I say that because the way relational evangelism is often marketed, it comes off as an easy way to get out of speaking the Gospel to people, especially those we don’t know well. Relational evangelism can be an easy way to avoid that uncomfortable and sometimes awkward experience of preaching the Gospel to a stranger. One sided support of relational evangelism can easily lead one to scoff at tracts, outreach Bibles and street preachers. A prevailing attitude among many young Christians is that traditional concepts of evangelism are uncomfortable and therefore wrong, as though being or making someone uncomfortable and awkward is unloving or sinful (quite the opposite is true when it comes to helping someone see the sin and idolatry in their lives and their need of a saviour).

It’s true, relational evangelism has its place at the centre of our evangelistic lives. Often we must build trusting relationships and encourage people towards Christ and show them the light of Christ through example before God brings them to a place of trust and receptivity to his Word. However, we mustn’t forget that “[the gospel] is the power of God for [unto] salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). The power of God is in the message itself! For that reason, Paul wasn’t ashamed of his message, and he spoke it to everyone who would listen. When the apostles were put on trial in the Book of Acts the high priest said “You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching” (Acts 5:28). They too were not ashamed of the message. They spread the message that Christ died for sins because they saw it the same way God does, as good news; and not only good but beautiful, amazing, astounding news.

The Word of God is powerful and God is mighty to save. There is real power in the message about Christ. Even as we plant and sow into the lives of our friends, in light of the power of God’s Word let us fill the city with our teaching, with the Word of God; knowing that it is God who gives the growth (1 Cor 3:6-7), praying ceaselessly that God would draw his people to Christ, and believing that God’s living Word is powerful and that even the hardest of hearts can be turned by God in an instant, whether through a loving friend, a piercingly truthful Gospel tract, or the passing words of a street preacher and his billboard.

John Piper, in his book Finally Alive sums up all of this beautifully.

Relational evangelism is a key piece of the puzzle in the evangelistic lives of Christians, but for some it has come to overshadow and bring scorn upon other forms of spreading the Good News. Despite this trend, may we not give in to doing what is easy only, and may God use every means possible to spread the Gospel all across our homes, schools, cities and nations to his Glory.

It seems to me that if we are made in the image of God, then gender, to a certain extent, is not purely biological but also an essential, non socially constructed, trait. While no definite claim can be made about the difference between a man and a women because all things must be understood in terms of averages, current scientific study makes the claim that there are indeed essential differences between men and women, both biologically and psychologically. These differences are downplayed and too easily dismissed by Van Leeuwen. Furthermore, the Bible has a lot to say about gender (including the Old Testament). I don’t think we should dismiss that so quickly.

While much of what constitutes maleness and femaleness is indeed conditioned by our culture (such as hair length and clothing), there are many aspects of gender distinctives that have not changed throughout all human cultures at all times in history (qualities such as compassion, nurturing, bravery, and strength, are just examples of traits that have found very different and consistent expressions in men and women throughout history).

On the issue of God’s gender, obviously he has no biological gender and as men and women are equally made in his image, so he equally and perfectly embodies essential maleness and femaleness as he originally made them. That being said, it seems clear to me that God has chosen to relate to humanity primarily in the role of Father, rather than mother. He asks to be called our Father and we relate to him as such. It would be inconsistent and unhelpful to refer to him as mother. Our God is not “sexless” but a God that comprises all of those essential aspects which were, in the creation of humanity, divided so that, in marriage and in cooperation, they could come together as a whole, just as they exist in God. Essential differences between men and women should be celebrated and collaborated as an expression of faith and unity in the God who made us.

Thousands of years could pass and many generations of cultural change could occur and little boys would still want to play with trucks and little girls would still want to push dolls around in strollers. Fisher price commercials tell the whole story. And it is a story we should celebrate and embrace, not rejecting the way God made us in a vain attempt at so-called “equality”. We are all equally made in the image of God. A piece of red paper and piece of blue paper are no less equal in value, but they are certainly different. Difference does not equal inequality! Understanding that is the first step towards a Biblical understanding of gender.

There are a lot of challenging comments and difficult issues that I’m trying to tackle here. I don’t mean for this post to be an extensive defense of complementarianism but more of an introduction to some of my thoughts on issues surrounding gender in the church. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this issue and flesh it out together.

Links:

An example of research being done about the differences between men and women: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

An article from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an excellent organization. It is well worth your time to look at their resources if you are interested in the issue of gender in the church.

https://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood-The-Big-Picture

I mean, what are they really going to do about any of it? People have been talking about Darfur for years and really, who doesn’t know about the atrocities committed there? Still, nothing’s been done. Does anybody actually pay attention to the World Council of Churches anyway?

I just heard about it last week. 

I think it’s important that we don’t stand by and watch atrocities be committed without at least saying something. But isn’t this just adding to the noise without actually taking action or adding real value to the discussion? Not that the World Council of Churches could actually do anything but talk.

Anyway, I’m not sure what else to say about it. You can read about the commitee’s declarations here. What do you think?

My family has a strong heritage in the United Church that extends almost all the way back to its origins in 1925. My grandfather is a retired United Church minister and my parents and I attended a local congregation since I was an infant through to my teens. The issue of the United Church’s decline (what some see as progression) hits close to home for me. Over the years I have continued to read the United Church Observer and other publications that have only strengthened those feelings of indignation and sadness. The direction the church has chosen has hurt not only itself but also many of its congregants who feel abandoned by a church they have always called home. On its current course towards irrelevance, the United Church’s future is bleak at best.

The National Post’s Holy Post blog has been keeping up with the recent developments at the United Church’s General Council which concluded Saturday without any significant progress being made on anything except a few of the usual apologies for World War Two racism and aboriginal residential schools. The Holy Post’s most recent article offered a glimpse into the bleak future in store for the United Church if things continue on their current path.

The United Church’s membership continues to dwindle rapidly and is now comprised mostly of retired baby boomers over 55 years of age.  While the United Church’s future may be uncertain, one thing I’m sure of is that it will continue to fall into obscurity and irrelevance as the baby boomers die out and people like me revoke their membership and stop coming altogether.

There are many reasons for the United Church’s steady decline. Three main reasons stand out to me.

First, many people attribute the church’s decline to a watered down, all-inclusive faith. I think this is probably the most evident of all the factors leading to the Church’s declining membership. Beneath this watering down is an unwillingness to tell the truth plainly and a desire to lift up unity with anyone and everyone rather than Truth. Too many congregants have left feeling like the Church has abandoned Jesus and the Truth of the Gospel. The Bible has no longer become a central authority for the lives of many congregations. It is clear that the United Church has taken its moto, Ut omnes unum sint (from John 17:21 “That all may be one”.), too far and have become overcommitted to it at the expense of other scripture such as the rest of John 17 which is mostly comprised of Jesus’ prayer that his disciples would know the Father, know the truth and be united through the message that Jesus is the son of God and the saviour of humanity.

Second, the United Church has tried so hard to be culturally relevant in the wrong ways. Instead of being a gospel-centred force for social justice and a counter cultural movement of God’s love and mercy, it has attempted to blend into the culture and has become about as relevant to the lives of everyday people as Greenpeace. Protesting bottled water won’t make the church relevant to people outside the church and it certainly won’t make a difference in the hearts and minds of congregants. Again, John 17 comes to mind. Jesus, praying to the Father, makes it clear that true followers of Christ will be hated by the world for the sake of the truth, but asks that the Father would protect them and sanctify them by his word.

“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” John 17:1

The United Church has abandoned the word of God as the source of truth in favour of cultural relevance. Now they look just like the world, no different from groups such as Amnesty International or Greenpeace, and even less relevant in society at large.  Jesus makes it so clear that sanctification does not come from social justice and cultural relevance but from the truth. And God’s word is the truth by which he sanctifies us.

The third factor that is evident to me in the decline of the church is the widespread acceptance of neo-sophist pseudophilosphy and the pursuit of an intellectual facade that seems so prevalent in the voices of United Church “ministers” and which reminds me of many emergent evangelicals. Case in point:

People at the General Council this week were asked by church videographer Royal Orr to describe where they believe the United Church is headed.

“The kind of old assumptions of the United Church are falling away,” answered Russell Daye, an ordained minister from the Maritimes. “New archetypes are starting to emerge,” he added. “I think we’re finding a language that is grounded in Earth and some kind of eco-feminism, in a way…I think our new paradigm, if you want to use that, is going to be ‘wholographic.’”

The interview ended; viewers were left to determine for themselves just what he meant. -From the Holy Post, Aug 14

I’m convinced he hasn’t a clue what he meant either. And that’s just my point. These culturally hip pseudophilosphies have only served to foster discord in the church.

The Bible is clear about these unbiblical philosophies that don’t depend on Christ.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Col. 2:8

Furthermore,  so-called progressive Christianity has gotten its whole leg in the door of the church in the form of “minister” apostates such as Gretta Vosper, and the church has done nothing to protect the roots of faith that fostered unity in its foundation.

The United Church has abandoned the Gospel and exchanged it for so-called social justice and mainstream cultural conformity. It continues to drift further and further from Jesus and only God can lift it out of the hole its been slowly digging for itself for the past 50 years. I hope He restores the United Church to be a part of the body of Christ that glorifies him by showing mercy, love and truth equally and not only in part. Mercy and love are counterfiets of the real thing without Truth. May God turn hearts towards him and renew what has been lost.

“The word “elect” occurs often in the Bible. It means what we often call “selection” or “choosing.” That God chose Israel is clear and admitted by all. But that he chose individuals in Israel, like Jacob instead of Esau, isn’t so readily admitted by some.

Yet, they think strangely. If God chose Israel, He also chose individuals. Israel was composed of people—it wasn’t some corporate entity in itself that didn’t involve individuals. And, if you think twice about it, rather than getting upset, you will conclude that He also chose not to elect the Gentiles who were not a part of Israel. The Nations (Gentiles) consisted of people too! So God does choose and choose not to choose individuals.

To choose, always involves not choosing. It makes no difference in the outcome whether you say that individuals who are not chosen are lost because of their own sin, or whether you say individuals are lost because, in His providence, God chose not to give the Gospel to them—even in types and shadows—to remove their sin. Both, being true, end up the same place. God elects some individuals, and chooses not to select other individuals. No, my friend, you can’t get around election. It’s an unavoidable, biblical fact.” Source

I only have one potential problem with Themelios…

D.A Carson, writing in the editorial of the first online edition wrote that “Our hope is to become increasingly international in representation: take a look at the list of Book Review Editors and their addresses on the previous page. We will accept and publish contributions in either the English of the United Kingdom or the English of the United States – though not a mix of the two in any one piece!”

So hold on a second…does this mean that they won’t accept submissions from Canadians!?

I’m not sure whether to tag this post under humor or humour…

Afterall, facts are simply defined as ”that which is commonly held to be true”. Not “that which can be proven empirically”. In fact, I think that if we’re being honest, we would have to admit as Descartes did that since we experience the world through our senses and our senses are not infallible, the only thing we cannot logically doubt is our own existence.

Beyond that, we turn to reason and experience as we must get on with our lives. But in order to do that we must even put faith in reason since we must also admit that our reason is fallible, even more so if it is true that our brains and our capacity to reason have simply evolved over time; not necessarily to reflect reality but to enhance our chances of survival.

Ultimately, we must make a leap of faith in order to make any assertions about the world, let alone the existence of God. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Can I prove it? No, since experience can only tell me about the past and nothing definitive about the future. I have to put my trust in reason and in experience in order to live a normal life without constantly doubting myself and my surroundings. (For example, every time I fly in a plane I put my trust in the plane to take me 35,000 feet into the air and bring me back down safely at my destination. If I were to doubt experience consistently I could not confidently take a plane ride or even believe that it will get me to my destination safely. But as it is I trust my experience. That in itself is a leap of faith.)

I’ve chosen to put my faith in reason and experience and I can do so because I believe that a rational being created a rational universe in which I can trust both him and my senses to accurately reflect his creation. Furthermore this gives me confidence in science to help us better understand the world we live in.

It is my faith in God that gives me grounds for trusting my capacity to reason and to accurately experience the world with my senses and therefore to engage in empirical, scientific study of that world. My faith in God as a rational being provides a basis for my trust in the Bible and in the Gospel of Jesus that says I’ve rebelled from God and because of my sin, my lack of trust in God I need a saviour. That Saviour is Jesus and he died on the cross for the sins of world and rose on third day and I believe that he has the power to atone for my sins; so I trust in him.

It is clear to me that all worldviews, even if based on a “lack of faith” in something, are ultimately based on a leap of faith, whether in God, in reason, in experience,  in a negative, or even in science. From there, every worldview contains many unprovable assertions and beliefs.

In The Reason for God, Timothy Keller addresses this issue and adds some helpful thoughts to the conversation:

“The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith. Some people say, “I don’t believe Christianity because I can’t accept the existence of moral absolutes. Everyone should determine moral truth for him- or herself.” Is that a statement they can prove to someone who doesn’t share it? No, it is a leap of faith, a deep belief that individual rights operate not only in the political sphere but also in the moral. There is no empirical proof for such a position. So doubt (of moral absolutes) is a leap. 

Some will respond to all this, “My doubts are not based on a leap of faith. I have no beliefs about God one way or another. I simply feel no need for God and I am not interested in thinking about it.” But hidden beneath this feeling is the very modern American belief that the existence of God is a matter of indifference unless it intersects with my emotional needs. The speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable for your beliefs and behavior if you didn’t feel the need for him. That may be true or it may not be true, but , again, it is quite a leap of faith.”(Keller, p.xvii-xviii)

Keller goes on to make the point that no matter what beliefs you hold, it is important to doubt them as much as you doubt others, and to not unfairly hold other beliefs to the burden of proof but to question your own. Keller writes that ”The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must doubt your doubts.” (Keller, p.xviii)

So if you trust in reason and experience, you must ask yourself why. How can I justify my trust in reason to accurately represent the world around me and to make right choices. If you trust the assertion that there is no god you must ask yourself why and what philosophical understanding of the world underpins that belief. If you believe in God you must likewise ask yourself why, and doubt your doubts about atheism. Keller suggests that this process lends to greater civility and understanding. “At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility. Then there will be an understanding, sympathy and respect for the other side that did not exist before.” (Keller, p.xviii)

No matter what worldview you have, theistic or atheistic, an understanding that it is underpinned by a set of beliefs about the world that cannot be proven is essential to civil discourse and respect for those who disagree. Intellectually boastful Atheism or Theism won’t do society any good. Let’s all take Keller’s advice.

The author of the post about Brad Pitt’s admission had this to say:

“Folks, atheism can no longer be seen as an admission, especially by us. Admissions are for crimes and other shameful things, not for personal or intellectual victories that coming out as secular can represent. Coming out can be a confirmation, or preferably a boast, but not an admission. Never an admission. So boast about being an atheist. Brag about it. Trumpet it from the rooftops. Our days of admitting it are over.”

The irony of this is of course that the author is using very typically religious language to get his message across. One can almost hear the words of the Apostle Paul echoing from the post.  Just replace atheist with Christian.

Writing to some of the earliest Christians Paul wrote:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is reveled from faith, for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” Rom. 1:16-17

“But far be it from me to baost except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Gal. 6:14

The obvious difference between the No God Blog and Paul is that the Apostle was not boasting in his own intellectual ability or his knowledge of the truth.  Paul recognized that the flesh counted for nothing and that if he was to boast in anything at all it should be the cross of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of being a Christian. He was not ashamed of Jesus and his good news and so he boasted in the cross and he trumpetted the Gospel from the rooftops. We as Christians shouldn’t be admitting to our faith either. We should glory in Christ (Rom 15:17) and serve him by telling the world about him, even in the face of persecution from bold, proud atheists, convinced that they have broken free from the supposed intellectual shackles of faith. We should be ready as Peter instructs us to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”(1 Pet. 3:13)

As the new atheists become more openly proud and vocal about their own faith (read more here about why I use the word faith) it is important for Christians to be able to clearly and graciously defend the Gospel and to not be ashamed for their belief.

So brothers and sisters, boast about the Cross. Brag about Christ. Trumpet the Gospel from the rooftops. Our days of admitting it are over.

The Bible never attributes Israel’s freedom from slavery in Egypt to the actions  (either good or bad) of the Israelites. God made a promise to Abraham and he remembered his promise and acted on it.

In the same way, the Bible never attributes a believer’s freedom from the bondage of sin to their actions (either good or bad).

If the salvation of Israel in the Old Testament is an accurate spiritual metaphor for the salvation of the Church in the New Testament then a Christian’s understanding of the relevance of being a part of God’s chosen people must be informed by what God has said about Israel.

“..my chosen people, the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.” Is. 43:21

It is God then who saves, despite our actions and iniquities. God formed a people for himself to declare his praise. Acts 13:17 makes it clear that God chose Israel, not the other way around.

“The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it.”  Acts 13:17

And Ephesians 1:5-6 echoes Isaiah 43:21 saying that in love, God “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.”

In the New Testament, God’s word expands on the concept of God’s choosing and election. The Old Testament, particularly the book of Isaiah can help to shed light on the foundation of that choice and purpose behind it (although it ultimately remains a mystery why God chooses some and not others).

“Yet you did not call upon me, O Jacob, but you have been weary of me, O Israel!…you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities.” Is. 43:22

“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” Is 43: 24b-25

“But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.” Is. 44:1-2

But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.” Is. 43:1

“I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” Is. 43:6-7

Today the people of God are no longer limited to Israel.

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called, sons of the living God.” Rom 9:22-26

God now continues his work to reveal the sons of God (Rom8:19), and his promise to bring his chosen people to himself from the ends of the earth.

Six things to take away:

1. God is the only Creator, King, and Savior.
2. God has created a people for himself and called them to himself by name, for his Glory.
3. As God has purposed, so shall it be, and as he has purposed, so shall it stand. This is as true today for the people of God as it was for Israel.
4. Salvation comes from God’s grace and purpose, not from our works.
5. If Israel is a valid metaphor for the Church, then what God has said about his chosen people must be understood as relevant to the people of God today and that which is not specific to Israel’s actions, culture and place in history can be applied to the Church (particularly God’s choice of, love of, and purpose for Israel).
6. If Israel is a valid metaphor for today’s Church then election, predestination and God’s call must be understood in the context of God’s own affection, purpose, and sovereign grace given to individual sinners and to the Church as a whole, for His own purposes.

The main point:

God, in his infinite mercy and love, has sovereignly purposed to call and redeem a people for himself, to his Glory. Just as God did this with Israel, he does it now with the Church, Christ’s bride, and nothing can separate the brothers and sisters from the love of God in Christ Jesus.  (Rom 8:37) Those who know him are witnesses to this love. Go and proclaim it.

“I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God. Also, henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” Is. 43:11-13