Leading a Romanian Teen to Christ

I wrote earlier about the mission team that came to Romania from my home church in January 2001. Hosting 40+ Americans in my own territory was a blessing, but also burdensome, not because of the American team, but because of my struggles with the language. Things weren’t working out. I felt stretched to the max as I tried to help my home church accomplish their mission work in the Romanian villages. But many good things were also taking place.

By far the most important event of the week for my long-term ministry in Romania was a conversation my brother and I had with one of the teenagers in my home village. Valentin was one of the teenagers who had been coming to our services for a while now. He was actively participating in our youth meetings. His dad had just gotten baptized the summer before, and his mom and sister were already believers.

One thing kept Valentin from becoming a Christian: he didn’t think he could give up everything from his old lifestyle. He told my brother and me one that he could give up the parties and drinking and all that went along with that lifestyle. But he didn’t think he could give up a certain vice that had a grip on him.

Valentin was afraid that if he decided to live for Christ and then went back to even just that part of his old lifestyle, he would make his family, his church, and the Lord ashamed. So, he told us that he would try to rid himself of the vice first, and then decide to become a Christian.

I told Valentin that day that I didn’t think he could give up the sin. A strange expression flashed across his face. He had expected some encouragement or some words of advice that would help him make his decision. Perhaps he had expected me to say, “You have to give it up! It’s not God’s will for your life.” But I didn’t say any of those things. I agreed with Valentin that he would probably never be able to escape the clutches of the sin that held him captive… by himself.

I shocked Valentin by agreeing with his assessment in order to change his mindset, a typical Romanian perspective, that sees works as preceding faith. You have to do this or stop doing that before you can trust Christ for salvation. I wanted Valentin to understand that this was the wrong way to think. You can’t do good and you can’t stop doing bad until you have trusted Christ. God takes the first step towards us; not vice versa. In order to be a Christian, you don’t work your way to a decision. You merely say “yes” to the transformation that God wants to bring in your life.

There was no doubt that Valentin wanted his life to be changed. He wanted to be saved. He wanted to be baptized. Even then, it was clear. But he was held back by the gnawing sense of unworthiness and helplessness. I tried to get Valentin to understand that the unworthiness and helplessness that he was feeling was precisely the sign that God was doing a work in his life! He had to understand his state before God as helpless, sinful and unworthy – and in the brokenness that came from that, begin to experience God’s healing.

Valentin later told me that our conversation that day radically changed the way he looked at salvation. Instead of looking at salvation as something to attain by “doing something,” he saw salvation as something God “has done” and that our “doing something” follows salvation. The next evening, at the evangelistic service my church held in the village, Valentin trusted Christ. He was baptized that summer, and he entered Emanuel University as a Theology student a year later. Over the years, he became one of my most trusted friends and co-workers, often helping me lead worship and preach in other churches. God did do a mighty work, but it only came after Valentin entrusted his life into God’s hands.

The week of that mission trip, even though there were times of frustration and doubt, God still worked! I sometimes feel like from an organizational standpoint, He worked in spite of us rather than through us. Some of the details turned out to be disastrous during this trip. But God still moved in a mighty way. And for that I was humbled and grateful.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Costly Forgiveness

“The Cross is not simply a lovely example of sacrificial love. Throwing your life away needlessly is not admirable — it is wrong. Jesus’ death was only a good example if it was more than an example, if it was something absolutely necessary to rescue us. And it was. Why did Jesus have to die in order to forgive us? There was a debt to be paid — God himself paid it. There was a penalty to be born — God himself bore it. Forgiveness is always a form of costly suffering.”

- Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York, NY; Dutton, 2007), 193. HT – Fred Eaton

True Story 5: Conclusions

James Choung’s True Story seeks to remedy the incompleteness of traditional presentations of the gospel by filling in the central aspects of the biblical Story (kingdom, mission life, church) that we have tended to leave out. Yet as he takes on this worthy challenge, Choung downplays and minimizes other aspects of the biblical teaching on salvation (atonement, personal sin against God, holiness, Law), omissions that ultimately prove detrimental to his gospel presentation.

One aspect that I do like about this presentation is its invitation to nominal Christians (like people in the Bible Belt) to begin to follow Jesus in his mission in the church. Choung’s outline challenges nominal people to repent, join a church and make Jesus Lord of their purpose and mission. Choung teaches that the church is the vanguard of hope for this broken and damaged world, in Christ, who is making all things new in his Kingdom. Those inside and outside the church need this challenge to align their lives with God’s Kingdom.

As we bring this series to a close, I’d like to speak briefly to the reasons why Choung thinks we need new gospel presentations. (Let me state clearly that I appreciate Choung’s initiative in thinking through these issues. We do need to rethink how we share the gospel. I do not, however, think we need a new gospel.)

Here’s what Choung believes is wrong with the traditional presentations. First, they may cause us to have judgmental attitudes (18). After all, if everything is about who’s in and who’s out, it can cause Christians to be smug and confident in having their eternity all figured out.

Secondly, traditional presentations may lead toward legalism (19). If the emphasis is on God desiring perfection, then we always feel like we’re never measuring up. We can’t make the grade.

Third, traditional presentations fail to address the injustice perpetrated by Christians in the world. Apologetics matter today, especially because people are wondering if Christianity is good for anything. We must address the record of the church, a record that is quite ugly at times.

Choung critiques traditional evangelistic strategies for focusing on formulas that make the soulwinner feel like “an actor in a bad B-movie who still faithfully delivers his lines” (22). Diagrams are then taken as symbols of the gospel itself instead of just a way of presenting the gospel (194) (although ironically, Choung puts forth his own diagram!).

So how does Choung’s presentation correct these deficiencies?

Regarding judgmental attitudes, Choung seeks to present a gospel that doesn’t sound so exclusive (193).

“In a day when the main spiritual question is no longer ‘What is true?’ but ‘What is real?’ or ‘What is good?’, the gospel as most of us have learned it doesn’t sound like good news” (193).

Since the gospel no longer deals with the afterlife, the judgmental exclusivity of Christians is gone.

Regarding legalism, as I mentioned before, Choung never mentions the holiness of God. The idea of a holy God demanding perfection is gone, curing us of legalism. (Ironically, legalism is not cured by lessening the Law’s demands but by seeing the demands satisfied in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Jesus.)

Regarding the issue of Christian injustice, Choung includes social action as part of the gospel itself (27). So the question of Christians doing good in the world comes into the very heart of the gospel message in order to answer the charge that Christians have often done wrong in the name of Jesus.

Choung advocates we return to an emphasis on the community of faith. I agree with him here. Most gospel presentations have been so individualistic as to leave little room for the Church. But Choung’s reason for adding the emphasis on community puzzles me:

“A gospel that highlights community in a culture that longs for intimacy and friendship will feel more relevant to today’s culture” (198).

This statement begs the question: Are we highlighting community because of its relevance or because it is true and is part of the biblical witness? I hopefully assume that Choung’s answer would be, “Because the biblical gospel includes the coming together of Jew and Gentile since Jesus is Lord of all (Ephesians 2).” But it seems to me (at least from the context of his statement) that Choung is taking his cue from what the culture thinks is relevant, and then shaping the gospel to fit the cultural demands.

Another revealing statement comes from a Thai woman who has heard Choung’s presentation of the gospel and expresses her approval. She then says, “I don’t have to make my friends feel like sinners to share the gospel with them” (221). I do not want to misrepresent James Choung or his motivations, and I believe he is truly passionate about seeing people come to faith in Christ. But I cannot help but wonder if, in the end, the entire True Story project has the unintentional effect of removing the offense of the gospel.

If the outcome of our gospel presentation allows listeners to avoid the issue of personal sin, then we have completely missed the boat. The gospel answers more than the problem of individual sin, yes. But it never answers less. And to excise the offensive nature of our sinfulness and God’s holiness from the gospel is to remove the stumbling block. At this point, we are not being more faithful to Scripture, but less.

James Choung’s True Story helpfully points out some of the deficiencies of our gospel presentations. We would do well to incorporate many of his insights into our presentation of the gospel. But True Story fails, not in what Choung adds, but in what he takes away. At the end of the day, I believe the traditional presentations (for all their flaws) are actually more complete than the gospel of True Story.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

In the Blogosphere

Joe Carter has some excellent thoughts on the forgotten vice of gluttony.

Justin Taylor interviews Darrell Bock about his book, Dethroning Jesus.

C.J. Mahaney with some excellent exhortation to fathers on setting the right example on family vacation.

R.C. Sproul has changed his mind. He’s now a six-day Creationist.

Robbie Sagers on how to avoid gossip.

Living in an age of distraction.

Michael Spencer reflects on how God is Jesus.

Tullian on Kingdom Citizenship

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Maria Chapman Memorial Service

True Story 4: The Truncated Cross

As we continue our journey through James Choung’s new book, True Story, we turn to the question of the cross and resurrection. How do the two main events of Christianity fit into Choung’s gospel presentation?

We saw yesterday that Choung leaves out the biblical emphasis on God’s holiness and his righteous Law. Once we eliminate these two aspects of the biblical teaching about God, we are left with a truncated view of Jesus’ death on the cross.

Here is how Choung describes Jesus’ life and death:

“Jesus started his resistance movement to restore the world for better. But he had to do it a certain way. Instead of violent overthrow and killing others, he let his enemies kill him. If this world was diseased by evil and sin, then Jesus went right into the center of it and took it all onto himself. He died brutally. And in death he invited us to put to death the evil in us. All evil and its consequences died with Jesus on the cross. The Bible says we die with Jesus.” (147)

Later, Choung says that “Jesus gets infected and dies on the cross” (211).

Notice that Jesus’ death does not accomplish anything for us; it merely provides us with an invitation to come and die with him. Consider the following statement:

“Everything bent and wrong with us dies with him. That’s what the Bible calls our old selves. But everything that’s right comes back to life in him, our new selves.” (134).

Is Choung saying that there is something inherently good in us that comes back to life? Is he saying that in Jesus’ death only our sins are taken care of? What about the righteous status we need in order to gain access to a holy God? Without a picture of God’s holiness and the demands of God’s Law, these aspects are left undefined.

I agree with Choung that “the work of the cross is way too big to be explained by one theory” (134). I have often written about the danger in reducing the atonement to one particular theory instead of seeing the cross in all of its biblical brilliance. But there is a difference between saying that we need several atonement theories in order to capture the whole biblical teaching (my view) and saying we should dispense with all the theories because none of them are accurate (which appears to be Choung’s view).

Choung never advises us to ditch all the atonement theories. But he implies that we should go in this direction since he does not put forth any atonement theory at all. He repeats the tired caricature of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse” (51). But instead of correcting the misperception, he abandons that theory altogether and says, “By calling that story the central one, [evangelicals] missed the bigger picture, the truer picture – quite possibly the core of our faith” (51).

The atonement theories are not merely historical inventions! They have basis in the biblical text. And history does not back up Choung’s bold statement about the ransom theory being the earliest (134).

Choung critiques evangelicals for only clinging to one atonement theory at the expense of the others and creating an incomplete picture of the cross. I critique Choung for relativizing all the theories to the point that our only choice is to abandon them all, creating an even more incomplete picture of the cross.

Once the atonement theories disappear, we are left with the vague description of Jesus being “infected” so that we could die to our evil and have our goodness rise again. This weak description leads to the embrace of something akin to Catholicism’s “infusion of grace” instead of imputation of righteousness. “[Jesus] injects us with immunity to inoculate us from sin and evil” (148). “We are being invited into Jesus’ death and resurrection so we can die to our evil selves and live a new life – forgiven and loved. He’s our teacher and we follow his ways.”

So with God’s holiness, his wrath, his Law, and his righteousness absent from the picture, Choung’s presentation still leaves us wondering why Jesus had to die. He is clear on why Jesus died (to invite us to die with him and rise to new life). But he is unclear as to why Jesus had to die. Why do we need Step 3 in Choung’s presentation? Why can’t we go directly from the Fall to the Mission Life. Choung says:

“We need to be transformed so we can take evil full on and not be corrupted by it. We need to go through Jesus…” (170)

Jesus is our power for overcoming sin. But the question still remains: why did he have to die? Why couldn’t the Holy Spirit empower people apart from the cross? Was Jesus’ death the climax of his life, the moment his entire life was pointing to? Or was it something that just happened as he “got infected?”

Ultimately, Jesus is seen as a moral teacher. When you excise his substitutionary death from the picture, you’re left with a man who “started to teach people the way we all should live” (120). “Jesus became one of us to teach us – to show us in word and deed how to truly live… He was a master teacher” (124).

So with Jesus as a moral teacher, Christianity is reduced to “a new way of living, a new way of relating and a new way of organizing” (144). And salvation is not God rescuing us from our sin, but God helping us change our lives. “We need a cure to help us become the people we truly want to be” (107). This sentence leaves me wondering: What do we truly want to be? Without the emphasis on God’s holiness, we are left with a vague description on who we want to be, not who God wants us to be.

When Choung leads someone to the “What next?” stage of presenting the gospel, he says:

“First start to trust Jesus with your life… Admit that we have contributed to the evil on the planet and that we need forgiveness. Receive Jesus’ forgiveness and invite the Holy Spirit into your life. Then, join a community of people who are trying to follow Jesus and bring this new nation into reality.” (178)

Is it just me or does this not seem strikingly similar to the presentations we have grown up with? For all of Choung’s critique of current evangelistic strategies, when it comes to the What do I do? part, he sounds very much like the evangelists he critiques.

I hope this post has helped to point out some of the missing aspects of Choung’s gospel presentation. Though I found much to be commended in Choung’s book, I cannot help but conclude that this gospel is actually less complete and captures less fully the message of the gospel than do many of the traditional presentations he rejects.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at some of the reasons Choung has for writing this book.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

True Story 3: Sin, Punishment, and the Long-Lost Law

Yesterday’s lengthy post detailing all the helpful contributions to evangelism from James Choung’s True Story might leave some wondering if there is anything left to say. I commend Choung for much of what he has added to his presentation of the gospel, but I am distressed over what he has omitted in the process. Today and tomorrow, I will address some of the troubling aspects of the book.

First off, in order to make his case for the necessity of a new gospel presentation, Choung creates a caricature of contemporary strategies. He sets up a straw man evangelist who would say something like: “No lives needed to change… Believe in your mind; confess with your lips; accept the truth in your heart – and Jesus would make sure you got into heaven. Such a faith had nothing to do with life here and now but only the life to come” (33). Does such an evangelist exist?

Choung’s “Caleb” wonders if the entire Christian church has been “duped” (51). The current strategies are portrayed as virtually worthless, incomplete, and formulaic. But isn’t Choung advocating a strategy as well? For all of the book’s resistance toward formulas and strategic gospel presentations, it seems ironic to be introduced to a new strategy for presenting the gospel. I agree that the previous gospel presentations are incomplete. But Choung has not yet proven that his own presentation is necessarily better.

Many of our gospel presentations have indeed emphasized the afterlife to the exclusion of the mission life. We need to balance these two aspects. But in Choung’s presentation, the afterlife practically disappears. Hell is completely absent from the picture.

Choung anticipates this objection: “I’m not saying that afterlife isn’t important” (196). Indeed. But why never mention it? Choung avoids the talk about the afterlife because the gospel needs to be made “more relevant” (197).

“The gospel needs to sound like the good news it really is instead of a static message concerned only with the afterlife and thus divorced from everyday realities” (202).

I suppose if a plague were sweeping across our nation, killing hundreds of thousands of people and we were all faced with immediate death, the afterlife question would suddenly become relevant again. Would it then be appropriate to shift back from the emphasis on “mission life” to “afterlife” questions?

But let’s leave aside the absence of heaven and hell from Choung’s presentation. Let’s look closely at what Choung affirms about sin. For Choung, sin is not primarily an offense against a personal, holy God. The essence of sin is selfishness, not rebellion (78-99), a view that closely resembles Horace Bushnell and Friedrich Schleiermacher, forerunners of last century’s liberalism.

To be fair, Choung does not deny that sin is also against God. At one point he potently describes our sin as giving the Designer “the big middle finger” (108). But sin is not primarily against God, as is clear from Choung’s emphasis on what sin does to us.

Idolatry does come into the picture, but our sinful idolatry is ultimately about our damaging ourselves and others because of selfishness (91). Sin is not primarily against God, but against ourselves and against creation. Perhaps that is why Choung places more emphasis on ecological destructiveness of our sins against creation than he does on God’s holiness or glory (74-75, 108). Equally telling, more space is given to humanity’s sins against women than against God himself (96).

How does evil manifest itself? In judging others and oppressing people (85). Humans are given free will to choose to be a blessing or to choose evil and be a curse. Notice the subtle shift. Our sinful choices are not seen as bringing the curse of God against us, but as bringing our own curse against others.

Where does our sinful nature come into play?

“A sinful nature – like damage or disease, a general leaning in our spirit that makes it easier for us to damage all things in the planet, our relationships and our own center of being: our souls” (92).

Again – no God, no personal offense. Sin results in cursing ourselves, not in coming under the just judgment of God.

It follows, then, that the punishment for sin must also be reworked. In Choung’s presentation, punishment for sin is seen as a natural consequence stemming from the damage worked by our own selfish choices. Notice that punishment is not active judgment from a personal God. We are not suffering under God’s curse. We’ve cursed ourselves.

“Since God had designed the world so that everything in it could bless and serve everything else, following our own selfish designs gummed up the works and stalled the engine” (91).

What is God’s response to our sin? Certainly not wrath or anger. “God saw the evil on the planet and his heart broke” (119). Choung is right to see God grieving over the state of our world. Yes, God grieved at the wickedness on earth during the days of Noah. But then what did he do? He sent a flood that would purge the world of wickedness. He displayed his wrath against the world. Choung only presents part of the picture.

The main issue here is that God’s holiness is completely absent from his gospel presentation. Nowhere in the book does Choung mention the holiness of God. Therefore, our problem is that we fear God. When we are rescued, we are changed in how we view God and relate to him (in that we realize we have been foolish to be afraid of him) (210). Nothing necessarily changes in God’s relationship to us.

Because God’s holiness is absent from this book, the Old Testament Law disappears too. For all of Choung’s noble intention of capturing the entire Storyline of Scripture, he skips completely over the Mosaic Law. The Old Testament (after Genesis 11) is gone. So there is no discussion of God’s holy Law and no people of God who have been commissioned to reflect the holiness of God.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at what happens to Choung’s view of the cross once God’s holiness and Law disappear from the picture.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Maria Chapman Memorial Service

A moving news video featuring Steven Curtis Chapman and family at the memorial service for their daughter, Maria. We grieve with those who are grieving, and yet we grieve with hope.

HT – Zach Nielsen

True Story 2: What I Liked

There is much to be commended in James Choung’s True Story. Caleb (the young man in the narrative) asks important questions that we would do well to consider.

“What if we don’t have the right gospel? I mean, the complete picture,” he asks his youth pastor. Is the gospel only about being saved from something? What are saved for? (45)

These good questions deserve biblical answers. Choung’s “Caleb” is not the only young person asking these questions, and the pastor in the book is not the only church leader that has so simplified the gospel that he has little to offer in response.

I appreciate the emphasis that Choung places on worldview issues. One of the strong points of True Story is that Choung does not assume that the unsaved have a Christian framework. Whereas previous gospel presentations focused on the Christian message for a nominally religious, loosely Christian society (i.e. “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life), Choung rightly sees that such presentations are no longer as effective when the very identity of “God” is up for grabs!

The emphasis on worldview leads Choung into some good apologetics. When Caleb is conversing with Anna about sinfulness and selfishness, he does so by pointing out the inconsistency of her plea for “justice” in certain areas, while wanting to hold on to a relativistic framework (83). Yet Choung very clearly stresses how important it is for Caleb to remain humble even as he picks apart his friend’s flawed worldview (85).

Choung rightfully insists on the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture. Over and over again, the book’s protagonist goes back to “the sources” (52). When Anna argues against the Bible’s trustworthiness, Choung helpfully responds to the postmodern objection by showing how everything we know about the past is based on trust (53-54).

But Choung does not merely argue for the Bible’s historical trustworthiness; he rightly relies on the Bible’s content. He takes us back to Jesus’ definition of the gospel (124-125). He seeks to recapture the gospel within the framework of the Bible’s meta-narrative (199).

The most helpful aspect of Choung’s new presentation of the gospel is its starting point. Instead of beginning with “something is wrong with you,” Choung begins with the fact that “something is wrong with the world.” (55-56) This truth often served as the opening declaration of many a Billy Graham sermon. C.S. Lewis famously argued that if we sense that something is wrong, it must be true that we were made for something right – a different world, a world of Shalom (58). By beginning with the cosmic picture of a world gone bad, Choung is able to foreshadow the gospel that ends with a world renewed (139).

Choung’s treatment of sin has many problems (which I will address tomorrow), but the one helpful aspect of his proposal is that he sees sin at multiple levels. He avoids the trap of many conservatives, who see sin only at the individual level. And yet he also avoids the trap of liberals who tend to see sin as merely systemic. Choung helpfully navigates through the fundamentalist-liberal impasse by showing how sin manifests itself at multiple levels (106). He also states very clearly that people are slaves to sin (107).

Choung does well to emphasize an inaugurated eschatology – the idea that the Kingdom of God is already present, but not yet in its fullness (130-131). We live in the time between the times, as if we were in the middle of a construction project. The future is assured and has already begun, and yet we are still awaiting its fulfillment (151). Most gospel presentations skip over the kingdom completely. Choung helpfully restores this aspect to his gospel presentation.

Choung defines faith as trust, like walking on someone’s back (136). Faith is not merely head knowledge or mental assent. The gospel includes a call to transformation in the present, in which faith works itself out in a changed life (196). For all his many questions, the protagonist (Caleb) clings desperately to the traditional understanding of the gospel of grace and forgiveness of sins (31).

Choung is also right to point out the missional outlook that accompanies the call to salvation. After all, Jesus gives people a mission right after he calls them (“fishers of men,” for example) (160-162), so that salvation has a decidedly missional direction (198). We are not saved in order to only receive God’s blessing, but in order to spread God’s blessing.

Choung also emphasizes the Church. Christian faith is expressed in community. Accountability and service through the local church is not an option (197). Many gospel presentations fall short at this point. Choung’s doesn’t.

As you can see, Choung’s presentation has many commendable aspects. I hope that readers will incorporate some of the above emphases into their own presentations of the gospel. Choung puts his finger on many of the weak spots in traditional gospel presentations. He is right to seek to capture more fully the biblical portrait, and yet, as we will see tomorrow, I believe his missteps actually make his gospel presentation less complete than the traditional presentations he is critiquing. We’ll take a look at the negative aspects of Choung’s True Story tomorrow.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: Rick McKinley

“Sometimes it seems as though we find two gospels in the New Testament–the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus. The gospel of Jesus is usually taken to mean His announcement of the kingdom and the life He embodied in His loving actions toward the world. The gospel about Jesus refers to his atoning work on the cross and His resurrection, through which we can receieve the forgiveness of sin through our faith and repentance.

“I believe, however, that the two are actually one gospel and that when we lose the tension that comes from holding both together, we experience an unhealthy and unbiblical pendulum swing in our faith.

“If all we value is the salvation gospel, we tend to miss the rest of Christ’s message. Taken out of context of the kingdom, the call to faith in Christ gets reduced to something less than what the New Testament teaches. The reverse is also true: if we value a kingdom gospel at the expense of the liberating message of the Cross and the empty tomb and a call to repentance, we miss a central tenet of kingdom life. Without faith in Jesus, there is no transferring of our lives into the new world of the kingdom.”

- Rick McKinley, This Beautiful Mess 

LifePath Class in Sunday Newspaper

The Sunday School class for 20- and 30- somethings I lead here in Shelbyville was featured on the front page of the local paper on Sunday! Here’s an excerpt:

“Twenty-somethings are searching for truth,” said the Rev. Trevin Wax, associate pastor at First Baptist Church. “They want to know why Christianity is true, why it matters, and whether it’s really good.”

Wax believes that church should be a place where people can ask questions. Since he started his twenty-somethings Life Path Class in February 2007 he’s tried to answer life questions for the folks to which he ministers.

Read the whole article.

True Story 1: A Summary

Over the next few days, I will be summarizing and critiquing a new book by James Choung entitled True Story: A Christianity Worth Believing In (2008, Intervarsity Press). Choung has been working alongside Allen Wakabayashi and others to form a new presentation of the gospel, one that takes in the scope of salvation history and the grand narrative of Scripture.

True Story is mostly fictional. The bulk of the book tells the story of a young man who is coming to grips with the gospel and its implications for this world. Today I will summarize True Story. Tomorrow, I will write about the aspects of Choung’s presentation that I found helpful. On Wednesday and Thursday, I will critique the weaknesses of the book, and on Friday, I will sum up my critique with some further questions. Some of my criticisms will not be new to James, since the two of us have corresponded briefly via email before. James has shown he is open to dialogue and constructive criticism, which is what I hope this extended review will provide.

Some of my readers may wonder why I am devoting so much space to Choung’s book as there are certainly other books vying for my attention. I believe Choung’s book will reach a wide audience, and since the book is about redefining and recasting the very core of the gospel message, it deserves a thoughtful critique.

True Story opens with a personal message from Choung. In the Introduction, he suggests that evangelicals have missed the core message of the gospel. He worries that we have neutered the gospel’s implications for earth by focusing our evangelistic efforts almost entirely on a person’s eternal destination. Choung desires to show that following Jesus is much more than just lining up an eternal home. And he hopes to prove the validity of his presentation of the gospel by looking to Jesus himself.

“While I don’t want to water down the message just to say what others want to hear, I do want to share what Jesus came to teach. If we present a faith that’s only concerned about the eternal destination of a soul after death, then perhaps we’ve missed the mark” (10).

Choung makes himself very clear in the Introduction. He is not merely addressing the ways in which we communicate the gospel message. Neither is he merely updating our presentation for a new generation. Choung is addressing the very message itself, hoping to capture “more fully the good news as Jesus taught it” (11).

How does Choung address the gospel and its presentation? He tells a story about a young man named Caleb who is witnessing to his unsaved friend, Anna. For Caleb, the traditional presentations of the gospel that he has grown up with are not working. He has had enough of formulaic evangelism (22). So Caleb begins questioning the gospel itself, due to the fact that so many people who believe the gospel message seem to lack any lasting change in their lives.

Caleb is hounded by several questions:

• Does our gospel even tell people how to live now?
• Is the gospel only about life after death? (24)
• If the gospel is only about accepting a truth, can a person go to heaven while hating Arabs? (32)
• How do good works fit into the picture?
• Shouldn’t the gospel address our lives?
• If the gospel is only about our belief in a message, are our good works just “extra credit?” (32)

Caleb’s quest lands him in the office of Professor Shalandra Jones, who encourages him to keep asking the right questions. The narrative bounces back and forth between Caleb’s conversations with his friend, Anna and his conversations with Professor Jones. Throughout the story, Caleb’s vision of the gospel becomes larger. He realizes that the gospel has much to do with the kingdom of God. The gospel includes a mission-based outlook.

Throughout Choung’s narrative, the gospel as a story unfolds into four sections. We are designed for good (Creation), damaged by evil (Fall), restored for better (Redemption) and then sent on a mission as the church to heal the world (Mission).

Once the story comes to a close, Choung takes the reader “behind the scenes” and shows how his gospel presentation differs from more traditional presentations.

First, he has moved the emphasis from a one-time decision to a lifelong transformation.

Secondly, he has moved the emphasis from the individual to the community, concentrating on the importance of the church.

Third, his gospel presentation differs in that he focuses less on the afterlife and more on the “mission life” that should characterize believers today. (195-200)

It is difficult to summarize a narrative in just a few words. Much of the actual conversations of the book will come clear in the next two posts, as I offer some words of encouragement and then some words of warning regarding Choung’s proposal.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Flood the Desert of My Heart

O Lord,
I confess that I too often disregard my responsibility
to be an instrument in your hands.
I shrug my shoulders at others’ pain.
I run away from those in suffering.

Forgive me for my spiritual laziness and irresponsibility. 
Expose my warped explanations and excuses for sin and shallowness.
Weed out my sinful thoughts and actions.
Break the sinful patterns that too often entangle me and keep me from ministering as I should.

Thank you for your kingdom, your grace, your coming to rescue your creation.
Fill me with your grace and love, 
and make me a vessel through which new creation can flow out to others.
Flood the desert of my parched heart with your living water,
and may you overflow my cup so that I will be a blessing to others.
Set me apart for your purposes.
Make me into a treasured instrument for the benefit of your kingdom.
Amen.

- Trevin Wax 

Jesus is Lord of Politics Too

“Jesus Christ is Lord.

“That is the first and final assertion Christians make about all of reality, including politics. Believers now assert by faith what one day will be manifest to the sight of all: every earthly sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.

“The Church is the bearer of that claim. Because the Church is pledged to the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus, it must maintain a critical distance from the all the kingdoms of the world, whether actual or proposed. Christians betray their Lord if, in theory or practice, they equate the Kingdom of God with any political, social or economic order of this passing time. At best, such orders permit the proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom and approximate, in small part, the freedom, peace, and justice for which we hope.”

- Richard John Neuhaus, 1981 founding statement of the Institute on Religion and Democracy

In the Blogosphere

The new Southern Seminary student journal, Adorare Mente has been released. I contributed the article on Luther and Zwingli’s views of the Lord’s Supper.

Scot McKnight weighs in on the current discussion of what being “evangelical” means.

Do you need more space or do you need less “stuff”? Read Bill Blair on the idolatry of constant accumulation.

Interesting pictures of how portion sizes have changed in 20 years. I noticed this last year when I asked for a small drink from Hardee’s and found it was what I would have considered “supersized.”

Nathan Finn answers the question: Will the Southern Baptist Convention split over Calvinism?

What is the purpose of Sunday School?

Russ Moore on why we need more than a VeggieTales Gospel.

Al Mohler on sex-selection abortions.

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Book Review: Why We’re Not Emergent

When Mission Trip Details Go Wrong

Last week, I wrote about doing the preparations for a mission team from my church to come and do ministry in the Romanian village I worked in every weekend. A few days into the trip, I was discouraged.

I began to feel emotionally and physically exhausted. Plus, one problem weighed heavily upon me. The Pediatric team was not being utilized properly. Because no one had gotten the word out, there were very few children for them to see. Their potential had been wasted. I felt like all this was my fault.

I was also upset because some members of the team, on the Romanian side, had let me down. Many of the details had not been coordinated well enough in advance, and furthermore, the village pastor had not been as approachable or organized as was necessary for a trip of this magnitude. Still being “new” in Romania, I was not able to do all that I would have wanted to do to help. All of this turned out to be very disappointing, and I felt like that much of the trip was being wasted.

As the week went on, I began to grow bitter about the events taking place. The Romanians I had counted on were letting me down left and right. I felt helpless to resolve some of the situations. I was tired of being the contact person between two languages and cultures. I could barely focus on my long-term ministry in Romania when the short-term trip was squeezing the life out of me. And what’s more, I was embarrassed that things had not run more smoothly for the American group that had come.

Because I was discouraged and exhausted, Satan was blinding me from the great things that were taking place.

• A revival was beginning in a small village church along the Hungarian border. For years, no one had given the church any attention, and their numbers had dwindled down to just a handful. Now, the church was filled with visitors and many trusted Christ. (I would later spend many a Sunday in this village, encouraging the faithful.)
• Though the Pediatric team had not been heavily involved in ministry, the other medical and evangelistic teams saw great success.
• The eye-glass team fitted hundreds of Romanians for glasses.

The saying goes: “The Devil’s in the details.” Perhaps that’s true in more ways than one. The devil can sometimes use the details in order to distract us from the bigger picture. Things went wrong that week, yes. But many things went right. Many people trusted the Lord. God worked in a wonderful way, and yet I could not rejoice because the few things that went wrong had trumped my joy over what all God was doing.

By far, the most important event that week was the conversion of one of the teenagers that we had spent many months praying for. I’ll get to that next time…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Book Review: Why We’re Not Emergent

One of the books given to all who attended this year’s Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville was Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (2008, Moody Press) by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung. Out of the great number of books we received that week, Why We’re Not Emerging quickly moved to the top of the list in my reading schedule.

I had my doubts about the book: Would this be a book that misrepresents the Emerging Church and its representatives? Or would this be a book that provides a thoughtful critique? Thankfully, the authors take the second route, and they have a little fun along the way.

The authors of Why We’re Not Emergent focus on the “who” of the Emerging movement, not the amorphous, ever-changing “what” that the movement’s followers believe. So DeYoung and Kluck interact with pastors and writers from within the heart of the movement as well as the periphery: Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, Scot McKnight, Doug Pagitt, and others.

The result is actual dialogue. The authors do not merely throw hand grenades into the Emerging Camp. They listen thoughtfully to the Emerging perspective and then very simply explain “why they are not emergent.”

Pastor Kevin DeYoung provides the substantive look at the Emerging Church. Ted Kluck provides the humor. The two authors take turns writing. After reading a chapter of extensive research and commentary, you then enjoy a humorous chapter that pokes fun at much of the faddishness of the Emerging movement. I rarely enjoy books that change up the style so much, but for a book on Emergent, the eclectic positioning of the chapters provided insight as well as some entertainment. Listen to Ted Kluck’s tongue-in-cheek description of the rise of Emerging Church:

“In the early 2000s the offspring of the 80s generation got disillusioned with their dads’ arenas (where you can get a Christian haircut, a Christian oil change, and buy Christian clothes) and started blogging about their feelings. Let’s meet on a beach (nothing wrong with that), let’s meet in an empty warehouse with exposed brick and ductwork (nothing wrong with that either), and let’s start a movement that won’t have any leaders and that we won’t actually call a movement. Instead of pastors we might have discussion leaders and worship gathering facilitators. Because non-movements are the new movements.” (58-59)

DeYoung and Kluck actually agree with much of the Emerging Church’s critique of today’s evangelicalism. But they are able to make a contribution to the discussion by refusing to be bound to the “either-or” dichotomies so prevalent in Emerging literature. DeYoung writes:

“The emerging church will be a helpful corrective against real, and sometimes perceived, abuses in evangelicalism when they discover the genius of the ‘and,’ and stop forcing us to accept half-truths. (75)”

DeYoung and Kluck are at times prophetic in their call to biblical faithfulness. They helpfully unmask some of the hype that surrounds the Emerging movement. Kluck pokes fun at Doug Pagitt’s sharp distinction between storytelling and testimony time. “So, let me get this straight. They aren’t testimonies, just stories that serve as testaments to what God is doing in our lives. Sounds like a testimony to me. (154)” They also ask tough questions about why this movement (for all its talk about incarnational living) tends to reach out to only one segment of the American population, while mocking other segments (Nascar, rural, etc.) (230).

The authors sometimes generalize a little too much. Kluck believes that college students would rather read Donald Miller over Chuck Colson, Rob Bell over John Piper, Doug Pagitt over J.I. Packer (97). Perhaps. But the interesting phenomenon in the Emerging Church movement and the parallel Reformed Resurgence is that many college students are reading men from both perspectives.

Overall, I highly recommend that those inside and outside the Emerging Church read Why We’re Not Emergent. It’s a terrific addition to a growing number of books whose authors have accepted the Emergent invitation to dialogue.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Articles:
5 Reasons the Emerging Church is Now Receding
Book Review: Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches
Book Review: Young, Restless, Reformed

Book Review: Religious Literacy

Stephen Prothero believes that religion should be taught in the public schools. Why? Not because he wants to see Americans become more religious, but because he believes religious literacy is necessary in order for children to become effective, educated citizens. In Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn’t (Harper San Francisco: 2007), Prothero makes his case, and it is a strong one indeed.

First, Prothero exposes American ignorance of religion, showing just how little we actually know about the world’s religions. The statistics are embarrassing. Americans actually know very little about their own religious traditions, not to mention the traditions of their neighbors.

But the problem of religious illiteracy does not simply affect our view of ourselves; religion matters because it stands at the center of the world’s great debates, wars, and life-perspectives. We are naïve to think we can understand the battles of our day with only the most superficial knowledge of religion and its role.

Next, Prothero shows how little we know of religion compared to the earliest Americans. He trots out the McGuffey readers, Webster’s dictionary and other classic works of American education in order to show today’s reader how religious information was once inculcated into American youth. He then shows how this devotion to religious knowledge was lost. Interestingly enough, Prothero believes that the responsibility of religious illiteracy belongs primarily to the Church and the anti-intellectual attitude that prevailed after the Second Great Awakening.

Finally, Prothero makes a proposal for public education, in which every student must pass a course on the Bible and on world religions before finishing high school. Prothero is not advocating a return to the Protestantism of early America. He believes students need to be taught about the Bible, not taught the Bible devotionally. He also believes that a course on world religions should be taught, so that students have an awareness of today’s world. The amount of time spent on different religions should vary depending on local context and the importance of a religion for each location. Prothero’s book ends with a Dictionary of Religious Literacy, a remarkably helpful introduction to the major beliefs of the world’s religions.

Prothero’s Religious Literacy is unique in that it avoids two extremes. First, he seeks to avoid the danger of relativizing the religions, so that the distinctions are muted. He forcefully argues against making it seem like religions don’t really matter and that all are equally valid. At the same time, Prothero does not want to see the Bible taught devotionally in the public schools (nor the Koran for that matter). His proposal is purely academic. Americans need a rudimentary knowledge of religious history and belief in order to be well-educated, effective citizens. Prothero also shows how his proposal stays within constitutional boundaries.

I hope that policy-makers will read this book. We are religiously ignorant to our own peril. It’s time we woke up from our secularist slumber and began realizing that religion is still vitally important in world affairs.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: A.B. Luter, Jr.

The Greek word euangelion, frequently translated “gospel,” means “glad tidings,” or “good news,” and in Pauline usage it refers to the message of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ. Of the seventy-six instances of “gospel” in the NT, sixty are found in the Pauline corpus… Euangelion is for Paul the classic expression of the grace of God, responded to by faith.

- IVP Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

Caspian Delivers

The second book of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series, like many sequels, does not deliver the magic of the first. The movie version, however, is every bit as good, if not better than the first, perhaps because the filmmakers took a certain measure of creative license in order to make Lewis’ good book better.

Prince Caspian is a strong movie with relatively few flaws. I will list some of the film’s strengths and then speak to some of its weaknesses.

• The actors playing the four Pevensie children have aged gracefully over the past three years and it is good to see the cast back in fine fettle.
• The new characters are well-done, especially Reepicheep, whom I was glad to see portrayed as valiant and not merely “cute.”
• Trumpkin the dwarf provided some needed comic relief.
• The filmmakers were smart to begin the story with Caspian’s flight into the woods (an idea I was hesitant about at first).
• When Lucy first glimpses Aslan, the filmmakers choose not to reveal him, increasing our sympathy with the older Pevensie children’s unbelief. Good move.
• The castle attack in which a minotaur, while being shot with arrows, holds up the gate so the Narnians can escape is terrific – providing another powerful example of self-sacrifice.
• Keeping Aslan off screen until the latter part of the movie was another smart move. When he reappears, he is more majestic and mighty than in the first movie.

Even a good movie has its weaknesses. Here are a few.

• The budding romance between Susan and Caspian was completely unnecessary.
• Peter and Caspian almost succumb to the temptation of the White Witch, and yet neither character exhibits repentance for this treasonous action.
• I have no problem with the filmmakers making Peter a flawed hero whose first decision leads to destruction. Yet it would have been nice to see Peter demonstrate repentance for his pride and not merely remorse for the consequences of his actions.
• The filmmakers substituted character development (especially Trufflehunter and Trumpkin) for elongated battle scenes.
• As I worried, the terrific celebration scenes from the first book are all but absent here. In the novel, the celebrations keep Caspian from being all about battle. More importantly, the Narnian joy provides the motivation for the battles. Without the celebratory dances and songs, the moviegoer is left wondering why the battle is necessary. So the Telmarines are bad and the Narnians are good. But why is Narnia worth fighting for? Lewis wisely incorporated scenes that were filled with mirth and happiness and freedom. The filmmakers left them out.

Minor quibbles aside, Prince Caspian deserves to do well at the box office. It is true that this series is becoming a junior version of Lord of the Rings, but the movie is still immensely satisfying on many levels. I am looking forward to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in 2010.

Related Posts:
My Hopes for Prince Caspian
Easter: The Epic
Book Review: Inside Narnia

Who Do You Say that I Am?

“But who do you say that I am?”
- Jesus, to the disciples (Mark 8:29)

When Jesus asked the disciples who other people thought He was, the answers were as numerous as they are today. Although other opinions are worth noting, studying, affirming, or combating (depending on the case), Jesus’ more important question follows: “But who do you say that I am?” No more crucial question can ever be put to a person.

Peter’s reply became the founding testimony of the church. “You are the Messiah! The Son of the Living God.” For the disciples, the signs had all pointed to Christ’s messianic identity. From the symbolic miracles to authoritative teaching, everything seemed to enhance the view that this Man was more than just a prophet, in fact more than just a Man. Even though Peter’s answer was correct in its vocabulary, he still hadn’t come to grips with the type of Messiah Jesus was, or the atoning death that lay in His future.

Christians all over the world unite behind Peter’s affirmation – that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Unfortunately, many affirm statements regarding the Person of Jesus Christ, without actually understanding what they mean and how they affect our life today. Jesus then becomes little more than a “good friend,” a “best buddy” or a “gentleman” who is always patient, tolerant, never-angered, and undemanding. People ask “What would Jesus do” without ever bothering to find out what Jesus actually did!

Jesus was not a pale-faced European sitting on the hillside spitting out timeless platitudes. He was a Man with a mission for the God-appointed hour, calling His fellow Jews to repentance before the coming judgment. His controversial miracles and teaching led to His dreadful death on a Roman cross for the sins of the world, after which He arose triumphantly from the grave.

Who do you say that He is? We can only find the answer by studying the biblical texts honestly and without fear of letting our preconceived notions actually be challenged by the One we worship as God in the flesh.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Articles:
Who Do People Say that I Am?
Why the Search for the Historical Jesus Matters 1
Why the Search for the Historical Jesus Matters 2

A Seminarian’s Prayer

Savior and King,
I find it so easy to revel in knowledge for knowledge’s sake,
avoiding the goal of instruction: to learn love.
A puffed-up mind may be able to hide an impure heart,
an aching conscience
or insincere motives from others,
but before you, all is laid bare.
The purpose of my training is to grow in love and faithfulness,
purity and authenticity.
Help me, O Lord, to keep in mind your purposes
for the instruction I receive.
I pray that when I leave here,
my love will have grown,
many sinful habits will have been left behind,
and any insincere motivations or spiritual facade will have been shattered.
May you work in my heart to draw me closer to yourself.
Help me to love, O Lord.
Give me a heart that breaks
for those held in the chains of sin.
Clear my conscience
and authenticate my faith. 
May the knowledge I obtain be for your glory
and for the growth of your love in my all-too-hardened heart.
And help conform me to the image of Christ, in whose name I pray. Amen.

- Trevin Wax

Democracy is not “the Cure”

“Christians cannot possibly view democracy as “the cure” for the world’s ills.

“For many pragmatic and moral reasons, we may concur that, granted attendant structures and liberties, it is the form of government least unaccountable to the people and least likely to brutalize its citizens without some eventual accounting. It is a form of government most likely to foster personal freedoms, including, usually, freedoms for Christians to practice and propagate their faith.

“But it has also proved proficient at throwing off a sense of obligation to God the Creator, let alone the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying that it is proficient at fostering idolatry. Its freedoms, so many of which are enormously praiseworthy for political, religious, personal, and artistic reasons, include the freedom to be hedonists, to pursue a life revolving around entertainment, to become inured against responsible family life, communal interaction, and self-denying service in the endless worship of massive egos, passing fads, and this-worldly glitter. Laying up treasures in heaven does not seem to be on the radar screen of many Christians.

“Christians with a firm grasp of the Bible’s story line from creation to consummation, even while they offer thanks for the freedoms that democracy provides, will not overlook the fact that democracy, rule by the people, what we might call the kingdominion of the people, cannot compete for righteousness with the kingdominion of God.”

D.A. Carson – Christ and Culture, pgs. 127-128

Gospel Definitions: Gospel Coalition

We believe that the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ—God’s very wisdom.

Utter folly to the world, even though it is the power of God to those who are being saved, this good news is christological, centering on the cross and resurrection: the gospel is not proclaimed if Christ is not proclaimed, and the authentic Christ has not been proclaimed if his death and resurrection are not central (the message is “Christ died for our sins . . . [and] was raised”).

This good news is biblical (his death and resurrection are according to the Scriptures), theological and salvific (Christ died for our sins, to reconcile us to God), historical (if the saving events did not happen, our faith is worthless, we are still in our sins, and we are to be pitied more than all others), apostolic (the message was entrusted to and transmitted by the apostles, who were witnesses of these saving events), and intensely personal (where it is received, believed, and held firmly, individual persons are saved).

In the Blogosophere

Prince Caspian releases today. Here are my hopes for the movie.

68 Benefits from Doing Children’s Ministry

Some of the world’s top religious leaders respond to the “Evangelical Manifesto”

The blogger’s code of conduct

Tony Kummer asks us to weigh in on the question about the primary purpose of Sunday School

45 Ways to Waste your Theological Education.

Justin Taylor summarizes some exhortations from Kirk Wellum at Toronto Baptist Seminary for the young and Reformed

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: My Interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised by Hope

Preparing for a Mission Team

Several weeks after I arrived back in Romania in early 2001, my home church sent 40 people to Romania to do an evangelistic/medical mission trip. Much of the work took place in the village I had been working in over the past few months. The team was the largest one that my church had ever sent out, and I had not been involved with a team of that size before. Both my home church and my church in Romania were relying on me to do a lot of organizational work before the team arrived.

We had split up the team into different groups, a Pediatric wing, a General medicine/Pharmacy wing, evangelistic teams, and preaching teams. The weeks leading up to their arrival were spent in constant preparation, getting translators lined up and storing resources for the team.

The month of preparation was difficult for me because I was still not fluent in Romanian. Also, because I had only been in Romania for four months, I was still pretty “needy” as far as organizational plans went. I needed help from the nationals in getting details resolved because I was not yet able to act as independently as I wanted.

I was naïve to take on that much responsibility so early in my Romanian stay. But because the trip involved a team coming from my own church, I had a heart to help out wherever I could.  

The big day finally arrived! After a month of intense preparation, the team from my church arrived in Romania. My parents and brothers and sister came with the team during this time. Being with my entire family in Romania was a wonderful experience, and only one of two times that this took place (the other occasion was my wedding). Knowing that we were together helped me to feel whole.

When I went home for Christmas after spending three months in Romania, I felt as if a part of my heart was still overseas. But then, back in Romania, I felt like a part of me was still in America. When my entire family (not to mention so many church members and friends) were all in Romania with me, I no longer felt divided.

Still, it was often strange to see these two worlds mixing. I found that several times during the week, I needed to just take a break, not only because of the amount of work that I was doing, but because of the enormous emotional expense of having to hold these two worlds together.

I was the contact man for both sides, and unfortunately I hadn’t arrived at a stage in my Romanian language or understanding of Romanian culture to be able to feel like I was doing this well. Some additional troubles came up during that week too… but I’ll get to that later.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Interview with Michael Kelley

Today I have the privilege of interviewing Michael Kelley, an editor at Lifeway Christian Resources and author of the Threads Bible Studies The Tough Sayings of Jesus 1 & 2. 

Trevin Wax: Tell us a little about your background and how Lifeway’s Threads Bible studies came about.

Michael Kelley: The Threads Bible studies rose out of a pretty extensive research project that Lifeway did, born from the simple fact that alot of young adults were disenfranchised with the church. So based on that research, 4 key values seemed to come to the top that a ministry to young adults would need to focus on. These are things like depth, community, responsibility, and connection with other generations. So all of the Threads studies try and promote these values.

As for me, I’m a lowly Texas boy, raised in the vast nothingness around Amarillo. Lots of tumbleweeds, tornadoes and cows around there. I did my graduate work at Beeson Divinity School, and served in churches in Texas and Tennessee before starting to write and speak on the road.

Trevin Wax: What has drawn you to writing about the ”tough” sayings of Jesus?

Michael Kelley: It’s interesting to me how many times in my church experience that I’ve heard sermon series that skip or gloss over some of the difficult passages of Scripture.

Like how many times have I heard that we’re doing a sketch of Romans, and we hear a talk about the victory of Romans 8 and then I turn around and we’re offering our bodies as living sacrifices in Romans 12? What? It’s like Paul didn’t intend to write those 3 chapters in between.

Same thing with the gospels, I think. We like a picture of Jesus where among other things, He’s “nice.” So we gravitate towards those passages. But that leaves us with an incomplete and mishapen view of Jesus and doesn’t allow us to examine the fullness of what He taught and lived.

Trevin Wax: You’re right. I’ve been going to church all my life. I can probably think back to 20 or more sermons I’ve heard on the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. And yet, I can’t remember one sermon about the Parable of the Shrewd Manager in Luke 16. Why have we avoided this passage?

Michael Kelley: Same here, Trevin. I think the answer is there’s no waiting father in Luke 16. No loving embrace. No welcome home. Instead, we find Jesus doing something we find to be completely contrary to that – actually commending the guy in His own story for that guy’s questionable character. What can Jesus mean by that?

Trevin Wax: You talk about the difference between “flash”and “substance.” I agree that many churches have spent way too much time on the “flash” without offering enough “substance.” And yet, your Threads Bible studies have a certain amount of “flashiness” even as they contain substantive teaching. How do you think churches should move forward in offering more “substance,” while at the same time continuing to do so with excellence?

Michael Kelley: This is a good question and a tricky issue. It’s hard for all of us to definitively know the difference. When is “flash” just flash and when does it actually serve a purpose? Tough to know.

But in terms of church, I am beginning to think the more things change the more they stay the same. That is, I think the road to substance is found in the same old thing – an unwavering commitment to Scripture. And not Scripture for the sake of “having a better and more productive life,” but encountering Scripture in a deep, understandable way that embraces the inherent difficulty and mystery of faith.

Or maybe this – I have real trouble with a teacher who smiles all the time. Jesus didn’t. And church shouldn’t be a sitcom where there is an introduction, then a conflict, and everything tied up neatly at the end.

Trevin Wax: You say we need to picture Jesus as a General and ourselves in a wartime mentality. How does seeing ourselves in a battle help us have a more accurate view of Jesus?

Michael Kelley: That’s in the session about the death and resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. I think this passage puts into tension two sides of Christ. There is the side that is in a war and focuses on the ultimate victory. Jesus knew what He was moving towards, and He was willing to sacrifice Himself for the victory. That’s war-time mentality.

But I also think that we can get so caught up in that mentality that we forget that this General, so focused on the end, took time to weep with the sisters. So there’s a tension there between the war for the glory of God in the universe, and the genuine sadness at the casualties of that war.

Trevin Wax: I like how the DVD segments are short and optional – serving as supplements to the Threads study instead of being the main focus. Was this intentional? Have you found that our generation would rather have intense discussion than watch a video?

Michael Kelley: Yeah, completely intentional. I think there’s alot of groups who actually wouldn’t use the video pieces simply because they are more familiar with each other already. On the other hand, many groups may need a spark to stimulate conversation. But the goal in either case is an interactive learning environment. This, I think, is a better model for our generation – it’s a discovery style of teaching and leading. It’s participatory, where everyone goes on a journey together.

Check out Michael Kelley’s Threads Bible Studies:
Tough Sayings of Jesus 1
Tough Sayings of Jesus 2

Interview with Michael Kelley  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Book Review: Wide Awake

I am probably one of the few young, evangelical ministers in the United States to have never read a book by Erwin McManus. Having heard good things about McManus from a wide spectrum of people, I happily agreed to read the advanced preview copy of his forthcoming book, Wide Awake: The Future is Waiting Within You. On the back cover of the preview copy, McManus is described as a “husband, father, writer, futurist, activist, artist, and spiritual and cultural leader.” After reading such a flattering litany of titles, I dove into the content of his new book with high hopes. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed.

 

If you could sum up Wide Awake in two words, it would be something like this: “Wake up!” People are going through life with unfulfilled dreams, experiencing a “little bit of sadness” every morning (xii). McManus wants to “awaken humanity.” He believes that in every person there is a hero “waiting to be awakened.” He looks at every human as “pre-great” (xiii). The little bit of sadness we face in the morning is our “soul searching for its hero (xv).”

 

How can people be awakened? McManus turns to eight essential attributes that characterize people who live their dreams (Dream, Discover, Adapt, Expect, Focus, Create, Enjoy, Invest) and every one of the attributes is something that people must discover from within. Each chapter unpacks one of the eight attributes, usually with illustrations that help readers picture the kind of life that McManus is describing.

 

Wide Awake contains some helpful advice. McManus doesn’t sacrifice character in order to emphasize the principle of adaptability. He emphasizes the importance of integrity and the necessity of living according to firm principles. Occasionally, he offers good insight into certain stories from Scripture. For example, in the story of Peter walking on water, McManus points out the fact that Peter was distracted by something he couldn’t see (the wind) instead of firm in his belief in Someone he could see (Jesus) (128). Preachers will benefit from some of his memorable illustrations, like this one that compares coconuts and peaches:

“Some of us are more like coconuts – hard on the outside and hollow on the center. But we need to be more like peaches – soft and fuzzy on the outside but solid as a rock in the middle.” (77)

But even McManus’ good insights are often mixed with theological affirmations that leave the reader perplexed. In the space of just two paragraphs, McManus can say something terrific (like “The way God changes your life is by changing you”) and then something out in left field (“The only future you will give yourself to is the one you believe can happen”) (95).

 

The main problem with Wide Awake is that it bounces back and forth between pastoral counseling and motivational lingo that borders on Gnosticism (your power is within, etc.). The problem McManus’ readers are dealing with is not sin and depravity. In fact, McManus thinks the church talks too much about sin  and guilt (143). The main problem is unfulfillment and sadness (22, 28). Salvation and satisfaction are found in your living out your story (160).

 

McManus’ writes much about the importance of dreams, but he leaves them undefined. Wide Awake needs more eschatology. The “dreams” that McManus wants to awaken within us are not grounded in anything other than our own minds. The dreams we have are of “a life, a world, a future so beautiful that it takes your breath away” (116). Yes. Our vision of the coming Kingdom should inform our dreams for today, but McManus never links our dreams to the Kingdom of God. Readers will pour whatever meaning they want into his vague category of “dreams” and “a beautiful future.”

 

My advice to pastors and church leaders? Skip Wide Awake. If you’re looking for motivational thoughts to push you ahead in the direction you already want to go, then Wide Awake will do the trick. If you’re looking for challenging biblical teaching that will ground your dreams in Kingdom reality, you’ll have to look elsewhere.

 

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Guest Post: Why a Carpenter?

This post is written by my brother, Weston Wax, who is graduating from high school this week and planning to attend Union University in the fall.

Wood. Nails. Hammers. Frustration. Smashed thumbs.

Jesus would have spent hours working with wood, gradually sculpting the raw material into masterpieces. The Divine would have built homes, fences, and other necessities for every day life in the first century. His job for the day might have varied, but his resources did not. Wood. Nails. Hammers.

Ever stop to think that the soldiers who crucified Christ had the very same list of tools at their disposal? Crosses of wood. Long cold nails. And heavy cumbersome hammers. Their purpose however, was not to build a seat for a neighbor, or a trough for a Jewish farmer, but to destroy and pierce the flesh of the King of Kings.

Surely Jesus had to have thought, while striking the nails into his timber, that one day men would be doing the same, but with his own palm between the cold iron and wood. Surely he passed the tip of one of his spikes over his fingertips and grimaced in the solemn realization of what awaited him.

He was a carpenter. He was God in the flesh. He was well aware of the Father’s plan. So why then did God choose this profession? God easily could have chosen another occupation for his Son, one that wouldn’t require his child to be constantly reminded of his coming sacrifice.

An interesting question… but answered or unanswered, the fact remains. Jesus was a carpenter, stuck with wood, nails, and hammers. And because of this simple work, Jesus was reminded every day of his greater work. He was forced to focus on his task, his purpose, his mission. The tools of the carpenter must have screamed at him everyday, must have been awful symbols of his coming pain, but Jesus could hear something over the deafening cry of his instruments.

He heard your whisper. He heard my whisper. He heard our prayer for salvation and redemption. He heard the child on his knees at the alter, the father broken and lost, the mother tired and weary, the elderly aged and wrinkled. Jesus ultimately felt the splintery wood and thought not of his bloodied back, but of you, and the task that his Father had appointed Him. He felt the pointed end of the nails and didn’t think of his hand, but of your heart, and the very heart of God. He witnessed the strength that went into driving each nail into the thick wood, and He thought of you and of glorifying his Father.

So, why a carpenter? I believe it was a reminder, not just to him, but to us. Every day Jesus worked, he was reminded of me and you, and all he would do for us. And when we keep that in mind, we’re reminded of how much you and I should do for Him.

written by Weston Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Gospel Definitions: Richard Sibbes

“What is the gospel itself but a merciful moderation, in which Christ’s obedience is esteemed ours, and our sins laid upon him, wherein God, from being a judge, becomes our Father, pardoning our sins and accepting our obedience, though feeble and blemished? We are now brought to heaven under the covenant of grace by a way of love and mercy.”

- Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed

New Life for New Tasks

“Receive the Holy Spirit.”
- the Risen Jesus, to the disciples (John 20:22)

Birds flapped their wings. Fish filled the seas. Animals roamed the land. The freshly created dry ground was sprouting the first signs of green life. The sun, moon and stars had just announced the arrival of a new day. The world was now ready for God’s crowning achievement – the creation of the human being in His image.

God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, but the man’s body remained only a lifeless form, until the crucial moment when God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life.” At once, the human race was born! The breath of God brought Adam to life and enabled him to begin fulfilling the purposes that God gave him in the world that he inhabited.

In the evening of the first day of the week, the Risen Jesus met with His disciples behind closed doors. It was the first day of the New Creation – the day of Resurrection, when death was defeated and the universe, on its road towards utter darkness, suddenly turned the corner towards the light. The Risen Jesus met with His startled and confused disciples and commanded them to take His message to the world. But how could the frightened disciples fulfill God’s plan for His world? Where would they find the power to proclaim Jesus as Lord?

The Apostle John tells us that after Jesus commissioned the disciples, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” This is the birth of a new human race – a new humanity that includes all who have been “born again” and have received the life-giving Breath of God (His Spirit), the One who enables us to spread the news of Jesus Christ.

Often, we feel powerless to live the Christian life and to be part of God’s saving plan for His world. In those moments of discouragement, we take heart in knowing that God has chosen us, has given us His Spirit to guide and empower us, and that we too, are part of His new creation.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog