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!

Steve Addison is the Director of Church Resource Ministries (CRM) Australia, and the author of a new book, Movements That Change The World. Steve is called to encourage church planting movements around the world and is therefore a student of the history of movements that spread the gospel. His new book is a look at that history.

I asked Steve a few questions for the blog. It's short and packed with content - sort of like the Gospel of Mark, just without the divine inspiration. :) Steve is in Australia, so with the time difference he wont be able to check out your comments and questions until around 6pm. But he will make it to the blog to interact. So hit him up now and he'll respond later this evening.

Why did you write Movements that Change the World?

A number of reasons. As a church planter I remember hearing Peter Wagner say, "Starting new churches is the most effective form of evangelism under the sun." I thought if that's true, then starting church planting movements could be even more effective.

I dived in to some church history and discovered that God was continually raising up movements for the renewal and expansion of the Christian faith. I learned that those movements are always on the fringes.

I began looking at Jesus as the founder of a missionary/missional movement that now spans the globe. I read Acts and Paul that way, and the lights came on.

You've identified the characteristics of dynamic movements. Tell us about them.

The five characteristics are: white-hot faith, commitment to a cause, contagious relationships, rapid mobilization and adaptive methods.

White-hot faith is the engine room of a dynamic movement. The apostle Paul was not converted by clever arguments but through a powerful encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road. We would not have had the Reformation without Martin Luther's struggle with the question of, "How can a holy God forgive a sinner like me?"

The secret of Jesus' life and ministry was his relationship of loving obedience to the Father and dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit. He drew his disciples into the same relationship and sent them out with no other resources.

A white-hot faith provides the motivation, energy and legitimacy to go change the world.

Next is commitment to a cause. For good or for evil, history is made by people committed to a common purpose. Nothing changes unless people care deeply and are willing take action. Jesus had high expectations of his followers. So high, that some of them walked away.

John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement. On one occasion he visited Bristol. When he arrived there were 900 people in the local Society. When he left 143 of them had been removed for various reasons: among them wife-beating, smuggling, and drunkenness. Wesley led a disciplined movement that changed the world.

The third characteristic of movements is contagious relationships. We are all just six handshakes away from everyone on the planet. Ideas, like viruses, spread from person to person and from group to group. In the age of the internet, contagious relationships are still the most important form of communication.

The most responsive people to the gospel are those who have recently seen someone in their world come to faith.

Whenever we see the Christian faith expanding exponentially, it's traveling across networks of preexisting relationships. We tend to focus on building quality relationships with a few. Jesus focused on connecting broadly and then through one responsive person, reaching households and villages. That's how we see the gospel spreading in Acts.

The fourth characteristic is rapid mobilization. Movements don't abolish the clergy, they just ordain everyone for ministry. What did Jesus do? He went after ordinary people and trained them on-the-job. His lecture on the nature of faith was conducted on a sinking boat in the midst of a storm. There was theological content integrated with life and ministry. Jesus grew leaders and released them to go and change the world.

You don't get dramatic expansion of a movement if everyone is a paid professional. If anyone is paid, they are paid to pioneer new fields and mobilize others. Whether they are in New York or New Delhi, that's what missionaries do.

The last characteristic is adaptive methods. The best illustration of an adaptive method I can think of is the game of soccer. Soccer is the world's game played by hundreds of millions and watched by billions. Why? I think it's because you can drop a ball at the feet of a three year old and she can start playing. It may take a lifetime of practice to master the game, but only an instant to begin enjoying it. Try doing that with American or Australian football.

Adaptive methods are simple, flexible and transferable. That's one reason why Jesus taught by telling stories. A good story, like the prodigal son, can be told by anyone to anyone, even across the boundaries of culture and time.

Movements are unchanging when it comes to their core message and beliefs. At the same time they are willing to change everything else to get that message out and get the job done. Unfortunately we have churches that are unwilling to change their methods, but quite happy to change the heart of the gospel. They have the worst of both worlds and the fruit is clear to see.

Where are the current examples of dynamic movements today?

The exciting news is they are mostly in the developing world--Africa, Asia, Latin America. These are also the regions of greatest population growth. Today, over 90% of new Christians will come from these regions. Expect that trend to continue.

In the US I've been encouraged by leaders such as Neil Cole, Bob Roberts, Ralph Moore, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and Jimmy Seibert who emphasize multiplication of disciples, workers and churches rather than just growth. A growing band of leaders are seeing the church as a movement.

The whole missional/emerging discussion has helped unfreeze us all in our understanding of church. If that is combined with a commitment to the Gospel and a passion to multiply disciples it could be quite fruitful.

What are some contemporary examples of adaptive methods?

I think the Alpha program is a good example. The strategies that David Garrison and others have developed to fuel church planting movements around the world is another clear example.

Who do you want to reach with the message of this book?

As I wrote I thought of a number of actual people. A couple leading a home group who have led eighteen people to Christ in the last year, and are wondering if this is the beginning of a new church. I thought of the leader of a large church in Kenya that is growing leaders who plant churches in the suburbs and the slums. I thought of a young woman in China who has come to faith, and is now reaching her friends with the gospel. I thought of a church leader in New York with a vision to reach the cities of the world.

What difference do you hope the book will make?

I want people to discover Jesus as the leader of a movement that changes the world.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, has a solid article at Christianity Today responding to - and somewhat sympathizing with - Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori's remarks about "the Great western heresy." And what is the "great western heresy" the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America wants to warn us of? Individualism. Mouw writes,

In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori... made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"--the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."

Dr. Mouw rightly agrees that there are dangerous forms of individualism that had plagued the church, and points out that Christianity Today has articles reflecting a call back to a more corporate understanding and experience of the Christian faith.

It is certainly true that God is saving a people (corporate) for himself, and with them all of creation so that in the end his redemptive work through the death and resurrection of Jesus is truly cosmic in scope. Yet this does not take anything away from the reality that God saves individuals. Mouw explains,

We evangelicals never downplay the importance of individuals--as individuals--coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. We never say that an individual's very personal relationship to God is not important. What we do say is that individual salvation is not enough.

Some who are talking through this very issue are simply talking past one another - some wanting to talk about bricks (individuals) while others wants to talk about the building (the community of faith). Yet others are clearly talking about another gospel altogether.

Dr. Mouw's article is a good, short read, as is R. Scott Clark's response to Schori (via Justin Taylor). Wes Kenney agrees with the Presiding Bishop here (something I am sure was difficult for him). You can also download Katharine Jefferts Schori's address here.

What do you think? What are the dangers at play here? How is the Presding Bishop right, how is she wrong? Why does it even matter to us?

My friend Ray Wickam passed this article on to me after reading my post from yesterday mentioning Michael Jackson's funeral.

My twitter-friend Tim Wade has written a thought-provoking article on what the Michael Jackson funeral should say to the church. Here are some excerpts. You can find the full article here in the Raleigh News Examiner.

Several members of the media commented that Jackson's memorial service contained a spiritual tone- the gospel choir, the golden casket, the cross of light...

While the theme of Michael Jackson's memorial service was indeed spiritual, it certainly could in no way be mistaken for a Christian funeral. During the performance of We are the World which was sung by a Who's Who of musical icons, symbols of every major religion were displayed on a giant screen behind the stage including a larger than life picture of Jesus. The message could not have been clearer...

Clearly it is time for the Protestant Church to wake up and realize that the world is finding faith apart from the fulfillment of the Great Commission...

I admire the work of Michael Jackson and mourn his passing. Truly the legacy he leaves behind is immeasurable. But holding hands and singing to the glory of a dead pop star will never replace the spiritual needs of the human condition. The world needs to hear the truth of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ for only under the blood of Jesus will we be part of God's great big family.

Here is a sermon I preached a couple of weeks ago at my church on living a "God-imitating life."

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 did an interview this morning with a national secular magazine about the efficacy of "door-to-door outreach" and will link to the story as soon as it's available. Much of what I shared came from some research we did at the Center for Missional Research on whether or not door-to-door is an effective tool.

Here is what we published last year:

Every Saturday morning at First Church, dedicated church members meet to do something both their parents and grandparents did before them--door-to-door visitation. They visit people in the neighborhood who might be new church prospects with the hope they'll begin personal relationships with Christ either that morning or the next Sunday at church. Recently there has been a growing debate among those assembling for outreach as to how to approach their task. Some on the team want to share the gospel with every person they come in contact with--or they believe they're putting the person's eternal destiny at risk. Others suggest that the team should simply invite people to hear their biblically faithful, gospel-preaching pastor tell them about Jesus during his Sunday message.

Who's right?

We (the North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research) decided to find out. By partnering with a polling firm1 to ask 1,200 random Americans we discovered that the answer just might be--"both."

When you knock on a stranger's door, more people are open to a church invitation than a gospel presentation--but a significant minority are open to both. According to the survey, Americans are far more open to people coming to their door with that simple invitation than trying to tell them how to get into heaven (53 to 35%). The only exception to this trend is among African Americans, nearly half of whom are okay with someone coming to their door with an evangelistic message--15 percent more than any other ethnic group surveyed.

These stats tell an important story--many people are open to an invitation to your church and some are open to hearing about heaven. Even 40 percent of the most unchurched are open to an invitation to your church, which is something that the whole church can do-- something that's much less scary for the typical believer and takes less training. It is helpful to know that many people are open to a church event invitation where, perhaps, they can hear the gospel in an understandable way. Imagine how many more houses your church group could visit if every person could be convinced to make one visit and one simple invitation.

Many people, including me, were surprised that the negative reaction was not more pronounced. But, the numbers are here and, surprisingly, more people are open than we think--particularly if they are approached in a respectful manner.

This survey also contradicts the long-held belief that young people would outright reject church groups coming to their door. In fact, despite being known as one of the most difficult to reach demographics in the country, people between the ages of 25 to 34 were virtually just as likely as their next elders (ages 35 to 54) and considerably more likely than the 70+ crowd to appreciate someone coming to the door and inviting them to church.

As you'll see in the chart below, it's only those on the low and high ends of the age spectrum that will generally shun a door-to-door invitation to church more often than not.

Ideological and socio-economic factors also play a part in how open people are to door- to-door church invitations. More than two-thirds of those who call themselves conservative would likely listen to your church invitation, should you come to the door. But churches in "blue states" should take note--only a little more than half of self-described liberals would do so.

In fact, as you put together different components of the research, you begin to see a clear picture of the type of community where door-to-door church invitations could be most successful. If you were picking such a place, you'd probably settle on a poor to working class community that's ideologically conservative with a high number of Protestants. All three of these demographic groups recorded higher than average openness to church invitations through the door-to-door method--all were above 60 percent. Conversely, it's not as well received in a liberal, well-to-do or middle class, non-Protestant community.

Yet any good news about door-to-door church invitations can only be limited as we look at the study. The fact remains the unchurched are far less interested in being invited to church by someone they don't know knocking on their door. Only 39 percent of those surveyed who attend church rarely, on holidays, or never would be okay with someone coming to their door and inviting them to church, according to the survey. The numbers are consistently worse when asked about "counseling" for "heaven," or what we would call personal witnessing. In other words, the very people we say we want to get into our churches the most are the people least likely to be impacted by one of our favorite outreach strategies.

Now more than ever, we need to look toward new methods to get the unchurched into our churches. Some people will be reached through door-to-door methods. Others will not. While more than half of Americans would listen cordially as a stranger at their door invited them to church, more than 60 percent of the unchurched might tune us out before the invitation left our mouths. Now, the cross is always a stumbling block, but we also want to be sure that our methods are less so.

The message of the gospel is too important to be spread through just one strategy--and if God leads you and your church to a certain strategy, you should use it. Door-to-door methods can be and are used to reach people. At my own church plant, we went door-to- door passing out flyers and free popcorn to invite people to our preview service. This method can still be an important part of our evangelism strategies, but our study shows that not everyone is open to such an approach. Let us ask God to show us additional ways to reach the unchurched--through relationships, service, ministry, and invitations to visit. Remember, God wants to see the unchurched connected to a family of faith even more than we do.

I have attached a PowerPoint presentation covering the same data. You can download it below.

I wrote an article for the Nov/Dec Issue of Outreach Magazine where I shared a few thoughts on preaching the gospel and living the gospel, particularly as it relates to the poor. (If you have not subscribed, click here to do so and you can read the whole issue.)

Jesus not only preached the gospel to the spiritually blind, hungry, oppressed and poor, he also demonstrated the gospel by acts of love that met the needs of those who were literally blind, hungry, oppressed and poor. There is much we can learn from Jesus here. His miracles were not simply testimonies to his divine power, but reflections of his divine love and compassion. I hope you will consider this issue with me as we enter into this holiday season. You can read the article below in its entirety.

Speaking of Jesus and Justice

Every church deals with "it." Some deal with it by referral to the agency down the street. Others find token ways to say they're dealing with it, when really they're not. Some send a few bucks overseas so someone else can deal with it. Most deal with it by not dealing with it at all. "It" is poverty. Some see it as the government's responsibility. Others hold to the historic and biblical precedent that family and the Church care for the poor. Yet, today's evangelical churches in America have often been unengaged in dealing with poverty. My own experience has underscored the truth that to be faithful to Scripture, churches must deal with it.

Out of Buffalo
My wife, Donna, and I planted our first church among the urban poor of Buffalo, N.Y. When I went there, Buffalo's population was declining by 3% per year. We bought a house for $70,000 in the middle of a crack epidemic. After spending an equivalent of $17,000 in renovations, we sold the house five years later for only$40,000 when we left Buffalo to plant another church. Our Buffalo experience showed us that it's not always easy to see people through God's eyes. The poor are poor for many reasons, not all of which are someone else's fault. Sometimes bad personal choices are involved. However, that fact doesn't give the Church license to tell people that if they really wanted to, they could get out of poverty. Instead, our job is to join Jesus on His mission to serve and care for the poor.

Talking the Walk
I must confess that I think churches talk more than they help. They brand themselves as caring for their communities through catchy slogans, yet they seem to talk more than they act. It kind of reminds me of that Brady Bunch episode in which Peter rescues a little girl from a falling shelf in Driscoll's Toy Store. The newspaper wrote about it and the TV station came out. And, you guessed it, the middle Brady son became obsessed with telling his heroic tale and couldn't stop talking about himself to his friends and family. It's no wonder no one wanted to be around the "hero." Self-congratulation is obnoxious and tiring. Likewise, I believe the world is growing tired of churches that occasionally helped the poor, took up an offering, or went on a mission trip and can't stop talking about those occasional experiences. People today find it odd that the Church founded by a Savior who came healing the sick and caring for the poor is now only marginally involved in His mission.

Jesus and Justice
In the initial thrust of His earthly ministry, Jesus announced, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). That same Jesus, just a few chapters later, explained, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). If we are going to follow Jesus in His mission, we must see the biblical Jesus in both Luke 4 and Luke 19:10. When Jesus broke into history, He said He would serve the hurting. But He also came to seek and save the lost. If we are not serving the hurting, we are missing out on the Jesus of the Bible. If we are not sharing the Gospel with our lips, we are missing out on the Jesus of the Bible. Imagine the difference we could make in our communities if we not only told people that they must repent and be saved, but also loved them--talking about Jesus and acting in justice. That would be joining Jesus on His mission.

While we survey on a lot of serious topics here at LifeWay Research, we thought we would mix it up a little with a question touching on a topic that comes up during Halloween (or, as we call it around my office, Reformation Day). The topic: "haunted houses."

The belief that such places exist seems to be widespread (just watch the cable shows to catch the ghosts therein). Many churches have seen this as an opportunity, planning their own "house," calling it (subtly) "Hell house."

It is very interesting to me that people are still quite superstitious and regularly report a high level of belief in things such as haunted houses. (Of course, secular people would consider me superstitious for being an evangelical.)

On to the research...

As part of another project, we surveyed 1580 Americans with the following question: "I would be willing to spend the night in a house that was widely reported to be haunted." We were interested in the fear level that people have towards the "haunted," much like there are tribes throughout the two-thirds world who fear a hex or a curse.

Overall, 44 percent agreed they would be willing to spend the night. However, a remarkable high 47 percent disagreed. In other words, almost half of the random Americans we surveyed would be unwilling.

A few interesting results standout:

54% of males either somewhat or strongly agreed they would be willing to spend the night while only 34% of females agreed.

Interestingly, the age group most agreeable to spending the night in a "haunted house" -- those age 65 or older with 51% indicating they would do so. The age group least likely to do so was the 25-34 year olds with only 38 percent agreeing with the statement.

African Americans (72 percent) and Hispanics (53 percent) were disagreeable to the idea with 38% of Caucasians indicating they would not be interested in spending the night.

Region of the country seemed significant in that those in the south were significantly less likely than those in other region to "agree":

-South - 39 %
-Midwest - 46 %
-Northeast - 47 %
-West - 49 %

Marital status, education level, and income did not seem to influence a person's response to the question. But age, gender, culture and region all appear important when answering this question. Feel free to share your theories in the comments.

It is remarkable to me that so many are afraid. Perhaps we are more like the hex-fearing tribe in the two-thirds world than we like to admit. Anthropologists tell us that superstition is a universal trait and (like religion) it is found in almost every culture.

OK, since it's Halloween here is a polling question for my blog readers (with a small twist on the question): If you knew a house in your neighborhood was widely reported to be haunted, would you be willing to spend the night there? Post your votes (yes/no) and your comments on why or why not in the comments section. And, how would you deal with its reputation as a believer in your community? Is there a way to help people who believe in the supernatural (but respond in fear) to instead know the one who conquers fear, death, hell, and the grave? How do we (or can we) move from superstition to meaningful conversation?

[If you are interested in more (serious) research on church and culture, check out LifeWay Research's subscription email newsletter at www.lifewayresearch.com/insights. It is a twice monthly email with first release research with practical ministry application tips. Today's email introduces data and analysis on what Americans said when asked if they agreed with the following statement: I believe it is possible to communicate with someone after they are dead.]

Disclaimer: LifeWay Research, Ed Stetzer, the trustees of LifeWay, Thom Rainer, Johnny Hunt, and other people walking by the building today in no way endorse, promote, or believe in Halloween, haunted houses, and other things associated with this holiday that churches call everything but the H-word. Also, no animals were harmed in the writing of this blog post. And, it was made with recycled electrons.

Why sit in a room and talk to three classes of Polish college students to discuss culture, politics, and faith? Well, for one reason, the students learning English has often never spoken to a native speaker. For another, it can be a bridge to share some really good news.

Our Poland group spent one day teaching at Jagiellonian University. the oldest university in Poland.

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.)

Here are a few updates from friends along the way:

Politics with Land and McLaren
I could be wrong, but I am guessing that I might be the only person who has the cell phone of both Brian McLaren and Richard Land (for the right price, I will share).

I have also talked a little politics with both of them. So, when I see them together, it is must see TV. Click here to watch two guys you just don't see together much! (It may be the only time I have ever seen Richard not wearing a suit.) They are both among Time magazine's 25 most influential evangelicals. And, most remarkably, they have a pretty good conversation. Why? Because they care for many of the same things. They just come to some different conclusions on how best to address the challenges of our world today. Kudos to both for having the conversation.

Old People and Church Health
My New Jersey friend, Randy Smith, Lead pastor of Discovery Church, says too many believe the elderly have "cooties", and that this belief is damaging our churches. He is a church planting and in many plants, we don't see a good diversity of age. Randy explains,

We are missing out on something when we ignore the older generation. There I've said it. I like old people! When it comes to church, I don't like their music, I don't like their formality, and I don't like a lot of their traditions but I like the people.

...I think we hurt ourselves when we exclude the oldsters. They have wisdom, they have time, they have energy (for short periods of time!) and for all you pastors, they usually are good stewards! I'm not advocating that you haphazardly appoint five or six AARP members to your Executive Leadership Team. Actually, I'd warn you not to do such a thing with any age group. But I am saying that we need to find ways to marry the wisdom and years of spiritual growth of the old with the energy and adventuresome spirit of the new. How that's done is your job to figure out - you're the leader...lead!

Ticking Twitter Bombs
As I continue my (lame) quest to get people to Twitter, I mocked Jonathan Falwell until he started. I'd like to think I influenced Thom Rainer to twitter as well. However, in hindsight, is that really a good idea? Thom is, after all, my direct supervisor. He is now following me on Twitter. Why did I not think of that beforehand?

Another guy I called out for not Twittering started on Thursday... he is Matt Fry, pastor of C3 Church. Nice job, Matt... good to see you at Liberty.

Taylor Field Knows Squat
A couple of weeks ago I had lunch with Taylor Field, pastor of Graffiti Church in NYC. I am always humbled to be around guys that are engaged in ministry to the urban poor. That is where I started, but I don't serve in an urban setting anymore... and guys like Taylor make me want to.

He wrote a book that I really enjoyed. I asked him to tell me why he wrote it. He sent me this:

When I started out to write the novel Squat, I thought I was writing about the people I saw around me in my work--a guy begging on the streets wearing a blanket and reading copiously, a disturbed runaway living in an abandoned building, a do-gooder short-term volunteer who comes for a few months to help out and then returns to his normal life with some good stories, and an idiot with a baby squirrel in his pocket. Of course, in the end, each of them were really a part of me, and their feelings were my feelings. I think this realization has helped me as I continue to work in the Lower East Side with people in deep trouble, sharing nothing too theoretical-- a sandwich, a pair of socks, a word of encouragement wrapped in Christ's great news.

You can order the book here. Pick it up.

The Power of the Gospel - Translated
My friend Steve Childers sent me an email this week about his new book. The new book entitled Living in the Power of the Gospel by John Piper, Jerry Bridges, Steven Childers & Tim Keller (edited by Jerry Cross) was recently published in Spanish (as Vivir en el poder del Evangelio) by Lighthouse Publications' Harmony Books division in Mexico City .

Book Description: Learn how God's grace found in the power of the gospel brings transformation of individuals, churches and society.

To learn more about the book and purchase a copy: Click Here

Every Monday, I will post something about mission, missions, missional, or missiology.

Here is the first-- a guest blog from a missionary living in a Muslim country. He cannot use his name because, well, many people in the world are not excited about what he is doing. So, we will call him Bob.

Feel free to interact with him in the comments.

Ed

"Bob" wrote:

For a little more than a decade my family and I have been living in Asia. Our desire has been to "model and multiply missions and ministry among Muslims." By that, we mean that we want to be directly involved in praying for and sharing the gospel with Muslims, seeing them discipled and brought into the fellowship of the saints. And we want to be teaching and encouraging others to do the same thing.

Often people ask us why we do it. Why have we left our families, our culture and our homes to live in the third world with Muslims? Why are we not back in America where life is "easier," our boys can get a "good" education, where it is "safe" and we can care for our ageing parents? Honestly, sometimes I ask myself the same question.

Perhaps you have heard the following complaints, "Mission work is expensive and dangerous. Besides, most people don't want to hear the gospel anyway, otherwise why would missionaries have to go into these places undercover." Today many people are accusing mission boards of being reckless for sending people to share their faith in a dangerous, hostile world.

And it is not just foreign work that is so dangerous. Papers carry the story of a student being killed for her faith in a Colorado school. I have had a gun pulled on me in Louisiana when inviting someone to a church function. If people are not interested, why bother? Why not just join with people like Hasan (not his real name) who recently said, "I pray that there are no Bridge People in heaven--they are just evil, hateful people who deserve to go to Hell."

So, how can we answer these questions? What is the point of communicating the Gospel with non-Christians? I have a brother who is an atheist. He told me once that he was sure I was too smart to believe in the gospel so I must be doing this for the money. Now, we have been extremely blessed by the generosity of Southern Baptists through the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, but we took a fifty percent salary reduction to come here, so I couldn't be that smart if money was my motivation!

Johannes Bavinck, in An Introduction to the Science of Missions defined the aim of missions as "To glorify God, establish the kingdom, and convert the heathen." In practice, this process is generally accomplished in reverse order. We share the gospel with those who have not heard it in a way they can understand. Then we gather them into congregations where they can be discipled and join others in worship. Those congregations become a part of the Universal body of Christ, reflecting God's glory throughout eternity.

Bavink was not the first missiologist to make this correlation between evangelism and the glory of God. In John 15:8, Jesus said "This is to my Father's glory that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

If you are a Christian you know the greatest joy available to human kind--a personal relationship with the Almighty Creator. We do not share our faith to "stem the Islamic tide" or "defeat the postmodern agenda." We share our faith with others out of a sense of love for God and those who are separated from Him. We share out of a concern for His glory.

Great worship at the Good Shepherd Chapel at Concordia University yesterday morning.

The view is simply amazing:

It was refreshing... particularly after flying in very late and finding the hotel mis-entered my reservation and I had no room (and there were no other rooms in the city!)

Thanks to my helpful hosts (and rescuers), I slept in a college dorm room (during football camp). The college dorm is fine as it builds character to sleep on the slab bed. But, those football guys sure were excited about their 4a.m. run. Ugh.

Anyway, the highlight of the morning was when Robert Newton, Bishop of California / Nevada / Hawaii District of the LCMS shared the morning devotion. He shared much more than I can list here, but I was intrigued by his explanation of Luke 24:46-48.

Luke 24:46-48 (HCSB): "He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.'"

These are the things that are written...
1. "Christ will suffer..."
2. "Rise from the dead..."
3. "Repentance and forgiveness will be preached in his name."

He explained that we often think that there are only two parts to the gospel... death and resurrection. Jesus lists three that "are written." In other words, the spreading of the gospel is a fundamental to the gospel.

A quote:
"The gospel does not end with the resurrection... it ends with a sinner hearing it in his ear."

Put more bluntly:
"It is a moot point if he simply died and rose and nobody heard about it."

"Every Sunday the saints gather and forget the world..."

What do you think?