The 10 (unwritten) Commandments of the Conservative Independent Baptist:

1.  THOU SHALT ONLY USE THE KJV BIBLE.
• Some IB churches state that the KJV is the INSPIRED Word of God.
• Some IB church constitutions even state that it must be a 1611 version (have you ever read an excerpt from a 1611 copy????)
2. THOU SHALT ONLY SING HYMNS.
3. THOU SHALT NOT DISCUSS CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS.
• Some of these topics include: Calvinism, The Holy Spirit, Women’s Role in the Church, etc.
4. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE REFERENCE TO CONTROVERSIAL PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE MOVEMENT.
• Some of these people include: John McArthur, A.W. Pink, R.C. Sproul, John Calvin, John Piper, Paul Washer etc.
5. THOU SHALT ONLY ARRAY THYSELF IN THE ‘HIGHEST’ STANDARDS OF CLOTHING FOR CHURCH.
• This usually means that the men wear suits, shirts and ties and the ladies wear skirts.
• There are many instances where a lady in particular, is not permitted to be involved in a ministry due to her wearing slacks.
6. THOU SHALT ATTEND THE SUNDAY MORNING AND EVENING CHURCH SERVICES ALONG WITH THE MID-WEEK BIBLE STUDY.
• Although not always verbalised, it is generally intimated that a person who does not attend these services is not right with God.
• It is also inferred that a church which does not hold to this paradigm is not fulfilling its purpose.
7. THOU SHALT NEVER DISAGREE WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHURCH.
• To challenge a comment or doctrinal position of one in leadership within the IB churches is often considered to be fighting against God Himself.
• In most cases, a dictatorial position is held by the Pastor and leadership instead of an approachable, theocratic system of rule.
8. THOU SHALT NOT USE DRUMS OR ANY ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTS IN THE CHURCH.
• Some IB churches state that drums, electric guitars and Jazz instruments were the invention of the Devil and his demons.
9. THOU SHALT ONLY TRANSFER THY MEMBERSHIP TO ANOTHER INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH.
• Although not always verbalised, it is generally considered a grave error to transfer your membership to a church outside the movement.
10. THOU SHALT ONLY FELLOWSHIP WITH THOSE OF LIKE FAITH AND PRACTICE WITHIN THE INDEPENDENT BAPTIST MOVEMENT.
• There is a significant population of people within conservative Independent Baptist Churches who believe that they are the only true Christians.

Although each point above requires conscientious consideration and biblical research, let us consider for a few moments the last of this list: ‘Thou shalt only fellowship with those of like faith and practice within the Independent Baptist Movement.’

Personal Testimony:

I have had the privilege of preaching for over 12 years around Australia and have seen the way ‘church is done’ in many different places. For the majority of that time, I was a ‘hard-nosed, die-hard, Independent Baptist preacher’ who quite often mounted the hobby horses of music, versions, apparel etc. My ministry also consisted of identifying those men and women outside our movement who are ‘heretics’ and this ’20-something-year-old-preacher’ was wiser than them all and ‘knew’ that they were wrong. I have since been challenged by the Holy Spirit in recent times regarding the ‘non-biblical’ positions that I have held to, and I realise now that I have been wearing the ‘Independent Baptist Blinkers’ which have obstructed my view of real Christianity to some extent. Please do not misunderstand that last statement. I am very thankful for the teaching, preaching and training that I have received at the hand of many an Independent Baptist. I am, however, extremely concerned about our views regarding those who live, breathe and move outside the IB circles.

Fundamentalists are not the only Christians:

‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ Romans 10:13

This verse carries no prejudice, nor does it include any categories of people who form an exception to this clear-cut statement. There is a myriad of passages in Scripture which clearly define the elements of saving faith (repentance etc.), but in this verse alone we find that the only prerequisite of salvation is the ‘calling upon the name of the Lord.’ God does not say “I will save you because I foresee that you will attend an IB church.” God saves sinners who call upon Him! It is interesting how conservative Christians will pray earnestly for an unbeliever to be saved, and then when they are saved and attend a church denomination other than their own, they disown them and label them as a ‘false convert.’ They say things like “they can’t be a Christian because they attend a Lutheran church.” This is disgraceful as it attacks the heart of the gospel and alters the doctrine of Soteriology. I wonder how many unsaved people are on the membership roles of Independent Baptist Churches in our land – only Heaven will tell!

The Confusion of Doctrine & the Gospel:

There appears to be a great confusion between doctrine and the Gospel. This becomes apparent when we analyse our thinking regarding those who differ from our doctrinal positions on areas not directly related to the gospel message. For example, some IB Christians would automatically place a person who does not believe in water baptism in the ‘unsaved basket.’ Others would judge a man’s salvation (or lack thereof) by his adhesion to the relevance of sign gifts for this age. Our primary concern for any individual must be regarding faith in the gospel and the work of justification in their life. If it is apparent that the man who attends the local Presbyterian or Charismatic church has a personal relationship with my Saviour then I can have fellowship with him around the gospel. Granted, there may be other areas of grave concern which I would disagree with and at some points separate over, but these form a doctrinal difference NOT a GOSPEL difference! Let us not hate those who differ from us in doctrine or practice but rather seek to teach them the truth from God’s Word (not our statements of faith!)

The Importance of Doctrine:

At this juncture I see the importance of inserting a paragraph regarding the importance of doctrine for those in particular who look for an opportunity to criticise this article. There is no question that the doctrines of Scripture are essential for a believer to know and to spend their lives in the pursuit of. It is imperative that we study the Word and seek to correctly exegete its contents and I in no way wish to minimise or de-emphasise the importance of such pursuits. Let us be diligent students and ‘hold fast the faithful Word (Titus 1:9).’

Summary:

Let us not be quick to pass judgment or sentence upon those who do not dot the ‘I’s and cross the ‘T’s like we do. Let us be proactive in teaching, training and discipling whomever God brings across our path. Do not hastily say ‘But he is not a Baptist!’

The Chief of Sinners,

And people are sinners.

So those who are ministering to others will at times find themselves knee deep in messy situations. Unfortunately, these situations often involve criminal behaviour which has never been reported to the civil authorities. Probably the most common instances are child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, or neglect) and domestic/family violence.

EDIT: Based on some of the comments, I wanted to add a quick clarification here. I am not suggesting that every action that could possibly be prosecuted as a crime should be reported. I am referring to serious crimes such as the above-mentioned child abuse and domestic/family violence. Additionally, I am not referring to necessarily digging up old crimes. I am referring primarily to the handling of crimes in the present.

As the Roman Catholic Church amply illustrates, religion finds it tempting to handle these situations in-house. Next to the Roman Catholic Church and unaffiliated cults, probably no Christian religious group is more notorious for these practices than Fundamentalism. If you doubt that statement, spend some time at the Freedom From Abuse Network¹ or just spend a few minutes exploring google on the topic.

To be honest, we should all blush with shame that these things even need to be said. But they definitely, very much need to be said.

Yes, in Australian Fundamentalism.

Reasons

So here are 16 reasons why crime should not be handled in-house.

1) It is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions to fail to report even suspicion of abuse of minors.²

2) It leaves the victims of crime exposed to danger instead of protecting them.

3) It thwarts the civil government’s ability to do their God-given job.

4) It creates a moral bubble in which the civil law does not apply.

5) It puts church leaders in a position of power in areas where God has not given them authority.

6) It protects criminals.

7) It creates an environment of fear of civil authorities.

8) It leads to resentment on the part of the victims.

9) It develops people who believe they are above the law.

10) It harms the testimony of Christ when it finally comes out in later years as a scandal.

11) It creates an environment of secrets.

12) It fails to effectively bring crimes to a stop.

13) It usurps God-ordained civil authority.

14) It treats crime as an offence against the victim instead of what it is, a crime against the state and society.

15) It damages people.

16) It fails to recognise that authority is delegated by God and is limited in scope.

Brothers, we need to do right in this matter. Every single time.

If you’re not sure what to do in a particular situation, I encourage you to pick up your phone and contact a legal professional, your state’s child protection agency, or your local police. Typically, they will be happy to answer your questions and clarify your obligations. I also encourage you to keep detailed notes about each action you take in a way that will be preserved until you die.

Open your mouth, judge righteously,
Defend the rights of the poor and needy.
………………………….—Proverbs 31:9

Grace to you.

¹I do not endorse the FFAN carte blanche. I do support the cause of justice and mercy and am thankful for anyone who labours for these.
²See the National Child Protection Clearinghouse for a helpful outline of reporting obligations in Australia.

‘Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.’ 1 Tim.1:19

There is so much discussion occurring in magazines, blogs and the pulpits of our land regarding the subject of fundamentalism. Many Pastors are trying so hard to hold on to their concept of ‘fundamentalism’ and ensure their people stay true to its definition, that they no longer comprehend what it is that they are standing for.

What is fundamentalism?

The dictionary defines ‘fundamental’ as that which is ‘essential, primary, important, that which serves as groundwork, basal, pertaining to a foundation and a set of primary principles and rules.’

The word ‘fundamentalist’ came into existence in the 1920’s in America to name a movement among Protestants based upon Scriptural inerrancy. The founders of ‘fundamentalism’ reacted against liberal theology and asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists.

The term ‘fundamentalism’ was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready ‘to do battle royal for the fundamentals.’ The term was quickly adopted by all sides.

Today fundamentalism has many different nuances and in many cases is in total opposition to its origin. A quick survey of the Independent Baptist Movement in Australia yields the sad reality that fundamentalism is now determined by the position held on three issues; music, versions and dress standards.

Please do not misunderstand my point; I am personally committed to upholding conservative music, I use a Bible version which is based upon the formal equivalency translation method and I strongly believe that modesty is essential for every believer. My great concern however, is that for the most part, fundamentalism has exchanged the study, exposition and proclamation of theology and the fundamentals of Scripture for the ‘issues’ of the day. It is my contention that when God’s preachers return to real exposition of the weightier truths of the Bible, the ‘issues’ will no longer be ‘issues.’ For example, I cannot count how many times I have heard messages on the subjects of music, dating, dancing and dress standards, but I can count on one hand how many times ‘God’s holiness’ has been truly exposed from the pulpit, with a strong application to ‘be holy as He is holy’ (1 Pet.1:16).

It is no wonder people are leaving our churches fed up with hearing about the ‘issues’ and not being taught the fundamentals. Yesterday Jason wrote about the ‘atonement’ and it is my contention that the average Christian in our ‘fundamental circles’ could not give a satisfactory definition for that term. Words like ‘justification, redemption and propitiation’ have been replaced by ‘syncopation, beat and rhythm.’ Most Independent Baptists I know can give me thesis on the ‘errors of contemporary Christian music’ but cannot engage on the topic of election. Pastors can give dissertations on why they believe the KJV is the only Bible version for today, but cannot, or will not provide me with sound exposition on the doctrine of God’s grace.

What have we done? We are trying to keep the issues of the day from affecting our people but in so doing, we have exchanged the ‘depths of fundamental theology’ for the ‘shallows of liberalistic issues.’ We must return to the foundation of our faith, the weighty truths and the primary doctrines that form the basics of our Christianity. We need a revival of biblical, theological fundamentalism!

Because of Calvary

Through history, Christ’s followers have fought long and significant battles for doctrinal purity.   While some battles such as the Reformation were not sought, they were necessary and costly.  I treasure the stand for the Bible that many of the reformers took, even if I do not adopt their belief systems entirely.  Some gospel doctrines are non-negotiable.

Fast-forward 500 years and divisions within God’s Church have exploded exponentially.  As western-church persecution decreased, internal separation increased.  We now separate over more than just the gospel.  We abandon fellowship over music styles, associations, eschatology, translations, administrations, non-core interpretations, etc.  It must be enough to make God weep (John 17).

These distinctive divisions are known by labels which represent particular interpretations or positions.  Depending on who is using it, each label can be applied as a badge of honour or a heretical insult (i.e. They are Pre-millenial).   But one label is never enough, so we further break down our cliques into ’4 point or 5 point Calvinism’ for example.    Often  we must string together 3 or 4 labels in order to communicate perfect purity or the complete insult.  (i.e.  KJV, Independent, Fundamental, Baptist).   The end result is that Christ’s body is clinically dissected with just a few words.

However, Christian labels are not as clear cut as we may think.  Often a label is defined by our prejudices or based on our experience.    We may have met an arrogant preacher who calls himself  a ‘fundamentalist’ and then extrapolate that all ‘fundamentalists’ believe and act the same way.   Alternatively, we may have seen a ‘Pentecostal preacher’ abuse the gifts of the Spirit, and conveniently conclude that all ‘charismatics’ are weak theologically.   Sadly this lazy approach strokes our pride and creates unnecessary hurt.

Ultimately, if we really believe that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice, we must not dismiss others with a broad stroke.  We must treat every believer and every congregation individually, with love and grace.   None of this says that we cannot have a position on non-gospel issues or that hermeneutics is irrelevant, but it should cause us to ask ‘Would Christ ‘deny fellowship’ over it?’.   Just because we disagree, does not mean we must take a divided stand.

We must take time to listen to other believers to see if our understanding is grounded in Scripture or a theological system.   By uplifting underlying truths, we can devalue unnecessary labels.   How many straw men have we created that will be incinerated in the light of Christ’s glory?   Are our motives to build and fortify a ‘Religious empire’ or to grow in His Spirit?   We may be pleasantly surprised to discover that there is fellowship outside our artificial boundaries.  If we are confident that God is building His Kingdom, then let’s not allow our insecurities to make God’s church smaller than Jesus does.

The more I grow into Christ, the more I grow out of man-made labels.   I want to be known as a follower of Jesus, rather than by an obscure Christian formula.  I still have growth to go, but I pray that when the world looks at God’s Church, it may see less of a dismembered cadaver, and more of a beautiful and living Bride of Christ.

Blessings

Before I went to bed on Friday night, I noticed the Oslo bombing in the headlines. But my heart sank as I pulled up the news on Saturday morning to discover the extent of the carnage and the events that followed. I felt a deep sense of sadness as I was brought face to face, again, with the brokenness of our world. It is events like this that cause us to grieve with people we don’t even know. Our hearts and prayers go out to so many who are facing personal loss through this tragedy.

But today, it was not sadness I felt as I looked at the headlines. It was alarm. Apparently the shooting suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, described himself on his facebook page as a “fundamentalist Christian” (see here and here and here). Since I am a fundamentalist Christian, I would like to make two key points.

First, Anders Behring Breivik is not a fundamentalist Christian. He may be a fundamentalist of sorts. And he may be a “Christian” of some sort, but he is not a fundamentalist Christian.

The term “fundamentalist” is necessarily a relative term. It is meaningless without reference to something. So there is no such thing as a fundamentalist per se. One can be a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Muslim, or even a fundamentalist Secularist, but without a point of reference, the term is meaningless. So a fundamentalist Secularist holds unflinchingly to certain secularist fundamentals as defined by some authority presumably. A fundamentalist Muslim holds firmly to the fundamental teachings of Islam as recorded in the Qur’an. A Christian fundamentalist, then, is one who holds tenaciously to the fundamental truths of Christianity as recorded in the Christian Scriptures.

Leaving aside the mainstream Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century that boasted most of the largest Christian churches in the world as recently as a few decades ago, the point is, Anders Behring Breivik is not a fundmentalist Christian.

Perhaps he used the term “fundamentalist” in the popular sense where it is often used to describe obscurantist bigotry. Or perhaps he liked the idea of radical Islamic fundamentalism, but sought to insert Christian fundamentals for Islamic ones as if the two religions were basically the same. Either way, his description of himself as a Christian fundamentalist seems to be mistaken.

And the second point explains why. Anders Behring Breivik is not a fundamentalist Christian. In order to be a fundamentalist Christian, one must actually believe the fundamental teachings of the Bible. And how much more fundamental does it get than this: “You shall not murder.” Or this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The slaughter of innocent civilians under the banner of Christianity is absurd and twisted. Jesus himself could not have been clearer when he said “whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”

I’m sure that over time a clearer picture of Anders Behring Breivik will emerge. So far, we know that he had neo-Nazi ties, that he liked to stockpile bomb materials, and that he carefully orchestrated the slaughter of multiplied dozens of precious people. But whatever he is, he is not a fundamentalist Christian.

Grace to you.

God has never been silent on sex, so why have we?  Maybe it is because we hate that our old nature still desires sexual perversion.   Maybe it is because fundamentalism is wrongly proud in its outward standards.   It is time we lifted the veil of embarrassment and false morality, and started to speak openly and truthfully.   The following 10 point approach is a suggested framework for considering how to start this change.

1.  Genesis needs more emphasis.   We are God’s creation – male and female – with a body and a spirit.  The gender roles and our physical and emotional desires were all formed by God before the fall.  We need to lay the correct foundation before we can build using other precepts.

2.  Sexual topics must be preached from the front regularly (but after the kids go out).   Each of us face sexual temptation daily, so lets make our preaching application driven towards our issues.  When was the last time we preached through Song of Songs expositionally?

3.  Technology has put sex on steroids.   Every Christian should use internet and mobile devices filters, foxtel and iTunes restrictions, etc.   This has helped me as I battle my old nature.  It is not fool proof, but it does reduce the amount of instant temptation.  And porn is not just a guy issue.

4. Let’s be honest about our temptations and weaknesses.  We respect leaders who are open and honest about their struggles.   Too many church leaders have pretended they are not tempted only to suddenly leave their wife for a mistress.

5.  We should be more explicit in appropriate contexts.   Topics such as masturbation, oral sex, iPhone porn, vibrators, birth control, hormones, secrets etc should be discussed openly, but face to face, in gender specific groups.  We all read www.news.com.au or similar, so lets bring God’s thinking on these topics to the fore.

6. Homosexuality, gay marriage and orgies are the issues of the day.   Let’s boldly and humbly promote God’s view.  Our opinion is no more valid than the world’s opinion.  It is not us against them, but it is recognising that all sex outside male/female marriage is not authorised by God.

7. Self-control.  We must talk about techniques for battling temptation.  From Scripture memory, to Christian music, to prayer, to choosing relationships wisely, to a cold shower, to fleeing lust, to accountability and recovery.  We must arm ourselves with tools to prevent and repair.

8.  If we, or our children, do not have the gift of singleness, we should promote opportunities towards godly marriage early in life.   Delayed adulthood and delayed marriage has promoted promiscuity and devalued commitment.

9. We must promote sex as a good thing.   As it has been said, ’the best way to counter something that should not be done, it to explain how it should be done’.  Amorous sex in marriage should be encouraged.

10.  Sex can be used as a segue to the gospel.   God created the marriage union as a picture of redeeming his bride.  Once we accept that sex does not provide eternal satisfaction, then we will be open for embracing God’s everlasting saving grace.

In all of this, grace, humility and purity need to be maintained.   You may or may not agree with all these ideas, but I welcome your feedback on how we can tackle this elephant more effectively.

Blessings

You can find the text of the proposed resolution here. You can add your name to the petition by liking this facebook page. The proposed resolution will be sent to the leadership of the FBFI at the upcoming national meeting in Indiana.

The reason I have added my name to this proposed resolution is not that I agree with the exact wording of the proposed resolution. I don’t. Nor is it that I agree with the spirit of many who campaign on these issues. I don’t. Rather, I believe it is essential to the integrity of the reasonable elements of Fundamentalism that a clear and pointed message be sent both to those within Fundamentalism and to those without.

The problem

The Vice Chairman of the FBFI has spent recent months defending himself over multiple allegations of improper handling of sexual abuse. I can’t make a judgement as to whether he did what he is accused of doing, but I want to be crystal clear in my judgement against what he is accused of doing: covering abuse. Covering abuse is evil.

I’m a young man, but I’ve done a few laps around the Fundamentalist circuit both in the USA and in Australia. I’ve observed unspeakable abuses and I’ve observed attempts to cover abuse.

There is no place in Christianity for the toleration or covering of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, especially of children. Jesus could not have been clearer on the point: It would be better to be dead than to take part in this type of harm to children.

Objections

One could argue that a resolution is meaningless and accomplishes nothing. This is a typical independent mentality, and there is some validity to it. Still, throughout history, humans have found it beneficial to make clear and careful statements on important issues. What a resolution does accomplish is to confront the evil attitudes toward abuse that seem to be rotting at the heart of even reasonable Fundamentalism.

One could also argue that a proposed FBFI resolution is irrelevant to Australian Fundamentalism. It is not. American Fundamentalism has for decades filled our conference platforms and a majority of our pulpits. Australian Fundamentalism’s approach toward abuse is, if anything, worse than the approach of American Fundamentalism. We have a vested interest in seeing American Fundamentalism do right on this matter.

Finally, one could argue that this is an unnecessarily negative way to go about this. I don’t know that it needs to be. The President/CEO of the FBFI, John Vaughn, is a man I deeply respect as a friend and as my former pastor. The treasurer, Gordon Dickson, is a family friend and a man of great wisdom and integrity. I would like to think that such a resolution may have already been on the cards with men such as this. The reason I’m supporting this campaign is not as an attack or criticism of the FBFI, but rather as an attempt to send a clear, pointed, and positive message to the FBFI: This must be addressed clearly, directly, and forcefully. And it must.

That’s why I’m supporting it.

Grace to you.

Since we’ve got a break, I figured I would take the chance to try to empty my links folder. I’ve got a few built up over recent months.

• First, a helpful post by Bob Bixby:  Should I blog?

• And then another post by Bob Bixby. This one is sobering. The Legacy of Spiritual Abuse in Fundamentalism and the “Numb Symbiosis”

“I am sure that as soon as I say the words ‘spiritual abuse’ our default reaction is to close our minds to the proposed subject because we have rightly become suspicious of the culture of blame that permeates every aspect of our society.”

• The Parable of the Boat: Illustrating Differences Between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Calvinism. Short and understandable.

• Want to have your view of the historical debate between Calvinism and Arminianism blown out of the water? Survey: Are You an Arminian and Don’t Even Know It? Published by the Society of Evangelical Arminians.

• Finally, Justin Taylor takes a fascinating look at the relationship between Billy Graham and Bob Jones, Sr.

Jones: “Billy, if you leave and throw your life away at a little country Bible school, the chances are you’ll never be heard of.”

That’s it for now.

Grace to you.

“Just because somebody speaks at this or that [conference/church/event] doesn’t mean they’re a sell-out.

If they get the opportunity to open up the gospel, even in shady areas, they would be fools to not take advantage of that. They’d be fools to not take advantage of that.

So you can share the stage with theological craziness if what you’re doing then is opening up the word of God to that crowd and expanding the truths of God.”

Chandler is what we tend to call a Conservative Evangelical. In other words, he belongs to that company of men who most actively repudiate false doctrine and are championing the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world in our day. But he’s not a Fundamentalist.

So I’m interested in your views on this quote.  Is this the same thinking behind what Billy Graham did? Are there distinctions? Does the statement need qualification?

Matt ends his comments on this topic with:

“I’m thankful for the seven of you who agree with that. [crowd laughter]

I don’t read your blogs anyway! [crowd laughter]“

So relax. Chandler isn’t reading in on this so you’re not going to hurt his feelings.

Do you agree with the statement? If so, why? If not, why not?

Grace to you.

Thanks to Jason and the rest of the Infocus team for giving me the opportunity to write over the next twelve weeks.  I’m excited about sharing what I have been reading and reflecting on with particular attention to the purpose of the blog – “Our purpose is to develop the Australian blogosphere, to cultivate serious and useful discussion, and to develop a generation of readers, thinkers, and theologians.”

PS – Forgive me… I use dashes a lot in this form of writing because I write it like a normal conversation.

John Adams, second President of the United States, once said: “I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”

There can be no doubt that we are living in a generation when our children have the “right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”  Contextually, our children have the freedom to study the Internet, entertainment, sports, and retail therapy (otherwise known as shopping).  In this time of unprecedented freedom and opportunity – why are we creating so little at the grassroots level of our Christian communities?  Here’s a few ideas which could be causing the inertia:

The accessibility of quality Christian resources and trustworthy authors. Last year, I wrote a few posts on the exhaustive availability of Christian resources and powerful voices within the Christian community (for example – you can access the majority of John Piper’s work for free on the web).  Just so that there is no confusion – I think that access to resources and authors is a wonderful thing for the Christian community.  However, I also think that there is a tendency to exchange the inductive study of the Biblical text for an excellent resource on the Christian life.  Church history is no stranger to this concept – that’s why we define contentious issues using personalities (Luther vs. Zwingli) instead of actual Bible texts.

Fixation with the “little things” in life.  Apparently, you can go to places in South-East Asia and have little fish eat away the dead skin on your feet.  A lot of our day is spent with the little fish – not the big ideas of the spiritual life.  We need to be able to trace our daily spiritual disciplines to a broader picture of God.  When we start to make the connections between the unchangeable Word and our daily context and relationships then we are ready to articulate how God is working for the benefit of others.

The lack of interest or motivation.  Perhaps this is the most common threat to our ability to create – we just don’t want to.  Have you ever talked to someone who is obsessed about something?  Think about a car enthusiast who actually uses the pricey V-Power fuel or a girl preparing to get married.  If you’re interested in something – it just bubbles out of you!  In our spiritual life, we can start with the people who are closest to us.  Let’s share what God is doing with our families and with our co-workers.

In summary, let’s spend more time exploring the Bible in a strategic, whole-hearted fashion leading to a panoramic vision of God and His work.  And let’s get excited about what we are learning – by the same definition that Phillip Brooks used for preaching, “truth – through personality.”

~ JK