Jared C. Wilson's Blog, page 28

Is Your Worship Service Upside Down?

Our church worship gatherings ought to be welcoming and comprehensible to unbelievers who are present, but many churches actually structure the entire worship service around them. There is no real biblical precedent for this, and furthermore, it’s not the most effective way for your church to reach lost people, anyway. If your church orients its weekend gathering around “reaching seekers,” it’s quite possible it has adopted some of the working assumptions outlined below, programmatic arrangements that I want to argue actually turn the biblical shape of evangelism and mission upside down.

How might your worship service be upside down?

1. Emphasizing feelings before and over doctrine.

I know, I know. Many of us come from hard church backgrounds where doctrine was all that mattered and people were cold or harsh or uncaring about their neighbors. That’s another way to be upside down. But in many evangelical communities today we see a downplaying of theology and doctrinal truth to make way for personal feelings and relational connecting. The problems with this approach are numerous, but the two main problems I’d cite are these:

– Feelings about God detached from knowledge of God tend to reveal more that we are worshipers of feelings, of ourselves.

– Just as serious, perhaps, is the problem of expecting lost people to sing songs about their feelings about a God they don’t believe in. Too many of our Sunday morning worship sets get the cart of affections before the horse of belief.

This is all besides the persistent problem of singing theologically shallow or doctrinally vacant songs to begin with. But just in terms of missional or evangelistic strategy, helping folks sing about how the God they don’t (yet) believe in makes them feel is wrongheaded. It’s upside down.

2. Giving lost people religious homework.

The dominant style of preaching in the so-called “attractional” or “seeker-targeted” worship service is of the “practical application” variety. In these sermons, teachers attempt to make the Bible more relevant (as if it’s somehow irrelevant without our help) but offering a weekly set of steps or tips to make Christianity more applicable to daily life. You will freqeuently see individual sermons or whole sermon series devoted to “Making Life Work” or “Succeeding at Home” or “Becoming a Better Whatever.”

This is not to say, of course, that the Bible is impractical or that there aren’t lots of things to do in the Bible. The Bible has lots of commands! It is imminently practical and applicable to daily life. The problem we face, however, is that the practicality of Christianity is aimed solely at, you know, Christians. What I mean is, the expectation of obeying and pleasing God is placed on those who have both a heart changed to desire obedience and the Spiritual power to carry it out.

In the seeker-oriented teaching, however, we direct a steady diet of how-to at people who have yet to receive a heart of want-to. Unbelievers should hear the commands and applications of God’s designs, sure. But the primary thrust this application of the law has on unbelievers is one of conviction, not empowerment. In fact, the commands of the Bible—whether they are of the “don’t commit adultery” variety or the “love your neighbor” variety—have no power in themselves to help us. They can only tell us what to do (or not to do); they can’t help us do them.

The only thing the Bible calls power (to save us, to transform us, to motivate us) is the gospel of Jesus Christ. So it’s a little strange to make sure the dominant thing lost people hear in our church service is a list of things to do rather than the thing that’s done!

If your weekend teaching is heavy on how-to’s for the lost, you’re giving religious homework to a bunch of spiritual corpses. You might even be increasing the sin in your church with such a practice. Regardless, it is philosophically and theologically upside down.

3. Offering a gospel invitation after a legal message.

This is probably one of the primary ways the attractional church goes about the weekend preaching upside down. The pastor has spent 30 to 45 minutes encouraging a lost person to do a bunch of things that please God, and then afterward adds on an invitation to receive Jesus.

This kind of heavy law/added gospel message creates a kind of spiritual whiplash, as a teacher now invites someone to believe something the teacher has not spent much time communicating and in fact has spent most of his time operating as if it’s unnecessary. As I said above, the Bible assumes the kind of obedience to God that pleases God comes after our heart has been changed by grace. Simple religious behavior modification doesn’t glorify God; it glorifies self. If we preach a sermon on behavior modification and then try to invite people to receive grace, it seems disjointed, strange. It’s like you’ve suddenly changed the subject.

I remember hearing a well-known attractional pastor preach a sermon directed at women in which he said over and over again that God finds them captivating. (The tone of the message sounded like God worships women.) Then at the end, in his invitation to receive Jesus, he said God would cover their ugliness and shame. It was a strange message tacked-on to a sermon in which he belabored how much God found women beautiful and captivating only to now learn he thinks they’re ugly and need him.

This is an extreme example, but I think it is a fitting one, given how much evangelical preaching these days treats hearers like they are “good enough, smart enough, and, doggone it, people like them,” like they’re beautiful unique snowflakes with endless potential, and then wants to somehow segue into the utter emptiness and need we have apart from God. Wait a minute, we think, You just went on and on about how awesome I am. Now you say I’m not? It’s upside down.

This kind of sermon arrangement is also out of proportion to biblical teaching. In Paul’s letters, for instance, he always begins with some kind of gospel proclamation. In length, it is scaled to the proportion of the letter itself. So, for instance, in Romans, the gospel story takes more chapters than it does in Colossians or Philippians. Then, he moves on to the practical matters, because the practical matters flow from the grounding of our justification. Doing flows from being. But in so much attractional teaching, the tacked-on invitation seems to make being an afterthought to doing.

It’s upside down.

3 Ways the Gospel Might Divide a Church

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” — Matthew 10:34-36

A curious thing happens when a church and its shepherds are committed to this radical notion of gospel-centrality. If we will focus on the biblical Jesus, we will tend to be motivated to reach and primed to attract the same kind of people the biblical Jesus did. And while most church folks like the ideas of mission and church growth, when the rubber meets the road in your proclamational engagement, you will find quite a few of those same agreeable souls eager to pump the brakes.

Why does this happen?

Well, the same gospel that by its nature unifies also tends to divide. We don’t usually expect this kind of division in a local church —we are typically otherwise fearful about conflict arising from music styles, programming choices, and personality types—but the gospel can divide a church just as easily as it might a family. But actually there’s nothing more prone to stirring up mess than the grace of God that has arrived to create order.

Whenever the gospel is faithfully preached, people get poked in the idols. And people don’t like that.

How does this happen?

Here are three common ways the gospel might cause division:

1. The gospel critiques the self-righteous.

The very news of the good news is that we are saved not by our works but by Christ’s work. Our righteousness merits us nothing. In fact, our righteousness can often “get in the way” of our believing in and enjoying the finished work of Christ. People who are preoccupied with their own performance, how they come across religiously, or their position in the church as based on their gifts, intellect, tenure, or social standing often find the regular and copious teaching of grace discombobulating.

I once followed up with a long-time church lady on a sustained absence from worship, and was surprised to hear her say she had stopped coming because we had a certain man serving as a Sunday morning greeter. I asked her if he had hurt her in some way or if she knew of some ongoing sin in his life we ought to know. She couldn’t really speak to either of those concerns but instead said many people in our small town remembered what he was like (before his salvation), so it was not good for our image to have him be the first face somebody saw.

Before he came to Christ, he was sort of an “angry cuss” and given to drunkenness too. He was, by God’s grace, not like that any more—in fact, many of us who only knew him post-conversion only knew how incredibly friendly and joyful and generous and helpful and eager-to-serve this guy was. But she could not forget his past. He was not the “right sort.”

She said to me, “I just like things black and white. This is too much gray.”

Really, it was the opposite. The gospel had washed him white as snow, but in her mind the “math” of the gospel didn’t add up. It messed with her sense of propriety and religious decency. She was suffering from what Dane Ortlund calls the “moral vertigo” of the gospel.

You will see this response happen quite often among the self-righteous and the religiously proud, and in fact, if you preach grace hard enough, you will begin to expose over time self-righteousness and religious pride in people (maybe even yourself) where you didn’t even know it existed.

2. The gospel frustrates the hobby horse riders.

It’s not just those who love the Law too much who get aggravated by gospel-centrality, it’s also those who love anything else too much! Pastor long enough and you will meet a variety of interesting and relationally taxing hobby horse riders. A brief survey of the kinds of people you will meet in your church neighborhood:

The culture warrior who’s frustrated you’re not patriotic or political enough.

The end-times junkie who’s frustrated you’re not eschatological enough.

The self-styled academic who’s frustrated you don’t really “dig into the meat” of the Greek participles or whatever.

The activist who’s frustrated you don’t give people enough social justice for homework.

That is a small sampling. Really, there can be as many frustrated people as there are hobby horses, but those are some of the more common ones. I’ve been hounded by theology nerds, accused by culture warriors, and worn out by the activists. You cannot expect the preaching of grace to always be met with grace in return. You should in fact expect that being single-minded about the gospel to frustrate those whose minds are set on something else.

3. The gospel irritates those who don’t want to change.

The gospel announces that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, but this faith, as the Reformers say, isn’t alone. Sanctified works flow from the sanctified heart. The gospel actually changes us. The Holy Spirit actually changes the hearts of sinners who now want to please God and grow in the likeness of Christ. That’s just one way change is effected by the gospel of Jesus.

But a church that embraces the gospel as its one thing begins to change too. Its preaching and teaching changes, and thus its discipleship and its counseling. Its interests change, its emphases change, its reason for being changes. And it will grow—if not numerically, at least Spiritually.

It has become a ministry truism—because it’s true—that church folks want to change until they actually do. And every church says it wants to grow. But actually growing will show whether that’s true or not. Most people don’t like change. People who are not set on the gospel especially don’t like change. So when the gospel begins to change a church, and as the gospel grows a church, it cannot help but change—you can’t grow and not change!—this really freaks people out.

I asked for a meeting once with a couple whose complaints and criticism (against me and against the ministry in general) were beginning to concern me. Most of these complaints were carried out behind my back and only later revealed by third parties or heard through the grapevine. So I began by asking if I had offended them in some way or hurt them, if maybe their complaint was driven by something I had done that I didn’t know. They could not put their finger on anything specific I had done to deserve their complaints. Instead, the husband offered this: “The church has changed. It’s not the same as it used to be.”

He only elaborated briefly, but apparently the church had grown enough numerically that it didn’t feel the same as it did “in the good old days.” He didn’t know everybody like he used to. This obviously made him uncomfortable. It made him uncomfortable enough to seek to subvert the ministry and the growth of the church.

These are not uncommon divisions. And they can prove subtly problematic and increasingly toxic in a church, especially when people disturbed by the gospel begin to gather likeminded grumblers and gossipers. It doesn’t take a majority of people to split a church, in fact. It only takes a determined minority working against an unguarded, unprepared leadership. If you are committed to gospel-centrality, in fact, don’t ever assume this couldn’t happen to you. In fact, you should prepare for the powerful gospel to do its glorious sorting of belief from unbelief.

And you should use these challenges to further encourage your resolute centrality on the gospel! Another concerned church member who once hijacked a church meeting with some out-of-the-blue concerns that were new to me said to me when I followed up with her privately: “Jared, we know your thing is the gospel. And you do that really well. But sometimes we just need to hear other things.”

Whenever your church, your fellow leaders, or you yourself get tired of the gospel’s meddlin’, that’s when you know to bring a double dose.

“Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” — Galatians 4:16

“The Prodigal Church” Wins A World Magazine Book of the Year Award

I discovered last week by clicking on Marvin Olasky’s Twitter link to the 2016 Books of the Year Award announcements from World Magazine that one of my own titles had made their grade. Thanks very much to the team at World for selecting my book The Prodigal Church as their Book of the Year in the category of “Accessible Theology.” As Jason Allen, the president of the seminary where I’m employed, quipped, “Infinitely better than winning the Inaccessible Theology Award!”

Here’s an excerpt from Olasky and Sophia Lee’s breakdown:

Jared C. Wilson’s The Prodigal Church: A Gentle Manifesto Against the Status Quo (Crossway) articulately points out problems in many “seeker” or “attractional” churches that emphasize self-improvement or life-enhancement rather than God-enhancement: “If the purpose of worship is to feel good, we stop worshiping God.” He’s concerned when a church seems more like a concert and when Bible study leaders ask not, “What does this text mean?” but, “What does this text mean to you?” He notes, “Preaching even a ‘positive’ practical message with no gospel-centrality amounts to preaching the law. … Don’t treat the Bible as an instruction manual. Treat it as a life preserver.”

When Wilson scrutinizes worship, he asks, “Does this element exalt God or man?” He notes that “both irreligion and religion are fundamentally self-salvation projects. They are equally self-righteous, even though the former is predicated on being automatically righteous and the latter aims to earn righteousness.” Here’s his summary of Christian exceptionalism: “Grace is what makes Christianity unique among all world religions and philosophies. … None of us would have come up with the concept of divine unmerited favor. None of us would have invented the notion that we cannot be good enough or smart enough, that we could not somehow become gods ourselves.”

The Prodigal Church is our “accessible theology” book of the year because every church, no matter the denomination, struggles in our age of entertainment with how to attract people to church without distracting them from the gospel. An important understanding for both youth ministries and adult evangelism is: “What you win them with is what you win them to.” Instead of adding on programs, churches should win attenders to an understanding of the gospel’s astounding message: The work is already done.

Also, congrats to the other finalists in this category, including a fellow Baker Books author, Caleb Kaltenbach.

More on The Prodigal Church:

Review from Tim Challies

Essence of the theological conviction in a post at Desiring God

An excerpt from the book at World Magazine

Do Christians, Jews, and Muslims Worship the Same God?

You can find a loving conception of monotheism in both Judaism and Islam, but only in Christianity does this love manifest itself in a one-way work of salvation of sinners apart from religious effort. For this reason, C.S. Lewis has famously said of Christian faith, “We trust not because ‘a God’ exists, but because this God exists.”[1]

There are of course many Jews, Muslims, and Christians who believe all three faiths worship the same God, but through different expressions. We see this view suggested even in the Muslim’s Koran:

Do not dispute other than in a good way with the people of Scripture, except for those of them who do evil; and say: “We have faith in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. Our God and your God are One, and to Him we submit [ourselves].”  (Surah 29:46)

Jews and Christians, also, have so much good theology in common. It has become common among people in both faiths to refer to “Judeo-Christian values.” This is a real thing, and in many cases, a completely legitimate expression. In a 2007 interview, then-President George W. Bush said this: “I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe.”[2]

This belief is practically mainstream within all three of those faith traditions. But I think we come at this answer too easily, too thoughtlessly, simply assuming that because these three religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—are all monotheistic and share some historical heritage, they must worship the same God. Because lots of people worshiping one God does not mean they are worshiping the same God.

Do Jews and Christians worship the same God?

This is a very complex question, actually, but the short answer is: no.

You may of course flinch at such an assertion. It is not a necessarily popular belief, even within evangelical Christianity, where many simply believe Jews worship what they know of God. It is said that they worship the one true God, but simply have an incomplete vision of him. But couldn’t this be said of any religious faith whose object of worship bears striking similarities with the God that Christians worship?

Complicating the question are the various threads within both Judaism and Christianity. One Jewish scholar has said, “The   fact   is   that   there   is   no   single   Jewish understanding of God.”[3] This makes it difficult to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, if only because we aren’t dealing with Judaism so much as Judaisms. On the other hand, Christianity has remained almost entirely unified for two thousand years on the central matters of its theological claims. But one stark contrast between the Christian view of God and the Jewish view is on this thing called grace.

Now, drawing the line at the concept of grace may seem too narrow a division. The God revealed in the Jewish Tahakh displays abundant grace constantly. Christians would affirm that. But we also believe that we must believe about God what God has revealed about himself, and in fact that to disbelieve what God has revealed about himself and to worship some version of God we prefer is in fact to worship an idol. In the historic account of the children of Israel worshiping the golden calf, in fact, we see that Aaron and the Israelites attributed their worship of this false god to God (Exodus 32:5).

When Christians talk about grace, however, the thing that makes Christianity utterly unique among all faiths, we aren’t simply referring to a disposition of God or a personality trait. We are referring to those things too, of course, but more specifically, we are referring to the way God has expressed his grace, namely through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

It is at Jesus, in fact, that Judaism and Christianity part theological ways.

This is not simply a matter of opinion. It is a matter of diametrically opposed truth claims. And we see this opposition recurring over and over again throughout the teaching ministry of Jesus depicted in the Gospels of the New Testament.

In John chapter 8, the orthodox Jewish leaders are once again spying on Jesus, trying to trip him up, expose him, defame him, and shame him. You have to understand that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were not fringe characters in the Jewish religion. They were the religious elite, of course, but theologically speaking, the represented mainstream, “contemporary” Judaism. They shared much of the same theology as Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees represented the faithful reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. They believed in the covenantal history, in a future resurrection, and in applying the revelation of God to everyday life. They would be the equivalent, probably, of the fundamentalist strain of Christianity today—culturally zealous and a little rough around the edges, but on all the majors, pretty much theologically correct.

So it is no little thing that Jesus and the Pharisees butt heads here in John 8. This is not simply a clash between nice Jesus and mean leaders. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental disagreement on the very identity of God.

Jesus is doing what Jesus always does: making everything about himself. In this instance, he claims to be the Judge, the Light of the World, the way to freedom from sin, and a few other equally provocative things. This is not the kind of thing a normal religious leader says. We don’t tend to take seriously religious leaders who make such claims about themselves.

Jesus then says something even stranger:

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”  (John 8:56-58)

What does he mean?

Jesus is saying two incredible things here. First, he claims to be in existence before Abraham. This is an overt claim to preexistence, in fact to eternality and omnipresence. And by saying “I am”—asserting that thousands of years ago, not only was he, but he currently is—he is applying the sacred name of Yahweh (“I AM”) to himself. This may sound subtle, but it’s not subtle at all. Jesus is in fact claiming to be God. We know the orthodox Jews understood him to be making this claim, because the very next thing they do (John 8:59) is pick up stones to kill him, which is exactly what a good Jew would feel inclined to do when confronted with such blatant blasphemy.

Again, this is not merely a matter of opinion. This is not simply a case of the Jewish theologians worshiping the same God in a different way. If Jesus is in fact God, and you try to kill him, how could we say in any legitimate way that you worship and believe in God?

Jesus makes this very point, actually, in the same chapter.

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”  (John 8:39-47)

To summarize, Jesus is saying that if somebody worshiped the true God, they would worship him, because he is of the same nature of the true God. And he is saying that if anyone rejects him, they reject the one true God. And further, he is saying, that if anyone—including these orthodox Jews—do not believe in him, they are more aligned with the enemy of God, Satan himself.

I share that lengthy passage above so you will see that I am not making this up. Jesus said it. And you are welcome to disagree, and you are welcome to be offended. But you should plainly see that Jesus is himself saying that to reject him is to reject God, deny the truth, and reveal oneself as being “not of God.”

In John chapter 10, verse 30, Jesus doubles down on these claims, and says, “I and the Father are one.” Once again, the Jewish theologians take up stones to murder him, which they would not have done if all he meant was that he and God were “on the same team.” John 10:33 makes their motive explicit:

The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

I believe it is very important that we understand this important contrast if we want to understand both orthodox Christianity and the orthodox Judaism that develops from the time of Christ onward. The conflict between Jesus and the unbelieving Jews of his day did not rise or fall on how nice Jesus was compared to how mean the Pharisees were. That’s a very superficial reading of Jesus’ relationship with the religious leaders, which is probably why it’s the most common understanding in the secular world of why Jesus was killed.

But while Jesus was a faithful and religious Jew, his beef with the Pharisees and scribes was not simply some intramural personality clash. It was a fundamental clash of worldviews. Namely, Jesus was orienting the world around himself, putting himself in the center of everything. He was in fact claiming to be God. And if he was right—as I believe he was—then to disagree with him was to disagree with God. To deny him was to deny God. To reject him was to reject God. And to worship someone at the exclusion of Jesus, is to worship another god.

Christians believe that God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin named Mary and grew and developed into mature, real, tangible manhood.

So, do Jews worship the same God as Christians? The Christian faith has its roots in the Jewish culture and religion, and the two faith traditions share a common sacred history, but as it really counts—meaning, as it really applies to a relationship with the supreme deity who actually exists—the answer is no. Because if God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, if indeed Jesus Christ is God, if indeed God is a Trinity, then to reject these truths about his very nature—which is not the same as being mistaken about certain attributes of God or not understanding certain aspects of his personality—means rejecting God himself.

Jesus Christ makes all the difference in the world.

—

This post is an adapted excerpt from my book Unparalleled: How Christianity’s Uniqueness Makes it Compellin

[1] C.S. Lewis, “On Obstinacy in Belief,” in “The World’s Last Night” and Other Essays (San Diego: Harcourt, 1988), 25.

[2] Mona Moussly, “Bush denies he is an ‘enemy of Islam’,” Al Arabiya News (October 5, 2007)

[3] Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “God Between Christians and Jews—Is it the Same God?” (pdf) Paper presented at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture

Why Knowing Your Flock is Critical for Meaningful Preaching

The preacher paced the stage, staring earnestly out into the congregation. It was time for his weekly invitation. He asked for respondents to raise their hands. Not a single hand was raised. But he had no way of knowing this because he was on a video screen.

I found myself at the nearest campus of this multisite church on assignment from the pastor himself, a man who had recently hired me to do some freelance research work for him. Visiting one of his many remote services was supposed to help me get a “feel” for his ministry. It certainly did. But I couldn’t help but be struck with the feeling that this way of doing ministry couldn’t really help the preacher get a “feel” for his congregation.

I don’t know what you think about video venues or the multi-site model of church growth in general, but this experience and others has only affirmed some of the concerns I have about the disconnect between preacher and flock, a growing dilemma in all kinds of churches, big and small.

Indeed, this dilemma isn’t merely limited to multi-site, “video venue” churches. Pastors of growing churches of all sizes will continually struggle with staying familiar with their congregations. And the temptation to become more and more isolated becomes greater as more complexity is added to an increasing church.

And of course, it’s impossible for a preacher of even a small church to be best friends with everybody in his church, and it’s impossible for preachers of larger churches to know everybody well. But the preacher whose ministry is becoming more and more about preaching and less and less about shepherding, the preacher who is becoming less and less involved with his congregation, is actually undermining the task to which he is trying to devote more of his time! Good preaching requires up-close shepherding.

The ministry of preaching cannot be divorced from the ministry of soul care; in fact, preaching is actually an extension of soul care. There are a host of reasons why it is important for pastors who want to preach meaningfully to know their flocks as well as they can, but here are three of the most important.

1. Meaningful preaching has people’s idols in mind.

 As I travel to preach in church services and conferences, one of the first questions I usually ask the pastor who invited me is “What are your people’s idols?” I want to be able not to just drop in and “do my thing,” but to serve this pastor and his congregation by speaking as well as I can to any of the hopes and dreams he can identify within his church that are not devotionally attached to Christ as their greatest satisfaction. Sadly, some pastors don’t know how to answer the question.

When Paul walked into Athens, he saw that the city was full of idols (Acts 17:16). That said, he didn’t simply regard this as a philosophical problem but as a spiritual problem that grieved him personally. And when he addressed it, he did so specifically, referencing their devotion to “the unknown god” (17:23). And whenever Paul addressed specific churches in his letters, you will see that the kinds of sins and falsehoods he addressed were very specific. He didn’t speak in generalizations. He knew what was going on in these churches.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that you begin embarrassing or exposing people from the pulpit. But it does mean that you are in the thick of congregational life enough to speak in familiar terms.

Until a pastor has spent quality time with people in his congregation, the idols his preaching must combat with the gospel will be merely theoretical. All human beings have a few universal idols in common. But communities where churches are located, congregations as a subculture themselves, and even specific cliques and demographics within congregations tend to traffic in more specific idols and patterns of sin.

Knowing firsthand your flock’s misguided financial, career, and familial hopes will help you know how to preach. It will help you pick the right texts and the right emphases in explicating those texts. This is what makes preaching a ministry, and not simply an exercise.

2. Meaningful preaching has people’s suffering in heart.

 I can tell you firsthand that my preaching changed after I’d begun holding people’s hands while they died and hearing people’s hearts while they cried. Until you’ve heard enough people share their sins and fears and worries and wounds, your preaching can be excellent and passionate, but it will not be all that it can be—resonant.

Many preachers carry the burden of God’s Word into the pulpit, and this is a good thing. Receiving the heavy mantle of preaching hot with Christ’s glory, being burdened to proclaim the Lord’s favor in the gospel is a noble, worthy, wonderful task. But the preacher must also feel the weight of his people in that pulpit. He must ascend to preach having been in the valley with them. His manuscript should be smudged with the tears of his people.

Knowing what sufferings afflict his people on a regular basis will keep a preacher from becoming tone-deaf to his congregation. He won’t be lighthearted in the wrong places. It will affect the kinds of illustrations he uses, the types of stories he tells, and—most importantly—the dispositions with which he handles theWord. I have seen preachers make jokes about things people in his congregation were actually struggling with. And I’ve been that preacher. We come to lift burdens, but with our careless words we end up adding to them.

Preacher, do you have a genuine heart for your people? I don’t mean “Are you a people person?” I mean, do you know what is going on in the lives of your congregation, and does it move you, grieve you? Have you wept with those who weep? If not, your preaching over time will show it.

Think of Moses’ grief over his people sins (Exodus 32:32). Or of Paul’s abundant tears (Acts 20:31, 2 Corinthians 2:4, Philippians 3:18, 2 Timothy 1:4). Think, also, of Christ’s compassion, seeing into the hearts of the people (Matthew 9:36). You may believe you can work these feelings up without really knowing your congregation, but it isn’t the same, especially not for them. It’s not the same for them in the same way that hearing a stirring word from a role model is not the same as hearing a stirring word from your dad. Preacher, don’t take to your text without carrying the real burdens of your people in your heart.

3. Meaningful preaching has people’s names in prayer.

Every faithful preacher prays over their sermon. They pray that God’s Word will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). They pray that people will be receptive. They pray that souls will be saved and lives will be changed. These are good prayers. Better still is the sermon prepped and composed with prayers of John Smith and Julie Thompson and the Cunningham family on the lips of the preacher. Better still is the sermon prayed over in pleadings for Tom Johnson’s salvation and Bill Lewis’s repentance and Mary Alice’s healing.

Paul repeatedly tells the people under his care that he is remembering them in his prayers (Ephesians 1:6, 2 Timothy 1:3, Philemon 1:4). And since he is frequently naming names, we know he doesn’t just mean generally. And while Paul did not have one congregation to shepherd up close but rather served largely as a missionary church planter, he nevertheless worked hard to know the people he ministered to from a distance and sought to visit them as often as he could. How much more should the local church pastor develop relationships with his people! He should know their names and he should carry their names to heaven in prayer.

It is important to know who you’re preaching to. It’s important to know that Sister So-and-So doesn’t like your preaching. It’s important to know that Brother Puff-You-Up likes it too much. It’s important to know that the man in the back with his arms folded and his brow furrowed isn’t actually mad at you—that’s just how he listens. It’s important to know that the smiling, nodding lady near the front has a tendency not to remember anything you’ve said. When you know these things, you can pray for your people in deeper, more personal, more pastoral ways. And your preaching will get better. It will be more real. It will come not just from your mind and mouth, but from your heart, your soul, your guts.

This all assumes, of course, that you are interested in this kind of preaching. If you see preaching as simply providing a “spiritual resource” for interested minds or a pep talk for the religiously inclined and not as bearing prophetic witness from the revealed Word of God to the hearts of people, then you can safely ignore all the points above.

Originally published at 9Marks.org.

Pastoral Ministry Is About Souls, Not Stats

Paul says of the Corinthians, “you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us” (2 Cor. 3:3). Therein lies the difference between disciple-producing and decision-producing.

The way we are typically programmed to measure the success of our ministries sets us up for hollow victory and desperate failure. But this is not to say we should never do any measuring. It is only to say that what we measure and how we measure shows where our confidence lies.

For instance, not all attendance increases are created equal. Joel Osteen boasts the largest church in North America, but it is not likely that the majority of these attendees are feeding on the gospel, because Osteen does not preach it as “of first importance.” For that matter, the Mormons, whom Osteen considers fellow Christians, are growing in numbers and influence. There are many false religions with many adherents around the world. Clearly, accumulating numbers cannot be our primary measure of success.

But in the attractional church, growth in numbers is often seen not just as a measure of success but as a justification for any methodology used to get them. Numbers become not just a metric to track growth but a badge of honor and a demand for validation. It is not uncommon to see the leaders of attractional churches tallying each week in public venues the number of “decisions” made. (This is at least a more honest label than “salvations,” since it would seem presumptuous to declare the number of souls changed by virtue of the number of feet down an aisle or names on a card.) Where any church sees the fruit of gospel preaching, both in professions of faith and in the baptisms by which the professions are announced, we all ought to rejoice with those who rejoice. But we also ought to caution those who publicly tally to check their own motives and observe their disciples’ fruit. Biblical credibility is not found in big stats.

Apparently this phenomenon is not new, as Spurgeon once responded to it himself:

Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battlefield? “Last night fourteen souls were under conviction, fifteen were justified, and eight received full sanctification.” I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretense of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime.  (The Soulwinner (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker, 1995), 13.)

The attractional defenders of such number-crunching will say that numbers matter because every number is a person and every person matters. Absolutely right. But every person is a soul, and when in our zeal we pronounce the state of a soul that has not been invested in over time and cared for, we do no one’s soul any favors.

Another thing we often hear as a church growth truism is that “healthy things grow.” And as I said before, yes, they often do. But not always.

Pastoral ministry is about souls, not stats. If your number of souls grows, fantastic. To God be the glory. Let’s just remember that we are responsible mainly for the care of the souls, not the accumulation of them.

In the end, this is good news. It is good news because it means God’s approval of us is not based on our ability to produce statistics. We are not called to be successful but faithful. We may plant, we may water, but it is God who gives the growth (1 Cor. 3:6).

When we pastors cling to the gospel ourselves, it will shape us, giving us the mind and heart of Christ for our people. As Christ shepherds our hearts, let us shepherd the hearts of our people, with deep love and spiritual affection seeking their good above our own comfort. And in the end, they may be our boast (2 Cor. 1:14).

(This is an excerpt from my book The Prodigal Church)

Everything You (Might Have) Wanted to Know About Writing and Publishing

Well, maybe not everything. But below are my answers to some pretty common questions. If I miss anything you’re interested in hearing me on, please use the comment section. Other writers’/editors’/publishers’ mileage may vary, and my responses are obviously limited to my own perspective and experience.

How difficult is it to get published?

Pretty difficult and becoming more so each year. The likelihood of your signing a book contract increases, however, if you are able to meet the three following standards to a significant degree:

1. A strong voice

2. A unique or needed message

3. A platform of some recognition

The stronger you are at #’s 1 and 2, the less #3 matters. The stronger you are at #3, the less #’s 1 and 2 matter.

The added problem is that everybody trying to get published thinks they have a strong voice and are providing a needed message. This is true for many but probably not for most.

How can I improve my writing?

Read a lot (and widely).

Write a lot.

Join a writers’ group that provides good, constructive feedback.

What books on writing would you recommend every aspiring author read?

The Elements of Style by Strunk & White

On Writing by Stephen King

There are others I’d recommend based on one’s individual interests and gifts, but those are my two go-to rec’s.

Do I need an agent to get published?

Probably. If you are trying to write for the general market, most certainly. If you’re trying to write for the Christian market, more than likely. Fewer and fewer publishers are accepting unsolicited submissions. It’s not because they hate you or want you to jump through hoops. It’s because the number of people trying to get published increases every year, and it’s simply inefficient and unmanageable to try to keep up with and give a fair hearing to every submission. An agented manuscript has the benefit of a previous editorial filter. The editor(s) know that an agent would not be pitching a book if he himself didn’t think it would be successful. (The agent is not going to pitch work he doesn’t expect will make him any money, in other words.)

Check a publisher’s submission guidelines on their website, if they provide them, or look for their guidelines in the current edition of The Writer’s Market Guide. Some houses still accept unsolicited manuscripts—a few smaller publishers actually prefer them—but if you submit an un-agented proposal, you should prepare yourself for a long wait. Your manuscript is likely to hit the “slush pile” and be sorted through by an intern or assistant.

How do I get an agent?

There are guides and directories listing literary agents available at your local bookstore or via Amazon or even online. See what kind of manuscripts they represent. Look to see what authors they represent, if they list them. This will help you find the right recipients of your query.

Like publishers, agents will list their submission guidelines so you know what material and information they want to see when you contact them.

Do I pay an agent?

Yes and no. You do pay your agent but through your publisher. Agents typically represent authors based on a percentage (usually in the range of 10-20%, most frequently 15%) of the publisher’s payments on works accepted for publication. Sometimes you may need to reimburse an agent for office costs above the norm, but that’s not very typical. I have worked with two different agents over the last ten years and neither has ever charged me anything out of pocket. Occasionally a publisher has neglected to deduct my agent’s commission from their payment to me, which then makes me responsible for sending them a check out of my payment myself. But I’ve never had to pay any fees or anything like that to my agent.

Word of advice: There are lots of folks out there ready to take advantage of aspiring writers, so be on your guard. A reputable agent will not charge you anything to consider your query. A reputable agent will not ask you to pay a reading fee or other fee to consider your work. Reputable agents work primarily on commission. They receive a percentage of any monies you earn on publishing deals, per your contracted arrangement. If you pay them money ahead of time to represent you, you are de-incentivizing them to work hard to get your work seen by editors. And those kinds of agents aren’t well respected by publishers anyway.

Do I pay a publisher?

The above is also true for publishing houses. If a publisher wants you to pay them to put your book in print, it is, as we used to call them back in the day, a “vanity press.” Self-publishing is a growing—and in many cases, legitimate—market but there are, again, lots of places out there poised to capitalized on your ambition for their own interests, not yours. Publishing a book should be win-win for author and publisher. Self-publishing ventures are very often lose-win, with the author getting the short end.

Self-publishing makes the most sense if you already have a platform from which to distribute and market your books (eg. You don’t care about resourcing the general market but prefer mainly to resource your local church or stock a book table at speaking engagements). If you’re going the self-publishing route, do your homework. My guess is that you tend to get what you pay for and the cheaper presses aren’t worth the investment. There’s always Kinko’s.

Should I have a publicist?

Should you be one of the fortunate few to sign a book contract, it may be worth adding the work of a publicist to your marketing arsenal. Many publishers already have staffers designated for this work. Some will hire outside publicists or publicity firms to assist in marketing your book. It always depends on the marketing budget allotted to your book by your publisher. If you’re a new or relatively low-profile author, the bulk of publicity efforts will probably rest on you. If you’re a lower-profile author at a big publisher trying to promote quite a few high-profile authors, you will likely find that most of the publicity efforts are directed in the higher-profile authors’ favor. This isn’t always the case, but it’s normally the case. The growing expectation these days from publishers is that an author will carry most of the weight of promotion themselves. (I know—it feels gross.)

How long does it take to write a book?

Depends on the book, depends on the writer. The publishing process itself is usually run on a track of 1-1.5 years. Unless you are signing a contract for multiple books at once, you generally have 12 to 18 months from the time of contract signing to the time a book finally appears in print. You can generally assume 6 months to write the book and then the better part of a year for all the editorial processes involved in producing the finished product. This is not just because of the physical work of printing a book but because of sales plans, marketing strategies, catalog placement, and a whole host of other efforts that publishers engage in to run their business successfully.

How much input do I have in the editorial process?

Again, this depends on the writer and depends on the project. And it depends on the publisher, of course. Some publishers I’ve worked with wanted a lot of input and collaboration on cover design and the like and some did not. A project is usually assigned a marketing and promotion team in addition to editorial review. Some houses are very open to cooperation; some prefer their authors to trust their design and marketing expertise and hand off direction to them. But nearly all publishers want their authors to be happy with their finished projects, so you will more than likely always see things like book covers, page proofs, advertising copy, and marketing plans for your feedback or approval before they are made official.

Will I make a lot of money writing books?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Probably not. Your agent will be tasked with negotiating an appropriate contract based on your platform, recognition in the market, project strength, priority in the publisher’s catalog, etc. If you are a relatively unknown, you should be prepared for a nice little advance that, if you work hard to promote your book, you could probably “repay” your publisher for and begin to earn royalties over in a couple of years. Most authors I know have no complaints about income generated from their books—a few do, but it’s not my place to air their grievances ;-)—but there is a reason most authors I know have kept their day jobs (and it’s not greed). Most writers do not make a lot of money from book publishing. Again, this is not to say they aren’t appropriately compensated. It’s only to say that the dream of quitting your job to go live in a cabin in the woods and write books is just that—a dream. Many writers, given the amount they make off a book when factored against the amount of time invested in writing, editing, and promotion, could be more efficient earners if they worked on an assembly line down at the local auto plant.

—

Lots of nitty-gritties folks are interested in but don’t want to make a long post longer. If you have a question for me on writing, publishing, etc., comments are open.

Holy vs. Holier Than Thou

How do we become holy without becoming 'holier than thou'?

By actually becoming actually holy.

Holiness and holier-than-thou-ness aren't parallel phenomena. They run on different tracks. If someone is growing in arrogance, pride, and self-righteousness, by definition they are not growing in holiness.

The problem arises in equating holiness with religious behavior. Holy people do obey God, of course. But the character of holiness, in which the Spirit does his progressive sanctifying work in our hearts (and therefore in our thoughts, speech, and actions), produces qualities of humility, gentleness, kindness, and self-control. Any arrogant fool can abstain from certain sins or give to charity and what-not. The Pharisees certainly did that, and all our legalistic contemporaries do too. But that is not real holiness. That is moralistic separatism or some such thing.

Therefore, it is impossible to become both holy and holier-than-thou. To grow in one, is to atrophy in the other.

But I am grateful that while I still struggle with a variety of sins, most especially the root sin of pride, I have God's promise that he will complete the work he began in me, and that Jesus is both the author and the perfecter of my faith.

Politics Ought #NeverTrump Principle

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

– Joshua

I do my darndest not to post on political stuff. I don’t even like engaging in a lot of “cultural commentary,” as I am not fond of letting the headlines drive my writing. I was adamantly opposed to this when I was responsible for a church pulpit each week, and I’m generally averse to it from the bully pulpit we call the blog. But I thought I might share a few thoughts about the current options facing Americans in the foamy churning of our current election cycle, especially in light of the guest post by Nick Rodriguez over at our brother Thabiti’s site yesterday.

Mr. Rodriguez attempts to make a case for Christians’ principled voting for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I say “attempts to make a case,” because I think his reasons are understandable but lacking — especially as it pertains to principle. In fact, his reasons amount mainly to politics — making sure Trump does not win.

I do not want Trump to win. I do not want Clinton to win. At this point it seems clear that our next president will be one of these two. It does not seem at all clear (to me) which one would actually be worse for our country. I suppose that comes down to what you expect your president to do for the nation and for you as a voter. I’m not even sure at this point that one would be significantly worse than the other. They are both terrible options for some reasons that overlap but mostly for reasons that are different. Maybe for you this is simply a case of “picking your poison.”

But not for me. I refuse to play this game. I refuse to see my right to cast a vote as a zero sum endeavor. In my estimation, the operating value in voting Trump/Clinton to ensure Clinton/Trump doesn’t win is not principle at all, but politics. It’s a power move. It’s believing that what matters is party control.

Well, I’m done with that. And I know a lot of evangelicals, mostly the younger ones, are done with it too. The establishment has gamed the system into an utterly corrupted state. Each party has been cruddy for quite some time. We’ve always had to make some compromises, hold our noses from time to time. But now the politickers have gone too far. They want to force our hands, but I am keeping mine in my pockets.

If you’re voting politics over principles, it’s not clear at all that Secretary Clinton, due to being a “known quantity,” should be the clear choice, since it’s theoretically possible that Trump might appoint conservative Supreme Court justices or what-have-you. But the only reason you’d vote for Trump would be to prioritize the politics of power over principles, since this man would arguably be the most unqualified leader of the free world in our history. And both options — as candidates — are, in their own idiosyncratic ways, amoral zeroes. You want me to avoid the race-baiting, womanizing, greedy and boorish dullard by voting for the abortion-consecrating, national security-compromising, rapist-supporting liar? Or vice-a versa? No.

If you’re voting principles over politics, you realize there are more options on the table. Or off the table and out the door and down the sidewalk from the polling center completely. If you want to maintain your right to refuse complicity with institutional evil — and I do not use that word evil lightly — you can vote for a principled third party candidate or you can not vote at all.

I know, I know. That latter option likely has some of you clutching your pearls and thinking of the children. But I don’t care about your pearls. Our children, on the other hand . . . well, they’d be better served by not having to hear that their moms and dads once chose an evil because it had the right letter after its name. If the ship sinks, voters, it won’t be my fault and it won’t be the fault of anybody who votes neither Trump nor Clinton. It will be the fault of all those who vote for either one of these two (no matter which one of them wins). It’s your fault for putting power over principles over and over again and then insisting we all play along and then chastising us when we don’t.

King Nebuchadnezzar once commanded his people to worship an idol. The “clear choice” would be of course to comply. You could sort of cross your fingers, right? Like, you could do it but not really mean it. I mean, better to compromise a little than to die, right?

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” — Daniel 3:16-18

But is it as serious as all that? Don’t we want to win?

I say if it means bowing down, no.

Don’t I care about our country?

Yes. Which is why I cannot support a morally bankrupt candidate to lead it.

Yes, I love my country. But in fact, I love my Lord more. And speaking only for myself, I cannot even think how I might justify to him having compromised my conscience, which is captive to his word, in the pursuit of some fleeting sense of cultural control and institutional power.

“Of two evils, choose neither.”

– Charles Spurgeon

(Photo credit: CNN)

Play Hard

We are not meant to be “perpetually solemn,” according to C.S. Lewis. “We must play.”

This is something children understand instinctively. They don’t even have to be reminded to play. They just do. Part of growing up is realizing that there are times you shouldn’t be playing, of course, but part of growing up ought to be remembering that there are times we should!

The spirit of play is part of the creativity of rest. Little kids get out of breath. They get flush cheeks. They come falling into the door at dinnertime after a long afternoon playing in the neighborhood smelling like little puppy dogs. They have skinned knees and grime under their fingernails. There are rocks in their pockets and grass stains on their sleeves. Their hair is messy and their eyes are wide. It’s hard work playing so well. They cannot wait to get back outside and do it all again. This is all so God-glorifyingly beautiful.

The average eight-year-old boy on your block is a little Michelangelo of play. Take his toys away, and he will make a tower with the cushions, a battleship with a cardboard box. He will have at you with a wrapping paper tube. (And his little sister throws the most delightful tea parties for invisible royalty the likes of which no fairy tale could ever imagine.)

Why is playing hard so important? Because in our play we create and imagine and therefore tap into the very creative heart of God. We echo his story with our narratives of play. This is why on the playground little boys are playing cops and robbers or doing battle and little girls are playing house. They are vanquishing evil, subduing the earth, building civilization. And because all of this effort reflects the heart of the great Author of everything, their hearts never grow weary of it, even if their bodies do. G. K. Chesterton connects the divine dots for us:

Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.  (Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane, 1908), 108–9.)

So we must rest well by playing hard. We must work hard at resting! The author of Hebrews knows our self-justifying exaltation of works, and he challenges us to channel our efforts into seeing the goodness of pausing:

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest . . . (Heb. 4:9–11)

The author of Hebrews knows that getting us to rest can be difficult. He reveals this in his primary focus—getting us to distrust that our work can merit us salvation. And this holds true through the application—trusting that resting well glorifies God and gives witness to the gospel.

We need to remember to play hard. We need to take having fun seriously. This means remembering to do it, for one thing! It means not thinking of rest, play, or fun as beneath us. But it also means being mindful in our rest, play, and fun that these things are gifts from God meant to help us celebrate being made in God’s image as Creator and project in some way the creative story he is telling with the universe.

(This is an excerpt from my book The Story of Everything: How You, Your Pets, and The Swiss Alps Fit Into God’s Plan for the World)