I'm kind of a big deal-- or at least that is what the faceless bureaucrats at Facebook insist. They tell me that I cannot have any more friends beyond my current 5000. And, if I want to have more friends, they have to become "fans."

Needless to say, I was not pleased. I don't want "fans," I just wanted more friends.

I have found great value in social networking, with Twitter and Facebook in particular. In the beginning I wasn't easily convinced that it would be worthwhile, but I have really enjoyed connecting with friends all over the world. Earlier this month I shared my dilemma - Facebook has a 5,000 "friend" limit, and I was maxed out. Of course, I realize that many of those friends are not people who know me personally, but I was using facebook as a means of broadly communicating with others and interacting around my Facebook "Wall" and "Notes." I have substantially more interaction on my Facebook wall than I do here on the blog.

The options weren't great, and I wasn't really sure what I was going to do, but my publisher went ahead and created a Facebook "Fan Page" for me-- without asking. This allows for as many fans/friends as desire to connect, and so I am reluctantly moving all discussion from my personal Facebook page to my "fan page."

For the record, I didn't make this move because I think "I'm kind of a big deal." Let's be honest, being a big deal on Facebook is sort of like being the Dungeonmaster in a game of Dungeons and Dragons. It really doesn't matter. This fan page is simply the best way to continue discussion on Facebook while allowing others to join in. And, all of my Twitter updates will now go there (and I have discontinued the feed on my personal page as that will soon go away).

So, if you are "friend," and want to connect, you'll need to become a "fan." I know; I hate the word "fan," so let's not even use that. Let's just be friends on a different kind of page!

I hope to see you there!

P.S. If you do not get the pop-culture reference, "I'm kind of a big deal," please forgive my attempt at self-deprecating humor. I read about it in one of my many leather-bound books. ;-)

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?

I knew the interview we did with Andy Stanley was good, and that it would be helpful and provocative. That certainly makes it blog-worthy. As I posted Part 2 of the interview where Andy shares some thoughts on preaching "verse-by-verse" through books of the Bible I knew it would generate a lot of discussion. But I find myself disappointed at some of the responses.

Some agreed and thought the interview was great. Thanks for coming by and commenting. I think many disagreed in a gracious and thoughtful way. That's good as well. But, many just make their typical drive-by comments and never took the time to learn from Andy. And, having listened to much of what is called "expository preaching" today but is really running commentary, some need to listen to Andy's ideas on communication.

I am disappointed that some people cannot dialogue about issues. I am not saying that about everyone's comments, but I will tell you it is amazing how quickly some decide they cannot learn from another because they disagree. I've already blogged on this, so let me just say I believe that we have a lot to learn from each other in the church.

You may not agree with how Andy Stanly preaches. That is fine. He can handle it. He is doing just fine.

But, it appears that many in the church believe that if you're not preaching verse-by-verse it isn't biblical preaching at all. That is an unfortunate conclusion that rules out so many great preachers in throughout church history; just about everyone before John Chrysostom, and for that matter, every recorded sermon in the Bible.

Now, I have written extensively on my view of preaching, in at least three books, several magazine, etc. So, I won't rehash that here. But, a few comments may be helpful.

Yes, Andy is right, there are no verse-by-verse sermons in the Bible. Not a one. You cannot make the case that there is verse-by-verse exposition in the scripture. The Nehemiah reference and the Lukan account of Jesus "explaining the scriptures" are grasping at straws to prove a preconceived notion. It is a serious case of eisegesis and I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most passionate about Biblical exegesis are so ready to read into their Bibles something that is not there.

Look, the reason I believe in verse-by-verse, expository preaching is not because it is "in" the text, but because of what the text "is." Though I do not only preach verse-by-verse, I preach exegetical, expository, text-driven messages because the text (Scripture) is inerrant, inspired, profitable, etc. and I need to teach the Bible, not my views with the Bible as scriptural footnotes proving common sense thoughts.

I was working late last night on my next message in my Ephesians series. Why? Because I want to teach faithfully the truths of Scripture to my congregation. But, I am also working on ways to be sure they know it is important-- and Andy Stanley helps me know how to do help them see it is as important as I believe it is.

The Bible is relevant in this and every culture. We do not need to make it relevant. However, I do believe we need to help people understand that it is relevant and how to apply it to their lives. And, Andy provides great insight of that process.

But those of you who believe that verse-by-verse preaching is the only valid form of preaching need to decide if those who do not are "allowed." Will those who hold such view be attacked for holding them rather than engaged with a disagreement?

For many in the comments and at other places on the web, it seems that preaching like the early Church Fathers or Spurgeon (to cite just two examples), makes you not a "real" preacher. That is a shame.

If there is no room for the topical preacher, particularly one who seeks to bring people to the Word of God faithfully apply the word to an important issue, allowing the word of God to provide God's direction on that topic, then you have just eliminated doctrinal preaching and dismissed the historic examples of doctrinal preaching throughout the history of the church. And, you will have an incredibly difficult time partnering with people inside existing denominations and in broader evangelicalism.

And I fear that some of you will continue to isolate yourselves in a ghetto of people who say they love the word, but in many cases are not communicating it well to anyone except other believers already passionate about the doctrine you preach.

I get that Andy's comment about "cheating" is provocative (and he intended it as such), but it was not demeaning. I wish I could say the same about all of the comments about his comment. Many of you have shown scorn, rather than disagreement, and I believe you need to change the way you speak of those with whom you disagree.

Andy has written more about his view of preaching in his book, Communicating for Change, and you should read it-- a blog interview does not say everything a person believes on an certain issue. Having been reared under Charles Stanley and trained at Dallas Seminary, I think he has some awareness of how verse-by-verse teaching works.

And, I do think that Andy is on to something-- verse-by-verse preachers are sometimes cheating and can be lazy. Hear me on this. I'm not saying they aren't working hard to study and put together a sermon, but many stop there and do not push on into the even harder work of making the truth comprehensible. It's cheating to develop a sermon only well enough to be understood by the people who agree with you. It's lazy to not put the time into making the truths we believe comprehensible. We all need to hear Andy, even if you disagree with him.

Of course, I also think there are lot of topical preachers who are cheating too, but that is another story for another day.

Anyway, I have an open blog and allow open comments (none of which have been edited or deleted so far), but I think we can do better.

Thanks to many of you who are Reformed (or not Reformed but feel strongly about verse-by-verse preaching) who took the time to read Andy's thoughts an interact with them, rather than posting (at times) bizarre comments about how everyone who preaches differently has practically abandoned the faith. I appreciate the thoughtful comments and I appreciate you.

My hope still remains that there are enough mature people out there who can learn from others and that will become more evident as we work through the rest of the series in the coming days.

Again, my thanks to Andy for being so gracious and letting John and I do the interview in the first place.

My next post will continue the series "Andy Stanley on communication."

I am teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School all day and won't be able to interact in the comments, but don't let that stop you for doing so. ;-)