Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 152

Preach Like You Mean It

[image error]The only hope we preachers have for success in the ministry is the power inherent in the word of God. We can have no other confidence. The only things really worth happening in your church will only happen by the power of the word. The word may seem slow or foolish or irrelevant, but it will not disappoint. It cannot return empty.

Critics like to say about evangelicals, "You worship the Bible, a dead letter, words on a page, blah, blah, blah." Don't mind those critics. Satan uses their critiques more than God does. The devil wants you to think there's no power in the word, that it's not living and active, that it's not sharper than any two-edged sword, that it's not the imperishable seed by which men and women are born again. The devil wants you to believe you are fruity and fruitless for wasting your time in study and wasting your breath on Sunday. The devil wants you to voice your cynicism, your skepticism, and your sophisticated reasons for supposedly worshiping Jesus by revering the Scriptures less than he did. Don't buy it. Look at every preacher worthy of emulation from any century and you will find a man preaching with authority.

So preach with confidence and conviction this Lord's Day. Preach as if you were utterly and completely dependent on the word of God to do the work of God. "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you" (Titus 2:15). Preach like you mean it.

Good News and Gratitude

Since so many of you have been kind to pray, email, and offer your support for my family and my dad, I wanted to pass along the good news.

After 35 days, my dad is back at home.

After some ups and downs following the emergency brain surgery, my dad started improving steadily. The last week or so has been very good. The rehab has gone well, with my dad's physical and mental abilities improving considerably. He will have many weeks of outpatient rehab and will need time to recuperate at home, but we are immensely grateful for this answer to prayer. After enduring two critical and life threatening situations–first because of cerebral malaria and then because of bleeding around the brain and emrgency surgery–we are filled with praise to God for his healing care. Just as much, I am thankful, along with my whole family, for the love, prayer, and support of so many. Thank you.

Is There Enough Teaching in the Church?

I know this sounds like a crazy notion. I'm not 100% convinced myself. But I've begun to wonder if there might not be enough public teaching in today's church.

That probably sounds nuts to many churchgoers, not to mention most pastors. Plenty of ministers already feel swamped with some combination of morning service, evening service, Sunday school, catechism, and midweek teaching, not to mention extra preps for weddings, funerals, and special events. I also realize I'm swimming up stream against the current of contemporary church thought which says the one thing we certainly have enough of is teaching. We are already stuffed full with Bible studies, services, small groups, conferences, and classes. The last thing we need is another opportunity to get our brains crammed with more information.

But see if you can track with these observations.

(1) Paul told Timothy: "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching" (1 Tim. 4:13). Later, the Apostle told his young protege to "practice these things" and "immerse yourself in them" (v. 15). It seems to me the normal pattern of pastoral ministry should not one of drowning in administration or getting in over your head in meetings or under water in visitation. Normally, the pastor should say of his week, "I was immersed in the public ministry of reading, teaching, and exhorting from the Scriptures." It's fair to assume study time counts in this "immersion" but there's no question Paul is talking about the public activities of reading and preaching the Bible.

(2) Calvin, like many of the Reformers with him and many preachers after him, was teaching all the time. From 1549 onward Calvin preached twice on Sundays and every weekday on alternating weeks. This meant about 10 sermons every two weeks. Now, it's also worth pointing out Calvin worked himself to death in his early fifties. He's not a model in everything. But this was also an era when most people died young, and Calvin barely ate and barely slept. So preaching isn't mainly to blame. Calvin killed Calvin more than teaching killed Calvin.

(3) Consider this description of the early church from Hughes Oliphant Old as he examines the Didache:

While nothing is said about how preaching fit into the liturgy, the Didache does indicate that the Church provided a daily preaching ministry. This we gather first from the instructions given to catechumens. Catechumens are admonished to pray for those who teach them the Word of God and honor them as they would honor the Lord, and furthermore to seek daily the presence of the saints so as to find rest in their words. It is not simply daily catechetical instruction presided over by a catechist that the Didache has in mind, but rather a daily assembly of the saints, at which the Word was preached for the glory of God and the spiritual strengthening of the congregation. What seems to be intended here is that the catechumens should attend the daily preaching services, where they will hear the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures and learn how Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophets in his death and resurrection. While the Eucharist was held on the Lord's Day, preaching services were held daily.

There is a second reason for believing the Didache reflects the life of a Church which conducted daily preaching for the whole congregation, not merely for catechumens. This daily preaching was directed toward the mature members of the congregation; it was not simply elementary instruction designed for catechumens. This is made clear not only from what is said to the catechumens but even more from the fact that the Didache assumes a rather large body of prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons who devote full time to their preaching and teaching.  The Didache seems to have in mind a group of professional preachers who devote their lives to their ministry rather than lay preachers, if we may use the modern terms.

The Didache assumes that the main function of the various ministries it mentions is teaching. This is clear at several points. Chapters 11-13 are devoted to traveling apostles and prophets. They are specifically called teachers, and teaching apparently was their main function although they might also perform signs or even lead in prayer at the Eucharist. Prophets may settle in a church, and if they do are to be paid on the principle that a true teacher is worthy of his support. A bit later on churches are told to appoint bishops and deacons, for they also perform the ministry of prophets and teachers. The picture one gets is of a church with a  number of teachers, which would hardly be a necessity were there but a single sermon each week. In fact, if there were but a single sermon each week one could well imagine that all these prophets, teachers, and bishops might get into considerable competition for the pulpit. On the other hand, if there was daily preaching one might be glad to welcome a traveling evangelist from time to time. (The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, pp. 256-257, emphasis added)

I understand that our century is much different from the early centuries of the church's history. Back then few people could read. People were used to listening to speeches. There were no Bibles in every home, no sermons on their iPods, Amazon to deliver boxes of books whenever you want. I don't expect us to go recreate the world that called for these instructions in the Didache. But surely there are some lessons for us from Paul, from the early church, and from the Reformers. What would it look like for people and preachers to have this kind of hunger for the public exposition of the word?

Our people would come to worship each Sunday with great anticipation. Whether John Piper is your pastor or Peter Piper with his pickled peppers, you would look forward to the sermon as a high point of your week.


Maybe you would be eager to come back for another sermon on Sunday night? Or stick around for Sunday school? Or show up on Wednesday?


Senior Pastors would realize they aren't the only game in town. That Didache describes a situation with teachers everywhere–in the church, on the "budget," traveling through. There was a lot of teaching to do and a lot of people to do it.


Preachers and congregants would have to be okay with more "out of season" sermons. By that I mean, teaching that arises out of 20 years in the Bible instead of 20 hours for that lesson. A man in the ministry for over ten years who has been a serious student of the Scriptures knows more about any part of the Bible than almost anyone else in his congregation. If I'm reading through Hosea for my devotional time, I should be able to read through four chapters of Hosea in front of others and explain what it's about for 15-20 minutes without too much trouble. Many of Calvin's sermons were largely impromptu. If we are constantly immersed in the Scriptures as seasoned ministers we should be able to overflow without a lot of extra study.


Similarly, most pastors have a barrel of sermons. Why should they be used once, never to be heard from again? Maybe the illustrations aren't so fresh and the organization seems weak. But couldn't someone benefit from the series you did back in 2005? Congregations turn over quickly in many places. People are gone many weekends. They forget sermons after five years believe or not. We could teach more if we refurbished some of our good stuff. Maybe not on Sunday morning (we want to keep pouring over the word and learning new things), but maybe for some other venue.


What would happen if a church held 30 minutes lunch time lessons? Nothing fancy, just reading a chapter or two and explaining the meaning. Would people come? Would professionals come for a break? Would people eat their lunches while listening to the word? Might we be able to provide some of our discipleship and counseling this way?  Maybe students would walk over? Would the homeless wander in? Might older folks enjoy getting out? Might some people make this their "quiet time" in the word for the day who would otherwise lack the discipline to do it on their own or the knowledge to make it beneficial? I really don't know. I'd be worried that no one would show. Everyone is super busy. But they did come out on Friday night for Lloyd-Jones in London. They come for hours to hear David Platt during "Secret Church." Whether you are as gifted or not, they might come to hear you.

Food for thought: how can we be more devoted to the public reading and teaching of Scripture in our churches?

Learning from John Wesley

At 200 pages, Stephen Tomkin's biography of John Wesley (Eermans 2003) is relatively short and relentlessly interesting. Tomkins does not gloss over the faults of this remarkable man, but neither does he shy away from noting how remarkable he was.

All evangelical Christians should be thankful for his tireless preaching of the gospel. Wesley's impact on the world was phenomenal because, as Tomkins puts it, "he was a phenomenon in his own right." By conservative estimates, "he rode 250,000 miles, gave away £30,000 (an amount that could have kept a gentleman for a decade) and preached more than 40,000 sermons. He was a man of rare ability, passion and commitment and unique energy" (199).

With all this energy, perhaps it is not surprising that Wesley could be domineering, more so to his friends than to his enemies:

He bore anti-Methodist assaults without the least anger, but challenges from his own preachers enraged him. His words reverberate with the grinding of an axe, but there was , indeed, a contrast between Wesley's meekness in the face of the enemy and his imperiousness with his friends. (197).

If his anger made Wesley a chore for his friends, his organizational ability and institutional sensibility is what set him apart from his fellow preachers. Tomkins argues that the biggest difference between Whitefield and Wesley was not their theology but their "job description."

Wesley was a preacher, pastor, leader, administrator, and an architect of religious organization; Whitefield was a preacher. Although he founded some successful 'tabernacles', he had very little interest in organizing converts and left this mostly to others. At the very beginning, this was Wesley, later Cennick and later Howel Harris. Consequently, while there were over 400 predestinarian Methodist societies in Wales, there were only about 30 in England. (128)

Christians ignore the importance of organization and institutions to their peril. That's one thing we can learn from Wesley. For more lessons, both good and bad, pick up Tomkins' book.

Who Are the 144,000 in Revelation?

And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel. (Rev. 7:4)

Many sincere Bible-believing Christians would understand the 144,000 like this: The church is raptured prior to the great tribulation. During the time when the church is gone, a remnant of 144,000 ethnic Jews is converted (12,000 from each tribe). These Jewish converts, in turn, evangelize the Gentiles who make up the great multitude in white robes in v. 9. That's one understanding of Revelation 7.  A lot of godly people hold that understanding. Let me explain why I understand the 144,000 differently.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah's Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim.

First, in chapter 13 we read that Satan seals all of his followers, so it makes sense that God would seal all of his people, not just the Jewish ones.

Second, the image of sealing comes from Ezekiel 9 where the seal on the forehead marks out two groups of people: idolaters and non-idolaters. It would seem that the sealing of the 144,000 makes a similar distinction based on who worships God not who among the Jewish remnant worships God.

Third, the 144,000 are called the servants of our God (Rev. 7:3). There is no reason to make the 144,000 any more restricted than that. If you are a servant of the living God, you are one of the 144,000 mentioned here. In Revelation, the phrase "servants of God" always refers to all of God's redeemed people, not just an ethnic Jewish remnant (see 1:1; 2:20; 19:2; 19:5; 22:3).

Fourth, the 144,000 mentioned later in chapter 14 are those who have been "redeemed from the earth" and those who were "purchased from among men." This is generic everybody kind of language. The 144,000 is a symbolic number of redeemed drawn from all peoples, not simply the Jews. Besides, if the number is not symbolic then what do we do with Revelation 14:4 which describes the 144,000 as those "who have not defiled themselves with women"? Are we to think that the 144,000 refers to a chosen group of celibate Jewish men? It makes more sense to realize that 144,000 is a symbolic number that is described as celibate men to highlight the group's moral purity and set-apartness for spiritual battle.

Fifth, the last reason for thinking that the 144,000 is the entire community of the redeemed is because of the highly stylized list of tribes in verses 5-8. The number itself is stylized. It's not to be taken literally. It's 12 x 12 x 1000—12 being the number of completion for God's people (representing the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb) and 1000 being a generic number suggesting a great multitude. So 144,000 is a way of saying all of God's people under the old and new covenant.

And then look at the list of the tribes. There are over a dozen different arrangements of the twelve tribes in the Bible. This one is unique among all of those. Judah is listed first because Jesus was from there as a lion of the tribe of Judah. All twelve of Jacob's sons are listed—including Levi who usually wasn't because he didn't inherit any land-except for one. Manasseh, Joseph's son (Jacob's grandson), is listed in place of Dan. So why not Dan? Dan was left out in order to point to the purity of the redeemed church. From early in Israel's history, Dan was the center of idolatry for the kingdom (Judges 18:30-31). During the days of the divided kingdom, Dan was one of two centers for idolatry (1 Kings 12:28-30). And there is recorded in some non-Biblical Jewish writings that the Jews thought the anti-Christ would come out of Dan based on Genesis 49:17. The bottom line is that the number and the list and the order of the tribes are all stylized to depict the totality of God's pure and perfectly redeemed servants from all time over all the earth. That's what Revelation means by the 144,000.

Free Bloodlines

For Martin Luther King Jr. Day John Piper has written a special post to announce the free download of Bloodlines. This is the full book, for free, without any kind of registration.

You can find out about it here.

Monday Morning Humor

As my friend Christy pointed out, this teacher has a good sense of humor. Let the reader understand.

[image error]

And if you don't have kids who watch Phineas and Ferb, enjoy Brian Regan talk about his kids.

Magnify Conference with Bob Kauflin

University Reformed Church is hosting the Magnify Conference on February 10-11.

The theme is: Worship Matters.

The speaker is Bob Kauflin.

The price is very affordable: $20 now or $25 at the door.

We are hosting this conference in partnership with three other churches in town: Providence Presbyterian Church, South Church, and Covenant Life Community Church.

This will be a great conference to participate in worship, learn about worship, and grow in the ability to lead worship. It's not just for pastors and worship leaders either. It's for everyone who loves to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Register here.

Following Up on the Jesus/Religion Video

Well, the internet is a strange place. With all the enthusiasm for and against Jeff Bethke's viral video and now all the enthusiasm for and against my critique, it may seem like all we have here is sound and fury signifying nothing. Maybe another Bellesque brouhaha in the making.

But sometimes good things happen on the internet, even in exchanges like this. Jeff sent me an email yesterday afternoon and we exchanged several emails since then. I have his permission to post parts of that exchange.

This was his first email to me:

I just wanted to say I really appreciate your article man. It hit me hard. I'll even be honest and say I agree 100%. God has been working with me in the last 6 months on loving Jesus AND loving his church. For the first few years of walking with Jesus (started in '08) I had a warped/poor paradigm of the church and it didn't build up, unify, or glorify His wife (the Bride). If I can be brutally honest I didn't think this video would get much over a couple thousand views maybe, and because of that, my points/theology wasn't as air-tight as I would've liked. If I redid the video tomorrow, I'd keep the overall message, but would articulate, elaborate, and expand on the parts where my words and delivery were chosen poorly… My prayer is my generation would represent Christ faithfully and not swing to the other spectrum….thankful for your words and more importantly thankful for your tone and fatherly like grace on me as my elder. Humbled. Blessed. Thankful for painful growth. Blessings.

Grace and Peace,

Jeff

I wrote this in reply:

Thanks for your email. It confirms my impression of you—humble, sincere, a real love for God and the gospel. I can't remember ever receiving such a teachable response to criticism. I'm grateful for you and your courage in taking time to write me a note. Really grateful.

I know that criticism can be hard. You are probably getting it from right, left, and center, from Christians and non-Christians. I'm sure you are getting a lot of affirmation too, and that presents its own challenges. I tried to my write my post as a friend, not as a hater. I am rooting for you, not against you. I wanted to approach this like Acts 18:26. Thank you for receiving it in that spirit….

What can I do to help you? Have you thought about posting a clarifying follow up to the video? Or maybe writing something on "what I wish I had said differently?" It could be a powerful example of the things you were talking about to come back and say, "Hey, I didn't get everything right here. I don't want people to take this in the wrong direction." Do you want me to post some of your email to me on my blog so people can see your heart in this? Let me know if there is something I can do.

Your friend,

Kevin

Later Jeff wrote me back. This is part of his reply:

Wasn't expecting such a quick response. I appreciate you a ton, and your words really hit home…My biggest fear is that I will say something and it will be out on the internet forever. But already quickly learning all praise goes to Jesus, and same with critique…Feel free to share parts of my email on the blog if you'd like! The tone is already gracious enough but it'd be cool to show that we have had some correspondence and it'd mean a lot.

The actual emails were longer, but these excerpts give you a feel for the tone. I'm immensely grateful for Jeff's response and feel like I've made a new friend in this process. We talked on the phone this morning and had a chance to get to know each other better. We talked about the wonders and trials of the internet and the difficulty in receiving praise and criticism. We both talked about what we could have done differently in retrospect.

A friend wrote to me yesterday and said, "This is a good test for both Jefferson and for yourself. Is he the kind of guy who would be willing to write a critic with humility? And did you write the piece in such a way that the one being criticized would feel comfortable chatting with you?" I hope we are passing that test. Through the years I haven't always aced this kind of exam.

I hope everyone reading this blog will share Jeff's heart and mine for getting the gospel out as far as we can and as right as we can. I look forward to seeing Jeff's next video.

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

There's a new You Tube video going viral and it's about Jesus and religion.

Specifically how Jesus hates religion.

The video—which in a few days has gone from hundreds of views to thousands to millions—shows Jefferson Bethke, who lives in the Seattle area, delivering a well-crafted, sharply produced, spoken word poem. The point, according to Bethke, is "to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion." In the past few days I've seen this video pop up all over Facebook. I've had people from my church say they like it. Some has asked me what I think. Others have told me there's something off about the poem, but they can't quite articulate what it is. I'll try to explain what that is in a moment. But first watch the video for yourself.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God's scandalous grace. I'm sure he's telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: "I love Jesus, I'm addicted to grace, and I'm just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous." If I met him face to face, I bet I'd like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I'd be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.

And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.

This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That's the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It's certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Verse 1

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion

What if I told you voting republican really wasn't his mission

What if I told you republican doesn't automatically mean Christian

And just because you call some people blind

Doesn't automatically give you vision

Okay, so the line about Republicans is a cheap shot (if you vote GOP) or a prophetic stance (if you like Jim Wallis). While it's true that "republican doesn't automatically mean Christian" and in some parts of the country that may be a word churchgoers need to hear, I doubt that putting right-wingers in their place is the most pressing issue in Seattle.

More important is Bethke's opening line: "Jesus came to abolish religion." That's the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God's favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that's religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that's not what religion is. We can say that's what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn't just define them however we want. "Jesus hates religion" communicates something that "Jesus hates self-righteousness" doesn't. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear "religion" and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and "spiritual, not religious" bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn't. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote a few years ago.

The word "religion" occurs five times in English Standard Version of the Bible. It is, by itself, an entirely neutral word. Religion can refer to Judaism (Acts 26:5) or the Jewish-Christian faith (Acts 25:19). Religion can be bad when it is self-made (Col. 2:23) or fails to tame the tongue (James 1:26). But religion can also be good when it cares for widows and orphans and practices moral purity (James 1:27). Unless we define the word to suit our purposes, there is simply no biblical grounds for saying Jesus hated religion. What might be gained by using such language will, without a careful explanation and caveats, be outweighed by what is lost when we give the impression that religion is the alloy that corrupts a relationship with Jesus.

Verse 2

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars

Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor

Tells single moms God doesn't love them if they've ever had a divorce

But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

These claims say very little because they try to say too much. Have there been religious wars in the last two thousand years? Yes. Have there also been wars over money, land, ego, women, slavery, democracy, freedom, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and just about everything else you can imagine? Yes. Furthermore, if you want to blame conflict on religion, you can't neatly excise Jesus from the equation. You may not like the Crusades, but many of the Crusaders thought they were sincerely fighting for Jesus by trying take back the Holy Land from the Muslims.

More to the point, Christians need to stop perpetuating the myth that we've basically been huge failures in the world. That may win us an audience with non-Christians, but it's not true. We are sinners like everyone else, so our record is mixed. We've been stupid and selfish over the years. But we've also been the salt of the earth. The evangelical awakening in England in the eighteenth century is widely credited for preventing the sort of bloodbath that swept over France in the "enlightened" French Revolution. Christians (and conservatives in general) give more to charitable causes than their secular counterparts. Christians run countless shelters, pregnancy centers, rescue missions, and food pantries. Christians operate orphanages, staff clinics, dig wells, raise crops, teach children, and fight AIDS around the globe. While we can always do more and may be blind to the needs around us at times, there is no group of people on the planet that do more for the poor than Christians. If you know of a church with a dozen escalators and no money and no heart for the hurting, then blast that church. But we have to stop the self-flagellation and the slander that says Christians do nothing for the poor.

As for divorce, it is often (but not always) wrong. Even when it is wrong, there is forgiveness when people repent. Shame on any church that doesn't think or demonstrate that there is room at the cross for unwed or divorced moms.

And about the harsh language in the Old Testament—it cuts both ways. All people in the Old Testament, and in the entire ancient near east for that matter, were religious people. Some of them were fakes and hypocrites and whores. Some were idolaters and adulterers. Some performed their rituals and went on to ignore the weightier matters of the law. And some of the religious people were God's remnant, God's holy people, and God's friends. In both Testaments, God has no problem rebuking religious people and no problem loving them either.

Verse 3

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice

Tend to ridicule God's people, they did it to John The Baptist

They can't fix their problems, and so they just mask it

Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket

See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core

It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores

Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat

But it's funny that's what they use to do to mummies

While the corpse rots underneath

I've already said that I don't think "religion" is the right term for what Bethke is talking about. But he has done a great job here of describing false religion. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for being "whitewashed tombs," for looking beautiful on the outside and full of dead people's bones on the inside, for appearing righteous but being full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matt. 23:27-28). It is possible for churches and churchgoers to have the reputation for being alive, but actually be dead (Rev. 3:1). Some churches claim to love grace, but all they give you is legalism. Bethke is hitting on a real problem.

Verse 4

Now I ain't judgin, I'm just saying quit putting on a fake look

Cause there's a problem

If people only know you're a Christian by your Facebook

I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic's unworthy

It's like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey

You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me

Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography

See on Sunday I'd go to church, but Saturday getting faded

Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted

See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness

But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

I wish Bethke, and critics like him, would admit that they are "judgin." He is evaluating Christianity. He is criticizing church as he sees it. The whole poem is a harsh judgment on religious people. Granted, judging is not the same as judgmentalism. After all, I'm judging this poem. So I don't think what Bethke is doing is wrong. I just wish he wouldn't try to claim the moral high ground.

Other than that, this is another good verse. Bethke tells his own story to prove that we can be real good at fooling everyone, including ourselves. We need to realize that there are plenty of people in many of our churches who seem to have it all together but don't. They are kidding themselves and we should not encourage such self-deception.

Verse 5

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean

It's not a museum for good people, it's a hospital for the broken

Which means I don't have to hide my failure, I don't have to hide my sin

Because it doesn't depend on me it depends on him

See because when I was God's enemy and certainly not a fan

He looked down and said I want, that, man

Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools

Don't you see so much better than just following some rules

Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin

But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in

See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men

But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

There is much that is good and a few things that are confused in this verse. The church should be an ocean of grace. We don't have to hide our sins before God. It doesn't depend on us. We should love the church and the Bible and believe that sin exists. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus never supported self-righteousness. All of that is wonderfully and powerfully true.

But let me raise a few other points.

One, we have to remember that the purpose of a hospital is to help sick people get better. I'm sure Bethke would agree with that. But there is no indication in this poem that the grace that forgives is also the grace that transforms. Following Jesus is more than keeping rules, but it's not less. In one sense, loving Jesus is also all about keeping rules (John 14:15, 21, 23-24). I'm not sure how the Jesus of John 14 fits in the world of Bethke's poem.

Two, there is no inherent dignity in being broken. Jesus likes the honesty that acknowledges sin, hates it and turns away, but he does not love authenticity for its own sake. We have to be more careful with our language. When Paul boasted of his weakness, he was boasting of his suffering, his lack of impressiveness, and the trials he endured (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9). He never boasted of his temptations or his sins—past or present. That's not what he meant by weakness. Being broken is not the point, except to be forgiven and changed.

Three, as I've mentioned before, the religious leaders hated Jesus, first and foremost because they thought he was a blasphemer who dared to make himself equal with God (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; and less clearly in John 18:19-24). It's true that many of the religious elite found Jesus too free with his meals and his associations. They called him a "glutton and drunkard" (Luke 7:34), though he wasn't either. But they also said John the Baptist "has a demon" (Luke 7:33). They were just as opposed to John's asceticism as they were upset with Jesus' liberty. More than hating grace, the Jewish leaders hated the truth about Christ and found ways to reject God's messengers.

Verse 6

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention

How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums

See one's the work of God, but one's a man made invention

See one is the cure, but the other's the infection

See because religion says do, Jesus says done

Religion says slave, Jesus says son

Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free

Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see

And that's why religion and Jesus are two different clans

I won't repeat my initial comments about religion and Jesus and whether they are really "on opposite spectrums." I don't think they are. That point notwithstanding, Bethke speaks the truth in this section. The differences between slavery and sonship, bondage and freedom, blindness and sight are all biblical themes.

I think the line about "religion says do, Jesus says done" can be misleading. Too many people hear that as "relationship not rules" when we've already seen that Jesus wants us to do everything he has commanded (Matt. 28:20). But if "do" means "do this to earn my favor" then the contrast is very appropriate.

Verse 7

Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man

Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own

Not based on my merits but Jesus's obedience alone

Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face

He took what we all deserved, I guess that's why you call it grace

And while being murdered he yelled

"Father forgive them they know not what they do."

Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you

And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb

Which is why I'm kneeling at the cross, saying come on there's room

So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it

Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

There is a lot to like with this final section. Great affirmation of Jesus active obedience. Great focus on the cross. Great invitation for sinners to come to Christ. I think Bethke understands justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. I would have liked to have heard something about the wrath of God being poured out on the cross as opposed to simply "absorb[ing] all of your sin." But given Bethke's previous video criticizing Love Wins, it's best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I'm not sure it's best to so emphasize that Jesus was thinking of us on the cross. The "joy set before" him in Hebrews 12:2 was the joy of being seated at God's right hand, not the joy of being with us as Bethke advocates in another video. But these are smaller points that do not negate the strong message of grace and forgiveness.

Conclusion

I know I've typed a bunch of words about a You Tube video that no one may be talking about in a month. But, as I said at the beginning, there is so much helpful in this poem mixed with so much unhelpful—and all of it so common—that I felt it worth the effort to examine the theology in detail.

The strengths in this poem are the strengths I see in many young Christians—a passionate faith, a focus on Jesus, a love for grace, and a hatred for anything phony or self-righteous. The weaknesses here can be the weaknesses of my generation (and younger)—not enough talk of repentance and sanctification, a tendency to underestimate the importance of obedience in the Christian life, a one-dimensional view of grace, little awareness that our heavenly Father might ever discipline his children or be grieved by their continued transgression, and a penchant for sloganeering instead of careful nuance.

I know the internet is a big place, but a lot of people are connected to a lot of other people. So who knows, maybe Jefferson Bethke will read this blog. If you do, brother, I want you to know I love what you love in this poem. I watched you give your testimony and give thanks to God for his work in your life. I love the humble desire to be honest about your failings and point people to Christ. I love that you love the church and the Bible. I love that you want people to really get the gospel. You have important things to say and millions of people are listening. So make sure as a teacher you are extra careful and precise (James 3:1). If you haven't received formal theological training, I encourage you to do so. Your ministry will be made stronger and richer and longer lasting. I encourage you to speak from the Bible before you speak from your own experience. I encourage you to love what Jesus loves without tearing down what he also loves and people are apt to misunderstand. I encourage you to dig deep into the whole counsel of God.

Thanks for reminding us about Jesus. But try to be more careful when talking about religion. After all, there is one religion whose aim is to worship, serve, know, proclaim, believe, obey, and organize around this Jesus. And without all those verbs, there's not much Jesus left.