Randy Greenwald

I have found a good apologetic for the importance of church membership. It is a chapter in a book called What Is a Healthy Church by Mark Dever. As far as I can tell, the chapter is not available as a separate downloadable document. However, the chapter can be read for a limited time here. If you have friends who are struggling with this issue, read this or, if you think it appropriate, forward a link to this post to them.

UPDATE: The link seems to only take you to the book and not to the chapter. The chapter in question is “Your Christianity and Your Church” on page 21.

—–

Note: This book, and the other I referred to earlier, were both given to me by a friend. Is he trying to tell me something by giving me What Is a Healthy Church? and Humility: True Greatness at the same time? If the next book he gives me is What to Do when You Are Overweight or something like that, I think I’m going to have to have a talk with him!

Technorati Tags: Church

Convicting words here from C. J. Mahaney from his little book Humility: True Greatness.

“When’s the last time you specifically and sincerely informed your child of an evidence of grace that you’ve observed in his or her life? If it’s been longer than a week, it’s been too long. You have some work to do and something to look forward to.

“If you aren’t faithful to encourage, you can be sure you will eventually exasperate your child. But if you are faithful, then when the times for necessary correction come—and they will come—the adjustment will be far more effective because the environment you’ve created isn’t correction centered, but grace centered.“ (page 107)

Helpful words for those of us who want our parenting, weak as it is, to be full of grace.

Technorati Tags: Parenting, Grace

Are we a “Contemporary” or “Traditional” church? I wish I had a dollar gallon of gasoline for each time I’ve been asked that question. I’d like to answer, “Neither” for though on the surface HPC appears very traditional, we want to break free of both categories.

Why? Well for one thing, contemporary and traditional visions of the ministry and nature of the church often intersect in ironic ways. One intersection occurs at the fundamental nature of outreach. Both the contemporary ‘seeker sensitive’ and the militantly traditional churches act as if outreach occurs when people come to church. (I know this is an oversimplification, but there is an element of truth here.) Both expect non-Christians to come to the church and both assume that that is where evangelism will happen. The contemporary ministry responds to this conviction by making itself attractive enough so that more will come. The traditional church does not change, and so few come. But the expectation is the same for both because they share a common assumption.

It is, however, a flawed assumption.

Rarely will the non-Christian in our day enter a church. He sees no need to do so, and he sees no relevance of the church to his real life. There is nothing he sees in the church which would make him think that the church has anything to offer him. Merely changing the environment of the church from ‘traditional’ to ‘contemporary’ does not change the fundamental attitude that most in our culture share. For that, we must rethink ministry.

That a rethinking is necessary is a point made by Jim Petersen in several books published by Navpress. This quote, from his book Lifestyle Discipleship makes the point better than I could:

“As our society abandons its foundations of biblical religion and gropes its way toward neo-paganism, certain things become obvious. For one, the distance between biblical truth and modernity’s mind-set is widening. Truth of any kind, even the kind that science can offer, is being rejected. Gross contradictions are in. People are creating their own designer religions, and if we happen to object on the basis of reason, it is we who are the bigots. America is as religious as ever, but we are changing gods.

”What this means in practical terms is that our basic strategy for connecting with the unbelieving world is going to have to change. Until now, our assumption has been that somehow, sooner or later, we can manage to get them to come to us. That assumption is becoming increasingly unrealistic. A certain percentage will come, perhaps enough to keep us distracted and even feeling successful, but the vast majority will not. For them, what we do in church is irrelevant.“ (page 27)

The issue is not really whether we are ‘contemporary’ or ‘traditional’ when we are not understanding the mindset of the culture we have been called to reach.

I’m curious what you think. Is this an accurate assessment of the American culture in which we live? If so, what rethinking of ministry does it suggest to your mind?

Technorati Tags: Ministry, Outreach

Barb and I took in two movies this Friday night, which is normal for us. But normally we see both of these at home, with a trip to Starbucks during halftime. The movies help us relax, and the trip to Starbucks gives us a chance to talk. It is a strong routine that works for us.

Rarely do we take in a movie at a theater. But rarely does a new Indiana Jones adventure hit the cinema. So, Friday at 5:15 we entered a completely empty theater for a nearly private screening of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (We were later joined by a girl and her father. The rest of the world was apparently watching Sex and the City that evening.) We spent the next two hours thoroughly enjoying ourselves. Is it over the top? Of course. It’s Indiana Jones. But it was witty and intriguing and an awful lot of fun, a lot of fun that is missed, I think, if seen on a small screen.

It was also lucky. Face it. Indy never makes a false move. He always reaches his objective, and always is standing just outside the zone of real danger. When he is within range of a nuclear blast, he finds a lead lined refrigerator to climb into. Luck. And even though he is nearly blown into orbit by the blast, he emerges unscathed. Luck.

Luck rules adventure flicks. But does it rule real life? Yes, as far as Woody Allen is concerned. That was the focus of our second movie, Match Point. Is it better to be lucky or good? In this film which is far more interesting and watchable than I had anticipated (if you can tolerate the ‘R’ rated elements) it is clear on which side of that fence Allen’s sensibilities lie. There is some wonderful acting in this movie, and it is a story in which one can sympathize with some characters (Emily Mortimer is a gem) and understand others (Scarlett Johansson is more than eye candy; she can act) and despise still others (Jonathan Rhys Meyers – did he win the ‘Best Creep in a Leading Role’ Oscar?). Good storytelling makes one care. I don’t like the answers that Allen proposes to the question. But there is no doubt that many side with him.

An ironic footnote is that some threads of the movie are clearly suggested by Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, which Meyer’s character is seen reading early in the film. One vote for literacy, there!

Technorati Tags: Literature, Movies

To the complete embarrassment of my wife, can I say publicly both “Happy Birthday” and “How did I get to be so lucky?”

Today is Barb’s birthday, the pretty one in this picture. She is here seen with one of her little boys.

It has been publicly reported that she is 23, but we all know that cannot be true. (We’ve been in Bradenton for 23 years, and she was older than 2 months old when we came.) No, in reality she is 32, but she has the wisdom of a woman much older. And the best thing is, given the time, there is still no one in the world that I more enjoy ‘hanging out’ with. What a blessing she has been to me.

The Proverbs ask, “A good wife, who can find?” It’s not so hard. By God’s grace, I wake up next to one every morning.

Happy Birthday, Barb. How did I get to be so lucky?

I know, it’s providence. A wonderful providence.

But I sure feel lucky to have been the beneficiary of such providence!

Technorati Tags: Family

This post is a follow-up to one posted a couple days ago.

The literary background of my readers has become clear. The only two who felt some inclination to respond admitted that it had been several centuries since they last read it.

My response to my correspondent’s angst concerning Crime and Punishment was quick but without a great deal of deep thought. I hope it is sufficient to keep her reading.

Uh-oh. Now I’m in trouble! Sorry you bought it. I could have lent it to you and you could have thrown it across the room and stomped on it.

I did not say that it was a feel good novel! You ought to notice, however, that what Raskolnikov had to do in order to justify the elimination of this ‘unworthy piece of humanity’ was to dehumanize her. He had to redefine her as a louse. (This you will recognize is the logic of the terrorist and the abortionist. Very relevant.) But he ends up dehumanizing himself, and whenever there seems to be a move towards real humanity arising from his soul, he stomps on it.

I’m not sure you will find him an appealing character ever. Redemption is only slight in this novel. But there is yet something sobering and helpful in seeing the humanity that exists in the poor and even the sinful –such as you will find in Sonya.

Anyway, if you read further and still find it troubling, please don’t take this out on me with an axe…

I’d still like to hear the responses of others who have read the book, or of those who have hesitated reading it.

A literary detonation is perhaps not as powerful as a nuclear one, but close!

I have mentioned now and then Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment in sermons. These mentions have been peripheral and slight, but I’ve made no secret that I find Dostoevsky fascinating. So, as it goes, sometimes someone will take me seriously. And that can get me in trouble. Today I received an e-mail (reprinted here by permission):

“Thanks so much for talking about ‘Crime and Punishment’ like it was a classic that needed to be read – I went out and bought it, and now I’m thoroughly disgusted and disturbed!  I’ve only made it to the crime part, where he just bashed in the heads of the mean pawnbroker and her poor simpering sister, and I haven’t cracked it since Monday.

”This better get better….“

Do I detect an ‘or else’ in that last statement? Yikes! I’m not sure now what she hasn’t ‘cracked since Monday’, but I appeal to her to stay away from axes!

I do understand her frustration. The ‘crime’ occurs about one-quarter into the book, and is very brutal and very senseless, but it is an act that is consistent with the philosophic presuppositions of the perpetrator. I did respond to her, but before I share my response, I’d like others of you to take a shot at doing so. I’d like to know what you think.

Technorati Tags: Literature

On Saturday night, the Saturday Night at the Movies crew in our house watched the 2004 movie Saved! in anticipation of discussing this on Sunday morning. I did not really want to watch it, but surprisingly (to me) I liked it.

I liked it for a couple reasons. First, I liked the way it exposed how silly some of our Christian behaviors can be or can appear to the outside world. I liked the foibles it exposed which prevent us from communicating clearly with the world. We can learn from such exposure.

And I think I liked the fact that those pilloried were far enough removed from my own particular slice of the Christian subculture that I could avoid feeling directly attacked and could feel superior to those who are closer to that segment. And seeing that in me hurts. I’m really no different than those mocked in the film. This sense of Christian superiority is the very thing which is exposed, and which I so easily fall into.

As a satire this movie worked, as satire is supposed to have exaggerated characters. But as I’ve reflected on it, I’m left with a couple of less than favorable impressions. The first is that satire of one’s subculture should come from those within the subculture itself. When satire comes from the outside, it can easily be seen as ridicule. I wonder if the producers of this film really intended it to be ridicule, and whether, therefore, we should be more offended than we are that someone would attack some of our own. (No matter how I want to distance myself from those exposed, they are Christians.)

My other concern is this: the film itself, in condemning the preachiness of conservative Christians, cannot avoid the same ‘crime’ of being ‘preachy’. The film ends with a ‘sermon’ about how God made us all different, and therefore we should all be accepted – gay/straight, able/disabled, Jew/Gentile. The only unacceptable difference are hypocritical preachy types. I wonder if the producers can see that they have skewered themselves with their own sword?

Not likely.

Technorati Tags: Movies

I am an emerging blogger.

No, not that kind of emerging. I am certainly not hip enough for that. Rather, I am emerging from under a pile of other stuff to actually compose a post for this blog. I’m doing this because 75% of my readers (that is, three of you) have urged me to do so.

I ceased posting simply because I could not find a time that could be slotted as ‘blog time’. I sense value in posting here. However, there are many things that are worthwhile for a pastor to do. There must be a slot in the schedule for this to happen, if it is going to happen. I’ve not been willing to bump other important things for this.

Part of the time crunch for me has been two of my children getting married in the past eight weeks. That has been something of a (happy!) distraction. But that is only part of the picture.

Some other things have peeled away and has freed up some slots of time, so here I am, back, emerging from the pile I’ve been under.

I will not be as diligent as my energetic colleague Geoff. I aim for at least one post per week, ordinarily on Monday. There will be some eager weeks which will have more, and there will be off weeks when there will be nothing. But if I can meet the small goal, perhaps the goal can be increased.

We’ll see. For those of you who missed this, thanks for the encouragement!

Technorati Tags: Blogging

In response to an earlier post, a friend replied with a question:

“How does an introverted mom of four young children recharge?”

I’ve never been an introverted mom – actually, I’ve never been a mom of any stripe. So, I thought I’d throw this question out for consideration. I know that the number of readers of this blog could probably be crammed into a VW bus with lots of room to spare. However, that does not mean there is not wisdom out there.

The questioner, I believe, recognizes this distinction between the introvert and the extrovert: the introvert recharges, draws renewed strength for interaction with others, by being alone. The extrovert recharges, is energized, not drained, by being with others. What does the poor introverted mother do to find that alone time that she needs in order to regain her energy and perspective?

Here is one idea, though I’m not sure we would recommend it.

Any suggestions, other than large dosages of drugs for the children?