How culture changes

Sometimes God's people need to stand up for just laws and they need to vote out of biblical conviction, says Pastor Mark, but he wants us to be wise and to look at things from a more powerful, biblical, gospel perspective. He talks about sociologist James Davison Hunter's theory on how cultural change is effected, not by majorities, but by powerful minorities, that is, people who shape culture depending upon where they're positioned within it, people who tend to be at the cultural headwaters and can influence the culture that flows downstream.

This clip is excerpted from the sermon "Jesus Is a Better Missionary," part 9 of the sermon series Esther: God's Perfect Work through Imperfect People. It was preached by Pastor Mark Driscoll out of Esther 8:1--17 at Mars Hill Downtown Bellevue and released online on November 11.

Watch the full sermon here: http://jesus.to/TFvGpv
Davison's book that Pastor Mark mentions in this clip, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, is available on Amazon: http://jesus.to/TYpBXJ

Christless Christianity - Dr. Michael Horton

A small portion of a four part lecture series given by Michael Horton on the subject matter of "Christless Christianity."

Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World.

Andy Naselli @ http://theologica.blogspot.com highlighted this forthcoming (Sept. 30, 2008) book:

C. J. Mahaney, ed. Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World. With a foreword by John Piper. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008. 191 pp.

Related to this is a six-part sermon series in 2001 entitled "In the World but Not of the World":

1. Do Not Love the World (C. J. Mahaney)
2. Out of Focus: Christians and the Media (Part I) (Josh Harris)
3. Out of Focus: Christians and the Media (Part II) (Josh Harris)
4. God, Music, and Me (Part I) (Bob Kauflin)
5. God, Music, and Me (Part II) (Bob Kauflin)
6. The Soul of Modesty (C. J. Mahaney)

Three PDFs accompany the series:

1. Half A Poison Pill Won't Kill Me: Thoughts on Worldliness and the Media That Promote It: Josh Harris explains, "This booklet features quotes, both from quoted authors and from the speakers in the series—C. J. Mahaney, Bob Kauflin, and myself. We had many requests for these quotes so that our people could continue to be aware of our calling to be 'in the world but not of the world.' We hope it will help you develop and maintain convictions that will allow you to live a life pleasing to God."
   
2. Modesty Heart Check
3. Testimonies on Modesty

Why is Batman Making So Much Money?

C Michael Patton @ http://www.reclaimingthemind.org reflects on the interesting phenomenon that is Batman: The Dark Knight. The facts:

not only had the largest grossing opening weekend of all time (just over $158 million) but had also been the fastest movie to $300 million (beating out Pirates of the Caribean: Dead Man’s Chest)

With this, he asks: "Why is Batman making so much money?"

Part of his analysis:

In the character of The Joker, our culture looks into the mirror and sees what it is becoming. Nihilism is what it is sometimes called. Nihilism is the anti-philosophy of a world that has no hope, no motives, no standards, and no values. The Joker is the Nihilist who believes in nothing, cares for nothing, and pursues nothing. At one point The Jokers says, “I have no plans. I am like a dog chasing a car. I would not know what to do if I caught it.” There is no rationalism because there is no such thing as order, reason, or ends that create purpose. It is just the moment, and the moment is ruled by randomness.

Our postmodern culture may see itself in the character of The Joker. Like a person who has not seen his face in many years, we are going to the mirror to take a look.

Is our culture nihilistic like The Joker? This is a good question that I cannot answer. What I can say is that we have been heading in that direction for quite some time. John Hannah calls this age the “age of despair.” The Joker is the next step. It is when the despair turns to apathy and we are what we are and we don’t care what we become. With the deconstruction of morals, truth, knowledge, revelation, and the like, is it any surprise that so many people are going to look in the mirror?

The Death Culture Strikes Again

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

A rise in suicide among the young seems to be tied to the emergence of on-line suicide sites that offer advice and encouragement to kill oneself. The Telegraph [London] reports that, as an example, one village in Wales has seen a significant spike in suicides among the young.

Patrick Sawer reports that Internet "suicide gurus" in Europe and the United States are encouraging vulnerable people to end their lives. Some offer detailed advice on technique. Others simply offer strong encouragement to commit suicide. Apparently, a growing number of young people are visiting these sites and following the advice.

As Sawer reports:

One of the most notorious figures on the internet suicide scene is Nagasiva Yronwode, a self-confessed satanist who runs a shop selling occult books and charms in the small Californian town of Forestville, north of San Francisco.

Yronwode, 46, describes himself as the "outreach director" for an extremist cult called the Church of Euthanasia, which advocates suicide as a means of saving the world from the effects of overpopulation.

Writing under the name Boboroshi, he has edited a suicide guide, which details various methods. Yronwode's own website contains links to online suicide discussion boards and forums.

He told this newspaper: "The guide is there to make it easier for people who opt for suicide to carry it out. The purpose of my information is empowerment for competent human beings who have an interest in ending their lives. What's the problem with that?

The approach of the sites might seem unlikely to influence many visitors toward suicide, but the fact is that many visitors are obviously troubled and in a state of mind that is open to the suggestion.

From the report:

Paul Kelly, co-founder of Papyrus [a group seeking to prevent teen suicides], whose 18-year-old son Simon killed himself after visiting a suicide website, said: "There is a growing number of parents out there who can say the internet has played a role in the deaths of their children.

"The internet offers factual advice which is accessible within seconds. This is particularly dangerous with young people, who often work on impulse.

This seems to be an important point. The impulsiveness of the young, combined with access to sites like these, can lead to deadly disaster. Many parents underestimate the dangers of the Internet and allow their teenage children (and sometimes even younger) virtually unrestricted access to Internet sites.

The Internet is an incredible technology and information system, but it brings as many dangers and benefits. Wise parents will see this warning as another reminder that teens and children should not be allowed unrestricted access to computers and the Internet. Put the computer in a visible place -- not in the teen's bedroom -- and use filtering and tracking software.

After all, you don't want your children to be reached by the "outreach director" of the Church of Euthanasia.

Engaging Culture and the Supremacy of God (pt 1)

By Tony Reinke @ http://spurgeon.wordpress.com

I’m personally interested by discussions over how to engage culture. The discussions seem to challenge one’s theology and methodology all at the same time.

And so I was recently drawn (of all places) back to Calvin’s Institutes. Last year we opened Calvin and studied his thought and theology. As a man ministering under a hostile climate, Calvin applied theology to his contemporary culture. Though separated by centuries and continents, I’ve learned to respect Calvin on matters of engaging culture.

In an age where the message itself is molded by the contours of culture, worldview interpretation needs an unshaken, eternal context. It seems Calvin was aware of this, too.

Self-knowledge

Calvin was aware that for genuine Christian piety to take root, our worldview (and even our self-identity) must be rooted in the character of God. It’s in Him that we see our own sin, and in Him that we see our frailty, in Him that we see our need for the Savior.

Notice Calvin’s opening words in his magnum opus—“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”

We find eternal truth by looking at ourselves, not because we are the final reference point, but because in ourselves we can feel and experience the miseries of personal sin. We feel the “teeming horde of infamies” and are driven by our “unhappiness” to long for something outside of us. It’s in our perception of our personal sin and misery that this proper self-knowledge “not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.”

By saying that we know God by first knowing ourselves is not Calvin’s attempt to make man the centerpoint of theology. Calvin uses self-knowledge of personal sin and unworthiness to point us towards God. By pointing us towards God, our reference is pushed beyond the sphere of cultural fluctuation.

By knowing ourselves truly, and assessing ourselves honestly, we are faced with our own frailty, sinfulness, unhappiness, and misery. Self-knowledge drives us to God.

Theology

Calvin’s next section opens with these words, “man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.” By starting with God, and working backwards to interpret my heart, I will discover the hypocrisy or the “empty image” of self-righteousness. In the light of God’s holiness, I see my sinfulness and the rebellious tendencies of my wicked heart. As Calvin says, “man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty.”

See, the ultimate reference point for my life is not “me.” It’s not my preference, and it’s not the shifting cultural interpretations of God. The ultimate reference point for my life, my soul, the church, and the eternal hope of our generation, is found in the supremacy of our eternally unchanging God as he reveals himself.

Calvin illustrates this point by looking at the self-effacing, self-discovery of Job. You’ll recall Job’s self-understanding and perspective gets turned on its head after God asks the questions. As Calvin says, “The story of Job, in its description of God’s wisdom, power, and purity, always expresses a powerful argument that overwhelms men with the realization of their own stupidity, impotence, and corruption (Job 38:1-ff).”

It was not in dialogue with friends that Job discovered himself. God’s one-way communication about his supremacy brought about Job’s true self-discovery.

I’m not opposed to communicating carefully to our culture. Certainly, we need to be sensitive to our hearers. But I would also argue what makes us relevant to contemporary culture is a commitment to explaining the supremacy of God (i.e. the priority of one-way proclamation in preaching).

Next time we’ll look at an example of how the preaching of the supremacy of God dominated the engagement of one non-Christian culture.

Engaging Culture with the Supremacy of God (pt 2)

By Tony Reinke @ http://spurgeon.wordpress.com

In the first post in this series we noted the supremacy of God and how a proper theology unlocks our true self-identity. Job learned this lesson. On the other hand, the only way a sinner can preserve a life of unbelief is to suppress the true character of God. The Apostle Paul explains this in the opening chapter of Romans.

How amazed I am that God broke into the life of this Pharisee so I could behold his supremacy, see the depth of my sin, be broken, and embrace the cross as my only eternal hope! In nothing I’m saying in these posts do I want to self-righteously stand over those in unbelief. It’s only by God’s grace that I’m saved. I hope you feel the same.

Let me move on to a broader topic.

As important as it is that we identify with the contours of culture I think we would be mistaken to miss the reality that an honest understanding of God precedes an accurate self-identity. Calvin was right here. And so at some level it seems perplexing that we exert so much time identifying with those who remain yet un-self-identified. We should become all things to all men, yet in loving those in our culture I believe includes helping those in our culture develop a self-identification. And this self-identification is forged by the un-suppressed supremacy of God—a work of grace through Scripture.

Supremacy of God in culture

But let me get into a specific illustration. Today I want to take this principle of self-discovery in light of God’s supremacy into one specific non-Christian cultural context. I don’t think there’s better illustration in Scripture than Paul’s sermon in the Areopagus in Acts 17:16-34.

After having a look around Athens—a city “given over to idols”—Paul was summoned by the city’s intellectual elite (v. 16).

The content of Paul’s address is striking. Here we find no lengthy philosophical defense of monotheism. Paul opens with no apologetic for his source of ultimate truth (Scripture). Amazingly there is no mention of the cross, either (though we can assume Paul got to this point quickly with those who followed him after the sermon). As we listen in to the message we hear a clear, bold, and blunt exhortation of the supremacy and transcendence of God.

We cannot miss the content of Paul’s engagement of this non-Christian culture.

Paul tells them God is not created but the creator of all things (v. 24). God is not domesticated and caged into religious temples (v. 24). Nor is God like some idol produced by human crafting (v. 29). God needs nothing from us. In fact, we receive all from him and it’s only in him that we live and move (vv. 25, 28). God has planted all the races of the earth and marked out the boundary lines of the nations (v. 26). God is over all. And this God is sending his judge (Christ) back into these races and nations to punish all unrighteousness (v. 31).

Paul preaches to the Athenians that God was before them, God planted them, God is free from them, God is the reason for their existence, God now reigns over them, and God is returning to judge them. Wow. Notice how Paul, in expressing the supremacy of God, defines this supremacy in relation to those in the Athenian culture! Paul is helping them to form a true and biblical self-identification in light of God’s supremacy.

I take Paul’s example to mean that into arenas of intelligent non-Christians, God’s spokesmen are commissioned to speak boldly of God’s supremacy. Which is to say our faithfulness (and fruitfulness) does not hinge on the closeness for which our theology conforms to cultural expectations, but rather on the faithfulness of our articulation of the thrice-holy God in his transcendence above culture.

This preaching of God’s supremacy as the hope of culture is challenged (as you would expect). In 2005 a prominent emergent church figure published a book on preaching with the aim of replacing the terminology of one-way communication in the church (like “preaching” and even “speaking”) for the phrase “progressional dialogue.” Obviously, his intent was deeper than clarified semantics.

In Acts 17, Paul had the perfect opportunity for “progressional dialogue” and he chose to “preach” the supremacy of God. His example lives on for us today.

Theology of Theology

In part I want to see my generation of Christians develop a theology of theology. What I mean is that in our day the term “theology” has become a synonym for our articulation of God. This however is not, strictly speaking, an accurate definition. In Revolutions in Worldview (edited by W. Andrew Hoffecker) John Currid writes,

“The term theology—a combination of two Greek words: theos (god) and logos (word)—in the biblical worldview is not a word about God or man’s thoughts about God—what some people call religion—but properly speaking is God’s word to man about himself.” (p. 43)

Our engagement with contemporary culture is theological. As our reference point, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-glorious, and eternal God ultimately transcends cultural influence and contemporary analogy. It’s helpful to remember that theology is not merely how we can explain God, but how God has chosen to explain himself. As Job discovered, God is not interested in “progressional dialogue.” God is interested in proclaiming his supremacy and he uses preachers and pulpits to this end.

John Piper notes in his excellent book The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Baker, 1990):

“The keynote in the mouth of every prophet-preacher, whether in Isaiah’s day or Jesus’ day or our day, is ‘Your God Reigns!’ God is the King of the universe; he has absolute creator rights over this world and everyone in it. Rebellion and mutiny are on all sides, however, and his authority is scorned by millions. So the Lord sends preachers into the world to cry out that God reigns, that he will not suffer his glory to be scorned indefinitely, that he will vindicate his name in great and terrible wrath. But they are also sent to cry that for now a full and free amnesty is offered to all the rebel subjects who will turn from their rebellion, call on him for mercy, bow before his throne, and swear allegiance and fealty to him forever. The amnesty is signed in the blood of his Son.” (p. 23)

And earlier Piper wrote,

“I don’t mean we shouldn’t preach about nitty-gritty, practical things like parenthood and divorce and AIDS and gluttony and television and sex. What I mean is that every one of those things should be swept up into the holy presence of God and laid bare to the roots of its Godwardness or godlessness.” (p. 12)

Well said.

Conclusion

I’m aware that preachers should think carefully about applying Scripture to their cultural scenarios. But we need to admit the content of the biblical proclamation has probably never fit nicely into any cultural context. In every age and in every culture, God alone is the final reference point for us to discover the nature of sin, the health of our souls, and the source of all our good.

The preacher who proclaims the supremacy of God from the pulpit will be classified as culturally irrelevant. It’s not just the preacher but the theologian, too (as we will see next time), who feels the pressure to relinquish God’s supremacy in cultural engagement.

—————-

Related: Read part one of this series here.

Life in the Cellular Age

From Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

Scientists around the world are noting a change in the human body. The average human being now has a more powerful and accurate thumb. Why? As Edward Tenner, author of Our Own Devices: How Technology Remakes Humanity, explains, this phenomenon can be traced to the use of those tiny buttons on PDAs and cell phones. We are now using our famed opposable thumbs like no previous generation.

As Tenner reports, the current generation of young people in Japan are called the oyayubi sedai -- the Thumb Generation. The trend is not limited to Japan. Just look at the next American teenager you see.

Fully a quarter of all Americans now use cell phones as the exclusive phone and have no land lines at all. A technology that is barely 20 years old has radically reshaped the way we live and communicate -- and the pattern is different among generations.

On Christmas Day, National Public Radio featured a fascinating report on "Three Generations' Use of Cell Phones." The report, available in both audio and partial transcript here, is an excellent piece of cultural observation. The report's focus on a young teenager is especially insightful.

"Americans spend, on average, seven hours a month talking on their cell phones, but that figure doesn't capture how much the cell phone has become a part of our lives," the report begins. "It is, as one researcher put it, "a second skin"-- itchy at times and prone to blemishes but something that increasingly we can't imagine living without."

More:

Quite simply, the cell phone has altered what it means to make a phone call.

"You call a person and not a place, and that makes all the difference," says Richard Ling, a senior researcher with Telenor, a Norwegian telecommunications firm. The cell phone, untethered to a fixed location, enables "micro-coordination," he says.

The cell phone is changing the way we view time, argues reporter Eric Weiner:

In other words, we can make plans on the fly. What used to be a firm appointment is now something softer and constantly open to negotiation. Researchers have found that people with cell phones are more likely to be late for appointments than people without--a phenomenon they are just beginning to understand. If we can always call to say we're running late, then we are never actually late. We're simply renegotiating our estimated arrival time.

In his final analysis, Weiner argues: "Like them or not, cell phones are fast evolving from luxury to necessity. Opting out of the cell-phone universe is becoming less of a viable option." As James Katz of Rutgers University adds, "You're a problem for other people if you don't have a mobile phone."

In the audio segment reported by Chana Joffe-Walt, three generations of one Seattle family are considered -- a grandmother, mother, and 14 year-old daughter. Their respective understandings of the cell phone are very revealing.

The grandmother was given a phone for safety reasons, but gave it back. She simply did not want to use it. The land line phone is just fine for her.

The mom uses the phone as an organizer for the family. In many homes, Mom's cell phone is now the nexus of family communications -- sort of an air traffic control, emergency broadcasting system, and counseling service combined in a little box of wires.

The real user of the cell phone is the 14-year-old daughter. Teenagers now live on cell phones, Joffe-Walt explains -- but they are now more likely to "text" each other than to make a call. In any event, the imperative is to communicate all the time about everything.

As Joffe-Walt reports:

"When you're 14, there are rules to the cell phone starting with you need to have one. . . Always answer that phone, take your phone everywhere, do not turn it off not even in the movies or while you're sleeping. And folks, please, know the correct phone medium for the kind of conversation you'd like to have. Most importantly, communicate constantly, where you are, what you're doing, who you talked to last, what you're wearing, what you'll wear tomorrow and what just happened 30 seconds earlier.

Well, it turns out that Molly Tokuda, the 14-year-old featured in the story, ran up some unauthorized bills and had her phone confiscated by mom. As Joffe-Walt concludes, "Barb [Mom] is not worried about Molly's survival. She says it may just be that a cell phone is a freedom Molly's too young to handle. Grandma Tokuda says a cell phone is a freedom, she doesn't want. And at the moment, neither grandma nor Molly have one."

Edward Tenner reminds us that our technologies shape our lives, and sometimes even our bodies. The cell phone has become an essential instrument of our hypermodern age. It has also become a hallmark of adolescent and young adult life. Parents should follow the example of Molly's mom and set limits for teenagers and children. Something of importance is lost when young people think that what happens on the cell phone is more important than what is happening around them.

Two Perspectives on the Bible and Contemporary Issues

From Albert Mohler@http://www.albertmohler.com

This week, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS has featured two different perspectives on the Bible and its relevance to contemporary issues. On Tuesday, Ray Suarez interviewed Dr. Peter Gomes, Minister of the Harvard Memorial Church and Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard University, about his new book, The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus.

On Wednesday he presented an interview with me about my new book, Cultureshift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth [due to be released January 15].

The audio versions of the segments are available online, as are full transcripts of the interviews. Dr. Gomes' book is worthy of a full review, which will appear here in coming days. I appreciate the fact that Ray Suarez and The News Hour dealt with both of us far above the level of soundbites.

In his interview, Dr. Gomes presents this argument:

But I would think that, if Jesus came today, the people he would be most interested in dealing with would be homosexuals, racial minorities, people who would be thought to be less than the most upright and righteous people in the contemporary community. If the New Testament is any model, that's where he would hang out.

I agree with that statement, in the sense that Jesus did indeed associate with sinners in his earthly ministry, very often scandalizing the self-righteous. Jesus came to save sinners, and He was opposed by those who trusted in their own righteousness.

Where Dr. Gomes and I profoundly differ is about what Jesus would say to these on the margins of society. I believe that Jesus would offer grace and redemption to those associated with any sin -- but He would also call for repentance and a turning away from sin. When it comes to an issue like homosexuality, this is where Dr. Gomes and I are in profound disagreement.

It all does come down to what we believe about the Bible. Thanks again to PBS, Ray Suarez, and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer for treating this issue with respect.

_______________

Video and audio versions of the interview with Dr. Gomes can be found here, along with a transcript. Video and audio versions of the interview with me, along with a full transcript, can be found here.

TV Commercials of the 2007 Christmas Season

by Chris Baskind @http://snarfd.com

For children, it’s visions of sugarplums. But for the men and women who create the ads we see every day, Christmas represents a chance to trot out their best work during the year’s most important retail quarter.

It’s not as if Christmas is difficult to market. There’s plenty of opportunity to sell on emotion. The visual iconography of the holidays lends itself to warm, attractive advertising. And a little humor never hurts.

At snarfd, we’ve been taking a look at this year’s best commercial offerings. While a couple of us have fairly extensive backgrounds in broadcast and advertising, we’ll be honest: we’ve tossed aside the marketing rulebooks and chosen the ones which made us smile.

So … the envelope, please! Here are snarfd’s picks for The Five Best TV Commercials of the 2007 Christmas Season:

5. Apple Macintosh Computers. What sells this ad is the faithful reproduction of all those 1960s stop-motion TV specials. Santa (and the oddly conical pine trees in the background) seems to have been abducted from “Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer.” You expect to see the Abominable Snowman at any moment. As an aside, even though we’re an all-Mac shop here at snarfd, we still like the Windows guy best.

4. Tesco. The UK’s big box giant scored a marketing coup getting the Spice Girls to play hide-and-seek in their spot this year. Tesco has always carried a bit more cachet than, for instance, Wal-Mart. It’s no accident they’ve got Posh front-and-center. This ad is attached to a short news commentary on how Tesco pulled it all together.

3. Macy’s. This one had better make Macy’s registers ring, because it couldn’t have been cheap to produce. Emeril Lagasse, Donald Trump, Usher, Martha Stewart — and a surprisingly charming Jessica Simpson. Her sheepish “My bad!” closes Jessica’s Terrible Year™ on a high note. There’s some very strong copy writing to wrap it all up.

2. Oxfam. If you thought Jessica Simpson was cute in the Macy’s spot, wait until you see the star of Oxfam’s 2007 offering. We mentioned the group’s Christmas appeal last November: Oxfam’s attempt to link giving with specific low-cost, high-return investments they’re making in the developing world. Perhaps Oxfam Unwrapped might be a good last minute gift idea for someone on your Christmas list.

1. John Lewis. If you’re not in the UK, you may not be familiar with John Lewis Department Stores. But this was an easy choice for snarfd’s Best Christmas Commercial of 2007. It’s a fine piece of film making: unexpected, whimsical, and visually striking. Before you ask, the music is from Prokofiev’s “Romeo and Juliet.” We’re betting Prokofiev CDs find their way into a lot of Christmas stockings this year.

Happy Holidays from all of us at snarfd.

Making every child unwanted

From http://www.geneveith.com

Mark Steyn writes about a new convergence of “pro-choicers” and environmentalists, a movement he calls anti-natalism:

Here’s something new that took hold in the year 2007: A radical antihumanism, long present just below the surface, bobbed up and became explicit and respectable. In Britain, the Optimum Population Trust said that “the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers – in other words, human beings,” and professor John Guillebaud called on Britons to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have.

Last week, in the Medical Journal of Australia, Barry Walters went further: To hell with this wimp-o pantywaist “voluntary” child-reduction. Professor Walters wants a “carbon tax” on babies, with, conversely, “carbon credits” for those who undergo sterilization procedures. So that’d be great news for the female eco-activists recently profiled in London’s Daily Mail who boast about how they’d had their tubes tied and babies aborted in order to save the planet.

“Every person who is born,” says Toni Vernelli, “produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases and adds to the problem of overpopulation.” We are the pollution, and sterilization is the solution. The best way to bequeath a more sustainable environment to our children is not to have any.

What’s the “pro-choice” line? “Every child should be wanted”? Not anymore. The progressive position has subtly evolved: Every child should be unwanted.

By the way, if you’re looking for some last-minute stocking stuffers, Oxford University Press has published a book by professor David Benatar of the University of Cape Town called “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” The author “argues for the ‘anti-natal’ view – that it is always wrong to have children … . Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct.”

Warning! :: Sesame Street 1969 is Not Suitable for Generation Z

From http://churchrelevance.com

Culture has certainly changed over the past 40 years. The New York Times reports that DVD Volumes 1 & 2 of “Sesame Street’s” original episodes come with the following warning:

These early “Sesame Street” episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.

Why? According to Executive Producer Carol-Lynn Parente, Cookie Monster smokes and eats a pipe during “Monsterpiece Theater.” And other characters may seem too grouchy, depressed, slow, or drugged. The NY Times also notes:

On the very first episode, which aired on PBS Nov. 10, 1969 — a pretty, lonely girl like Sally might find herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted, Gordon just wanted Sally to meet his wife and have some milk and cookies, but . . . well, he could have wanted anything.

The DVD warning is a reminder that our culture has become much more politically correct over the years and our streets have become much more dangerous for children. From a ministry perspective, what worked 40 years ago certainly seems out of place today.

1969 Sesame Street Intro

Recent Sesame Street Intro

As New Fads Emerge

By Phil Johnson @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

This is a continuation of our series on “The Fad-Driven Church.”

According to the cover article in November’s Christianity Today [2004], the next big fad is already on the horizon. It’s the “Emergent Church” movement—seeker-sensitivity gone to seed. It’s Saddleback for postmodernists—Willow Creek to the tenth power, for the pierced and tatooed generation. The most influential people in the Emergent Church movement are people who have consciously and deliberately abandoned the authority of Scripture.

Like all good postmodernists, Emergent Christians hate clarity and precision. They despise authority, and they detest certainty. They say they don’t want answers; they want mystery. They don’t want to be preached to; they want a conversation. They don’t want to have to judge whether something is orthodox or heretical, true or false; they want to create their own spiritual reality, and they want to be affirmed while they do it. Unfortunately, the evangelical movement has plenty of people who are willing to affirm all of those things.

At last year’s Emergent convention in San Diego, one of the speakers, Doug Pagitt, pastor of an Emergent Church known as Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, told Emergent church leaders he is convinced preaching is no longer a viable methodology for worship or evangelism in a postmodern world. “Preaching is broken,” he said.

Postmodern people don’t trust authority figures. They don’t want to hear someone stand up and expound the Word of God. It’s unhealthy, he says. It’s abusive. “Why do I get to speak for 30 minutes and you don’t?” he asked.

He went on: “A sermon is often a violent act. . . . It’s a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it.”

Let me say this: That epitomizes the direction all these fads are moving. The fad-driven church cannot be a church governed by the Word of God. If you get your direction by seeing which way the winds of change are blowing and following the prevailing trend, you are being disobedient to the clear command of Ephesians 4:14, which instructs us not to do that.

The way the wind is blowing these days is not good. The doctrine of justification by faith is under attack on several fronts. In England at the moment, there’s a huge controversy brewing because one of the most popular and well-known young British evangelical media figures—a man named Steve Chalke, published a book last year titled The Lost Message of Jesus. In it, he attacks the doctrine of original sin. He denounces the principle of penal substitution, suggesting that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement as evangelicals have historically understood and proclaimed it amounts to “cosmic child abuse.” He insists that God would never punish His Son for other people’s offenses. On page 182 of the book, he asks, “How have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent His anger and wrath [against sin] on His own Son?” How have we come to believe that? I’ll tell you how I came to believe that: because the Bible says so (Isaiah 53:10): “It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. [He made] His soul an offering for sin.”

The problem is, in the contemporary, fad-driven evangelical culture, almost no one is left who is both equipped and willing to answer a view like that. Someone decided several years ago that the word propitiation is too technical and not user-friendly enough for contemporary Christians, so preachers stopped explaining the principle of propitiation. Now that this idea is under attack, we have a generation of leaders who don’t remember what it meant or why it’s important to defend. And the overwhelming majority of British evangelicals have rushed to Steve Chalke’s defense, claiming his critics are just overweening negativists who are behind the times and out of touch with this postmodern era. The leadership of the evangelical alliance in England are busy wringing their hands about the “tone” of the debate and the “unity” of their movement—and frankly if things follow the historical pattern, ultimately very little will be done to stem the tide of heresy this book has already unleashed. (And you can be sure that the same ideas will be making the rounds of the evangelical movement in America soon. There are frankly already lots of people in American evangelicalism who are eager to challenge the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. This has been one of the main items on the Open Theists’ agenda for several years.)

Something seriously needs to change in order to rescue the idea of historic evangelicalism from the contemporary evangelical movement. And here’s what needs to change: A generation of preachers needs to rise up and be committed to preaching the Word, in season and out of season, and be willing to ignore the waves of silly fads that come and go and leave the church’s head spinning.

Scripture is better than any fad. Preaching the Word of God is more effective than any new methodology contemporary church experts have ever invented. I don’t care who thinks preaching is “broken.” If we would get back to the clear proclamation and exposition of God’s Word, everything that’s broken about contemporary preaching would be fixed.

The Church Should be Counter Cultural: Al Mohler

9Marks on the Church and the Transformation of Culture

From the latest 9Marks e-newsletter:

Coming Soon to a Planet Near You: Lausanne III
By David F. Wells

Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on Church & Culture
We asked a roundtable of pastors and theologians whether Scripture calls the local church to the work of cultural transformation. Answers from Thabiti Anyabwile, John Frame, Michael Horton, David Jackman, Jonathan Leeman, Aaron Menikoff, Philip Ryken, Tony Payne, and Stephen Um

Transforming Culture with a Messiah Complex
By Michael Horton

You can read the whole e-zine in PDF.

John Piper Names a Few Problems We Face Today

Concerns for a Generation of Christians

From http://www.newattitude.org

Justin Taylor: One of the things I’m most concerned about is our lack of understanding biblical doctrine and then how to apply it and communicate it in a winsome and humble manner. We can talk about our “passion for God’s glory,” but do we know how to explain why the Trinity is essential even though that word doesn’t show up in the Bible? Do we know how to explain that God isn’t made up of three parts, that he isn’t a person who wears three hats, that he’s not three Gods? Do we know how to define justification? To explain the relationship of faith and works—how we are saved by faith alone, but yet if we don’t have obedience we won’t go to heaven? Do we know how to explain that Christ is one person, not two people—and that he has two natures, not one? Does Jesus still have a body—is he still human? We may know that the Bible is without error, but can we explain why this must be the case, and how to explain apparent discrepancies?

In other words, I think we’ve got the purpose of life right (to glorify God and enjoy him forever). But I’m not so sure we’ve yet let the truth flow down from the top of this glorious pyramid. Without a foundation it cannot stand. As a generation of younger believers we not only need to sing and teach and rejoice in God’s ultimate purpose, but also to do the same with the “whole counsel of God.”

Along with biblically informed doctrine, we need to do a better job of learning how to express it. That, of course, is the purpose behind “humble orthodoxy.” And in order to achieve that, we need to first commune with God. Few have said it better than my theological hero John Owen:

When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth,—when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us,—when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts—when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for—then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men. (Works, I, pp. lxiii-lxiv [my emphasis])

Eric Simmons: My concern is that my generation of believers may be looking in the wrong places for direction and guidance in the pursuit of God. When I couple the desire for all these great and noble things with our generation’s biblical ignorance, my concern is heightened, because if we are not turning to God’s thoughts on these subjects for guidance, then what are we turning to? Are we turning to novelty? Are we turning to teachers who have causes and who love to inspire others to join the cause? Are we arrogantly reacting to our parents’ generation and what they said Christianity is supposed to look like? In other words we know what we don’t want our Christianity to look like, but we don’t know what it should look like. Being reactionary can be dangerous, and that is typically what well-meaning passionate people tend to do. They can build something new based on reaction and not deep thought.

For me, I see this as huge potential for our generation. If we can match our desire for authenticity with a passion for God’s revealed truth, then I think our generation is going to build strong churches that reveal the gospel like none this country and this world have ever seen. It’s an exciting time to live in and it’s the reason why we are so dedicated to spreading humble orthodoxy.

Thabiti Anyabwile: In some quarters, I am concerned about how some Christians view the local church itself. It seems to me that views of the church can run from "the church is irrelevant" to "let's experiment wildly." Both of these viewpoints, and many in between, fail either to take seriously the centrality of the local church for living the Christian life or the sufficiency of Scripture in defining life inside the church. There is a tendency, I think, to take liberties where Christ has not given them (where he has spoken clearly), loosening the commands of Christ and extending the permissions of the Lord. Here's a case where novelty is dangerous. We ought not to be bound by tradition for tradition's sake, and we ought to enjoy every liberty Christ gives (of which there are many), but we also need to be careful to observe all that He has taught us. And one thing that is hard to miss in the New Testament is the centrality of the local church for living a vibrant, healthy, and fruitful Christian life.

Joseph Stigora: I have a concern about an indecisiveness or a non-committal tendency. You can say, "Let's have a party at my place tomorrow night" and get the enthusiastic response I mentioned before. But when you call to ask someone to bring some Doritos (or your choice of non-hydrogenated oil snack food) ... they're not sure if they are coming, they might go to a movie with their cousin, some friends are going rock climbing ... they are keeping their options open ... but if they do come, they'll bring Doritos. That same attitude can leak into the church. They are excited to be there, love the music, authentically express themselves and are affected by truth ... but they are not sure they can serve on the communion team because their friends all go out for lunch after the service and they don't want to miss that ... they're not sure they want to be a member yet ... they want to take some time before they commit...

Obviously, this doesn't represent everyone. But I have noticed that my own indecisiveness is often just selfishness that wants to keep my options open in case something more attractive pops up in my schedule. I am seeking grace to repent and fight. We would do well to examine it as a tendency in our own lives and ask ourselves about why we do it ... and then passionately seek to change for the glory of God.

Leithart on “The Pagan West”

by JHG @ http://www.inlightofthegospel.org

Peter Leithart has a new article published by First Things. The article is an interesting examination of the need to “re-paganize” the West. After noting the success of the Christian faith in the early church and in the modern Southern Hemisphere, Leithart says,

Re-paganizing the West means acting on the premise that, for all our pretense of sophistication, the West has never entirely escaped the impulses and habits of primitive culture, or that, by escaping Christianity, we are reverting to it.

I think this is a profound insight into our culture. Again, Leithart says that we need to recognize “the continuities between pagan and modern habits and learning to call them by their traditional names. If a rock concert looks, smells, and sounds like a bacchanal, why not call it that, with all the religious overtones that go with the name? If the rock star elicits frenzy, why not call him a shaman?”

Part of Leithart’s point is also that the church has given too much to modern culture, especially through the influence of Kant. Since Kant “moralized and modernized sin, atonement, justification, and the Church,” we have given much of our Christian life away to the Enlightenment worldview, all in the quest of relevance.

Shall we sell our birthright for a mess of faddage?

by Phil Johnson @ http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com

As I started to say ...

Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" share at least one glaringly significant trait:

For the most part, these are the fadmakers. They are the cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable. They are the designers of the programs that are peddled by the out-of-control Christian publishing industry and purchased and implemented with little critical thought or concern by hundreds of thousands of people in the movement that calls itself "evangelical."

• Rick Warren, who heads the list, is the chief architect of the currently-dominant fad, "Forty Days of Purpose" and all the other Purpose-Driven® spinoffs.
  
• Tim Lahaye is the "theological" mind behind the best-selling fad of all time—the "Left Behind" series.
  
• J. I. Packer and Richard John Neuhaus have been the prime movers in the ecumenical fad—probably the last bandwagon we would have expected evangelicals to jump aboard 20 years ago.
  
• Bill Hybels masterminded the "seeker-sensitive" fad.
  
• Brian McLaren basically took Hybels' strategy ("contextualizing" the message for the extant culture) to the next level. McLaren is the leading figure in the "emergent church" fad.
  
• James Dobson is the most powerful figure in the "culture war" fad.

Too bad for Bruce Wilkinson that Time didn't do this piece two years ago when the "Jabez" fad was still hot, or he would have almost certainly been near the top of this list. The fact that he didn't even get mentioned is a testimony to how fleeting the fads can be.

Fifteen minutes of fame

Someone will almost certainly challenge whether it's right to label all those trends and programs "fads." But that is exactly what they are. They are popular for the moment, but they have nothing to do with historic evangelicalism or the biblical principles that made evangelicalism an important idea.

Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard's movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven® merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.

Yes, if the lessons of church history mean anything, even the "emerging church" phenomenon is a passing phase. In a short time (probably short enough to be measured in months rather than decades) the hype will be focused on something else entirely. Most of the stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date as it currently seems well-suited to the fashions of the day.

As a matter of fact, the "emerging church" is a classic example of a fad that has to pass from the scene. It is, after all, self-consciously a product of contemporary culture. Those who love it have a clear preference for that which is timely over that which is timeless. Like everything that is dated, it will soon be outdated. (And even if emergent leaders try their best to remain fluid and keep pace with cultural changes, they will fade into irrelevance. No "contemporary" movement in history has ever managed to remain contemporary for much more than a generation.)

Christians, of all people—and evangelicals most of all—ought to understand these things and build their movements around timeless truth rather than passing fashions. See Colossians 3:2.

How post-evangelicalism gave birth to the Fad-Driven® Church

So why has the recent culture of American evangelicalism—a movement supposedly based on a commitment to timeless truths—been so susceptible to fads? Why are evangelical churches so keen to jump on every bandwagon? Why do our people so eagerly rush to buy the latest book, CD, or cheap bit of knockoff merchandise concocted by the marketing geniuses who have taken over the Christian publishing industry?

To borrow and paraphrase something the enigmatic Dissidens recently blogged (see "Remonstrans"), evangelicals and fundamentalists alike "have a genuine affection for the ugly and the superficial, whether in their art, their preaching, or their devotion." A few years ago, marketing experts learned how to tap into evangelicals' infatuation with the cheap and tawdry and turn it into cash.

Some of the beginner-level fads have seemed harmless enough—evangelical kitsch like Kinkade paintings, Precious Moments® collectibles, singing songbooks, moralizing vegetables, bumper stickers, Naugahyde® Bible covers, and whatnot. Such fads themselves, taken individually, may not seem worth complaining about at all. But collectively, they have created an appetite for "the ugly and the superficial." They have spawned more and more fads. Somewhere along the line, evangelicals got the notion that all the fads were good, because the relentless parade of bandwagons gave the illusion that evangelicals were gaining significant influence and visibility. No bandwagon was too weird to get in the parade. And the bigger, the better.

As a result, several of the more recent fads have been downright destructive to the core distinctives of evangelical doctrine, because most of them (Promise Keepers, Willow Creek, and the various political and ecumenical movements) have taken a deliberately minimalistic approach to doctrine, discarding key evangelical distinctives or labeling them nonessential. All of them adhered to a deliberate strategy that was designed to broaden the movement and make each successive bandwagon bigger and easier to climb onto.

"Bandwagons"? Somewhere along the line, the bandwagons morphed into Trojan horses.

Some of the very latest fads (represented by groups like Emergent, Oasis, and the "open theists") are utterly hostile to virtually every evangelical doctrinal distinctive. They have already launched major frontal attacks on essential doctrines like substitutionary atonement, original sin, and justification by faith.

How tabloid-journalist moguls took control of what you are offered to read

I have been involved in publishing for most of my adult life, and I love the historic influence Christian literature has made on the church. But the Christian publishing industry has changed dramatically in recent years. Companies once run by godly Christians have been bought out by powerful secular media czars and made part of massive business empires. Marketing, not ministry, is the driving force behind most of the industry these days.

Christian publishers have eagerly and deliberately fomented evangelicalism's bizarre craving for more and more fads and programs. Trust me: no one loves the Fad-Driven® Church more than the Profit-Driven® publishing industry.

There are some blessed exceptions, of course. There are still a few good and godly men who still have influence in Christian publishing. But they are relatively rare. They are drowning entities in an industry that is out of control. If you don't believe me, visit the annual convention of the Christian Booksellers' Association, spend an afternoon on the display floor, and take inventory of the dross that dominates the evangelical marketplace. It seems almost everything currently in style—and everything that hopes to become the next great evangelical fad—is tacky, trashy, and trivial. And the unscrupulous cheapjacks who manufacture and peddle this stuff hype their rubbish with marketing machines that rival anything in the secular world.

When it comes to books, have you noticed how few truly timeless and significant volumes are being published? That's because nowadays, decisions about what to publish are driven by marketeers who have little concern for the spiritual or editorial content of a book. I have sat in meetings with publishers while their marketing experts vetted concepts for new books. "That one's too biblical." (Those are the exact words one of these Christian kitsch-peddlers actually once said in my presence to a roomful of nodding experts from the Christian publishing industry. He was talking about a book proposal from a well-known Christian author. The book was later published anyway and went on to become a best-seller despite the professional marketers' almost unanimously tepid feelings about it.) Christian publishers have even been known to remove biblical content from books by Christian authors (especially books on leadership, parenting, and similar topics perceived to have "broad secular appeal"). The marketing specialists think de-Christianized books will appeal to a bigger audience.

That is precisely how all these fads are crafted. Content is deliberately dumbed down—purposely made soft, generic, and non-threatening. The message mustn't threaten anyone's comfort zone. It also doesn't rebuke anyone's sin; it won't embarrass anyone's worldliness; it and it isn't going to challenge anyone's shallowness. That's the way both the publishers and the people want it.

That is the culture the evangelical movement deliberately created when it accepted the notion that religion is something to be peddled and sold to consumers like a commodity. That was a major philosophical shift that created an environment where unspiritual and unscrupulous men could easily make merchandise of the gospel. It created a whole generation of pseudo-evangelicals, who are like "children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men" (Ephesians 4:14).

That's a perfect biblical description of the faddism that has overtaken the evangelical movement in recent years.

---

Fads and Fixtures:Ten Deadly Trappings of Evangelism

From The Evangelical Outpost @ http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com

"Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of 'The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals' share at least one glaringly significant trait," says Phillip Johnson, "For the most part, these are the fadmakers." Phil goes on to list a number of "cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable", including the usual suspects such as Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye, and explains why their programs are fads:

Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard's movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven" merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.

Like Johnson, I'm concerned about the way in which evangelicals tend to embrace whatever trends and kitsch happen to be hot sellers at "Christian" bookstores. But while Johnson laments that most of the "stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date" I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is nothing more than a passing trend. It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny while fixtures remain largely unquestioned.

The following are ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes.

#1 Making Converts -- I've always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion much less helping make true disciples.

#2 The Sinner's Prayer -- The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner's prayer." I've searched through the entire New Testament and can't find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can't be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it's far, far, too late.

#3 "Do you know Jesus as…" -- In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. "I'm, yeah, actually I have." I finally managed in reply.

"Oh," he said, visibly disappointed. "Okay, that's good." He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never saw him again.

This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.

#4 Tribulationism -- Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" -- an overemphasis on eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I'm sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.

#5 Testimonies -- Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn't enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn't much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead?

#6 The Altar Call - In the 1820's evangelist Charles Finney introduced the "anxious seat," a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting "the anxious may come and be addressed particularly--and sometimes be conversed with individually." At the end of his sermon, he would say, "There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord's side." The problem with this approach, as theologian J.I. Packer, explains is that,

The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment, as Finney supposed; and it is God's prerogative, not the evangelist's, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe. For the latter to try and do so, by appealing to sinners to begin believing here and now, is for man to take to himself the sovereign right of the Holy Ghost. It is an act of presumption, however creditable the evangelists motive's may be. Hereby he goes beyond his commission as God's messenger; and hereby he risks doing incalculable damage to the souls of men. If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God's name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will come forward and accept directions and "go through the motions" and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. So a crop of false conversions will result from making such appeals, in the nature of the case. Bullying for "decisions" thus in fact impedes and thwarts the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is "false conversions," hypocrisy and hardening. "For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to "decide for Christ" at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.

My friend Jared Bridges has pointed out another reason for me, as a Baptist, to despise the term "altar call": We don't believe in transubstantiation and we don’t burn offerings, so we have no need for an "altar."

#7 Witnessing -- Evangelism ain't Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.

If you want to be a more effective "witness for Christ" then start by doing what Christ did and love other people. Start by loving the "unlovable" -- the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not "witnessing." In the context of the Christian life, "witness" should be a noun more often than a verb.

#8 Protestant Prayers -- Last week one of my fellow coworkers, a young Catholic man, was asked to open our meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the "Lord's prayer." Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn't say what how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.

First, I'm not used to hearing prayers that don't contain the word "just" (as in "We just want to thank you Lord…") so it had an odd ring to it. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to's in with some Lord-thank-you-for's and be- with-us-as-we's in a coherent fashion before toppping it all with an Amen. Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous--from the heart, off the top of the head--emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain't original, it ain't prayer, right? Can I get an amen?

But where did this idea come from? We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn't that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like His example? (And if you are wondering what prayer is doing on a list of evangelistic fixtures then we are really in trouble.)

#9 The Church Growth Movement -- Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I'm wrong? Ask the next person you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next 100 people you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples. (If you do find someone who says that then smack 'em upside their head with a Scofield for they're a Purpose-Driven Liar.)

#10 Chick Tracts -- Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact--and yes it is a fact--is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner' Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.

The term evangelism derives from the Greek word evangel--"good news." So it's rather odd how so much evangelism appears to be about "selling" Jesus and hoping that you can convince the unsaved heathen to buy into salvation. This was the way I had been taught during Vacation Bible School classes at the First Baptist Church of Fire and Brimstone. Pass out Chick tracts, recite the canned "how to get saved" speech, get them to say the sinner's prayer. Above all, close the deal. They may die at any time and their souls would be lost to eternal damnation if I didn't "make the sell." By the age of eight I was a cross between Billy Graham and Willy Loman.

Whenever I began to seriously read the Gospels, though, I noticed something strange. People constantly flocked to Jesus despite the fact that he never passed out a single tract. He would walk up to people and say "Follow me" and the next thing you know they're giving up their lives to follow him around the countryside.

The people responded to Jesus the way they did because he is God. He is what our hearts have always been seeking. When we come face to face with him we may accept or reject him. But we can't not know him. Calvin claimed that there is an awareness or sense of God (sensus divinitatis) implanted in all people by nature. The context of this universally distributed belief being rather minimal: there is a God, He is the Creator, and that He ought to be worshiped. The Gospel, though, fills in the essential details.

We evangelicals don't need tools of evangelism. We don't need fads and fixtures. We don't need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style.

(Note: The last time I posted this article, I ended up caving into peer pressure and admitting that maybe this stuff ain't all that bad. Two years later I find that I conceded too much. I've modified my stance a bit and clarified a few points of contention. But I really do believe that these "fixtures" have become detrimental to the making of disciples. Am I wrong? I'm open to hearing counter-claims.)