There is a lot of talk about the gospel these day. Yes, it's all gospel and gospel-centeredness, and yet many are still fuzzy when it comes to defining the good news of Jesus Christ.

In my Missional Church class at ReTrain this week, I share some thoughts on the gospel. Why? Well, I believe that what you believe about the gospel will be the foundation for your understanding of the mission.

To do that, I first reviewed some gospel definitions assembled by Trevin Wax at his blog Kingdom People. You can find a PDF and lists by names by clicking this link. Then, I shared a few of them (at first I did not identify the source). You can download a PowerPoint of the ones I shared here: Gospel Definitions.ppt. I took some pleasure in watching the students agree (at times) with the definitions from people with whom they disagree.

As I explain in this post, whenever I teach on the missional church, it is always an opportunity to talk about the Gospel since I tend to present the ideas around:

What is the Gospel?
What is the mission?
What is the church?
What is the Kingdom?

So, we began our definitions at ReTrain by having the cohorts make a definition and report back. Here are those gospel definitions...

The Gospel is the good news that God has sent his son Jesus Christ into the world in order to reconcile Creator to creation, which will renew all things and he has done all this through Jesus' perfect sinless life, bloody atoning death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. - Admin Cohort's Definition

Our glorious God created everything we know. We, his creation, rebelled seeking our own glory and deserving the full wrath of God. The gospel is the good news that Jesus lived the life we should have lived to the glory of the Father. He died in our place, for all our sinful, false worship. Through Jesus, by the power of the Spirit, we live a new life to His glory. As we behold the glory of Jesus we are transformed to look more like Him, united in the Church as His body through which his kingdom is advanced making all things new.
- Worship Cohort

God created man in His image to glorify Him
Mankind rebelled against God in sin
The gospel is the good news of Godʼs provision of redemption
Through the atoning work of Jesus the Christ
Who died in our place for our sin on the cross
Rising from the grave to conquer Satan, sin and death
Giving new life to all who by grace
turn to Him in repentance and faith
Calling them to a life empowered by His Spirit
To accomplish the mission of His kingdom
To the glory of His name
- Campus Pastor Cohort

The gospel is the power of God for salvation of everyone who believes. Through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection God overcomes sin, sin's consequences, Satan, and death and subjects all things under his feet. And, in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, God is reconciling the world to himself.
- Biblical Living, Family and Community Group Cohort

God redeems fallen mankind through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which regenerates individuals through the Holy Spirit and renews all of His creation as He establishes His Kingdom.
- Church Planting Cohort

The Gospel is the truth that Jesus Christ, God the Son sent from the God the Father, empowered by God the Spirit, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the atonement of sinners, and rose from the dead triumphing over satan, sin, and death in accordance with the Scriptures.
- Acts 29 Church Planting Cohort

One of the key issues is this question: Is the gospel only God-Man-Christ-Response or does it include elements of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration. I think it is interesting how the worship leaders cohort differed from the Acts 29 church planting cohort (and, I should add, there was a "minority report" from the Acts 29 church planting cohort that wanted to include a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration focus).

In class, I shared this article, on the difference between the gospel and the effects of the gospel, with the class. D.A. Carson and I discussed it recently while I was teaching at Trinity and I like it. Carson explains:

If the gospel is the (good) news about what God has done in Christ Jesus, there is ample place for including under "the gospel" the ways in which the kingdom has dawned and is coming, for tying this kingdom to Jesus' death and resurrection, for demonstrating that the purpose of what God has done is to reconcile sinners to himself and finally to bring under one head a renovated and transformed new heaven and new earth, for talking about God's gift of the Holy Spirit, consequent upon Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high, and above all for focusing attention on what Paul (and others--though the language I'm using here reflects Paul) sees as the matter "of first importance": Christ crucified. All of this is what God has done; it is what we proclaim; it is the news, the great news, the good news.

For another view, see Scott McKnight in Christianity Today's Out of Ur blog. Also, Matt Chandler makes a case for including both God-Man-Christ-Response and Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration in his SBTS chapel message (including mentioning some helpful warnings about how we speak of others "tribes" in the church).

Below is the definition I am using. I am still tweaking and revising it (but trying NOT to make it longer). If Packer can define the gospel as, "God saves sinners," I figure we should be able to do it in a paragraph!

Anyway, here is what I am using today:

The gospel is the good news that God, who is more holy than we can imagine, looked upon with compassion, people, who are more sinful than we would possibly admit, and sent Jesus into history to establish His Kingdom and reconcile people and the world to himself. Jesus, whose love is more extravagant than we can measure, came to sacrificially die for us so that, by His death and resurrection, we might gain through His grace what the Bible defines as new and eternal life.

I chose not to include the response to the gospel ("repentance by grace through faith alone," for example), but just tried to focus on what the gospel actually is. I edit it regularly as I try to grasp and preach the gospel to myself.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to share your own definitions or interact with the ones listed here. Then, I will learn and edit mine!

"Kids these days."

The Barna Group has released a new study that explores the how different generations of American adults view and use the Bible. And guess what - it turns out perspectives are different!

Barna groups those surveyed into four generations, broken down as follows: the Mosaic generation refers to adults who are currently ages 18 to 25; Busters are those ages 26 to 44; Boomers are 45 to 63; and Elders are 64-plus.

Not everything is wildly different between these generations. In fact "a majority of each of the four generations believes that the Bible is a sacred or holy book." Shocking. Ok, not really. But another commonality is that "millions within each of the generations report reading the pages of Scripture in the last week." That is more interesting to me.

Similar proportions of the generations embrace the most conservative and most liberal views. For instance, the "highest" view of the Bible - that it is "the actual word of God and should be taken literally, word for word" - is embraced by one-quarter of Mosaics (27%), Busters (27%), and Boomers (23%), and one-third of Elders (34%). The extreme view on the other end - that the Bible is not inspired by God - is embraced by proportions that are also statistically close to one another, including Mosaics (25%), Busters (19%), Boomers (22%), and Elders (22%).

Of course there are significant differences between the generations and their perspectives on Scripture. The Barna Group summarizes that the younger generations show the following changes in thought as it relates to the Bible:

Less Sacred - While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

Less Accurate - Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

More Universalism - Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

Skepticism of Origins - Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

Less Engagement - While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off - the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

Bible Appetite - Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders.

Go and read the report at Barna.com, and then head back here to talk about it. What does this shift in perception mean for the church? On the one hand we want to affirm that "the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God," but what will our part be in showing the younger generations, particularly the unchurched, the nature, value and use of Scripture? What is your church doing to help younger generations develop a healthy, biblical view of Scripture?

I have never been that guy who geeks out over Bible study software. I've always been old school. You know, I'd go with the hardcopy, printed editions of study helps and commentaries. These large, multi-volume works have taken up shelf space in my study/office for at least 20 years. And come on, who doesn't like shelves lined with books? It's a great aesthetic for a study.

Needless to say, heading out to study for my sermon at a coffee shop or a park was next to impossible. Well, unless I stuffed my bag so full of books that the zipper began to pray.

The Logos Scholar's Library: Gold has changed the way I study, where I study and the results of my studying. I am consistently impressed with it and thought I would share my review here at the blog.

Yesterday, I found out that 218 churches got our small group study kit, "Compelled by Love: A Journey to Missional Living" in one week. That's pretty exciting and intimidating-- in one week, 281 churches started using our resources to help their people live missional lives. We are glad to hear that churches are studying missional living and honored they would use our resource.

Go to lifeway.com/compelled to see the kit. The webpage has a promo trailer and you can watch the first session to get a feel for the study. Go here to see the work book and download a preview of the first chapter.

This week, the pastor search committee of my church announced that they have a candidate. Assuming that goes ahead, I will be finishing up as "interim Teaching Pastor" there in early August. It is a great church and I will miss delivering my messages there. But, I am, after all, an "interim" and eventually that comes to an end.

Here are some pics of the church from a recent blog post (see that post here).

So, that leaves me one message before the new pastor comes "in view of a call."

I should probably explain what "in view of a call" means. It is a common expression in low church evangelical circles where churches vote on the man who may serve as their pastor. For some of you, this will make you a little nervous. You want some elders to make that appointment-- after all, they know better.

Well, let me explain how it works in low church evangelicalism.

First, before the church really starts looking for a pastor they establish a Pastor Search Committee. (At this church it is called a "Pastor Selection Committee," a term that makes it a little confusing since they don't actually "select" but rather "nominate.") The Pastor Search Committee is elected by the church and does the hard work of finding a pastoral candidate whose gifts and personality will best serve the body.

Second, the PSC starts working by consulting other leaders and pastors, listening to on-line messages, listening to the church family through surveys and listening sessions, visiting churches, and contacting potential pastors. In a church like ours (with about 8000 members) that takes a while. For example, the PSC had over 50 listening sessions with church members.

Third, the PSC prays a lot and seeks to discern whom to ask to be considered. Once they are in agreement they approach that person.

Fourth, that person, after much prayer and examining the church, eventually agrees to be nominated by the PSC to the church (which happened this week).

Fifth, If the church votes "yes," the pastor then comes "in view of a call." In other words, they come to preach with the intent ("in view of") being called as the pastor.

But, for you non-congregationalists out there (who need Bibles, grin), the church actually votes to call the pastor. After the vote (which usually has to be 75%) the candidate is then informed of the results and agrees to come (or not). Then, the nominee is no longer a nominee and informs his church that he is leaving to pastor another church.

Then, the interim packs up his books and gets out of the way. ;-)

That will leave me with three or four messages after he accepts that call but before he comes and starts as pastor. I need time to pack up those books, after all. ;-)

So, my question for you is this: what should I preach on for this Sunday and then for the next several? Any suggestions? I can work through a text or share a series of texts, but I am very open to suggestions and believe that in many counselors there is wisdom.

First, what should I speak on NEXT week, July 5-- the week before he comes in view of a call. (I am out on July 12th and my friend and co-author Philip Nation is speaking that day.)

Second, what should I preach on after (and assuming) the church calls and he accepts on July 19th. The congregation votes that evening and, assuming the vote is positive, he is then to start his transition and i will bring several more messages. So, what can I preach on pointing to the new pastor.

Jump into the comments and share your thoughts.

I recently had the opportunity to engage the public concerning exclusive truth claims at USA Today. Is there Only One Way? was the topic - one that I obviously am passionate about, and one that many who attend church appear to be confused about. You can read the introduction here, and I am reproducing the article here on my blog. If you want to follow the conversation that followed in nearly 100 comments be sure to go directly to the USA Today site.

Is There Only One Way?

Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a survey regarding the beliefs of Christians and their views on entrance to eternal life (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/reports_2). The first article released by Pew included these findings:

"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)."

I wrote about this issue on my own blog (www.edstetzer.com) in "Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?" as a response to an earlier Pew Research project (http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/06/are-evangelicals-really-univer.html).

Our team at LifeWay Research (and many others) felt the definition of "religion" might lead, for instance, some Pentecostals to say that Lutherans can find eternal life through their "religion." In other words, some would hear "religion" and think "denomination." (Pew, as a professional organization, always releases the questions they ask and such analysis and questions are normal in our field.)

So I (and it appears many others) contacted the good people at the Pew Forum to share my concerns. They were gracious to listen to my concerns and subsequently re-asked the questions in a follow-up survey with a more closely worded query. In their most recent study (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380), I believe they have asked better questions and brought the issue into a sharper focus.

In their new study, Pew research states that 65% of all self-identified Christians believe eternal life can be obtained through a non-Christian belief system. Furthermore, they found that 80% of that group can "cite an example of at least one non-Christian religion that can lead to salvation."

In summary:

Pew Study 1: In the first study, Pew posed the statement, "My religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life, OR Many religions can lead to eternal life," asking respondents to agree with one or the other (or neither), to which 57% of members of evangelical churches agreed with the latter. (from the full report: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)

Pew Study 2: In the follow-up study, Pew still used the word "religions" in its survey questions, but followed-up with clarifying questions for respondents who indicated that many religions can lead to eternal life. They write, "All respondents who say 'many religions' were asked whether Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism can lead to eternal life . . . In total, therefore, each respondent had the opportunity to name up to four non-Christian faiths." They then found that 80% of self-identified Christians who agreed that many religions can lead to eternal life actually cited at least one non-Christian religion that leads to salvation.

The refinement between the two studies is helpful. With the clarifications and follow-ups added to the "many religions" language of the survey, we can be more certain that Christian respondents were not comparing apples to a different brand of apples, so to speak. By actually citing non-Christian religions that they believe can lead to salvation, Pew has done well to remove the concern that "religions" could be misconstrued by Christians as including other Christian denominations.

Theologians call people with such views universalists or pluralists.

Universalism is a term with a wide meaning, so let me define it as the belief that there are multiple means, ways, and methods to gaining an eternal reward or salvation from the divine being after death. (Some argue a difference between universalism and pluralism, but they overlap in many ways and most news stories used the term "universalism.")

Only one group from the Pew research fell into a majority view when it came to the issue that eternal life can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ--white evangelicals at 64%. All other groupings and evangelicals as a whole were shown to believe that actions are necessary to obtain eternal life.

The Pew article said, "The poll also finds that roughly one-third of Americans (30%) believe that whether one achieves eternal life is determined by what a person believes, with nearly as many (29%) saying eternal life depends on one's actions."

Looking at this (and other) data tells us a few things: Americans are very universalistic, self-identified Christians are mostly universalistic, evangelicals are somewhat universalistic. (Those who report evangelical beliefs are slightly universalistic and I will address that later.)

To further the discussion, let's talk about the core issues of exclusivity of beliefs and how that affects culture, religion, and human interaction.

How do you view those who hold such exclusive beliefs? Why do you think that people increasingly seem to hold universalistic and pluralistic beliefs?

Let's make it personal, as well: Many faiths believe there is only one way to God, heaven, righteousness, etc. If you are a person of faith, does your faith teach that? If so, why does it matter?

So far we're getting a lot of positive feedback from our most recent book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and The Churches That Reach Them. We're grateful that so many ministry leaders from so many different places are finding it to be a helpful resource.

I've talked about my friend and co-author, Jason Hayes, in some past posts related to the book or to "Threads," LifeWay's Young Adult initiative. Jason is a smart guy with a passion for connecting this generation to God and the church. Despite his serious influence in this movement, you'll see below that he's also got a sense of humor and that he knows how to do a blog tour well (with no input from his victims, it appears).

I was going to beat on him like a low hanging pinata on Cinco de Mayo but he used the word "missional" so it was OK. ;-)

Watch the video and then check out Blemished.

I must confess that I find many things perplexing in the Christian life-- why does God not always heal?, why are there so many without Christ?, and many other questions. But one question has been really troubling me lately: why do Christians lie about each other so much?

I first noticed this several years ago. I found that speakers came where I served and misquoted and mischaracterized those they did not like (in this case and at that time, it was primarily contemporary churches). So, rather than criticize or challenge (which I think is fine) they build their case up with falsehood, or as the 9th commandment puts it, they "bear false witness," or as I will put it, they lie.

John Wesley said bearing false witness is "speaking falsely in any matter" including "lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbour," or to speak "unjustly against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his reputation." Of course it's not always that men are out to ruin another's reputation, but they care nothing of ruining another's reputation in the pursuit of making their point.

This malady seems to be everywhere, but it is surprising to me how common it is among the most conservative of Christians-- those who speak often of their belief in the authority of Bible. People like me. We are quick to defend the authority of God's word, but are not always as quick to apply what it say about lying to our own words.

It struck me most forcefully when I saw one well-known polemic pastor bear false witness against some friends of mine, be confronted on it, admit he was wrong, and then not publicly address, retract, or apologize for what he said. My guess is, even if he had corrected himself publicly few would have noticed, and fewer would have thought it a big deal. The truth is that "all is fair" in some wars.

We often give one another a pass when someone bears false witness because they were being passionate for truth; or at least for a truth that they believe is being attacked. John Calvin said, "slander is often praised under the pretext of zeal and conscientiousness. Hence it happens that this vice insinuates itself even among the saints, creeping in under the name of virtue."

And, to my own shame, I think I began to notice it more when I saw the lying directed at churches like mine. It is funny how I did not care as much about all the 9th commandment issues until some of those 9th commandment issues were directed at me. That shows my own carnality. And, it left me wondering how many times I had carelessly provided a false witness before I was sensitive to it.

The benefit of experiencing some of these false allegations is it sensitized me-- and convicted me that I had not been careful in my own speech.

But it's important to note that if we are going to take the 9th commandment seriously we have to do more than not lie-- we must tell the truth, and even defend those who are being lied about. So, occasionally, I have defended the victims of false witness. In some quarters of my denomination and other conservative evangelical expressions, those lied about are often church planters and contemporary or emerging church pastors. (One of the reasons so many contemporary pastors have left my denomination is that they were tired of being misrepresented and caricatured from the platform of the denomination they supported-- something I believe is changing.)

Even people with whom we have differences need to be spoken of truthfully. Although I am not where Bill Hybels is on some issues, this past summer I wrote about the need to be truthful about Willowcreek and their Reveal study in my monthly Outreach Magazine column and here at the blog.

The same goes for people as diverse as Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren, and Jeremiah Wright. Regardless of how much we disagree and how passionate we feel, in all cases, people should be spoken of truthfully, even when we are disagreeing with them.

We cannot not let a passion for the truth make it OK to not speak truthfully. God is never honored when we defend His truth by speaking falsely.

Because God does not lie and is always trustworthy we value the truth. As followers of Jesus, who called himself "the truth," we must be a people of truth. This demands that we not bear false witness, but speak honestly and plainly of ourselves and others.

"But how?"

That's a good question. Living missionally is a biblical and exciting theory, but it doesn't matter if we can't answer the practical question concerning how to actually do it. There are a lot of answers to that question, and we examine some of them in Session 5 of Sent. In that session, we take a look at Paul's example of cultural engagement when he walked into Athens, the pre-eminent city of learning and philosophy in his day. Rather than avoiding the Athenian culture, Paul actually found a way to use it as a bridge to walk his hearers to the gospel.

We can put ourselves in a position to talk about the gospel through an understanding of culture. Paul didn't ask the people to come to him; he went where they were. He listened. He examined. He learned. Then he spoke. We can do the same thing.

It's called cultural engagement. But not in the surface-level, doing-what's-hip-so-people-will-like-us variety that we sometimes see played out. It's being relevant in the look-at-what's-happening-at-the-core-of-who-people-are-variety. It's loving people as they are but then showing them a better way.

In Athens the culture of the day was one of debate. That may not necessarily be the best mode of conversation in your circles. But maybe a helpful approach is to look deeper at the themes of films as a way of entering into talks about what seems to be driving or motivating humanity today--and then having conversations about a new way of life. Maybe it's time to read books of substance so that you might have conversations of substance. Maybe you need to go to the places where real people live real (and sometimes messy) lives and have honest conversations. Regardless of the method, it's about meeting people where they are and then giving them the choice to go further.

Wander through your own Athens. Look at the cultural idols. Let this burden your mind and spark your imagination. Let godly passion drive you to say "Give me Athens or I die." Then confidently share the gospel with those who may see its uncluttered message, trust its validity, and receive its Savior--Jesus Christ. You don't have to make the gospel, God, or the Bible relevant. They're already relevant. But we need to find relevant means to communicate that eternal truth.

You can find more information about Sent here.

What do you think of when you hear the word "world?" What's your response, or reaction? A cursory reading of the New Testament can make it seem like John can't even make up his mind on the subject of "the world." In John 3:16 he wrote: "For God so loved the world..." But then in 1 John 2 he wrote: "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in Him."

In Session 4 of Sent, we discuss the difference between the people of the world and the fallen system of ideas that work in rebellion to God. In that sense, we are to both love and hate (Prov. 8:13) the world. Part of what that means is living in the world but not being of the world. But many Christians have responded in fear to being of the world, so much so that they've completely isolated themselves from anything in the world. That's not how we are supposed to live and it denies the missional nature of the church. We point it out like this in Sent:

The Bible specifically tells us to live with 'worldly' people. That's exactly what Jesus always got in trouble for--hanging out with drunkards, sinners, prostitutes (you know, the 'bad' ones). Paul emphasized the same point to the church at Corinth. The church had become confused based on some things the apostle had taught earlier. In response, the church began to disassociate with the world around them. But Paul wanted them to understand the solution to their problems--and they had lots of them--was not withdrawal from the world:

I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--by no means referring to this world's immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But not I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).

Two things become clear from Paul's words. First, he has absolutely no intention to separate Christians from non-Christians. The concept was laughable to him because it would negate the whole reason Christians live in the world. The second thing is that there is an incredibly high standard for someone who claims the name of Christ. If such a person forgets where his or her loyalty lies and adopts the manners and customs of another country, then Paul says not to give them the privilege of 'dual citizenship.' They have to choose.

The church today is still missing the mark on both of these implications, though. To begin with, our lives as Christ-followers often look no different from the system of the world. Too often, the divorce rate is the same in the church and outside. There's the same addiction to pornography. There's the same greed and materialism. There's the same focus on ourselves and our comfort.

On the other hand, we may not participate in the world's systems, but instead insulate ourselves in a self-made Christian bubble, a life constructed so that we we live out our days without ever even bumping into someone who doesn't believe or live as we do.

As the sent church of God we must love the people in the world with the love of Christ expressed in words and deeds, while hating the broken and sinful systems of the world that war against the Kingdom of God. It turns out John wasn't confused at all, but the church often times is.

Find out more about Sent here.

I've been talking on the blog the last couple weeks about Sent, the Threads Bible study resource I'm releasing that walks churches through some key ideas about how to live missionally together. You can read the previous posts here and here. In Session 2 of Sent, we talk about the hot-button and often divisive issue of the kingdom of God. What is it? What is it not? And what does it mean to be kingdom people? One of the key ideas we try to grab onto here is the "already but not yet" nature of the kingdom of God. Here's a couple of excerpts from the session:

Outside the south, many are unaware of revivalism and its influence. Talk of saw dust trails and the like may have conjured images on the frontier, but today these trails tend to be found at home construction sites rather than under big tents.

Some southern Evangelicals are still holding "sawdust revivals." Others have opted for alternate means of communicating the Gospel in ways they consider more suitable for their context. Block parties, for example, provide many avenues for connecting with people who need Jesus. So, few remember what a real tent revival looks like.

A few weeks ago, I journeyed down to St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church to see an old fashioned revival depicted in the basement of a liturgical church. (I have been a bit too tied up to publish my thoughts. But, better late than never.)

Last week, I told you about the Bible study I'm releasing with Threads called Sent: Living the Missional Nature of the Church. You can read the full post here, where I discuss that "sent-ness" is in the DNA of the Church.

But, as we point out in the Bible study, we aren't just sent on our own accord; we have to understand something about the nature of God if we are really to understand our sent-ness. Many are quick to jump on the missional bandwagon (or throw rocks at it as it passes by) without seriously considering the theology that drives it.

As we look back through the pages of the Old Testament, we see over and over again the God who sends. He sends Moses as an agent of redemption (Ex. 3:12), he sends prophets to proclaim both judgment and restoration (Jer. 1), to his own people and to those who are not (Jonah). Even when he sends his own people into exile as a form of judgment, he sends them with instructions to seek the welfare of the foreign city in which they found themselves sojourning (Jer 29).

As we read through the New Testament we see the Father sent the Son to accomplish redemption for his people and indeed all creation (John 5; 8:42; 1 Jn. 4:14; Rom. 8:18-25; Col. 1:15-20). Then we see the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to bring conviction and conversion to the lost, and to empower the church for the spread of the gospel and the work of making disciples (John 14; 16; Mk. 13:11; Luke 11:13). And finally we see Jesus sending the church into the world, just as the Father sent him (John 20:21; Acts 1:8).

God has always been, and continues to be, the Sender.

So if we, as the church, do not live as sent ones to the people we live among, we are denying that we have come from God. If our identity is found in the God who sends, then "missional" will be more than a buzzword. It's meaning will remain central in defining who we are as the church.

That's what we cover in the first session of the study, in an effort to first lay the theological groundwork for living missionally as the church. You can learn more and get your copy of Sent here.

In the next few weeks, I will be releasing a Bible study with LifeWay's Threads initiative. It is called Sent: Living the Missional Nature of the Church.

I'm hoping that the study will be a helpful tool to put in the hands of church leaders who want to ground their people firmly in an understanding of the mission of the church and what it means for the body of Christ to live together as the sent people of God. The study has 6 sessions, so I'm going to be writing over the course of the next few weeks some summaries of the main points of the sessions to whet your appetite. Today we deal with the title and the idea behind the study.

Jesus said over and over again in the Book of John that He was sent from the Father. Then in John 20:21, He said: "As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." We take from that the idea that the very nature of the church is this "sent-ed-ness." It's part of our DNA. The problem is that many churches have the "arrived" mentality rather than seeing themselves as sent out from Christ on mission. It's time for us to reclaim the core of our identity, that we are a people sent by and for God. It's more than a choice or a program; it's about a fundamental understanding of our Savior and ourselves that leads us forward as his people. That's why it's called "Living the Missional Nature of the Church."

Love for you to check out the study; you can download a free sample and get more info here. For people establishing a church's DNA, or trying to reconfigure a group of people to think rightly, you might consider taking your entire church through the study. I think it will provide a good understanding of what the church is supposed to be in the world.

More soon...

J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, is often a voice of reasoned critique when his movement needs some correction. (You have seen me cite him before, click here.). This is true of him once again, and this recent article is a must read. But before I share a bit from Grady's article, let me give you a little background just in case you haven't heard of the Lakeland revival and the surrounding controversy.

On April 3, 2008 Canadian evangelist Todd Bentley was invited to speak to the Ignited Church of Lakeland, FL. Though he was only scheduled to be there for 5 days, he remained for 3 months during what he considered to be the biggest pentecostal revival since the Azusa Street revival. To put it mildly, the "Lakeland revival" has been controversial. Claims of people being raised from the dead? Violent healing? Now it appears Bentley is stepping down after filing for separation from his wife and admitting to an inappropriate relationship with another woman. Grady asks some hard questions in his article.

Why did so many people flock to Lakeland from around the world to rally behind an evangelist who had serious credibility issues from the beginning?

To put it bluntly, we're just plain gullible...

A prominent Pentecostal evangelist called me this week after Bentley's news hit the fan. He said to me: "I'm now convinced that a large segment of the charismatic church will follow the anti-Christ when he shows up because they have no discernment."

Why did a group of respected ministers lay hands on Bentley on June 23 and publicly ordain him? Did they know of his personal problems?

...No one in ministry today should be out on their own, living in isolation without checks, balances and wise counsel. It was commendable that [C. Peter] Wagner reached out to Bentley and that Bentley acknowledged his need for spiritual fathers by agreeing to submit to the process. The question remains, however, whether it was wise to commend Bentley during a televised commissioning service that at times seemed more like a king's coronation.

In hindsight, we can all see that it would have been better to take Bentley into a back room and talk about his personal issues.

...I trust that Wagner, Ahn, Johnson and Arnott didn't know of Bentley's problems before they ordained him. ... But I believe that they, along with Bentley and the owners of God TV, owe the body of Christ a forthright, public apology for thrusting Bentley's ministry into the spotlight prematurely. (Perhaps such an apology should be aired on God TV.)

Grady cites C. Peter Wagner. If you have been reading the blog, you will remember two recent posts on apostles, here and here that mention Wagner. In both cases, I shared a bit about Wagner so the timing of my post and the timing of this incident prompted this blog entry.

Well, Wagner recently brought what they call "apostolic covering" to Bentley. During a publicized gathering on June 23rd Wagner explained what this covering ceremony was all about (youtube). He said, "This is a ceremony celebrating the formal apostolic alignment of Todd Bentley." He explains that alignment is a kind of adjustment, or putting things in order. Bentley was asked if he recognized the apostolic authority of the apostles who were present, and when he did Wagner says that this will be a formal "commissioning" equivalent to offering the the right hand of fellowship as the apostles did to Paul in Jerusalem.

Wagner continued by proclaiming,

This commissioning represents a powerful spiritual transaction taking place in the invisible world. With this in mind, I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley:

• Your power will increase.
• Your authority will increase.
• Your favor will increase.
• Your influence will increase.
• Your revelation will increase.

I also decree that:

• A new supernatural strength will flow through this ministry.
• A new life force will penetrate this move of God.
• A government will be established to set things in their proper order.
• God will pour out a higher level of discernment to distinguish truth from error.
• New relationships will surface to open gates for the future.

In his article, Grady also points out that Bentley's theology should have been seriously investigated when Bentley connected with the "healing angel" of William Branham. (See the picture below for the "healing angel.") Yet, Bentley was never called on this bizarre connection.

While teaching at Southern, I served a church in the same town where Branham founded a church. Branham was once a well known (perhaps the best known) Pentecostal healing evangelist... at least until he went astray.

A little history may be helpful:

Branham rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and in fact claimed the doctrine was of the devil. Consequently he believed that anyone baptized into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit needed to be re-baptized. He predicted that 1977 would usher in the new millennium, and he believed denominationalism is the mark of the beast. Branham also believed the sin in the Garden of Eden that brought about the curse of God was not the eating of literal fruit, but the sexual union between Eve and the chimpanzee-serpent-beast. I kid you not.

Yet, the movement and the meetings with Todd Benley went on... until last week when reality caught up.

Now let me say, I work very hard to be charitable to Christians of different stripes-- much to the chagrin of those in my denomination who think we are the one true New Testament faith. And, this is not intended to be a post against one group (note, again, the title and you can visit my earlier posts on Pentecostal movements here and here.) Finally, I tend to think that movements should work out their theological discussions and I stay out of them-- rarely writing a post like this.

Yet, when I see things like this, it is just hard not to ask: does anyone still have a Bible and some common sense?

Let me add: I do not think this is a Pentecostal issue. That is why the title is, "Evangelical Gullibility."

In other words, all kinds of Christians are forwarding emails about the FCC's phony plan to ban religious braoadcasting, signing up to have emails sent to the loved ones after the rapture, and watching Christian television for its theological depth. For that matter, I have just as many odd people come up to me with "something they discovered in the Bible that no one has ever noticed" after I speak at a Baptist, Wesleyan, of non-denominational meeting as I do when I speak at a Pentecostal one. Furthermore, many Pentecostals and Charismatics HAVE expressed concern about this movement-- including some when I visit the Assemblies of God office a couple of weeks ago.

I just have to wonder with Grady if Christians really are just gullible.

True revival is generally a messy affair. On the one hand abuses often accompany genuine works of God, and on the other hand much of what is called revival is nothing more than fanaticism. Courage is required to ask tough questions and do so with with grace and kindness, patience is necessary to wait and see if what is called revival bears lasting fruit, and theological discernment is critical for the church when it comes to awakenings and revival.

He is Risen Indeed.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to His great mercy, He has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who are being protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." 1 Peter 1:3-5 (HCSB)