No, I'm not against EVERYBODY.

Since I regularly blow the alarm about the "downgrade controversy" of our day and time, and openly lament the clown-car that American Fundygelismatism has become, I've been called (not surprisingly) "critical", and "negative" and all the other names that usually go hand-in-hand with those.  And I've been asked occasionally, "Don't you like anybody?  In other words, they want to know if there is anyone that I can't find fault with.

Well, I don't agree with anyone 100%, including myself from a few years ago.  That goes with out saying, but I just wanted to make that clear.  But there are several men that I greatly admire and whose ministries I endorse.  I disagree with some of them on (1) the mode and meaning of baptism, with others on (2) appropriate Church music, and with virtually all of the ones that have national ministries, I disagree concerning (3) which Bible translation should be used.  I don't consider those things to be so minor that they don't matter.  But they are not enough to make me against a man for being wrong about them.  In these cases, I either speak of them favorably, or not at all.

On the other hand, there are men that I do agree with on those three things I just named, that are so legalistic they are painful to listen to, and they beat the sheep into submission, haven't a clue as to how the gospel relates to the believer and practical sanctification, twist the Scriptures regularly, and sometimes they even tolerate or repeat downright ridiculous teachings and even the sort of heresies that were being spewed out from the pulpit in Hammond over the last several years. Many times they have confused the faith once delivered to the saints with a laundry list of silly cultural taboos.  I have a hard time giving them a hardy endorsement, even if they do baptize by immersion, use conservative music, and preach from an AV. 

Frankly, I've come to regard a proper distinction between law and gospel to be the ultimate issue over which to make or break fellowship.  I can't formally identify with everyone that understands it, but I can love him, call him brother, and thank God for his ministry.  But I cannot stomach watching a man who professes to be (or used to be) orthodox in his theology getting in an ecclesiastical bed with a notorious word/faith or modalist heretic.  That is a crime against the flock of God, and no amount of nice talk is going to change it.  To do that is an outright denial of the gospel, because it is endorsing a false prophet who preaches a false gospel and worships a false god.

The men with whom I agree the most, that I know personally are not well-known, or even known at all outside of their own associations.  We agree nearly 100% of the time, and what we disagree on is of no real consequence.  The point of this post is not to name my friends.  They know who they are.

But there are some nationally known men with whom I disagree so little (as far as I know, not having spoken with them personally) that I'm fairly certain we would have to talk a long time before we found a place to disagree, and neither of us would care much about it when we found it.  I could be their friend, probably in some limited way (some more than others), and they could be mine, based on common beliefs.

So while I'm not known by many or by them, they are known by many, and by me, and that gives me a point of reference to work from. The nationally-well-known, even outside of their own following guys that I applaud and admire, that can be heard on the radio almost anywhere in the country are R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Alister Begg.

Somewhat less visible, but almost as well-known for other reasons are Albert Mohler Jr., Mark Dever, Voddie Baucham, Steven Lawson, Todd Friel, Phil Johnson, Carl Trueman, Todd Wilken, Michael Horton, Ken Jones, Kim Riddlebarger and Rod Rosenbladt. 

I surely have more in common with the Baptists (Mohler, Dever, Begg, Baucham, Johnson, Lawson, Jones) than the others.  Chris Rosebrough is doing a great service to the body of Christ with his apologetic work, Pirate Christian Radio, and Fighting for the Faith, and the Museum of Idolary.  Todd Wilken's Issues Etc. program is very informative and the guests are usually intriguing and/or delightful.  A frequent guest on that program, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, is so impressive to me that I think I would pee in my pants if I found myself having to argue with him.

I'm sure there are more that could belong on the lists - even with the first three.  Somebody may ask, "What about Tony Evans?" or "What about David Jeremiah?"  What I hear, I think I like.  But I don't hear either of them enough to say that they influence me at all.  The others do.

I'm only stating this to make it clear, and say in public, for the record, that I believe there are many good men, above and beyond my own "circle of cronies", even beyond my denominational confession, that have my deep respect and appreciation, and to give some examples of the type of men that I believe are faithful and commendable.  What little I have accomplished for Christ and His Kingdom is pitiful in comparison to the impact these men are having for Christ and His Kingdom.

Having said that, tossing out the name Jeezuz, while serving up a rat's nest of self-improvement advice and works-righteousness, and pop psychology and group therapy is NOT a faithful, gospel preaching, Christ-centered, Bible-preaching ministry.  And that, I will continue to denounce.

Already Gone, and 10 Reasons Why

I'm working on a couple of ideas for new posts of my own, but to keep this thing going one more week (I'm sure both my readers are checking in every hour or so just to see if I've finally posted again yet), I'll pass on something worthwhile, better than I could have written, by somebody that I knew nothing about before today, and still know next to nothing about other than the fact that he wrote an excellent piece entitled, Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church.  If you find out he's the spawn of the Dragon or something (I doubt it), I'm giving you my caveat in advance.  Surely we can find something wrong with him if we start looking for it.  

Already Gone, Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it, written by Britt Beemer, Todd Hillard and Ken Ham opened my eyes to the fact that a mass exodus is taking place from supposedly Bible-teaching, Gospel-preaching Churches (Not just my own!  How about that.).  I have never thought that they answer they propose (spending more time teaching creationism) was the solution, but the statistical proofs that kids are leaving, and Sunday School, as we've been doing it is part of the problem, were undeniable. 

Mike Horton's Christless Christianity seemed to me to be getting closer to the real problem.  It wasn't that young people were rejecting the Bible because they had the wrong concept of Noah's Ark, but that they had the wrong concept of Christianity as just another ethical system, and one not all that carefully practiced by those that allegedly believed it.  

Thanks go to my daughter Amy for turning me on to this tremendous blog post that encapsulates what I believe to be the real problem.  As usual, the remedy would have to be more of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  

  

Cast out the bondwoman, and her son.

CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN, AND HER SON

GENESIS 21; GAL. 4:21-5:1

There are times we find ourselves despondent.  If we are not actually outcasts, pariahs, alone, unwanted, vulnerable and without a future, we feel very much as though we were.

Sometimes, it's because of other people.  Believers can be cruel, just like lost people.   When I look at Genesis 21, I see a whole ugly lot of abuse going on.  Ishmael abuses Isaac, Sarah abuses Abraham (How many times do you think she said “cast out this bondwoman and her son?”  I would stake my life on it being at least several), and Abraham appears to abuse Hagar and Ishmael.  From a human standpoint, there is really nothing heroic or commendable in anything that we read.  

Sometimes – and I think this is more often the case - we are in bad shape just because of ourselves.  Christians can be stupid, self-destructive, and our own worst enemies, just like lost people. 

But for whatever reason we find ourselves cast out, we aren’t out of God’s sight, or His mind.   We don't always know why we’re put on a hard lonely path, but we do know that God is just, and His purposes are perfect.  So whatever may befall you, or others that may be out there – people that you know about that you really can’t help - you can be certain that God not only knows about it, but that He planned it for some reason, which may be known only to Himself.  That’s all been said before, in Romans 8:28.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

I think there is mutual responsibility here.  Hagar and Ishmael aren’t completely innocent.  You might remember that before Isaac had been born, Sarah had been mocked by Hagar.  The story is given in Gen. 16.  Sarah was so vindictive that Hagar decided to run away with her baby while she was still carrying him.  But the LORD appeared to her, and told her to go back and start behaving herself.

So when we’re wrestling with this story, we have to remember that Hagar had been out of order herself, in the same way (the sins of the parents are usually mirrored in the child) and had been chastened because of it.  That was a pretty close call back there.  She was almost a homeless refugee.  But God sent her back to Abraham and Sarah, with instructions to shut up and stand down.  Apparently, that’s what she did – on the outside at least.

Funny thing though, our kids pick up on our spirit, and they aren’t as good as we are at hiding things.  Ishmael never had to see Hagar mock Sarah.  He could read it in her.  And Ishmael’s attitude toward Isaac was just a Xerox copy of his Mom’s attitude toward Sarah.  She should have stepped up and reigned in her son, but she didn’t, or couldn’t.  And tensions came to a nasty level. 

But be that as it may, it still looks like the punishment is excessive compared to the crime.  Commentators try to justify Abraham’s handling of the situation by pointing out that Hagar obtained her freedom hereby;  food and water were available along the way; without any expensive junk to haul around, they weren't likely to attract attention; and that facing the world, and becoming a man, was not the ruin of Ishamael, it was the making of him. 

Another angle taken is to say that Abraham portrays the parent who must take severe action against an incorrigible child for the good of all concerned.

Those are pretty good, but imagine trying to explain this story to a hostile unbeliever using those explanations.  We believe and love the Bible and can accept almost any explanation to a problem text.  But the skeptic hates it, and will try to find a problem where there isn’t one.  And I’ve gotta tell you that no matter how you come at it, Abraham and Sarah wind up looking awfully petty and vindictive, and Hagar and Ismael appear to be victims.  And the “Friend of God” and “Father of the Faithful”, who did not want to take any action, comes out looking like a hen-pecked Caspar Milquetoast.

He basically had four options - possible solutions to the problem:

-       Get rid of Isaac. Not gonna happen

-       Keep both children.  Have perpetual conflict.  Not a good situation.

-       Try to effect some change over Ishmael.  Also not gonna happen.

-       Get rid of Ishmael.

BUT, as harsh as his actions seem, Abraham is acting according to the promise and command of God, by faith.  And this is even more offensive to the skeptic -

GOD HIMSELF GOES ALONG WITH IT

Now, as difficult as it may be to put up with a woman that has her mind made up about something she wants done until you’ve done what she wants, we don’t think of our God as being subject to that.  I have no doubt that Sarah is systematically wearing Abraham down, but I contend that she’s not wearing God down.  

If I’m right about that, why in the world would God go along with this?  Is there an answer to offer the skeptic?   It’s one more reason to call God names – like “bully” and “despot” – and to say; “I just can’t believe in a God who tells his polygamous friends to turn some of their wives and children out into the street just because they act human and don’t always get along with the favorite wife and child.”  “How can you say that the Bible could be the so-called Word of God when it presents so-called God that tells people to do such terrible things?

Well, of course there is, and I’m pretty sure I know what it is – especially since it ties in to the gospel.

First of all, because He’s going to take care of Hagar and her son.  He made that clear to Abraham.  That may not sit well with the critic either, but God, being real, and being personal, and Abraham knowing that very well, by personal experience of revelation, would not have any trouble taking Him at His word. 

If you were in a similar situation – if you had people living at your house that was causing a constant uproar, and your family was in a constant state of bickering and conflict because of them – you wouldn’t just turn them out into the street, now would you?  I hardly think so.

But what if I came to you and said, “I’ll take care of them, they will not be in any danger, and they will not want for anything as long as they live”;

-       you would believe that I existed and was talking to you,

-       you might believe my good intentions to do as I had promised

-       but you might not be convinced that I could make good on my word

Abraham knew God “face-to-face”, and therefore He had no doubts that

-       God existed and was talking  to him

-       God would make good on His word

The unbeliever who doubts that God exists and that He speaks, isn’t any more inclined to believe that if He does, that He can be trusted to keep His Word.

But, of course, He does.  He keeps His Word, and we have that Word on our laps – at least most of us do.  But may I say to you, that since you and I do not hear an audible voice speaking to us, we have to be very careful about lifting anything out of the Bible and claiming it as “God spoke to me.”  That’s always iffy at best, and it can be very discouraging, even faith-destroying.

But what is clear, and to all, is to be trusted implicitly.  For example, the gospel, the 2 great commandments, the instructions of the epistles.  You don’t have to mine them out of their context and “claim” them as God’s special promise just to you.  They are addressed to some group – and if you belong to that group, they are to you, prima facie.

Secondly, and even more importantly, because He’s going to bring this story out later to illustrate some spiritual lessons that you and I need to understand – and the best way for us to understand most things is with some kind of simile or metaphor or object lesson.  Something that God can point to, and about which He can say, “it’s like that!”  We’re coming to that, but not yet.  I have to yet make a few more remarks about the story as it happened.

Were it not for God’s promises, what Abraham did (v.14) is nearly despicable.  But God had ordered it, and promised His protection and provision.   The lunch Abraham packed for them was sufficient for them to begin their journey. 

“But they wandered in the wilderness!”, someone objects.  But was the “wandering in the wilderness” unnecessary?  Should she have headed someplace on purpose, someplace she was told to go, but refused?  I’m not sure.   But it wasn’t long before they ran out of provisions.   And then, desperation overcame her.

As usual, it was at that point that God stepped in.  He heard their voices.  She had met Him before, and would not have forgotten his voice.  He came with promises, and with provisions, and He did as He had promised. 

So, that’s the story, and a few remarks about it.  But what’s is it really all about?  Some of you can guess.  Most of the rest of you will slap your head and say, “I should have guessed”.  It’s about LAW and GOSPEL.  What else would you have come to expect around here?  More specifically, it’s about the old man and the new man.  But those are law/gospel categories. 

There are numerous and important types in this story.  Four people relate to Abraham (who represents the believer – i.e. you and I), each in a different way

-       Hagar represents law and works.  Her son

-       Ishmael represents what the Bible calls “the flesh” (Men have invented other terms for it, such as “the old nature” or “the sin nature”, and even “original sin”, which I’ve come to prefer over the others).  He was born a slave, born of the flesh.

-       Sarah represents grace and faith, her son

-       Isaac, born supernaturally, and free, represents the new nature.

You cannot have the wives nor their sons combined without having constant turbulence and disorder.  Who is going to be thrown out? 

According to Romans 7:18-23, we have, in ourselves, the same situation.  

Isaac was to Abraham’s household what the new birth, and the implantation of the new nature is to those that are saved.  It’s the start of a war.  The bad news is that the war will be on for some time – probably quite a long time.  But the good news is that the hope and the future were not to be found in Ishmael changed, but in Isaac born.  

When you were born-again, it wasn’t a change in the old nature.  You didn’t suddenly get an infusion of “godly character”.  You got a new man, a new life, and that life is Christ (Col. 3:4).  And the old man can’t be changed.  It continues to be what it was, and is made in no respect better by Justification, or Sanctification.  On the contrary, it seems to want to assert itself even more strongly in opposition to the new man.

Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

You may be able to control it with a rod or a rule, you may be able to dress it up and make it look cultured and refined and put it on display, but isn’t changed.  Not even a little at a time.  Not even a little at all.  That’s why we’re commanded to

Eph 4:22 …put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Here’s the only remedy – put off, or cast out anything that any religious person trying to work his way to heaven might look to as the means to earn it.  The spiritual truth of the gospel that God is allowing all this mess to happen in order to illustrate.  The crooked can’t be made straight.  All attempts at improving the flesh are futile. 

The error in Galatia was thinking that if they added some law to the gospel, they would come out ahead.  “Except ye be circumcised…”  Or in Keswick-speak, or Wesleyan speak, or Holiness Perfectionism speech, “There must be something we can do to ourselves outwardly that will help our sanctification.  Maybe even something irreversible.”  If you take pride in all the outward things you do that you think make you more righteous, especially the ones that hurt, let me ask you – do they hurt as much as circumcision would have, do you think maybe?

The trouble with that outward stuff is that it takes the eye off of Christ and places it on something else as a means to God.  There is no other.  Whatever you think is getting you closer to God, if it isn’t Christ, it’s another way, and you’ve put yourself in the position of climbing up like a thief or a robber. 

So, Isaac must be cast out, along with his mother.  The old man must be put off and the new man put on.  But this leaves the flesh nothing in which to glory.  If Ishmael could be improved, and become more like Isaac, he would have something in which to glory.  But instead, the ugliness of his disposition became more glaringly apparent every day as Isaac grew. 

THIS IS WHAT GALATIANS 4:21-5:1 is talking about

I think one of the reasons God allows this whole ugly episode is to exemplify, not just law vs. gospel, and Sinai vs. Calvary, but also, and very marvelously, to how distasteful the idea will be to us to get rid of the things that Hagar and Ishmael represent for you and I – i.e., Sinai and bondage.  “How could he do that?” is exactly how we react to the idea that our rules and standards and lists aren’t of any use toward real Christian sanctification.

It couldn’t be clearer, and it couldn’t be harder for self-righteous American Evangelicals such as us to swallow.  Believe me, I’m as inclined toward getting this backward as anyone.  But despite all of our natural thinking, the way to continue and grow as a Christian is not to get closer to Sinai and bondage but to get rid of it.  Because, as someone said,

The old nature knows no law, and the new nature needs no law"

I say it kindly, and sympathetically, but you are never going to understand what Paul is saying in Gal. 4:21-5:1 if you cannot allow for the “counter-intuitive implausibility” of it.  I couldn’t – not for a very long time.

If you understand what Paul is saying, your first reaction is to say, “Paul, what have you been smoking?”.  If you don’t get what Paul is saying, and you do get what I’m saying, you’re going to be asking me the same thing.  I know some of you have never heard this in your lifetime.  You’ve been in bondage your whole life to, “This is what Christians do – now go out and do it”, as though you had any ability to do it.  And if what I’m saying makes no sense to you, let me try and explain what will have to happen first. 

You’ll hunt the elusive “victorious life” for years, maybe decades, but eventually you’ll end up just hungry for a spirituality of stillness, contentment and acceptance instead of spiritual competition and wretched urgency.   You’ll eventually get sick and tired of being challenged to do more and feel more and surrender more and to finally rededicate that one wonderful time in such a way that’s going to finally fix the mess that is you. 

Eventually you’ll catch on that you are never in this world going to be anything more than merely human, and that to be merely human means that you can be a “Christian” but that you can never measure up to the myth of the “good” Christian that you’ve heard about in Church your whole life.  You’ll come to grips with the fact that you can neverlive the victorious Christian life the way it’s been preached to you.

You’ll get fed up trying to act more holy, and long to just pray.  By that, I mean, to come to God in a way that isn’t a means to accomplish or obtain something, work a miracle or impress somebody, but just to humbly kneel before your Creator, confess your sins, receive forgiveness, plead for grace and daily bread, intercede for others, and then go in peace; to get off the treadmill, and to lie down in green pastures, after having drunk from still waters, and have your soul restored, and not expect anything in the way of material blessing for having done so. 

You’ll come to understand that you cannot even pray the way I just described without sin finding its way into the event. 

And then you’ll give up, or you’ll finally understand why God brought this allegory to pass, and put it in the Bible, and why Paul cited and applied it the way he did.  You’ll be desperate to understand (in the words of Michal Spencer) “the real spirituality of those whose religion does not make them argumentative, vengeful, belligerent, or bigoted, but makes them beautiful servants of peace.”  And to hope for and pursue a simple spirituality that lifts up, instead of beating down, and doesn’t require any liver shivers to in order to know that God is there, and that He has forgiven you once again. 

You’ll understand just how silly and pointless it was to ever think that your rituals, your cuttings, your meticulous measurements of mint, anise and cumin was ever demanded from you of God.   Hopefully, you’ll learn what it means to be spiritual, and be forever done with trying to show anyone else how spiritual you are.

And after recognizing the havoc that you’ve wreaked after years of hypocrisy and self-delusion, and catch on to the height, and depth, and width and breadth of the mess that is you, you still might be content to defend yourself and pretend to be greater, godlier, and stronger than all the lesser saints, and then you’ll just dry up a little more and become even more critical and frustrated than you are already. 

But you might just tire of the bickering and bloody conflict, and you’ll do just what Abraham did in this little allegory.  You’ll cast out the bondwoman and her son too.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Some recollections about Michael Spencer

As I was beginning to phase out of  the IFB blend of Decisionism, Revivalism, Emotionalism, Legalism, Judgmentalism, and Wesleyan Perfectionism I had been absorbing my entire Christian life, and toward a truly Christ-centered Christianity (and hermeneutic), I needed to know I wasn't alone in my journey out of what Michael called "The Evangelical Wilderness".  That was when, in the providence of God, I discovered Michael Spencer on Pirate Christan Radio.  I've said many times, that while I only agreed with him about 75% of the time, when I did, I deeply wished that I would have been able to say what he was saying.  I probably agree more often than that, but I'll stick with the ratio.  Along with the White Horse Inn guys, Michael in particular greatly helped me sort out the proper distinction between law and gospel, and the role of the gospel in the life of the believer.

Within a year of when I began to listen to his weekly podcasts, he died of a fast-moving cancer.  But the fifty or so that I was able to enjoy were rich and illuminating.  His transparency and candor about his own frailty, "the mess that is me", as he put it was endearing, refreshing, and reassuring.  I never heard him use the term "Simul Iustus et Peccator", but he understood it as well as anyone I have ever encountered.  His book Mere Churchianity was published posthumously, and I would urge everyone to obtain, read, mark, re-read and discuss it.  When I was at a time in my life where the last thing I wanted to hear was another pompous, bloated hyper-fundy gasbag bellowing at me that my problem was that I hadn't tried hard enough to do better enough, Michael was a voice crying in the wilderness, pointing me and so many others away from ourselves, away from the clown-car that is American Fundygelarismatism, and to the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, including ours.

This is my blog, and I can do whatever I want, but I want to be sure that I give credit where credit is due.  So please take careful note.  What follows is one of Michael's classic posts, from Aug. 6, 2008.   The original can be found here.  I'm only reproducing it on this blog in the hopes that it might be read by more people than would if they had to click on the link.

THE SUBURBAN JESUS HATES ME

"I’m trying to not write when I am mad, because I always wind up getting in trouble with somebody, deleting the post and so on, but I don’t think I’m going to calm down about this in the near future, so it’s time to type.

For starters, I am just amazed at why anyone would want to be involved with Jesus unless you were convinced that what Jesus said, Jesus taught and Jesus did was the truth. I cannot understand why someone wants to be involved with Jesus if they don’t either intend to believe and emulate Jesus or at least encourage, assist and applaud those who do. Taking the Christian label and then acting like Jesus was someone from whom we should never take advice or example is incomprehensible.
 
Now I’m not talking about who to vote for in November. I’m basically talking about the fact that if a person follows Jesus at all there is going to be some sacrifice involved. Economic sacrifice. Sacrifice of security. Sacrifice of certainty. If someone wants Jesus without the call to discipleship that means they either a) give up making a lot of money or b) give away your money? Fine, but that’s another Jesus.


Don’t look at me and say that the responsible thing for me to do is follow Jesus, but get in a situation where I can make lots of money. Don’t talk to me about ministry as the big church with the big salary and the big house and the big retirement. I don’t have it. I don’t have anything bad to say about those who do. They stand or fall before God on their own. I just know that Jesus took me out of that career track and put me out here in poverty where he could demonstrate his faithfulness, because I’m going to have to put all my bets on that faithfulness.

Jesus didn’t give me any choices about some things. He simply said “There’s your place, and I’ll take care of you.” I’m not a person who takes that to mean I can’t save money or have a retirement plan, but I do take it to mean that following Jesus dominates the decision of where I am, what I do, and what kind of resources I have.

What I don’t have to do in my ministry is constantly delete sections of the teaching of Jesus and of the New Testament from my Bible. I may not fulfill it, but I can read it and know it’s the real deal in my life. However it’s going to work out, I can say that as much as one can do in America, I’ve come a couple of miles down the long road of following Jesus in the area of money, security and possessions. Not anywhere close to as far as millions of other Christians around the world go every day, but far enough that it scares me, and far enough that when Jesus says he’ll take care of me, I don’t really have a plan B.

I say all this because a recent sojourn into suburbia has reminded me that if one wants to come face to face with the demands and the promises of Jesus, there are just some places you can’t go. Jesus is still the “sponsor,” but the economics, politics, and security of the Kingdom of God are taking a beating over there. Stay very long, and it gets into your head and starts pulling alarms that you’ve actually wasted your life by not having the American Dream.

I’m not in anyone’s face over this, but I don’t get Jesus AND the American Dream. Some people do. Great. I don’t.  The test for me isn’t what the average Christian is doing. It’s what the average Christian has to say about the person who is trying to do it.

I used to get paid by large churches to tell their kids all about Jesus, get them into Bible studies and take them on mission trips- which I choose to be in the inner cities of Chicago and Boston, not the beach. The basic assignment was actually to keep these kids out of drugs, jail and pregnancy so they could go to college, make lots of money and pursue the lifestyles of rich Americans while attending large prosperous megachurches.

I figured this out early on, but I kept telling myself it wasn’t the case. I thought that if one of those kids becomes a serious Jesus revolutionary, going among the poor, giving up the suburban lifestyle, my churches would have applauded.

Then, a few years ago, a church kid from Minnesota came to talk to me. She’d been out of college for a few years, had come to Appalachia to teach English, then taught and coached at our school for a while, after which she took off for Africa for a couple of years. She brought me a letter from her parents where they told her what they thought about her life.

Note: These parents were card carrying suburban American Christians in church. “Nice sermon, pastor.” “Oh the music was lovely today.” “We so enjoyed the youth leading worship today.” All that.
In this letter, the parents honestly said what they thought of this girl. They thought she was nuts. The called all the ministries she worked for abusive, slave labor operations. They begged her to come home, take her college degree into the city and make some money, get a house in the suburbs and find a husband with wealth and security.

And there were good churches up there, too. Churches where she could do whatever it was she was doing.

Hey, I understand what parents go through. I feel their pain. I really do. But that letter told me, once and for all, that I had been right all those years ago, and I’m still on target today when I feel this way. Suburban Christianity is frequently not about an honest following of Jesus. It’s about an edited, reworked Jesus who blesses the American way of life and our definition of normal and happy.


It’s Jesus the sponsor of our beautiful church. It’s Jesus the bus driver of the ticket to heaven. It’s Jesus the guy who wants us to be nice to children. It’s Jesus who presides over all kinds of niceness.
Hey….I can get that from Tony Robbins or Oprah. I don’t need to dilute the demanding, revolutionary promises of Jesus into the suburban American Dream. I can get that life from someone who makes no more demands on me than buying a book.

Churches in suburbia can do so much good for the Kingdom, but when I have to come face to face with a version of Christianity that puts Christ in his place and baptizes all the values of the empire, it makes me angry. It discourages me about what all those nice people are thinking in those beautiful buildings. I know a lot of them send a lot of money to ministries like ours, but if we don’t really believe Jesus is the one for whom we sell it all to buy the pearl of great price, what’s the point?

I also know my own answer. Learn to know the virtues of relative poverty. Learn to see poverty as Jesus and the saints saw it. Keep real poor people in view. Keep real poor churches in mind. Don’t listen to the broadcasted, published propaganda of the suburban Jesus. Read the sermon on the mount. Remember that Jesus is a true revolutionary, and those who want Jesus but reject the revolution always have a nice slide show and plenty of facts and figures.

Remember that to those who are ignoring the game, or eating in the parking lot, or dozing in the sky boxes, the game on the field is just a game. To the players on the field, it’s blood, desperation, hope and perseverance.

So if you’re within earshot of the suburban Jesus and his invitation to have your cake and eat it to, walk away. Walk away with humility, but be decisive and walk away.

Jesus never gave his disciples a lesson on how to explain it all to their families, friends and communities. He just told them that the reaction wouldn’t be positive. And he was right. His own family came to take him home when things got tough (Mark 3) and they tried to kill him in his own home town.

Christian had to leave the City of Destruction with his fingers in his ears, you know.

Thanks, Mike, for blazing the trail.  There are many more on it than when you left, and many more that are pointing to it.  But many of us owe you a great debt of gratitude.