Give him the jet; We made him

Share

Recently, several news networks carried the story of a Louisiana preacher named Jesse Duplantis who made a video appeal to his followers to help him raise $54 million dollars to purchase a new private jet (Thanks to my friend Heather for posting this story and bringing it to my attention). You can watch his full video here. According to Duplantis, the jet is necessary because his current jet is unable to go anywhere in the world on a single tank of fuel, whereas the new jet can. Therefore, being able to hop anywhere in the world "in one stop" will enable him to "preach the gospel all over the world" for cheaper.

Immediately after publishing the video, negative and critical comments started flooding in (rightfully so), enough that Duplantis appeared personally on news stations and even issued a second video on his website to defend himself.

We really shouldn't be surprised at the apparent greed of powerful men and the gullibility of their followers. Such realities have always existed both inside and outside the church. Selfish appeals from televangelists are also nothing new. Yet, while it's easy to condemn and criticize hucksters like Duplantis (and such criticisms are deserved), I couldn't help but wonder if we should go ahead and buy him his jet. After all, we are the ones responsible for his appeal.

Duplantis and his ilk do not arise out of a vacuum. The represent many of the values American Christianity and evangelicalism has come to extol, whether consciously or unconsciously.

First, American Christianity has always mirrored society in creating celebrity cults. Such celebrity worship is obvious in the broader culture. A perfect example is the recent multi-day hullabaloo over Roseanne Barr's racist tweet that led to her show getting cancelled. While an unfortunate reminder that racism is still very prevalent today, it was ridiculous how much airtime a single tweet received. Even more ridiculous was the fact that many respected news outlets talked about how the President of United States finally "broke his silence" about the tweet and the show's cancellation (as if the President has nothing better to do than weigh in on celebrity gossip and network lineups). The focus was not really about racism, but about the celebrity.

Sadly, the church is no different. We fill stadiums to witness the spectacle of preachers like Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen, Matt Chandler, Beth Moore, Rob Bell and countless others. Congregations are no longer satisfied with small communities, but must become "mega-churches" centered around a charismatic, well-groomed (often male) celebrity preacher. The best selling books in Christian bookstores are (not incidentally) written by pastors of said mega churches. Our worship leaders get major records deals and utilize the newest, hottest instruments, sound boards, and lights to give us spectacle worthy of U2 or Coldplay. We love our holy celebrities and are willing to pamper them like the kings and queens we believe they are. As such, we really have no right to critique Duplantis for acting like a celebrity when much of the country treats their own pastors the same way.

Second, American Christianity has implicitly taught that sharing the Gospel is the pastor/preacher's job. From the get-go, Duplantis assumes he needs a jet because he assumes it is his job to go across the world personally and speak about the "gospel." Sadly, such a perspective really should reflect a failure of his ministry more than a success in some ways. If his ministry were actually changing lives, then the fruit of that life change would be thousands or millions of folks who are also taking the Gospel into their own communities all around the world. He would not need to frantically fly all over the place. After all, Jesus only preached in a tiny square of the world, but his message is now reaching the ends of the earth because He created real, lasting, transformative change in His disciples.

However, before we criticize Duplantis, we must recognize that most of our churches operate in the same manner. It is the preacher's job to teach and preach, and our job to sit passively and absorb. We are instructed to "bring our friends" to worship services so they can hear the Gospel. Our pastors are seen as religious professionals and experts who do the "real work" of ministry. But this is not how it should be. A pastor's job is to equip the congregation to be the church in its community. Every member is a minister. As long as we continue to view our own pastors as the primary evangelist, teacher, and discipler, then we might as well support Duplantis in his effort to get a new jet because our ecclesiology supports his need to personally travel the world to accomplish his work.

Finally, American evangelicalsim believes in the same truncated gospel as Duplantis. Consistent in Duplantis' request is the idea that "the gospel" is all about "saving souls" in a spiritual sense. While the plan of salvation is certainly good news and of utmost importance, it is not identical to "the Gospel," at least not the one Jesus preached.

In short, the "Gospel" is the good news that the history of Israel is now fulfilled in the life, work, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ who is bringing His Kingdom to earth. This good news includes the plan of salvation, but is not limited to it. Implied in the gospel Jesus and His disciples preached is a demand to participate in God's Kingdom here and now, which means also working in physical, tangible realities, not simply abstract, spiritual truths. "Good news" means taking care of the poor and oppressed, standing up for truth and justice, and imagining creative ways to tell the story of God in our communities. It means confronting both the personal, invisible sins within each of us that keep us separated from God and confronting the societal, visible sins that alienate all of us from the good life God created in the beginning.

A $54 million jet has rightly been condemned as a wasteful expense when the same money could benefit so many other ministries who are proclaiming the gospel in more holistic ways. How many hungry children could we feed in our communities with that money? How many expecting mothers could we house who are debating abortion because of financial fears? How many Bibles could we print? How many water wells could we drill? How many foreign missionaries already embedded in foreign countries could we support?

But, maybe we don't deserve to ask those questions because many of us believe in the same gospel as Duplantis. We believe in a gospel which says the only thing that matters is getting people to "believe" and say a prayer. All that matters is "winning souls." If that is our gospel, then of course it makes perfect sense to send a man all around the world, pack stadiums and parks full of as many people as you can, and use lights and emotional music to prompt them to come to the altar. I'm sure you can efficiently rack up a ton of "decisions" with a private jet.

So, why not? It may seem crass, but his request may be an honest presentation of our biggest faults we hide under the rug as American Christians. So, let's buy him his jet. He might be more effective than us at fulfilling our own vision of church and the gospel after all.

Share

The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

A Christian Politic- Pt. 3

Share

If you're reading this, thanks for your endurance. If you missed the first two entries in this blog series, check out the previous two entries which set the stage for this final post. In Part 1, I laid out some of the basic underlying theology of my political views, namely my focus on the Kingdom of God as revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Part 2, I attempted to critique the American Christian tendency of compartmentalizing faith and politics into separate realms. In that post I tried to demonstrate that our faith should impact all aspects of life, and therefore can be applied to all political issues, including those not typically thought as "religious" issues.

That leads to today's final post. As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, one of the concerns of applying faith uniformly to all political issues is that faith might be easily co-opted by political ideologies. Another concern I'll identify now is that such a tactic also opens up the potential for abuse of faith, particularly on the part of religious leaders and pastors. Or conversely, how can we prevent faith from abusing our political systems and creating an oppressive "theocracy"?  If our faith is to impact our political views, how can we practically mix faith and politics without poisoning either of these two realms?

Before offering some suggestions to help navigate these difficult waters, I think it's important to emphasize one point that could easily get lost. When I refer to "a Christian politic" I am not naively assuming following this will mean all Christians will come to the same political conclusions. In fact, far from it. The truth is every Christian's political conclusions are heavily informed by other forces besides just their faith. For instance, a Christian in a rural setting and one in an urban setting will likely see the same issue very differently. Likewise, an Asian Christian, a Black Christian, and a White Christian will also likely come to different conclusions. Similarly, Christians will settle on different political ideas due to different experiences, education levels, and access to facts.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in some cases it can be a good thing. Often, a single political policy or law will not be equally beneficial in every place. For example, a law that works well and promotes justice in New York City may not be very effective or just in small town America. Furthermore, if Christians always came to the exact same conclusions this could be a recipe for disastrous group-think.

As such, a "Christian politic" is not so much about coming to the exact same conclusions as it is about having common ground in the process. It's about ensuring we as Christians seek a consistency in what we advocate. It's about coming together around Scripture to seek policies, laws, and candidates that most closely approximate the ethics of the Kingdom of God while simultaneously remembering that no earthly government will replace or realize God's Kingdom.

With those considerations in mind, here are several practical suggestions for how we might live out a Christian politic:

1) We must live out our politics in community

While America is inherently an individualistic culture, the culture of the New Testament was extremely communal. Additionally, the nature of the church should drive Christians to recognize the importance of community. The church is a communal body, and likewise a Christian politic should be communal in nature. This means a few things.

First, we cannot arrive at political decisions in isolation from others. Dialogue is essential. If humans are damaged creations, then no single one of us has perfect insight. We need to hear the voices of others around us and need to be corrected by others. As I addressed above, we all come from different backgrounds and will draw different conclusions about specific policies. In order to seek the best options for our specific community we need to learn the practice of listening to others.

Second, the Bible's view of the end of the age gives us a picture of the type of community the church is called to be. In Revelation, we get a beautiful depiction of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue standing before the throne of God as the people of God. If we try to live out this eschatalogical reality in the present, then our politics must leave room for diversity. This is particularly a struggle for white Christians. It's way too easy to listen to political rhetoric that is one-sided or only favors a particular race. However, as Christians we must fight this temptation and create space for listening to viewpoints that are different than our own. For white Christians, this means listening to black, Arab, and Hispanic/Latin@ voices. A truly Christian politic must reflect input from the full diversity of God's Kingdom.

Finally, a communal politic means we recognize the need for the common good. My politics cannot be just about my own personal good. Neither can it just be about the good of Christians alone. Rather, a Christian ethic calls me to care for my neighbor, even at my own expense. Not only is the process of discovering a Christian politic a communal one, but the end result is also communal in nature.

2) A Christian politic must be grounded in humility

If we take seriously the message of the cross discussed in Part 1, then we will recognize that a Christian ethic must be dominated by a radical humility. Much of this echoes point one above. Christians engaging in politics should not be proud or arrogant. We are quick to admit that we are not God, and therefore we might be wrong. Unlike the self-righteous rantings of both the political Right and Left, Christians must stand ready to learn and be corrected. We are also ready to compromise on personal preferences for the well-being of the wider community when necessary. If we follow a man who became nothing on the cross for the sake of enemies, then we too should practice humility and self-sacrifice in our political endeavors.

3) A Christian politic must be committed to free-will and non-coercion

As one studies early Christianity from the New Testament era through the first several centuries, it become clear that Christianity was at its best before it came into political power. After Constantine legalized Christianity and after Christianity became the official religion of the empire, so much of the true power of Christianity was lost. When people were forced to become Christians, Christianity became hollowed out and even committed gross atrocities and crimes (the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, opposing science and learning, etc.)

In contrast, many Christians throughout history, particularly the Baptists and Anabaptists, have advocated for religious liberty and free consciences. "A coerced faith is no faith at all," they have said. This principle is especially helpful in our current conversation.

First, this concept means that the goal of a Christian politic is NOT theocracy. The goal is not to establish a "Christian nation" or to have a "Christian" government. History has shown time and again that such tight equivalencies between religion and state only lead to oppression. Rather, our faith should inform our decisions, but also allow room for the free practice of other religious opinions.

This also means Christians should advocate for the religious liberty of all religions, not just their own. One of the travesties of most current discussions about "religious freedom" is that Christians seem preoccupied with the supposed "persecution" of Christians, but rarely raise their voices against the very real discrimination against other faiths, such as Islam.

This principle also suggests that Christians should be cautious when it comes to "legislating morality." Yes, it is good to seek Christian values in policies and law. However--and this goes back to my first point--such policies should be made in conversation with the wider community (including non-Christian voices) and should always seek the common good.

4) Christians, especially leaders, should give priority to general values above specific policies

This is perhaps the most important point of this post. As I alluded to in Part 2, the Bible does not comment directly on most political issues. Rather, we must look at the story of the Bible, study its original context, and draw out principles that can guide our current debates.

It would be nice if this process were easy and straightforward, but it's usually not for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post. For instance, in the immigration debate, what Biblical principles do we look at? And, how do we best apply those principles? One principle could be that we need to have compassion on our neighbors. Another principle could be that we should "seek the welfare of the city" in which we live. However, what does this mean practically? Does having compassion mean we allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and establish a better life than the dangerous one they had? Or does "seeking the welfare of the city" mean we should send illegal immigrants back home because failing to enforce immigration laws opens the door for drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, or diseases to come into our country and hurt our fellow citizens?

These are tough questions, and I frequently see Christians come to very different conclusions on the matter and get angry with each other. However, it seems to me that most of these Christians debating each other have not stopped to have a meaningful conversation about the underlying values driving their policies. That is putting the cart before the horse. Before we can discuss what specific policies we should advocate for as Christians, we as Christians need to have more meaningful discussions about what values and principles we can agree on.

This fourth suggestion is especially important for pastors and Christian leaders. Some pastors get criticized for being "too political" in their preaching. I think this is a bit misleading. The truth is that Christianity is a political faith. Jesus was crucified by Rome for a political crime--proclaiming to be a King. So, I don't think the problem is that some sermons are "political."

Rather, I think the problem is that such sermons are political in the wrong kind of way. Namely, such sermons go beyond advocating for common principles and values from the Bible all Christians can agree upon to advocating for (or against) specific candidates or policies. They become partisan. For instance, I have heard way too many preachers over the past 8 years blast Obama and his policies in sermons. This is a dangerous strategy.

Going beyond promoting values to promoting specific political agendas or persons is damaging in several ways. First, it falsely connects those policies or candidates to having faith. As such, it can imply that if you don't agree with this particular political stance that you are sub-Christian (or maybe non-Christian). But that is simply not true. In the case of pastors who criticize Obama explicitly, what does that say to members of the congregation who voted for or who support Obama, perhaps on equally Christian grounds? Bringing such specifics into the sermon can easily abuse the spiritual authority given to pastors and church leaders and drive a wedge between the pastor and certain members of the congregation.

That being said, there will be times when church leaders need to become more specific in their political preaching. For instance, pastors in Nazi Germany most certainly should have spoken out against Hitler and the Holocaust. Pastors during the civil rights era in the South should have stood up against racism and Jim Crowe laws. However, how does one know when it's acceptable to preach directly about specific policies, laws, or people?

This is a tricky question--and one I can't answer completely--but here are a few thoughts. First, the issue-at-stake must be a severe injustice, particularly injustices that are costing lives. Second, the values at play should be indisputable. In other words, the specific cause must relate directly to a certain Christian value, and that value should be accepted by Christians throughout history and in the present. Third, such decisions should preference the voices of the oppressed. If we are going to speak out to something specifically, we should choose to speak on behalf of the oppressed, not the powerful, as they are the ones with no voice. Finally, such decisions to speak on specific issues should only be made after much prayer and fasting. They should not be made hastily.

In general, though, pastors and church leaders should stick with preaching the values that are common to all Christians. They should leave room for those values to be applied differently by different Christians, and should leave room for dialogue and free will. Incidentally, when we preach about Christian political values and get congregations to abide by those, then the policies usually have a way of working themselves out.

As an example, since I am currently not serving in a leadership role in a church, I have made it no secret that I strongly oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump (although I have also been careful not to publicly disclose who I am voting for or if I will be voting at all). However, if I were currently serving as a pastor, I would be more reserved in condemning Trump specifically for several reasons. First, I know a number of Christians who plan on voting for Trump for one reason or another and I don't want to make them feel excluded from our community. Second, I recognize that such Christians are often trying to apply their own Christian principles, but are simply applying them differently than myself. Finally, I don't want to imply that a vote for Trump will throw into question a person's salvation or Christian faith. Therefore, I would choose to speak more generally about Christian principles all Christians should agree on that incidentally challenge Trump as well--compassion for the poor, love for enemies, humility, sexual purity, honesty, hospitality for foreigners, etc.

None of this excludes ever talking about specifics. In fact, we must talk about specific policies at some point. However, we should only do so through dialogue within a community and only after we have examined the Christian principles that will guide those policies. Specific policies also should arise from the community and not unilaterally from church leaders or pastors.

5) Read the Bible and listen to the Spirit

Ok, I know I said point 4 was the most important point, but it's actually this one. Gotcha! The truth is, a Christian politic can only be accomplished when we are reading the same story of Scripture and when we are listening to the same Spirit. Yes, it's important to undertake this task in community. Yes, it's important to have humility and allow freedom of choice. Yes, it's important to focus first and foremost on guiding values before policies. However, none of this matters if we are not engaging the story of Scripture which forms those values. None of this matters unless we listen to the Spirit of God who binds together the church in love and unity.

----------------------------------------
Engaging in political discussions is a difficult endeavor. It can easily go wrong in so many ways. People get so worked up over political matters and debates and will even cease speaking to each other because of politics. That is why politics (in addition to religion and sex) often is taken off the table for ordinary conversation.

But we can't escape politics. We live in a democracy and are impacted by politics every day whether we choose to vote or not. If you do vote, you are forced to make decisions about what you value, who should represent you, and what laws you'd like to see. Even if you don't vote, you likely have opinions on political matters, whether those be economics, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, welfare, or the weather (just kidding on that last one).

As such, Christians have a responsibility to think (and talk) about political matters. It's not a matter of if you'll be political, but of how you will be political. But for a Christian, that "how" matters quite a bit. The Gospel is not just a belief, it is a way of life. As such, the way we live, including the way we live politically, is a reflection of our faithfulness to Christ.

Developing a Christian politic takes much careful work. We must mine our theology for values that can inform our politics. We must resist the urge to compartmentalize our lives into sacred vs. secular. And we must approach political decisions with great humility and in dialogue with a Spirit-filled community of faith rooted in Scripture.

I hope these past several posts have been helpful to you in this election year. I'm sure I'm off on some points, but that's the purpose of dialogue. Maybe these posts have given you some ideas to incorporate into your own life and practices. Maybe they've just given you insight into where I am coming from when I post about political issues. If nothing else, I hope they will allow us as Christians to have better conversations with each other and to develop healthier political views that can perhaps shape our culture into something beautiful, just, and compassionate.

Scandals in the Family

In the past few days I have seen several posts on Facebook and news stories concerning the scandals and accusations surrounding Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll. In case you missed it, a fresh round of accusations has come his way and seem to be coming to a head. Some are the same old charges of misogyny, while newer concerns have also been raised about mismanagement of church funds. The most recent revelations have led the Acts 29 network to kick Driscoll and his church, Mars Hill, out of their fellowship, Lifeway publishers to pull Driscoll's books from shelves, and church members and others to protest outside the church demanding for Driscoll's resignation.

Pastor Mark Driscoll

For a number of Christians, this news no doubt excites them. I know numerous Christians who have criticized or made fun of Driscoll because of his theological stances which they viewed to be sexist or misogynistic. I myself would tend to agree and have never been greatly impressed by Driscoll's overall demeanor. So, now that things seem to be falling apart for Driscoll and his church, it would be easy to those who have criticized Driscoll in the past to pat themselves on the back and say, "I told you so. It was just a matter of time."

But now is not the time for gloating or for seeking vindication. Rather, I think now is a time for weeping. It is becoming clearer that the ministry built by and surrounding Driscoll has not always been very ethical. In fact, this is the central reason Acts 29 gave for removing Driscoll and Mars Hill from their membership. But this is not something to celebrate.

The previous two churches I attended have experienced scandals and church splits. I can say that this is not a joyful experience. While some of us may not care for the ministry approach (or sins) of Driscoll, we cannot forget that there are many members of his church who are caught in the crossfire of these controversies. Whether their pastor resigns or simply has his credibility damaged, this congregation will suffer. And, if some of us are right in asserting that he has failed to minister in an ethical or godly way, then we should also grieve that this congregation has not been served well for years.

But even beyond grieving for this particular congregation, incidents like this should cause us to weep for the entire Church. "There is one Body." You and I are connected to Driscoll and to his ministry whether we like it or not. We serve the same Savior King. We were baptized by the same Spirit. We are part of the same Body. And so, when one minister sins, even on the other side of the country, his (or her) sin impacts us all. It damages the credibility of the Church in the eyes of the world. It hurts our brothers and sisters in Christ. And it creates a distraction from the central mission Christ has given the Church.

And so, even though I personally don't care for Driscoll, I must suppress the urge--the temptation--to gloat or celebrate. As part of the Body of Christ I need to grieve. After all, I am called to love Driscoll and his church, despite the shortcomings. So, let us grieve for this situation and seek healing and forgiveness because the love of Christ compels us to do so.

"But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it." 1 Cor. 12:24-26

Faithfulness or Ambition

I'm at an interesting point in my life right now. I finished my master's degree right at a year ago now and have thought a lot recently about future plans. At the same time, many of my friends have also recently finished their degrees and are moving on to new jobs and new cities. And yet, I am still here in Marlin working two jobs, one of them being the part-time youth pastor job I've have for 4 years now.

I would be lying if I said there weren't days when I wonder if it's time to move on and pursue a new job. After all, there are many reasons to start a new phase in my life. I could consolidate into a single (better paying) job. This would also free up time to spend with my family. I could find myself at a bigger church in a bigger town with bigger opportunities. I have a better degree than four years ago which could open up new possibilities. And, we could move closer to family to have free babysitters (aka grandparents).

However, despite all the reasons to leave, we are still here. Why?

Because I want to believe in faithful ministry. Yes, it would be easier to pack things up and seek a new, great opportunity for me and my family, but part of ministry means considering those to whom you are actually ministering. In the case of my church, my family feels a need to stick around a little longer. When I came, the church had seen 4 pastors in the previous decade and as many youth and children's pastors. Needless to say the church has grown accustomed to pastors coming and going every few years.

But I can't help but wonder if this is good. Sometimes I wonder if pastors are truly driven by God's call on their life or if they are driven more by ambition.

I suppose some could accuse me of having a lack of ambition. "Why don't you go pastor your own church? You've got a degree, do something with it! You've got so much talent, why waste it on little old Marlin?"

But I know my own heart, and the truth is I have too much ambition. I lust after those dream jobs. I dream of becoming a famous pastor, writer, teacher, etc. It's too easy for me to salivate after a community that would "actually respond". Yes, there is plenty of ambition in my heart, but I know what I also need is faithfulness.

Too many pastors are adept at the art of "church-jumping." They see an opportunity that is attractive (and just so happens to pay better as well) and find themselves resigning from their current church because "God is calling them" to such and such a church.

Now, I'm not saying that every pastor who leaves a church is like this. I believe there are many genuine calls from God to move. However, I also know it can be very easy to confuse God's voice with our own lusts, whether they be for power, prestige, or money.

Why do I stay in Marlin? Call it an experiment in faithfulness. I want to believe that God is found as much in the weak and little places as in the big and powerful places. I want to believe that amazing things can happen when we stick it out through the tough times and remain faithful. But most of all, I want to be very wary of "following my heart" before following Christ.

I'm sure one day God will call me and my family to someplace else, but when that time comes I want to make sure of a few things. I want to know for sure that it is God's voice and not simply mine, and I want to know for sure that I have done all I can do in my present location and ministry. And perhaps the American church could benefit from faithfulness like this. Maybe we as pastors need to stop bowing to the celebrity cult our churches want and bow down the the Messiah who conquered sin and death with a cross--a tool that stands for weakness, humility, and foolishness.