Peterson is seeking to address these issues apologetically. And it is fascinating to see that, like many Evangelical Christians, he does so with something of apocalyptic fervor. He is passionate about his convictions and exacting with his words. I’m convinced that many are attracted to Peterson precisely because of his well-reasoned, authentic and genuine message, which seems to explode from a grave concern that our culture is fast descending into an abyss. Like an Old Testament prophet, Jordan Peterson is sounding an alarm in the West. He sees an unseen force of gravity, pulling our culture past the event horizon, into an inescapable black hole. And though he has met stiff opposition, he does not seem to be backing down. Which shows, finally…

STRONG WARNINGS AND STERN EXHORTATIONS ARE NOT UNACCEPTABLE

In our über-tolerant culture, some things are not tolerated. Peterson’s emphatic warnings and clarion appeals are definitely on the blacklist. The applications of Peterson’s message are hyper-individualistic (he despises collectivism) and gut-checkingly challenging. There is no wishy-washiness in his exhortations. He is dogmatic in every sense of the word. That too is not tolerated by many in the West. You might expect this would be a turnoff for his mostly millennial followers. And yet his appeal only seems to be growing.

Since the rise of the seeker movement of the 1980s, Christian leaders have promoted a softer, life-coach spirituality. “Don’t call people out. Address the collective ‘you plural.’ Focus on felt needs. Don’t be direct. Be encouraging.” In many ways, modern American Christianity fits perfectly in the $10 billion a year self-improvement industry, right next to Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Oprah Winfrey and even Jordan Peterson.

His book, Twelve Rules For Life, exists among other self-improvement titles, but it’s set apart by it’s bold and confrontational tone. “Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.” “Tell the truth—or, at least don’t lie.” He’s mocked by his critics for calling on people to clean their room. But when he says, “If you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?” you can hear the echoes of Jesus, “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s.” Or Paul, “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.”

Among all the nuanced and subjective shades of grey that are 21st century western culture, the objective contrast of white on black is refreshing. And though I in no way want to make Messianic allusions, Jordan Peterson’s rise is a reminder that when Jesus had ended the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, “…the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

, , , , ,

Shepherd the Flock of God

I’ve been thinking a lot about Peter’s exhortation to church leaders in his first letter. Partly because I taught on the passage (1 Peter 5:1-4) almost exactly two years ago and partly because I’ve used it several times since as a passage to help teach young leaders how to study and preach through the scriptures. These four verses hold simple (albeit deep) exhortation for Christian leaders. Exhortations that are still as important and needed as they were nearly 2,000 years ago when they were written.

One of the values of the Calvary Chapel (the family of churches I grew up in) for the last five decades has been that of ‘servant leadership.’ This passage drills down into the topic in a great way and brings to the surface helpful points on how to lead well. Contained in this short paragraph are potentially dozens of helpful observations and correlations, but there are seven that I keep coming back to. None of them is earth-shattering or new. Each of them you may think, “Yeah, I knew that.” But if you meditate on them, and aim at putting them into practice, I think you’ll find them to be personally challenging.

Leaders Are Not Lords

“The elders who are among you I exhort“

Both the words “among” and “exhort” are a simple and important reminder of this key value for leadership. Jesus said, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you” (Mark 10:42-43). For decades the well known former pastor and leadership guru, John Maxwell has taught that “Leadership is influence.” In many ways that may be true. But one of the problems is that the word “influence” can be defined in several different ways. When I read “influence” I often think of an influential example. But I do so because I filter the word through the concept of servant leadership, as revealed in the scriptures. I define it in light of Peter’s later exhortation in this same passage to shepherd the flock of God, not “as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples.” The problem is that the top synonyms of “influence” in my computer’s dictionary and thesaurus are the following: “impact; control, sway, hold, power, authority, mastery, domination, supremacy; guidance, direction; pressure.” Yes, those who are considered leaders in this world do use influence in that way. But it shall not be so among you.

In Peter’s mind, the Christian leader is to be among the people they are serving. And they are not lords, but examples. Peter himself exercises this concept of leadership by saying to the church elders, “I exhort you.” The word “exhort” is the Greek word παρακαλέω (parakaleō). It’s a compound of the Greek preposition “para” and verb “kaleō.” Para means to be “by, beside or near,” and kaleō is the verb “to call.” So the concept is that of a coach or even a trainer. The trainer comes alongside the one they’re training and calls them to press on, follow or move ahead. This is not a power play, but an influential example. And looking at the landscape of the current cultural moment in the West, I’d say that this point alone could be really helpful. We’re living in a time at which almost weekly a new leader, be it in the political, academic, the arts, business or even the church sphere, is being brought down because of their inordinate use domination, pressure, and control over those that are under their authority. There’s entirely too much influence as lords, and it’s sadly evident in the church. How can the climate change? I suggest we learn the next important value from the text.

Leaders Must Maintain Humility

“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder“

Peter was “a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed.” He spent more than three years with Jesus. He walked on water (Matthew 14:29). He saw Jesus glorified (Matthew 17:1-2). He witnessed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He was appointed as an apostle and commissioned to carry the Gospel to the uttermost parts. Be that as it may, he self-identified as a “fellow elder.” In Jesus’ exhortation to leaders quoted above, He went on to teach, whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44). The culmination of the teaching would come one verse later when He would say, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” That all requires humility.

Humility seems to be a lost concept in our 21st-century American climate. It is certainly not highly valued in our day. The current leader of our own nation is a lot of things; humble does not appear to be one of them. In fact, I would say that a lot of his appeal, among his supporters during the 2016 campaign, was his pomposity. The way up in American culture over the last half-century (and probably much longer) has been to be the loudest, self-promoter in the crowd. The way up in the Kingdom of Christ is down. Jesus not only taught this, He lived it. Paul highlights this truth when he writes:

“Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name.”

– Philippians 2:5-9

Paul gave this example to illustrate his own exhortation, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests but also for the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3-4). The early apostles all agreed; the way up is down. James wrote, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10). Therefore would Jesus say, “whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant;” which leads to the next important value from 1 Peter 5.

The Greatest Leaders are Great Servants

“Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers”

As if this weren’t already clear from the previously quoted exhortation and example of Jesus in Mark 10, Peter picks up the theme again. Here we are given three important keys of service in these twelve words.

First, we serve in this work as overseers. The New International Version (NIV) speaks of taking care of this ministry, by “watching over” it.

Second, we serve as stewards. This ministry we are given to care for by oversight is entrusted to us as stewards. We are watching over a work and ministry that is not ultimately ours. Leaders (especially Christian leaders within a church context) must take care not to be ensnared by the trap of thinking that the work entrusted to them is their own personal possession. Those snared in this trap quickly find themselves in danger of seeking dishonest gains from the work under their care.

Third, our service is to steward and watch over God’s flock, as shepherds. The word “shepherds” here is the verb form of the noun translated “pastors” in Ephesians 4:11. This is why so many Christian leaders have opted to use the title Pastor in the work they are appointed to. But where did Peter come up with such an idea or concept of service as shepherds over God’s flock? That’s exactly what Christ commissioned him to.

Even a hurried reading of the Gospels makes clear that Peter was all but overcome by shame after his three-time denial of Christ on the night of His arrest. But after His resurrection, Jesus sought Peter out to restore and commission him for service. In John 21 we are invited to witness the restoration and reappointment. Three times Jesus asks, “Peter, do you love me?” To which Peter responds, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” Following Peter’s three responses Jesus says, “Feed My lambs,” “Tend My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.”

Now though there is disagreement among some scholars and commentators, I think the dialog in the original (Greek) text is truly enlightening. The first two times Jesus asks Peter “do you love me with a self-sacrificing devotion” (Greek agapaō)? Peter basically responds, “Yes Lord, I love you like a brother” (Greek phileō). The third time Jesus seems to come down to Peter’s level asking him, “Do you love me like a brother” (Greek phileō)? Peter is grieved by the third inquiry. I may be reading into the passage, but it is almost as if Jesus says, “Do you really phileō Me? And it’s the third time! Previously Peter had denied Jesus in response to three different inquiries. But the nuance of the language isn’t what is actually interesting to me about the passage.

What is striking to me is that the level of your devotion—total self-sacrificing devotion verses strong affection—it doesn’t matter where the call and commission of Jesus is concerned. Perhaps you’re not completely ready to give up all to follow and serve Christ, but you are a committed follower. The assignment is the same: Feed and tend My lambs! This leads to a very simple conclusion.

The greatest leadership qualification and quality is love

Of course, Jesus’ ideal, as revealed by His inquisition of Peter, is that agapē love would be at the heart of a leader. This is the love described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. It is a love that is patient, kind, humble, honoring of others, selfless, mild and forgiving. I don’t care if you’re a leader in business, government, a classroom, the church or just your home. If your leadership is characterized by this kind of love, then you will grow in influence and stature as a leader. And I think it is absolutely true, if you are a loving leader, you will be a loved leader. Moreover, if you this important quality is at the heart of your leadership then the next important point in this text.

Leaders are compelled by love to serve willingly

Peter writes:

“not by compulsion but willingly”

We are not drafted or forced into this service. Though some of the apostles referred to themselves as “slaves of Christ,” they were actually bondservants. That is, they were servants by choice, not by force. In one of his letters, Paul writes, “For the love of Christ compels us.” His love is that which was demonstrated by His death on the cross. And that love, when properly understood, should increase our love for Him, which in turn should compel our love for others in very practical and Christlike ways.

In 1 Peter 5, the apostle goes on to say, “not for dishonest gain.” Another English translation says, “not for filthy lucre.” The Christian leader does not occupy the role for what they can get out of it. Though sadly it is clear that some have. The Christian leader is compelled by love to serve willingly. And those that fill the office of leader should do so recognizing the next truth in the passage.

Leadership is a stewardship

“nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”

Jesus said “Feed My lambs,” “Tend My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.” The “flock” is God’s flock; the sheep of His pasture. Any role of oversight and leadership that the Christian leader holds is as a manager and steward of another’s possession. We quickly find ourselves drifting into dangerous territory when we begin to see the position as our possession. As stated previously, leaders are not lords. Those who rule as barons over their plot have forgotten the exhortation to shepherd the flock of God which is among them as servants. But those who recognize the importance of leadership as a stewardship will be good examples to the flock, and they will realize the final point of the passage.

Faithful stewards will be rewarded

“when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”

Though we’re exhorted to serve willingly and not for dishonest gain, there is no problem with serving to obtain the honest gain of the eternal crown of glory. Paul wrote, “Run in such a way that you may obtain the prize.” And this text makes very clear that we should lead in such a way that we receive the reward in glory.

As I said previously, none of these things is earth-shatteringly new. Each is rather clearly presented in the Scripture. But when applied as a whole, they produce leaders and organizations that are

, , , , , ,

Can we tolerate intolerance?

At this moment, just days from Christmas, a whole lot of noise has been stirred up in American pop-culture, resulting from the “Duck Commander’s” words that are to be printed in the January issue of GQ Magazine. The Twitter-sphere, blogosphere and mainline newsosphere are all a buzz, which of course means I have something to say too 😉

Two blog articles have stuck out to me in the last 24 hours. One, a post from Brandon Ambrosino at Time.com and the other from Andrew Sullivan on his own site, dish.andrewsullivan.com. Interestingly, both men are openly gay. Thus, their views are particularly interesting.

Both writers essentially agree that Phil Robertson’s firing is unfounded. Sullivan rightly observes that A&E has fired the reality star for doing the very thing that has made the network a boatload of money, speaking his stereotypically southern, redneck mind. Ambrosino closes with a great question, “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them?” Amidst all the chatter I find myself continually landing upon the same reoccurring thought: can we tolerate intolerance?

The collective voices of progressive pop-culture tell us “fundamentalist Christians” that we must be more tolerant of the LGBT community and lifestyle. By tolerance I can only deduce that they mean accepting and in many cases celebrate too. At this moment—barring changes that will likely come in the future—the definition of tolerant (according to the New Oxford American Dictionary installed on my MacBook Air) is “showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

As far as I can tell, myself and most of the Christian pastors and church goers that I know, have been (according to the above definition) doing their best to be tolerant of the Homosexual lifestyle, whether they want to be or not. We’ve tried to show a willingness to allow the existence of opinions and behavior that we—and we believe the Scriptures—do not agree with. However, it does not seem that groups like GLAAD and others within the LGBT community are willing to offer the same tolerance to fundamentalist Christians like Phil Robertson.

My answer to the question is “no.” I cannot tolerate the LGBT and progressive pop-culture’s intolerance of our opinions that they do not agree with. I wish that they were a little more tolerant, and something tells me that Sullivan and Ambrosino would probably agree.

/2 Comments
, , , , , ,

Why I’m optimistic for the future of Calvary Chapel

Calvary Chapel, a ministry and movement I’ve had the privilege of both growing up in and serving with for more than 20 years, is now facing the most significant transitional changes that it has in all the time I’ve been associated with it. With the passing of Pastor Chuck Smith a week ago, the changes will [now] be far more apparent, but they have actually been going on for the better part of the last two years.

Just over a year ago, the internal leadership structure of the Calvary Chapel changed with the creation of the Calvary Chapel Association, and as of yesterday, Pastor Brian Brodersen was chosen to be Pastor Chuck’s successor as the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. While it remains to be seen what this change at Costa Mesa will mean for the larger Association, I find myself very optimistic about the future of Calvary Chapel. Why?

First, Pastor Brian is (in my humble opinion) the right man, at the right time. He has faithfully served as an associate/assistant to Pastor Chuck for the last thirteen years. In addition to his faithfulness to Pastor Chuck and CCCM, Brian has a genuine passion for foreign missions and a clear commitment to the younger generation of leaders coming up in CC. In my experience—primarily at conferences domestically and abroad, and on occasion at Costa Mesa—Brian has proven to be one of the most approachable senior leaders I’ve encountered in Calvary. He takes the time to be available to those seeking counsel and prayer, and has thus proven himself a pastor, not only to the members of CCCM, but [also] to the missionaries and pastors of the greater Calvary Movement.

The second reason that I am optimistic grows out of an observation I had from outside of Calvary this week.

This week Exponential held its first West Coast Conference in Orange County. I had the privilege of meeting with some of the Exponential and Leadership Network leaders to discuss church planting and the Calvary Church Planting Network prior to the conference; and then I’ve tuned in (online) to several of the sessions throughout the week.

The theme for Exponential West has been DiscipleShift, and while the sessions from pastors such as Miles McPherson, Larry Osborne, Rick Warren, Robert Coleman, and many others have, been substantive, I have found it interesting that much of what is being presented as the new discipleship paradigm in American Christianity, has been standard Calvary Chapel practice for 40+ years. No, it has never been branded, packaged and promoted by Calvary, but for more than 40 years, it has been our practice. Thus, Calvary Chapel is, in a number of ways, still ahead of the curve and continuing to reshape American Protestantism. And, if Calvary can maintain the consistency of simply teaching the Word of God simply, loving God, loving others and making disciples, it will do so for many years to come.

/7 Comments