Fore!

For Father’s Day, ‘05, my children (so actually, my wife) gave me a “coupon” to go play golf any time I wanted.  This was a generous and much-appreciated gift.  Well as June, ‘06 rolled around this year, I had still not redeemed the coupon.  And I was afraid it would expire on Father’s Day, so I thought it was about time to redeem it.  So I hit the links in early June for the first time in about 10 months.  Given the length of time since I last played, it was not too bad of a round.

Here’s the deal with me and golfing.  I come from a family of golfers–dad, mom, and brother all played while I was growing up and still play regularly today.  Though I was raised in a golfing home, I did not like golf.  Often times our vacations would be to golfing destinations.  So while they were out chasing that little white ball around, I was swimming in the pool, playing at the beach, hitting tennis balls, wasting–no, investing quarters at the arcade, or bowling.  Occassionally I would begin a round of golf with them thinking I would learn to like it, but after a few holes I would resign to golf cart driving duty.  It was not until my days in seminary that I actually took golf up and enjoyed it.  Sean Higgins, Dave Cleland, Mike Escen, Mr. Light and I would head up the Grapevine to middle of nowhere and get a welcomed reprieve from the rigors of seminary life.  Sean and I decided that if we could not be quality golfers, we could at least increase the quantity of our golf.  So on one Monday we left the house before dark and arrived at the course just at sunrise.  We played all day long, taking only a break for lunch, and got in 65 holes.  Our last hole was played in the dark–amazingly, we hit the fairway on our drives.  If we had not, we would have never found our balls.

When I go golfing now, I can temporarily fool people into thinking I am actually “a golfer.”  I dress the part, having been given nice golf shirts from tournaments my parents have attended.  I can speak the golf lingo and know the rules pretty well.  I have nice clubs.  They are hand-me-downs from my dad after he got new clubs for his 50th birthday, but they’re really nice 2nd hander’s–Calaway Big Bertha irons and woods.  I even have an okay swing, since I have watched a lot of golf in my life and had free coaching from my dad and brother.  So when I step up to that first tee and join a group of strangers, they probably think they are getting a real ball-striker.  And I can usually keep fooling them off the tee box.  My driver is my most consistent club in the bag.  I don’t hit it terribly long, but I can generally hit it straight about 225 yards down the fairway.  I might even hit my second shot well and end up on or near the green–still fooling the rest of my foursome.  But then reality sets in on and around the green.  Because I don’t play more than 2-3 times a year, I have absolutely no feel for short game.  My chips and putts are wildly unpredictable. 

And this is how the game of golf works for a hack like myself.  I have enough muscle memory to go out and hit my woods and irons decently even though I only play sporadically.  But I cannot keep the “feel” of putting and chipping without consistent practice.  I can fool the casual observer with my golfer-like dress, equipment, and even swing.  But if they watch carefully at all, they will notice that I am not the real deal.  I don’t have “the touch” that comes with hundreds of rounds of golf and hours of putting and chipping practice.  I am in fact, a poser.

There are posers in the church as well.  They may have grown up in Christian homes, speak Christianese, dress Christianly, wear the latest Jesus Junk, have their car decorated with Christian bumper stickers, consistently go to Sunday worship and all the church’s extra functions, and maybe even have some speaking ability that makes them appear to be a good teacher and example.  They fool casual observers into thinking they are the real deal.  But watch them closely and you realize that something is missing.  They can fool people with external shows of righteousness, but they have no “feel” for holiness–there is no humility, gentleness, patience, purity, self-control, love, or prudence.  There is a thin facade of external righteousness that covers over a vacuum of godlessness.  Like the Pharisees, they ”clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25).  They are “like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” (23:27). 

It would be easy to talk about “them” and to bash “those” hypocrites in the church.  But with only a small dose of self-examination, the little pharisee within my own heart is clearly seen.  The “log” in my own eye is great.  May God give us (me) the grace to walk in the fear of the Lord and live authentic, godly lives for His glory in Christ Jesus.  May we not find contentment in being external man-pleasers, but rather strive after being men and women who are holy from the inside out.

e-vangelism: the evangel, part two

In his introduction to John Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, James I. Packer (Does anybody actually know what the “I” stands for?  Iain?  Izzy?  Ignatius?) gives a helpful diagnosis of the modern church’s sickly state.  He contends that the problems and perplexities of the church are ultimately due to our having lost grip on the biblical gospel.

“Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered the biblical gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similarly enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing.  Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty.  Why?

“We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content.  It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because that is not primarily what it is trying to do.  One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be ‘helpful’ to man–to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction–and too little concerned to glorify God.  The old gospel was ‘helpful,’ too–more so, indeed, than is the new–but, so to speak incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God.  It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace.  Its center of reference was unambiguously God.  But in the new gospel the center of reference is man.  This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not.  Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better.  The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him.  There is a world of difference.  The whole perspective and emphasis in gospel preaching has changed.”

A.W. Tozer (Not sure what the “A” or “W” stand for in his name–we’ll say “Amadeus Wolfgang”) said the same thing, calling the modern, me-centered gospel, “the new cross.”

“The new cross does not slay the sinner; it redirects him.  It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect.  To the self-assertive it says, ‘Come and assert yourself for Christ.’  To the egotist it says, ‘Come and do your boasting in the Lord.’  To the thrill-seeker it says, ‘Come and enjoy the thrill of the abundant Christian life.’  The Christian’s message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.  The idea behind this kind of thing may be sincere, but its sincerity does not save it from being false.”

Do you think these analyses are a bit too harsh?  It’s really not that bad, is it?  Not in Christian America?  Follow the link below to a “Digitract” from the American Tract Society–an organization with the desire to see gospel tracts distributed to masses of people.  This is the same group that has published the “Roman Road,” a very popular and enduring gospel tract.  Like Tozer, I am not questioning their motives, but do want to challenge the content of their “gospel.”  Check it out and then finish my entry:

Digitract – “You Are Someone Special”

Remember what Packer said:  “similar in points of detail.” The tract refers to creation, resurrection, sin, and quotes some Scriptures.  But “as a whole (it is) a decidedly different thing.”  The whole tenor of the tract is man-centered.  Tozer would say, “To the self-absorbed, it says, ‘Come and be self-absorbed for Jesus.’”  It sounds like God is a needy, unfulfilled, empty Person without me.

This is what John Piper means when he says in the introduction to God Is the Gospel, “We are willing to be God-centered as long as God is man-centered.  We are willing to boast in the cross as long as the cross is a witness to our worth.”  The modern church has erred by placing man as the central figure of the gospel.  We’ve made it about us.

This post is not meant to cause anxiety about the future of the church or the progress of the gospel.  God is the author of the gospel, God preserves the gospel, and God gives power to the gospel.  It is so exciting to see and hear about the effects God’s gospel is having around the world.  But we must defensively ”guard . . . the treasure which has been entrusted to us” (2 Timothy 1:14) and actively go to the ends of the earth proclaiming the gospel.  As every coach I have ever had has said, “the best defense is a good offense” (or is it the other way around?).  May we “hold onto” the gospel and “hold forth” the gospel to an unbelieving world, begging them, on behalf of Christ, to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Dynamite Commercial

I know you get forwarded e-mails all the time with funny photos and video clips.  I seem to always be the last person to see these fads.  Several times, I have been watching some news program and they do an entertainment story about a video that has quickly surfaced “all over the internet.”  But I have never heard of it or seen it.  I am out of that loop (and I really don’t want to be “in” that loop–so don’t start forwarding me a bunch of e-mails).  To me, the animated “I Will Survive“, the “Dancing Baby” and “Numa Numa” are the latest crazes.

So if you are already familiar with the following video clips (and you probably are since they are from 2005), then I apologize for being so internet-old-school.  It is just hard to download these things on my Commodore 64.  But if you haven’t seen them, enjoy.  Follow the link below to the Utah State Fair’s website, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on the link that says:  “Watch last year’s Napoleon Dynamite TV Ads“.  This year’s “Have Fun with Your Food” ads are pretty hilarious too.

Utah State Fair Commericals

Another video you may not have seen is available over at the Dawg and Pony Show.  The Edwards’ boys really take after their dad.

e-vangelism: the evangel, part one

In order for effective and responsible evangelism to take place, we need to have a rock-solid understanding of the evangel (the gospel).  Evangelism is not truly evangelism if it is not heralding the biblical gospel.  The true gospel is the “power of God for salvation to all who believe” (Romans 1:16).  Such cannot be said of impotent knock-off gospels.  Just because someone says they are committed to “preach the gospel” does not mean they are allies in the church’s mission.  We must ask, “Which gospel are they preaching?”  There were gospel chalatans in the Galatian region and churches that Paul warned of in the opening verses of his letter to them.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!  As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed.  For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God?  Or am I striving to please men?  If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.  For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.  For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”  (Galatians 1:6-12)

Several observations can be made about “different gospels” from these verses.  First, they are distortions of the true gospel of Christ (v. 7).  Looking at them is like seeing a reflection in a fun-house mirror.  You see a version of reality, but it is greatly altered.  False gospels contain “elements” of truth (similar terminology, ideas, etc.), but they are filled with half-truths and deception.  Second, false gospels are objectively wrong (v. 8).  It does not matter “who” preaches them, whether they be a superstar preacher or even an angel from heaven.  It doesn’t matter how sincere they are or how persuaive they are or how “successful” they are.  The objective content of the “gospel” is to be scrutinized in order to discern its validity.

Third, false gospels are man-pleasing (v. 10).  They attract quite a following.  Their preachers are crowd-pleasers.  This stands in contrast to the typical response to the biblical gospel–perceived as a stumbling block and foolishness by the masses (1 Corinthians 1:18).  Fourth, they are man-centered (v. 11).  They are “according to man” or to the standards of men.  They reflect their human authorship.  They do not pulsate with Christ, God, or heaven.  They are earthy and ordinary.  Finally, false gospels are man-made (v. 12).  They are “received from man” and “taught” by men.  God’s fingerprints are not on their message.  They ooze of human origin.

There is no limit to the false gospels that have been and will be produced.  False “gospel factories” are busier than ever.  Production is up because demand is great.  Regrettably, they find that the easiest and most rapid forms of distribution are through supposed “Christian” outlets (t.v., radio, bookstores, web).  But standing in contrast to this plethora of faddish false gospels is the one, true, enduring message of Jesus Christ.  It is authored by God and not a product of men that can be tampered with.  It is not a gumby gospel that can be made to look like whatever we want it to.  It may be believed and proclaimed or it may be rejected and persecuted.  But it does not change because God does not change.  We respond to it; it does not react or adjust to us.

I attribute the underwhelming zeal for proclaiming the gospel that exists in the church today in large part to a gross negligence in understanding the biblical good news of Jesus Christ.  This is why J.I. Packer has rightly said, “One of the most urgent tasks facing evangelical Christendom today is the recovery of the gospel.”  Why is this so important?  In my next post I will provide an extended quotation from Packer that shows the ramifications of gospel-abandonment.  Then I will give a modern example that will offer proof of this unfortunate trend.  So stay tuned and check back soon . . .

e-vangelism

Paul wrote to his young pastor-friend, Timothy, “Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:5).  Those underlined words have always haunted me.  I mentally high-five (or maybe even fist-pump) the apostle Paul throughout this letter as he charges Timothy to guard the trust, preach the word, and refute error.  “Hold the fort!” he tells young Timmy.  That part of the Christian ministry lights my jets.  But it is not enough to only have a good defense of the truth.  There must also be a strong offense in place.  This is the “work of an evangelist.”  The advance of the gospel is as important as the defense of the gospel.  Churches need an enduring love for the Bible and concern for one another in the flock.  But if that is all that characterizes us, we will have a perrenial tendancy to become ingrown, apathetic, and angry.  We must also be continually developing a deep and abiding love for the lost.  We need to keep before our minds that Jesus has “other sheep, which are not of this fold; (He) must bring them also” (John 10:16).

My personal history of involvment in evangelism has been quite varied.  Since the time that I first trusted Christ in high school, I have had a God-given desire to be an active and effective witness of Jesus Christ.  But that zeal has been expressed (or hidden) in a number of ways.  During high school, my method of gospel-telling was hit-and-run evangelism.  I took the gospel to the school hallways, shopping malls, and parks in an effort to make conversions.  I would overcome my initial nervousness, sit down beside a total stranger, pull out a tract, and stick it to him.  After hurriedly rehearsing the basic facts of the gospel, I would press the person to “make a decision” and “say the sinner’s prayer.”  Some people “made decisions,” others walked away.  I pray that there were some genuine conversions that came as a result of those evangelistic encounters.  My motives were good (for the most part) during those early years, but I am still convinced that my tactics needed refinement.  The zeal was there, the knowledge was lacking.

During my college years, my thoughts on witnessing changed.  It was then that I become interested in event evangelism.  From books and articles I read, it seemed that if you got the right communicator talking to the right crowd in the right setting, you couldn’t help but see many conversions.  This pragmatic approach drove me to carefully examine brochures that came across my desk while I served as a youth pastor.  The power team, clowns, illusionists, drama groups, comedians, bands–they all boasted of big results.  They made it sound like if I could get students there, they could get them saved.  This method of evangelism also left me wanting and weary–and our church budget depleted.

When we moved to California for seminary, I moved into my lifestyle evangelism phase of personal witnessing.  I was excited to move out of the Bible belt and into a neighborhood full of unchurched unbelievers.  So I made it a priority from the get-go to establish and work on relationships with our neighbors in hopes of earning the right to speak with them about the gospel one day.  This was socially great.  I like people.  I like talking about sports, family, tools, golf, etc.  But turning those friendships and conversations to Christ proved extremely difficult.  It seemed that because I had initiated the relationship on the basis of “common interests,” that it was exceedingly difficult to bring this uncommon discussion of the gospel into the relationships.

I have resolved, in spite of my mixed history with personal witnessing, to never lose a zeal for the gospel’s progress.  In an effort to solidify in my own mind what biblical evangelism truly is, I decided to study this important privilege we have as Christians and develop a series of messages for our church.  I began preaching this series three weeks ago and will continue it for three more weeks.  You can listen to these sermons here.  And over the next several weeks, I plan on using this blog to deal with some evangelism issues I was not able to deal with in these messages.  I welcome your interaction and ideas on personal witnessing, hoping that we will sharpen one another in this critical gospel-telling work.

I have heard many sermons preached on evangelism and generally come away feeling guilty because I don’t do more of it.  But know that this is not my desire in these entries.  Guilt makes us hopeless, apathetic, and resigned to failure.  I want to arouse hope, excitement, creativity and zeal for the Lord and for His gospel-telling work.  May God help us become more natural and active in personal witnessing.

P.S.  Thank you for your patience in my absence from the blogosphere.  I could give you some excuses, but none of them are any good.  If only Mike Escen would get back online again, then the www would be in harmony again.