Five Questions for Laura Story

Laura Story — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:12:56 -0700

Laura Story is an accomplished songwriter and recording artist who penned the worship anthem, "Indescribable." She is also the lead spokesman for the Catalyst Music Project and recorded the first single, "What a Savior." Laura recently took time out from her busy tour schedule to answer Five Questions from ConversantLife.

You've got a great name for someone whose passion it is to tell the story of God's love through music. How much influence has your name had on your work?

Well, I’ve never really thought about it. But it is kinda strange how that works out. I do find that the only thing worth sharing with anyone is how God’s grace intersects our story. Our whole lives are simply stories of God’s faithfulness.

Your bio says that you were once an aspiring symphony conductor. Did you have lofty aspirations to be the next Leonard Bernstein, or did you just enjoy telling other musicians what to do?

That’s pretty funny. I really wasn’t that far into professional symphonic music but I have always loved playing in orchestras and was very interested in doing that vocationally. God definitely has used my classical training to help me understand the ins and outs of music and to make me a better songwriter.

A lot of people probably don't know that you wrote the song, "Indescribable," which Chris Tomlin recorded and made famous. That song has to be in the top ten of worship songs of all time. What's it like to write a song that so many people sing every week as an anthem of praise to God?

It is pretty crazy to think about what God has done with the song Indescribable. It was the first worship song I had ever written and I remember singing it with my college worship team in our campus chapel services. I am thankful that God used me to be the vessel to write it and hope theat the glory continues to go to Him alone.

So are you a songwriter who sings, or a singer who writes songs?

I am more of a songwriter who sings. I started as a songwriter who played bass and let other people in the band sing my songs; but over the years, God has really drawn me out of my comfort zone. I’ve never had a flashy voice. I can’t do any Mariah Carey-like vocal acrobatics but God has given me a voice that is sufficient to sing the songs he has placed in my heart. I am reminded each time I get up in front of people that serving God isn’t about being the best; its about being obedient.

You are currently the spokesperson for the Catalyst Music Project, and the song you recorded, "What a Savior," is the lead song. Tell us about the Project and how you came to be involved.

I have a great deal of respect for the Catalyst Conference. I am a worship leader at a church in north Atlanta and, over the years, I have seen Catalyst train, equip and inspire countless worship leaders in our area and all over the globe. This new step they have taken in adding Catalyst Music Project is just another example of that: equipping leaders of local churches by sharing songs written by leaders of local churches. I am excited to see what God will do through these great songs.

Muslims are killing Christians in Nigeria. Will we respond like Christ or like humans?

Mark Russell — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:07:15 -0700

Over the weekend I tweeted and updated my facebook status with the simple statement: Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria followed by a simple question: Will we respond like Christ or like humans? It’s always interesting what captures people’s imaginations and provokes response.

After a year of conversations on facebook, I was still amazed at the response the simple status update received. Feel free to check it out here: http://bit.ly/auO0bH

Reflecting on responses, the following points are worth of mentioning:

1) There is no emotion like religious emotion.

Wars over the centuries have demonstrated that religions are frequently front and center in every war. Religious emotion is a product of two things as I see it. First, it is an indicator that people genuinely care. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t get so upset.

Extrapolate this to relationships, we feel pain or get upset if someone offends our spouse, but our heart beat will barely increase if we see a stranger offend another stranger on the subway.

However, there is also a more sinister reason religious emotion is so hot, namely it is a reflection of insecurity. In almost any form of debate when someone’s argument is weak they will resort to speaking harshly, even shouting, or otherwise spewing forth emotion to distract from the weakness of their argument.

The same is true in religious contexts. When people are insecure in their beliefs or faith, they cover it with emotion. This is largely a subconscious act. Generally the insecure actor is unaware of his/her constant need to cover for his/her insecurity.

2) Who is we and who are they?

One astute facebook friend asked me at one point who was meant by “we” in my question. When I tweeted it, I was actually thinking of “we” as everyone not in Nigeria.

But I have noticed periodically that there is a certain sloppiness in defining “us” and in defining “them.” We are the Christians. They are the Muslims. We are Americans. They are Arabs.

Not only do these “us-them” categories continue to reinforce stereotypes and maintain barriers, but hey are also frequently inaccurate. A few years ago while teaching a class on Arabs at Asbury Seminary, a student brought up how they (Arabs) are killing us (Christians) in Nigeria. Actually, there are no Arabs (perhaps a few) in Nigeria. There are Muslims but this is not synonymous with Arabs, who are a people group, and of which quite a few are actually Christians!

This misunderstanding had caused the student and undoubtedly many others to extend the terror acts of a few Middle Easterners to the situation in Nigeria.

The reality is that these are exceptionally different situations and the situation in Nigeria is more akin to inter-tribal warfare than anything else.

Sadly enough in Nigeria, Christians have also murdered hundreds of Muslims. Even sadder, I have even heard Nigerian church leaders say that Christians should arm themselves like a militia. But is that really the answer?

3) Who kills us?

Every single people group I’ve ever visited in every single country I’ve visited (and I’ve been to over 70 countries) has another group that they stigmatize, don’t like and more often, hate.

What the groups do not tend to recognize is that they are more generally killed, persecuted, cheated, lied to, etc…by people within their own group. This is true for Christians as well. Who is the number one killer of Christians worldwide?....(drum roll)….Answer: Other Christians.

Last year, I wanted to travel with a Rwandan friend to Congo. Rwanda is a “Christian” country where roughly a million Christians were murdered by other Christians in 1994. Congo is also a Christian country, where four million Christians have been murdered by other Christians in the last decade. Unfortunately, my contacts in Congo told me to not come with my Rwandan friend, pointing out that Rwandans are generally hated and are frequently hunted down and murdered in Congo.

This is true in the US as well. Christian militia groups like the KKK hunted down other Christians and killed them. “Christian” Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of Christians in Oklahoma City. Eric Rudolf, acting on his understanding of his Christian faith, planted a bomb in Olympic Park. The list goes on.

Granted followers of Christ will not look on these deviations as valid expressions of our faith. The same debate rages inside Islam.

The point is: Christians kill Christians more than anyone else does.

4) The New Way

When Jesus came and proclaimed himself to be the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), he gave us all a radically new way of living life and responding to the hostile acts of others.

The teachings of Jesus are legendary: turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc…

They are so commonplace in church circles that I’m afraid they’ve become like canned food, something that is always in the cupboard but something we infrequently use or even really know what it is.

Have we really considered what it means to turn the other cheek and to love our “enemy”? Generally speaking, I don’t think we have.

After 9-11, I remember watching a well-known Evangelical church leader say that we should respond with everything in our military arsenal. I was saddened that he didn’t say something like prayer.

Shortly thereafter I emailed over a thousand people and asked them to join me in praying for the redemption and forgiveness of Al-Qaeda operatives. I was surprised at some of the hostility displayed by otherwise loving Christians to the very idea of loving these enemies through prayer.

A year or so ago, I was in Pennsylvania and saw the location where a mad man locked up and tied up Amish children and shot the little girlsin the back of the head.

The Amish responded to the senseless and heinous act of violence by raising the site, lest it cause them bitterness, committed these children to the Lord and chose to love their “enemy” by forgiving the man (who committed suicide) and choosing to financially support his widow and children.

When I’ve told that story to other Christians, they frequently try to explain why this was not a necessary step on behalf of the Amish. Or they resort to referring to the Amish as a cult. Or some other line of commentary that prevents them from ever having to practice turning the other cheek like the Amish did.

Recently, I was at a conference and an anti-nuclear activist suggested that if there was a nuclear attack on US soil, that 95% of Christians would push for a retaliatory nuclear attack. I’m afraid he’s right.

Do we look at persecution as an opportunity to live the new way of Christ, turning the other cheek, loving our enemy or do we seek to justify a violence-based response.

Muslims are killing Christians in Nigeria. Will we respond like Christ or like humans?

I Asked the Lord

Abbie Smith — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:01:00 -0700

I asked the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek, more earnestly, His face.

’Twas He who taught me thus to pray,
And He, I trust, has answered prayer!
But it has been in such a way,
As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,
At once He’d answer my request;
And by His love’s constraining pow’r,
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart;
And let the angry pow’rs of hell
Assault my soul in every part.

Yea more, with His own hand He seemed
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this, I trembling cried,
Wilt thou pursue thy worm to death?
“’Tis in this way, the Lord replied,
I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ,
From self, and pride, to set thee free;
And break thy schemes of earthly joy,
That thou may’st find thy all in Me.”

-John Newton

Slavery in America: Fair Trade

Carrie Nye — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:24:34 -0700

When asked what Americans can do to help lessen the demand for slavery abroad, IJM staffer Lauren Johnson talked about Americans considering what they are purchasing. In case you missed it, you can read more of what she had to say here.

Trade As One is an organization that works alongside churches in hopes that entire congregations of people will understand the global impact of their purchases.

The market today truly is a global one. We buy produce, coffee, chocolate, clothing, jewelry, etc. and most of it comes from another part of the world. But how often do we consider the hands that have sewn our clothing, made our jewelry or farm the food and drink we are consuming today? We buy chocolate but aren’t told that the majority of the world’s chocolate is from Sierra Leone. There are over 800,000 children enslaved to the coca farms in Sierra Leone. I’m a sucker for chocolate but I don’t need it so bad that it would ever justify a child enslaved and deprived of his/her childhood so that I can eat a chocolate bar.

Check out this video that Trade As One released. Fair trade is not a perfect system but it is headed in the right direction. What are your thoughts on buying fair trade versus non-fair trade products? What are some other ways you know of that American consumers might help lessen the demand for slaves abroad based on what they purchase?

For more info on how fair trade can help stop slavery check out:

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/takeaction/chocolate/

http://live2free.org/fairtrade.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/

Self-Care 101: The Reconciliation of Self

Kristin Ritzau — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:40:24 -0700

"Over the years, the growing consciousness of radical grace has wrought profound changes in my self-awareness. Justification by grace means that I know myself accepted by God as I am. When my heat is enlightened and my heart is pierced by this truth, I can accept myself as I am. Genuine self-acceptance is not derived form the power of positive thinking, mind games, or pop psychology. It is an act of faith in the God of Grace." (Brennan Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 48-9)

I love Brennan Manning. Other than certain stories in the Bible and of course Jesus Christ, Brennan is the poster boy for grace. He writes paragraphs like this that leave me in awe and wanting that so bad -- to accept myself as I am, right here, right now -- no matter the circumstance.

The problem of perfection is that the right here, right now is not "okay." We can always do more or do it better. Even if we achieve the desired outcome, there is no time wasted before we're on to what is next or cleaning up the next mess or faced with yet another disaster that grips our ever-ready attention.

In this world of self-care (or perfectionist recovery) I find myself in, I see many responses to what I speak on and try to live out. The first response, we'll call her Person #1, is that she gets it. She might not fully know what it entails, but the way of her crazy life isn't working anymore. She wants to stop listening to the chiding voices in her head and start caring for herself better in order to be healthier for others. Person #2 is quite a different story. The message of self-care is internalized, but to the point that she cuts herself off from her community only to wallow and not heal. She thinks that the wallowing will lead to self-care, but actually this person is not wanting to take care of herself. It is a position of paralysis. Person #3 thinks that self-care is selfish and keeps on keeping on. She is the do-er extraordinaire and will stop at nothing (or stop nothing) to face her own issues.

There are other responses, but these three dominate. Of course I am a huge fan of #1, but at its root all three of these mindsets revolve around reconciliation -- or lack thereof -- of the guilt and shame we hold in our bodies and if we're ready to face it. Person #1 is ready to deal with the voices and start down the long slow journey of reconciling with herself. Person #2 can only see her shame and guilt. The hope is buried so far down that she can't even imagine finding it and/or thinks she does not deserve it. Person #3 does not want to slow down to ask herself anything. Her life is one of burn-out management, sacrificed for others.

You might know these people. They might be you. The truth is, they are all me at different times. Sure I want to be Person #1, but that requires the hard work of showing up to myself every day. I have to reconcile who I am every day. Yesterday my pastor defined reconciliation as, "Making friends with the future in mind." Meaning that when we reconcile we are constantly working at the friendship for the sake of the future outcomes. (Hope I got that right Josh!) That takes a lot of work to do with myself, let alone my enemies! So if we can't or don't do within our own souls -- how can we do this others? There is no better time to ask this question of ourselves in this day and age.

So how then do we experience reconciliation, grace and healing? We have to start in that bleak place of our guilt and shame. The church has emphasized "guilt" a lot in the past. "Jesus takes away our guilt." "We are no longer guilty." Shame is thrown around too, but shame is still what I felt for so long even though I was "forgiven" of my guilt. Recently I discovered a profound definition of both and it helped bring to light the ache in my soul. Norman Bales writes, "We feel guilty for what we do. We feel shame for what we are." And isn't that just it? We feel that we can be forgiven for actions, but we feel we can't be forgiven for who we are. There is no changing that -- but that's just it -- we're not supposed to! However, this self-masochism plunges us into more penance actions i.e. perfectionism.

The truth is the love the Trinity has for us encompasses and embraces us just as we are at any point in time. We are loved for exactly who we are, but why is it so hard to accept this?

The reason I always start with the reconciliation (making friends) with one's self is that most Christians know in their heads that God loves them. "Yes, God loves me." But their experience of embodying God's love in their souls and skin... what the heck is that all about? It's more than a hike, a devotional, or a book. It can be terrifyingly awesome. That is the grace of God and it moves and shapes the core and essence of our beings. There is no way to avoid love in the darkest hour if you know this radical space -- but it takes work.

Trust me, I still look like Person #3 quite a bit. But SLOWLY I am learning that even when I am sick I am okay and I am loved. Even when I am busy, I am loved. Even when I feel darkness and there is no light, God is there, and I am loved. I don't know how to explain it more today, so I close with this thought: Making amends with my own soul -- the guilt of my actions and the shame of who I thought I was -- I have unearthed a tiny slice of the Spirit's love. This happens most often when I am just being me.

(Leaf portrait picture - Jenny Lee Fowler)

The End of the World: Part One

Brett McCracken — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:40:39 -0700

(This is the first in a multi-part series on our fascination with the culmination and ultimate conclusion of history)

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking a lot about the end of the world. No, it’s not because there seem to be massive earthquakes happening everywhere in the world this year (though there have been a lot); and it’s not because I saw 2012 a few weeks ago (a wonderfully absurd film). Neither is it because of some convoluted reading of Luke 10:18 that claims the Bible names “Baraq O Bam-Maw” as the antichrist.

Mainly, it’s because I’m currently taking an eschatology class at Talbot School of Theology.

The class is called Theology IV: Church and Last Things, and it’s been quite the headtrip so far.

But the end of the world has also come up in a surprising amount of other places in my life recently. This weekend alone, I heard an extended academic conversation about how God might have orchestrated the invention of the Internet so that his Gospel could be spread rapidly to every corner of the globe immediately prior to his return, completing the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) and preparing the world for Christ’s second coming, ala Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10.

I also had a conversation on Friday with MC Hammer–yes, THE MC HAMMER–about how the explosive growth of Christianity in Asia might be a sign of the end times. (But more about this in Part Two… including quotes from my interview with Hammer).

Eschatology–the study of the end of the world–sometimes seems silly to me. So many weird people are obsessed with it, creating elaborate theories, timelines, and bestselling book series (I’m talking to you Tim Lahaye!) based on end times melodrama. Between the pre-mill dispensationalists, preterists, a-mill or post-mill non-dispensationalists, there are so many divergent theories on how the whole thing will play out that it makes your head spin. Why should Christians even bother trying to make guesses about things that no consensus has been formed about in 2,000 years?

I grew up hearing sermons about how Christ’s return was probably imminent. My parents and grandparents probably did too. In fact, every generation since Christ has thought their generation would be the last. But history presses on.

Why are we all so eager for the end? Why are we so obsessed by eschatology? Why did Left Behind sell so many copies?

I think there are many reasons, but here are two big ones: 1) We love a good story, and 2) We are hungry for justice and renewal.

When I say “we love a good story” I don’t mean to suggest that Revelation is a book of fiction or that the end times prophecies are just good adventure stories. I mean that God’s work in the world really IS a fantastic (and true!) story, which began in Genesis 1:1 and is yet to be completed. The narrative includes the fall of man, God’s answer for sin (Jesus), and will conclude with the as-yet-documented return of Christ and his triumphant rule and reign, with his church, over a new heaven and new earth. The story will have a pretty spectacular ending, and so naturally people get excited just thinking about it. Could we be the generation that sees all this stuff go down? What will our part in God’s historical purposes be?

I also think Christians have a deep hunger for justice–to see their beliefs validated and the sin in the world judged. They know their ultimate destiny as the church is to run the universe, so of course they’d like to get on that as soon as possible! But they also groan, along with everyone else, for the renewal of creation–to see Christ finally put to death “the former things” like evil, death, decay, sadness, etc. They are keenly aware of the duality of holiness and evil, and long for the winning side to prevail. They want to see the world finally become exactly what God created it to be. They want to see the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Revelation 21:2).

More end-times thoughts coming in Part Two: MC Hammer Weighs In

Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name

Sean McDowell — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:17:17 -0800

I love apologetics! Anyone who has either heard me speak, sat in my class, read any of my books, or spent more than twenty minutes with me knows that I believe deeply in the importance of defending the Christian faith.

I'm not alone in my belief. Pastor and author Timothy Keller, who ministers in New York and has written one of the better apologetics books of our time, The Reason for God, says one of the big issues facing the church today is the need for a renewal of apologetics. Keller says apologetics is important for two reasons.

First, Christians in the West will soon be facing missionaries from around the world. While loving communities are important, he says that we also need to be prepared to converse thoughtfully with people of differing worldviews.

Second, there is a vacuum in western secular thought. The enlightenment faith in science and progress has ended, and according to Keller, postmodernism is seen as a dead end, too. This is why Keller concludes: “There is a real opening, apologetically, in reaching out to thoughtful non-Christians, especially the younger, socially conscious ones.”

And yet Keller points out something that I have been thinking about for some time, namely that there is a lot of resistance right now among younger evangelical leaders toward apologetics. This is why I wrote Apologetics for a New Generation, to offer ideas about how apologetics can be effectively done in our current culture. Let’s continue apologizing (and I don’t mean saying sorry!) for the faith, but do it in a way that resonates with our present culture.

So, even though a powerful case can be made for the importance of apologetics, why do so many people continue to resist and criticize it? I haven’t seen any solid biblical reasons for rejecting apologetics. After all, Jesus was an apologist (John 5:31-47), Paul clearly used apologetics (Acts 17), Peter encouraged people to be able to defend their views (1 Peter 3:15) and early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius regularly used apologetics. Concern must lie elsewhere. In fact, my experience tells me that the problem is not with apologetics per se, but with apologists—the people who practice apologetics. Do you agree?

I offer some humble thoughts from my research and experience. If you disagree, or have further thoughts, I would love to know.

Apologists often overstate their case. There is a huge temptation to overstate the evidence for the Bible, intelligent design, the resurrection of Jesus or any other apologetic issue. I have succumbed to this myself. In our eagerness to convince non-believers, or our desire to strengthen fellow Christians, we can all fall prey to the temptation to state things more certainly than they may be. In our information age, people have access to counterarguments and perspectives at the tip of their fingers. We also live in a skeptical age where people who say things with dogmatism are often considered suspect. This does not mean the evidence for Christianity is not compelling. It is. But there are smart, thoughtful people that disagree. And we must acknowledge this, or we’ll set up people—especially young people—for failure.

Apologists often do not speak with gentleness, love and respect. Recently I had a public debate with Dr. James Corbett on the question of God and morality (here). As part of my preparation, I listened to many debates from Christians. Although I won’t mention any names, there were a handful of Christian debaters that honestly made me cringe at how they treated their opponents. One debater (the head of a well known apologetics ministry that will remain anonymous) demeaned and personally attacked his opponent. I even showed the video to my wife and she was appalled at his antics and behavior. But it’s not just public figures that act this way. We probably all have an example of some overly eager apologist who was unnecessarily argumentative rather than loving. If this is you, PLEASE STOP because you are giving Christianity and apologetics an unnecessarily bad name. I often tell my students that if they can’t speak the truth in love, then don’t even bother to speak truth.

Apologists are often not emotionally healthy. Mark Matlock wrote a compelling essay about apologetics and emotional development for my book Apologetics for a New Generation. In it, he argued that apologetics often attracts people who have been emotionally hurt, and in turn, who use apologetics to hurt other people. He’s absolutely right. As Rick Warren has said, “Hurt people, hurt people.” There is power in knowledge. And many people seek power by gaining more information so they can control and even humiliate other people. If you are an apologist, I encourage you to ask yourself some deep questions: Why (honestly) are you an apologist? Is your heart genuinely broken for non-Christians? Do you pray for humility and guidance in your research and conversations with both Christians and non-Christians? I hope so.

Apologetics is often done in a cold, mechanical and rationalistic manner. Many of us think of apologetics as the impersonal deliverance of facts meant to convince people rationally that Christianity is true—as if people are simply robots that conform to whatever is most reasonable! Apologetics is often void of emotion, passion, and good old-fashioned storytelling. Apologetics is often seen as a narrow discipline for lawyers and doctors. But this is not apologetics. It does (or should) engage the mind but through the heart, passions, and emotions. C.S. Lewis beautifully modeled this approach with his use of fiction. Insofar as apologetics is viewed as simply rationalistic, it will fail to captivate people.

The issue is not really apologists versus non-apologists. C.S. Lewis was right that we are all apologists. The question is just how effective of an apologist we are. So, besides these four points, what other reasons are there for why apologetics has a bad name in some circles of Christianity? I’d love to know your thoughts. And more importantly, what can we do about it?

A Recycled Green Zone

Christopher Faris — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:34:42 -0800

Someone just tried to make Call of Duty: The Movie. In “Green Zone,” Matt Damon plays a soldier in a specialized unit trying to uncover the whereabouts of WMD’s in Iraq. However, all of his intel is coming up fruitless, much to his frustration. Before you can say Sarah Palin, Damon goes rogue. He then spends the rest of the film hunting down the whereabouts of WMD’s, being confronted by nosy reporters, encountering the locals, fighting soldiers, and dealing with opposing political forces within the American and Iraqi camps. Yawn.

On paper, “Green Zone” does have the ingredients to make something good. Paul Greengrass directed two Bourne films and made a legitimate masterpiece with “United 93.” Matt Damon can show his talent, and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for “Gone Baby Gone.” Brendan Gleeson was honest and balanced in the offensively fun “In Bruges.” Greg Kinnear has a certain reliability to him as well. Yet, everyone seems to be going through the motions, giving us a film without much passion or flavor.

For a modern warfare movie, “Green Zone” feels awfully boring due to just how familiar and stale the proceedings feel. While there are a couple of legitimate action sequences, they rarely rouse or maintain tension. Problematically, the reuniting of Greengrass and Damon swiftly recalls images of Jason Bourne, while the shaky cam cinematography plus grainy appearance make it look and feel like a half-baked Bourne sequel. There is even a close quarter’s combat scene much like the book-fu fight in the Bourne films. It takes away from much of the uniqueness that the film may have tried for and undercuts any message about the conflict that may have been intended.

What “Green Zone” did do was verbalize much of the culture’s current view of the conflict in Iraq. We were sent overseas for good reason, got betrayed by our leaders, feel misled and lied to, and now are endlessly cynical about what Government tells us. We question why we are there, what the purpose is, and while attempting to unite a divided Iraq have become divided ourselves.

When the end of the film finally rolls up, the “message” is hardly revolutionary. What you expect to happen probably will happen. What may have been intended as a commentary ends up being narration instead. This is not to say that “Green Zone” is a bad film so much as it is a tired film. It’s competent, but merely so. The acting, cinematography, and action feel recycled and borrowed from better movies. If you’re itching for some war or action, you'll be better off checking the Netflix selection instead.

Can We Overemphasize The Gospel?

Chris Tomlinson — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:37:29 -0800

I love The Gospel Coalition, and here’s why:

“The Gospel Coalition is a group of (mostly) pastors who are deeply committed to the gospel…and want to think out of the framework of the good news of Christ—crucified, risen on our behalf, reconciling us to God, preparing us for eternity.” DA Carson

“We’ve got our eyes fixed on the fact that the gospel of Jesus Christ needs to be central—it needs to drive everything that we do in ministry and in life.” Joshua Harris

“The gospel is not proclaimed if Christ is not proclaimed.” TGC Confessional Statement

“The gospel is not just a body of doctrinal content. It’s a power—it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. It’s not just about God’s power—it is God’s power.” Tim Keller

“I am gripped by any gathering of people who will give themselves to the preservation and the exaltation of the fullness of the gospel, because in the end, my soul gets satisfied with the greatness of God, and God gets all the glory that He should get by being the end for which [all things] exist.” John Piper

There is beauty and grace and strength and depth in these words. I find deepening affections for God as I consider the human brokenness and Spirit-filled power in this global community which has oriented itself around the greatest news in human history: the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In light of these affections, I was troubled by the question that recently came to mind: Is it possible to overemphasize the gospel?

Here’s why I ask. The way we think and talk are products of the people we read and talk with and listen to. I didn’t grow up saying “authentic community,” “missional,” “there’s a tension here,” “the sufficiency of Christ,” “the glory of God,” or any of these phrases I find myself saying and writing now. I have picked these up from pastors and writers and friends, who I assume picked them up from other pastors and writers and friends, and on and on until we find we are all beginning to share a new common language to express old ideas.

These kinds of phrases are useful in that they represent ideas we believe, and these ideas ultimately inform the ways in which we live. That’s why the language we use is so crucial—if we hear and say something enough, we will often find our lives changed by the power of words.

One of the most common phrases I’ve been hearing recently from pastors all across the country is a variation on the term gospel. Usage has taken on many forms: “gospel-centered living,” “living out of the gospel,” “the centrality of the gospel,” “gospel-centered ministry,” and the like. These phrases are a testament to the stirring of God in our churches and the impact of communities like The Gospel Coalition in which ideas that matter are shaped and shared.

There is clearly a movement underway—a movement towards gospel-centered ministry and gospel-centered living (see). And this is a movement worth joining. As John Piper says, “When the [gospel] is lost, the glory of Christ is lost.” So the stakes of this movement have eternal consequences.

With movements comes movement—a shift from one perspective to another. And because we are fallen, we have the tendency to shift too far at times. This is the classic pendulum swing we see in religious movements and social movements alike. We often find it easier to react against what we don’t believe rather than beginning with what we do, and the outcome is often intellectual and emotional polarization. So I wonder if we’ve done the same thing with our usage of the term gospel.

This brings me back to my question: Is it possible to overemphasize the gospel? Or to ask it another way: what dangers might exist in overusing the term?

To answer this question, it may be useful to look at God’s word, where we find that the gospel is…

…A promise of God (Romans 1:2)

… A command to be obeyed (1 Peter 4:17)

… Good news to be believed in (Mark 1:15)

…A message to be preached out of the power of the cross of Christ, not out of human wisdom (1 Cor 1:17)

…The revelation of God’s righteousness (Romans 1:17)

…The power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Romans 1:16)

…A seed that bears fruit (Colossians 1:6)

…A worthy cause for which to lose our life (Mark 8:35)

… A source of great blessing (1 Corinthians 9:23)

God has much to say about the gospel, His gospel, and it’s clear that this good news is filled with glory. But we should note that what God has to say about His gospel is largely spoken of in terms of means. The gospel is a promise of God in order to set His people apart. It is a command of God in order to face judgment and be saved. It is good news to believed in order to join God’s kingdom.

I recently heard a pastor speaking to the power of the gospel to touch all parts of our lives, not just the moment of our conversion, but he spoke of it in terms of an end and not a means. He said things like, “We need to live out of the gospel,” “we need to trust in the gospel,” “we need to keep the gospel in front of us all the time,” and “the gospel heals us.”

I don’t mean to object over trivialities, because I know the intentions behind the words were meant to honor God, but this is where our language is vital. The gospel is a means—not an end. So the way we talk about the gospel and think about the gospel is paramount. It amounts to whether we orient our lives towards the journey or the destination.

The destination is why The Gospel Coalition exists: to generate a unified effort among all peoples—an effort that is zealous to honor Christ and multiply his disciples, joining in a true coalition for Jesus” (The Gospel for All of Life: Preamble). And this must be many have joined this movement, to partner with people who are orienting their lives around a Person who is the destination we all seek.

So I conclude that we cannot overemphasize the gospel so long as we keep the Source, Substance, and End to the gospel in full view. Pastors, we as your flocks need to hear you remind us continually that the gospel touches every part of our lives—that it is the firm foundation on which we walk in our journey of faith. But more importantly, we need you to point us to the end of this road, to Jesus, for whom, and about whom, the gospel exists.

Prayer changes everything and nothing - all at the same time

Christian Buckley — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:51:27 -0800

So a second take on Chelsea King.

I have been thinking about my prayers and the prayers of the thousands, most of which I assume would appear now to have gone for not. Chelsea wasn't saved. She isn't alive. And most people are left with a feeling of, excuse the passion, "What the Hell is wrong with this world?"

It made me re-think something I wrote two years ago, when a similar thing happened, only that time it was cancer that did the killing.

Prayer changes everything and nothing - all at the same time.
I recently saw the familiar bumper sticker, “Prayer Changes Everything” and of course began to ponder if that is really true. In my opinion, often times prayer changes nothing at all because we are hoping, expecting, and searching for it to change something it was never designed to change – external circumstances. Can God change our circumstances? Sure. Does God change circumstances? Maybe. Is God’s focus on circumstances? Never.

Most of us pray expecting to gain a reaction from God. We pray believing that if done right, by sufficient people with sufficient urging, our prayers will result in significant measurable temporal change; claiming the apparent promise of James 5:16 – the effective fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. We recite the edict to pray without ceasing and murmur of prayer chains and lists, prayer books and teams.

But what does the prayer of a righteous man avail? Wasn’t Jesus a righteous man in the garden before his arrest? Wasn’t he fervent? Wouldn’t the Son of God’s prayer be effective? Didn’t he already know the will of the Father? And yet, the cup didn’t pass. Was God surprised by Christ’s prayer? Did he not realize that Christ the man would desire to not be crucified for all mankind? Did something go wrong? Did it fail because the disciples were asleep?

These questions are of course rhetorical because Christ’s prayer did avail much – it changed Him. Christ wasn’t praying for revelation, he was praying for revitalization. He entered the garden shaken and left the Garden focused on achieving the salvation of whosoever would believe. He entered the Garden desperate and left focused on saving me. I for one am glad that God did not react to Christ’s prayer like I have wished so many times for him to have reacted to mine.

God is not surprised by our prayers. God doesn’t learn from our prayers. God doesn’t judge our prayers. God knows our prayers before they are prayed, he knew them before you were born. God is not reactive; He is perfect, unchanging, complete, and all knowing. He is apart and outside of time and requires no reminders that His children are in need of his care, comfort and gifts. God doesn’t need our prayers, we need our prayers.

A prayer changes nothing when it is uttered to gain a reaction from God. It changes everything when it is uttered with the knowledge that it should and can create a reaction, perhaps even a revolution, within us.

I recently heard Alistair Begg reflect that “We should never rely on prayer. In reality, prayer works nothing. It is God who achieves in answer to prayer. So when we speak about the power of prayer I hope what we mean…is that our faith is not in prayer but our faith is in our Father.”

How true. Prayer changes everything…if by everything we mean the one praying.

Let me be the first to say that I don't understand prayer, except that God tells me to do it and it always changes me when I spend more time in connection with God than with everything else except Him. But mostly now I am left with the questions -- How have I been changed and why did it take the death of a young girl to do it?