Wednesday, August 23, 2006
A Hero in Chains
To paraphrase Paul's instructions to Timothy, "Preach the Word when it's convenient; preach the Word when it's not."
Zhang Rongliang was recently sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison for doing just that. "Brother Z.", as he is called, had already been in jail five times for his "illegal activities" as a leader in the Chinese house-church movement, endured beatings with iron rods and bayonettes and had even been shocked with an electric cattle prod. We told his story in the November/December 2004 issue of Ministries Today.
"Like a New Testament apostle, Zhang bears the brand marks of suffering," J. Lee Grady writes. "But he also has seen New Testament-style miracles." In 1980, he founded the Chinese for Christ movement--a vast network of churches that had grown to an estimated 10 million members by 2001. "During one of his imprisonments, Brother Z. was put in charge of a work team and given unusual freedom to move around the camp's outskirts," Grady writes. "As a result, he actually planted churches among rural villagers during his detainment."
Although I've never met him, Brother Z. is an encouragement to me. With its unhealthy devotion to self-actualization, it's easy to be distracted by the trivial obsessions of Western Christianity. Yet somewhere, half a world away, a man sits in prison--and the furthest thought from this man's mind is reaching his destiny, awakening his inner greatness or enjoying his best life now. If these things were important to him, Brother Z. would have called it quits after his first prison term.
While success in ministry is a worthy goal, Brother Z.'s commitment reminds us just how radically different the Kingdom's definition of success is from that of the world. As a friend put it to me earlier this week, "the call to ministry is a death sentence" for those who follow Jesus' example of finding their lives by losing them.
We may not be able to physically obey Jesus' instructions to visit Brother Z. in prison, but let's pray that justice is carried out on his behalf and that he will be released to his family and friends. If history is any indicator, it's probably not a prayer he would think to ask for himself. More than likely, his request, like Paul in chains, would be, "Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6:19).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Please consider joining me in writing Zhang Rongliang a letter of encouragement in prison. For more information on how to do so, visit The Voice of the Martyrs' prisoner list for China.
Zhang Rongliang was recently sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison for doing just that. "Brother Z.", as he is called, had already been in jail five times for his "illegal activities" as a leader in the Chinese house-church movement, endured beatings with iron rods and bayonettes and had even been shocked with an electric cattle prod. We told his story in the November/December 2004 issue of Ministries Today.
"Like a New Testament apostle, Zhang bears the brand marks of suffering," J. Lee Grady writes. "But he also has seen New Testament-style miracles." In 1980, he founded the Chinese for Christ movement--a vast network of churches that had grown to an estimated 10 million members by 2001. "During one of his imprisonments, Brother Z. was put in charge of a work team and given unusual freedom to move around the camp's outskirts," Grady writes. "As a result, he actually planted churches among rural villagers during his detainment."
Although I've never met him, Brother Z. is an encouragement to me. With its unhealthy devotion to self-actualization, it's easy to be distracted by the trivial obsessions of Western Christianity. Yet somewhere, half a world away, a man sits in prison--and the furthest thought from this man's mind is reaching his destiny, awakening his inner greatness or enjoying his best life now. If these things were important to him, Brother Z. would have called it quits after his first prison term. While success in ministry is a worthy goal, Brother Z.'s commitment reminds us just how radically different the Kingdom's definition of success is from that of the world. As a friend put it to me earlier this week, "the call to ministry is a death sentence" for those who follow Jesus' example of finding their lives by losing them.
We may not be able to physically obey Jesus' instructions to visit Brother Z. in prison, but let's pray that justice is carried out on his behalf and that he will be released to his family and friends. If history is any indicator, it's probably not a prayer he would think to ask for himself. More than likely, his request, like Paul in chains, would be, "Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6:19).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Please consider joining me in writing Zhang Rongliang a letter of encouragement in prison. For more information on how to do so, visit The Voice of the Martyrs' prisoner list for China.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Will Carlton Pearson 'Win'?
His Tulsa megachurch may have shrunken to the size of a country chapel, but Pentecostal universalist Carlton Pearson is convinced that his "new" take on hell will eventually be adopted by the rest of the church, as he claimed at the end of his appearance last Friday on Dateline.
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millennia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
The crazy thing about Pearson's theology is not merely that he thinks he has come up with a revolutionary revelation: Pearson joins the ranks of various Christians who taught an "alternative" view of eternal punishment--from 2nd-century church father, Origen, to 20th-century religious philosopher, John Hick. No, the strange thing about Pearson is how he claims he came up with the belief system he calls "inclusionism." (Interestingly, he avoids--or is unaware of--the theological terms "inclusivism" and "universalism".)
For instance, although misled in his exegetical method, Origen was at least careful in applying it to Scripture to concoct his own version of universalism. Likewise, Hick painstakingly dissects philosophy to defend his brand of universalism. In contrast, Pearson's method is a liberal application of old-fashioned, homespun horse sense--perhaps attractive to those who would sniff at Origen's complicated exegesis or Hick's cerebral philosophizing.
Questioning Pearson's universalist worldview, the NBC interviewer asked, "Is Hitler in hell?" and Pearson replied, "You think Hitler’s more powerful than the blood of Jesus?" With this line of reasoning, we're led to believe that it is denigrating to the power of the cross to suggest that Hitler could be in hell.
Another of his methods is to poke fun at his legalistic upbringing: "We were told not to laugh. Stop all the jesting and joking. ... God gonna get you. The devil gonna get you. ... So we had all that mentality. Be good. Be godly. Be right. Be holy. ... Or else you go to hell." Here, he wants us to think that, since his parents were wrong about why people go to hell (i.e. not being good enough), they must have been wrong about a lot of other things (e.g. hell existing in the first place).
Then the clincher: Pearson recalls watching TV reports of suffering Rwandan refugees and thinking, "God, I don’t know how you’re gonna call yourself a loving God and allow those people to suffer so much and then just suck them into hell." Apparently, Pearson believes that we can somehow atone for our own sins and avoid eternal punishment through suffering here on earth.
These "common-sense" objections to the traditional view of hell may resonate with the secular skeptic, but Pearson's noticeable avoidance of a coherent biblical argument should strike any thoughtful Christian as bizarre. If you intend to dismantle a cardinal doctrine built on two millennia of church history and Scriptural interpretation, you need more than a handful of witty one-liners. It's like trying to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a butter knife.
At the end of the interview, Pearson is shown promising his congregation that "a great shifting" and "a great anointing" will make the church more open to his teachings. Then, he explains to the interviewer the process whereby he believes this shift will take place: "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." If he's right, and our core doctrines are vulnerable to these inch-deep objections, then maybe we're in worse shape than I thought.
Before the age of the microscope allowed us to see that maggots actually came from eggs laid by flies, people thought that flies "spontaneously generated" from rotting meat. Similarily, it's long been one of my contentions that heresy does not generate spontaneously--it is germinated, incubated and hatches in environments most conducive to its growth. The problem is that we often ignore the warning signs and then act like we've been taken by surprise when someone falls headlong into error. I've got my own ideas, but first I'm interested in hearing some of yours. What constitutes an environment conducive to heresy--and could we have predicted Pearson's theological drift by observing other aspects of his life and ministry before he announced his embrace of universalism?Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Geek Shall Inherit ...
In the November/December issue of the magazine, we'll be exploring the topic of technology--how it shapes ministry, shifts our priorities, realigns our focus--and sometimes distracts us. We're looking for your thoughts to help us shape the direction of this article. Here are three core questions that will help us do that. Send your answers via e-mail, here on the blog or call our IdeaLine (407-333-7155) to leave a message. If you include your name, church and city, you may find your insights in the magazine.
1. What technology do I use in ministry that I would not want to be without and why?
2. What technology do I use that is sometimes more of a distraction and time-waster than an actual aid and why?
3. What is a new or emerging technology that is not being widely used for ministry that I (or someone else) may utilize in the near future?
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Good News for Bad People
Yesterday, my 8-year-old son and I watched End of the Spear--the film based on the story of the 1956 martyrdom of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youdarian and Pete Fleming at the hands of the Huaorani Indians of Ecuador.
Elisabeth Elliot's book version of the same story spurred thousands of young missionaries onto the field in the last 50 years, but at its theatrical release, the film version was criticized by conservatives for its casting (the lead was played by a homosexual actor), liberals for its supposed tub-thumping evangelism and cultural insensitivity and purists for liberties the screenplay writer took with the script. (Nate Saint was speared through the temple, not the abdomen, folks.)
If I want accurate history, I'll read a book. I have no objection to evangelistic tub-thumping. And, while I'm not too excited about a homosexual playing the part of a missionary in a movie, is it any worse than a sinner playing the part of God in a film?
I was primarily interested in seeing how Steve Saint (the son of martyred pilot, Nate) reconciled with his father's killer, Mincayani. And I also wanted my own son (whom I would typically not allow to see a PG13-rated film) to understand the price that must be paid to bring the good news to bad people.
While Elliot's Through Gates of Splendor was a missiological biography, End of the Spear most poignantly connects with the issue of violence and what the gospel has to say about it. The most important line in the film is spoken when a young Steve asks his father Nate why the missionaries won't shoot the Huaorani if they threaten them with their spears.
"Because they're not ready for heaven."
Sure enough, even as the Huaorani run the missionaries through with their spears, one of the men points his pistol to the sky and fires--hoping that the report will scare the Indians away.
Years later, after Mincayani reveals to Steve that he was the one who killed Nate, Steve tearfully responds, "You didn't take his life. My father gave his life."
Could there be any other "gospel" more relevant today? This message is countercultural in every culture: It confronts primitive tribes of South America, radical Islam in the Middle East and even the theo-patriotic sensibilities of American evangelicals. (Recently, I heard a pastor, in support of Israel's war with Hezbollah, proclaim, "We will not turn the other cheek!")
Now, don't get me wrong. It is not the job of governments to turn the other cheek--Paul is clear that rulers do not wield the sword in vain. Sovereign nations have the right to wage war and shed blood for the protection of their citizens. But we play by different rules, for a kingdom whose King overcame through death and whose gospel has always been spread through blood--not of conquest, but of martyrdom.
Is it worth it? It was for the Huaorani people. After the death of the five missionaries, several of their wives entered the jungle to make contact with the tribe, eventually winning their trust and bringing several influential leaders in the tribe to Christian faith. Fifty years later, inter-clan violence has declined by 90 percent, and a large portion of the Huaorani have become Christians.
Whether among primitive tribes or in comfortable suburbia, the gospel works when it is applied with the same seemingly wreckless trust of five missionaries with nothing to lose but their lives.
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Who Speaks for You?
Maybe we evangelicals aren't as predictable and monolithic as the media paints us. That's the basic gist of two books recently highlighted in a Publishers Weekly article. "The vast majority of evangelicals are normal, reasonable people," notes Jeffrey Sheler, author of Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America. "They are hardworking, love their families, and are not out to cram religion down your throat and turn the country into a theocracy.”
Sheler may be right, but his statement doesn't address the core problem: When the media needs to get an "evangelical" opinion on an issue (or a conservative, liberal or secular opinion, for that matter), they will naturally gravitate toward the extreme position. Let's face it, nuance, gravitas and balance don't play well in five-second sound bites.
At best, allowing a self-proclaimed spokesperson to define a group's position on a given topic may lead to confusion. At worst, it leads to deception, as is often pointed out by African-American leaders who argue that activist/preachers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not necessarily speak for all blacks.
So, as high-profile church leaders claim to speak for evangelicals in the secular media, how do local pastors clarify their positions and protect themselves from being stereotyped in their communities? Here are two recent examples that bear consideration.
St. Paul, Minnesota, pastor Greg Boyd disassociated himself from his politically-active counterparts by preaching a series of sermons earlier this summer--a series that initially cost him 20 percent of his congregation. What did he say? Among other things, “America wasn’t founded as a theocracy. America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state."
In what may be one of the most unchurched cities in America, Mars Hill Church's Mark Driscoll writes a religion column for the Seattle Times (he alternates with columnists of several other faiths). Rarely taking a political tack in his writing, Driscoll instead drills down to the core spiritual problems facing society. In his most recent column, he applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for their philanthropy and explains what the Bible says about money. Rather than waxing eloquent on politically divisive topics in a city where he would alienate the very people he's trying to reach, Driscoll introduces his readers to simple biblical concepts in a winsome, direct way.
So, let's hear it: Are you frustrated by "evangelical" voices in the media that claim to represent your beliefs? What are you doing locally to dispel stereotypes and still address social issues in a constructive way? What methods have you seen that work? What methods fall flat? We're listening!
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Sheler may be right, but his statement doesn't address the core problem: When the media needs to get an "evangelical" opinion on an issue (or a conservative, liberal or secular opinion, for that matter), they will naturally gravitate toward the extreme position. Let's face it, nuance, gravitas and balance don't play well in five-second sound bites.
At best, allowing a self-proclaimed spokesperson to define a group's position on a given topic may lead to confusion. At worst, it leads to deception, as is often pointed out by African-American leaders who argue that activist/preachers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not necessarily speak for all blacks.
So, as high-profile church leaders claim to speak for evangelicals in the secular media, how do local pastors clarify their positions and protect themselves from being stereotyped in their communities? Here are two recent examples that bear consideration.
St. Paul, Minnesota, pastor Greg Boyd disassociated himself from his politically-active counterparts by preaching a series of sermons earlier this summer--a series that initially cost him 20 percent of his congregation. What did he say? Among other things, “America wasn’t founded as a theocracy. America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state."
In what may be one of the most unchurched cities in America, Mars Hill Church's Mark Driscoll writes a religion column for the Seattle Times (he alternates with columnists of several other faiths). Rarely taking a political tack in his writing, Driscoll instead drills down to the core spiritual problems facing society. In his most recent column, he applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for their philanthropy and explains what the Bible says about money. Rather than waxing eloquent on politically divisive topics in a city where he would alienate the very people he's trying to reach, Driscoll introduces his readers to simple biblical concepts in a winsome, direct way.
So, let's hear it: Are you frustrated by "evangelical" voices in the media that claim to represent your beliefs? What are you doing locally to dispel stereotypes and still address social issues in a constructive way? What methods have you seen that work? What methods fall flat? We're listening!
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
