Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Life is tough - and then you die

Anthony Esolen comments on atheist arguments by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

On Dawkins:
Mr. Dawkins' principal reasons for believing that the world is a bad job can be expressed simply enough: animals eat other animals, and people die. That these things are not news to peasant Christians seems not to occur to him. If I live in Monday and have to die on Tuesday, that fact alone seems sufficient to pronounce the world bad. One might as well ask whether, though I should have to die on Tuesday, my getting to live on Monday is not sufficient to pronounce the world good. ....
And, after commenting on Esolen's post, Wonders for Oyarsa points us to an interview he had at "A Christian and an Atheist" on the book of Job.

Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments: It's a Bad Bad Bad Bad World, Wonders For Oyarsa: An Atheist Interviews Me on the Book of Job

Monday, October 8, 2007

Church growth

Gospel-Driven Church comments on a Christianity Today article about "marketing the church," [and GetReligion reports an unfortunate example] and argues that "if you want to attract people to a community, the hard work of investing in community and spiritual growth is necessary."
..."What you win them with is what you win them to." So if you win somebody to your event, they're going to be expecting the event each time, all the time. And eventually, the event gets old. Churches strive to go bigger, better, flashier, fancier. It's burnout waiting. And in 3-4 years, the convert won to the event moves on to the next event church because it's different.

We are finding this out with student ministry, where the ministries geared toward entertaining, wowing, preoccupying kids then pours those kids out into the "regular" church community where they are then expected to go without games and skits and the bombardment of cultural detritus.

The result? 70% of high school graduates disappear from church.

They weren't won to Christian community; they were won to the show. And when there's no show, they're no-shows.

But the tide may be turning. I wonder if event churches will catch on.

When you look at the research, when you look at the reasons college students and young adults, for examples, return to church, they are not saying "great music" or "exciting media." In fact, programming issues aren't even mentioned. The reasons many of them return - and the reason the ones who stay stay - are generally two-fold:

  • spiritual growth
  • relationships
To sum that up: discipleship. They felt connected to community and they were growing in that community.

If you want to attract people to a gathering, music and media works. The show works. Event church works if you want to fill seats and get "big."

But if you want to attract people to a community, the hard work of investing in community and spiritual growth is necessary. To repeat: It is hard work. But it is the work Scripture calls us to. ....
The Gospel-Driven Church: What You Win Them With is What You Win Them To

Holy humor?

Michael Spencer considers Christianity and humor using the insights of C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters.

internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » Can Christians Share in the Joke?

The Evangelical Movement

Sunday, October 7, 2007

"40 Days of Faith and Family"

I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God….We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.
Senator Barack Obama

Are those who worry about faith influencing political decisions worried about this? Or perhaps it is OK for a liberal politician [but not a conservative] to publicly express faith? Or do they dismiss it as something not worth worrying about, because they assume it is normal political pandering.

Everything I've read about him leads me to think that Senator Obama has a genuine commitment to his faith, and that it does influence his actions. So, where are those who panic about mixing religion and politics?

I'm sure we will soon see the tax-exempt status of these churches challenged, too? Or perhaps not.
Sen. Barack Obama is increasingly invoking his Christian faith on the campaign trail, and on Sunday morning the Democratic presidential candidate will become a preacher of sorts by addressing an evangelical megachurch in Greenville.

Obama will speak to the Redemption World Outreach Center, which describes itself as "a Spirit-filled Church, characterized by dynamic worship, supernatural miracles, and relevant ministry for all ages … reaching people from all walks of life." Obama's campaign calls the appearance "an opportunity for the Senator to have a morning of fellowship with South Carolinians."

The church has 4,200 seats. Members of the church said Sunday morning that they have a total congregation of over 10,000. ....

... Obama's visit here is not surprising given his campaign's recent efforts in South Carolina to reach out to Christian voters, including the state's large African-American population that makes up an estimated 50 percent of Democratic primary voters. The state campaign is in the midst of promoting Obama's values through a grassroots effort called "40 Days of Faith and Family," which is reaching out to primary voters through gospel concerts and a series of faith forums.

Last weekend, Obama attended but did not speak at two churches in Columbia, one predominantly black and one predominantly white. At a town hall meeting in Aiken on Saturday, Obama was introduced by a pastor who led the crowd of 2,400 in a brief prayer. There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying "I'm not gonna preach to ya!" when emphasizing a point to his audience.

According to the religion web site Beliefnet and its "God-o-Meter" tool that measures "God-talk" in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.
[Thanks to HolyCoast for the reference]

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Obama addresses evangelical megachurch, Evangelical Outpost: Thirty Three Things

Saturday, October 6, 2007

"Dreaming of systems...."

An article at The New Atlantis began with this quotation, reminding me of how much I like Eliot:
Why should men love the Church? Why should they love her laws?
She tells them of Life and Death, and of all that they would forget.
She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they like to be soft.
She tells them of Evil and Sin, and other unpleasant facts.
They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
But the man that is will shadow
The man that pretends to be.

T.S. Eliot, Choruses from "The Rock"

5BC-AD33

Via Between Two Worlds, Dr. Andreas Köstenberger at Biblical Foundations calculates when the birth and the death of Jesus took place. He writes:
I may not be willing to stake my life on the accuracy of the data below, but I am confident enough of these calculations that the license plate of my van reads as follows: 5BC–AD33. [the rest]
Biblical Foundations » When Was Jesus Born, and When Did He Die?

Friday, October 5, 2007

The grounds for divorce

In "What God Has Joined," David Instone-Brewer lays out what he has found to be the Biblical grounds for divorce:
... every Jew in Jesus' day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered! ....

Putting all this together gives us a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage. Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:
  • Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
  • Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
  • Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)
Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other. When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, "I forgive you; let's carry on," or, "I can't go on, because this marriage is broken."

Therefore, while divorce should never happen, God allows it (and subsequent remarriage) when your partner breaks the marriage vows. .... [the article]
What God Has Joined | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Orthodoxy

At New Attitude: Humble Orthodoxy, Mark Dever indicates those things that are necessary ["the essential of the essentials"] for Christian orthodoxy:
...God, the Bible, the gospel. Those are the things that we must agree upon to have meaningful cooperation as Christians. True Christian fellowship cannot be had with someone who disagrees with us on these matters. These are the essential of the essentials.
Dever expands on each of the points ["God, the Bible, the gospel"]. For instance, he begins his section on God:
We have to believe in the one true God. We have to believe that God is one, and that he is Triune: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have to believe that He is uncreated, that He is self-existing, that He is not dependent upon anyone else. And we must believe that He is morally perfect, that He is characterized by holiness and by love, that He is by His own will our Sovereign Creator and our Lord and our Judge. He is the one that we’re called to believe in.

As the Lord says to His people in Isaiah 53, “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me. And understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no Savior.”

There are theologians today that talk about “anonymous Christians” and how even atheists can truly be trusting in God. Well, that’s not true according to the Bible. According to the Bible, you have to believe in God. ....
Read it all. I really like what NA: Humble Orthodoxy seems to be about.

Na - Blog Entry

A Hobbit in our future

Entertainment Weekly says The Hobbit could still be made by New Line with Peter Jackson directing. There might even be two films:
In the past, Jackson has suggested that he would make two films, with the second one filling in the story arc between the end of The Hobbit and the beginning of Rings. Although Tolkien never wrote a novel bridging the eras, he did scatter clues in shorter pieces and epilogues that could form the basis of a screenplay.
The article describes the dispute between Jackson and New Line which has prevented the film thus far. It is interesting, but certainly not edifying.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Ecumenical integrity

The October issue of Touchstone arrived in my mailbox today. It is, as I have said before, a magazine committed to an ecumenical orthodoxy - describing itself as "A Journal of Mere Christianity." The editorial this month explains how a group of Christians, representing various traditions can, nevertheless, work together, neither diluting their beliefs, nor retreating into a bigoted sectarianism. David Mills, writing for the editors:
.... This very diverse group includes several Catholics, the dean of the Southern Baptist seminary of which Dr. Mohler is president and other Protestants, and an Antiochian Orthodox archpriest and other Orthodox. ....

Our first rule of operation, which has sustained a high degree of fellowship, even brotherhood, across traditionally sundering differences, is to assume that the other man may be very wrong, but he is not stupid nor wicked. As G. K. Chesterton said, the bigot is not the man who believes he is right. Every sane man believes that. The bigot is the man who cannot understand how the other fellow came to be wrong. We each can understand how the other came to be wrong.

We assume that the other man has plausible reasons for believing as he does, and that he is not consciously sinning against the light but pursuing it through the tradition of which he is a part and in the modes that tradition provides, even if we all think that the other traditions let in only part of the light. We assume he is pursuing a true Christian ideal, one we all share, even if we think his map is wrong or incomplete. We recognize his commitment to the shared Christian doctrinal and moral tradition. ….

One needs a certain generosity and liberality to do this, married (we hope) with a discernment of principle, but it seems to work. It allows us happily to do together what we can do together, which seems to us part of being a Christian.

Most of us find ourselves disappointing the stricter members of our communions, who think us liberals, while upsetting the looser members, who think us reactionaries. In my experience the intensity of the reaction is stronger from our left than from our right. The right tends to be quizzical, the left angry, and the center-left (those just outside the circle) the angriest of all.

But as I said, it seems to work. The way to whatever ecumenical understanding and fellowship we may achieve in this life, in which brother is divided from brother for what seems to each good reason, is not to deny the differences, especially when that denial is merely a way of asserting one's doctrine.

The way to ecumenical understanding is to admit the differences, submit to one's tradition, respect the integrity of the others, and join with them in facing the common challenges. This you can do with unfurrowed brow and clear eyes, the better to see your brothers for themselves.

Violence and religion

The ESV Literary Study Bible

Michael Spencer really likes the The ESV Literary Study Bible (mine should arrive from Amazon today). Spencer:
“Ten Reasons I’m Recommending the ESV Literary Study Bible.”
  1. The editors are the same people who wrote the best Bible Handbook I’ve ever used: The Ryken Bible Handbook. I reviewed this book here at IM and I continue to use it with my students. ....
  2. The text eliminates section headings. ....
  3. The Introductions are balanced, readable, helpful and insightful. Good book introductions with sensitivity to literary issues are almost unheard of in most Bibles. ....
  4. Each chapter (or two) has a separate introductory section. These precede and summarize the chapters with enough supplemental information to orient you to the text, but avoiding repetition or too much detail.
  5. Genre, that most neglected of all elements of the proper interpretation of the scriptures, is front and center in the ESVLSB. As a teacher of English and Bible, this is really a dream come true.
  6. Single columns and wide margins, in addition to the rest of the features in the text, make the ESVLSB the ideal textbook Bible for homeschool, high school, college and seminary Bible survey courses. ....
  7. Throughout the Bible, there is the development of a “Master Story Line,” and the placement of each book into that story line. ....
  8. Literary elements, such as symbolism, rhetoric, metaphors and themes, are all part of the introductory and summary material. ....
  9. No big names telling anyone what to think or believe. ....
  10. The lack of “cross referencing” tools is an important step in encouraging the study of books and large portions of books rather than using verses to build doctrine from various sources. .... (all of the review)
I've been using the ESV for several years now. I like its readability, but I also very much like the fact that it reads well aloud. It is an excellent translation for use in worship: for unison and responsive readings and readings from the pulpit. It is good to know that so many other resources, like this one, are being made available using this version.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

"...that large body of pious trash for which we have long been so famous."

Flannery O'Connor was a Christian, and one of the most respected American writers of the 20th century. She wrote both novels and short stories but her contribution was cut short when she died, age 39, in 1964. Marvin Olasky at World has created an interview with her about Christian writing by juxtaposing questions with material she wrote for a book called Mystery and Manners. A few excerpts:
WORLD: Why do you call lots of religious novels “sorry”?

O’CONNOR: The sorry religious novel comes about when the writer supposes that because of his belief, he is somehow dispensed from the obligation to penetrate concrete reality. He will think that the eyes of the Church or of the Bible or of his particular theology have already done the seeing for him, and that his business is to rearrange this essential vision into satisfying patterns . . . by beginning with Christian principles and finding the life that will illustrate them. . . . The result is another addition to that large body of pious trash for which we have so long been famous. ....

WORLD: Some of our readers who don’t like writing about adultery or murder quote the admonition in Philippians 4 to think about what is good. Should novelists avert their eyes from what is bad?

O’CONNOR: The novelist is required to open his eyes on the world around him and look. If what he sees is not highly edifying, he is still required to look. . . . What he sees at all times is fallen man perverted by false philosophies. Is he to reproduce this? Or is he to change what he sees and make it, instead of what it is, what in the light of faith he thinks it ought to be . . . to ‘tidy up reality’? ....

WORLD: But there are dangers in this.

O’CONNOR: It is very possible that what is vision and truth to the writer is temptation and sin to the reader. There is every danger that in writing what he sees, the novelist will be corrupting some ‘little one,’ and better a millstone were tied around his neck. . . . This is no superficial problem, [but] to force this kind of total responsibility on the novelist is to burden him with the business that belongs only to God.

WORLD: So what do good writers do when they see the need to describe but want to minimize the anger of corruption?

O’CONNOR: [The good writer should] take great pains to control every excess, everything that does not contribute to the central meaning and design. He cannot indulge in sentimentality, in propagandizing, or in pornography and create a work of art, for all these things are excesses. ....

WORLD: Where do beginning writers often go wrong?

O’CONNOR: [They] are apt to be reformers and to want to write because they are possessed not by a story but by the bare bones of some abstract notion. They are conscious of problems, not of people, of questions and issues, not of the texture of existence, of case histories and of everything that has a sociological smack, instead of with all those concrete details of life that make actual the mystery of our position on earth. ....

WORLD: Are you overly hard on some Christian writers? Can’t even poorly written religious novels with pious characters be edifying?

O’CONNOR: Poorly written novels —no matter how pious and edifying the behavior of the characters —are not good in themselves and are therefore not really edifying.

WORLD: But can’t God use them for good?

O’CONNOR: We have plenty of examples in this world of poor things being used for good purposes. God can make any indifferent thing, as well as evil itself, an instrument for good; but I submit that to do this is the business of God and not of any human being. [read more]
World On the Web » World New Media Archive » Interview with Flannery O’Connor

The myth of "contemporary"

At Worship Matters, Bob Kauflin quotes from Music Connection by Russ Breimeier. Breimeier's professional responsibility is to keep track of, and write about popular Christian music. He says "I’m almost completely surrounded by Christian culture in my everyday life." And yet:
The strange part to me is this: Most of my friends enjoy music to some degree, and we certainly enjoy talking about it from time to time. But be it friends or family, the majority of them really don’t listen to much Christian music—if any. Furthermore, I’d say a lot of my Christian friends have expressed that they generally don’t enjoy Christian music. And those I know who do support Christian music have noticed the same thing.
And Jared Wilson at Gospel Driven Church has noticed that music in worship isn't as important in keeping young people as has often been thought:
I won't say music style doesn't matter. I think it does. I'm not a big fan of traditional worship myself (I like traditional substance with a modern style). But I don't think music is preeminent, and it certainly doesn't seem to factor in to the research on why young people are dropping out of churches like crazy.

Trevin Wax has a great post this week on the myth of "contemporary" style as twentysomething magnet. ....
I talked to a handful of 20somethings who dropped out of church for a few years and are now back and engaged. When I asked them about the worship style of our church (we’re a mix between blended and traditional), the answers were all different. Most of them indicated that they would rather we sing less and get to the preaching quicker. “That’s what we’re there for,” said one. Others mentioned how much they loved the organ. A couple mentioned that the “hymns” could be hard sometimes, but that they wanted to learn them anyway, as they felt they were important.

My generation is musically fragmented. Some of my classmembers like Country music. Others like P.O.D. and Disciple. Some are into soft rock. One loves anything Classical. The majority like folksy rock, but there’s no consensus. The Iraq war veteran in our class (tattooed and tough) has a soft spot for the Carpenters, Celtic chants, and the crooners of the 40’s and 50’s. iTunes and iPods. We are a generation of many styles.

The idea that a “contemporary” music service is going to reach my generation just makes me laugh. No one in my class is there for the music. They are all there for the relationships and the Bible teaching. Not that the music is unimportant… it’s just not central.

Even funnier is the mindset among the Boomer generation that if we were to start using the organ and singing hymns again that all the young people would leave. The Boomer generation is making the same mistake that their parents did, thinking that what attracted them to church is what will attract their kids. Sorry. It isn’t happening. Furthermore, musical style isn’t much of a factor anyway.
One of the difficulties with being "contemporary" is that what is "now" only lasts a moment.

Keeping Up On the Latest Christian Music, Gospel Driven Church: Meet the New Seeker Church; Same as the Old Seeker Church (Kinda)

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Cool

At Scriptorium, Matt Jenson on "The Heresy of Cool."
Coolness is heretical. Or at least the pursuit of it is. This is because an inverse relationship exists between our attempts at being cool and our faith in Jesus Christ. The one struts, confident in his ability to do and say all the right things. The other limps, just as confident in his ineptitude, his missed cues and bad timing. ....

... ‘cool’ is shorthand for ‘liked’. Most of us work ourselves into exhaustion trying to be this kind of cool. It’s an ‘if only’ issue. ‘If only they like me, everything will be okay.’ And there’s the heresy. We continually face a choice: will we seek to establish ourselves by being cool, or we trust that God has established us in Christ? It really is that simple. In John 12, we learn that there are a group of synagogue leaders who were believing Jesus, but they stayed quiet, as they loved the approval of people rather than that of God. Again, not a question of degrees. It’s an either-or. In Christ, God has revealed his death-defying love for sinners. When I prefer to be cool, I nonchalantly let him know that I’d prefer the love of a fickle mass of opinion jockeys instead. [read it all]
The Heresy of Cool | Scriptorium Daily

"...as if things had always been this way."

Christianity Today excerpts from Sunday: A History of the First Day from Babylonia to the Superbowl, by Craig Harline. Apparently, when it became common for Christians to worship on the first day of the week they called it "The Lord's Day," to distinguish their practice from that of the pagans, but the time came when "Sunday" was the acceptable name for the day. Two paragraphs:
Most telling here is that even the Sun, greatest symbol of Roman paganism, no longer had exclusively pagan meaning. Some early Christians had already used, with mixed results, the Sun's imagery to speak of Christ. But such imagery became more acceptable during the fourth century, when far more Christians began calling the first day "Sunday" rather than exclusively the Lord's Day—despite even the condemnations of an Augustine or a Chrysostom. Saint Jerome himself defended the practice, saying, why shouldn't we call it Sunday, since Christ is the Sun of justice and has filled the world with his light? Jerome even claimed that Sunday took its name from Christ the Sun rather than from the physical Sun. This was a classic example of reading present desires into the past, but Jerome demonstrated perfectly the ability to take something previously seen as Roman and make it Christian. ....

In sum, by 600 one may speak of a Christian Sunday in the old Roman provinces touching the Mediterranean. By 800 this had expanded into the large portions of northern Europe already Christianized. Like the Jewish Sabbath, Sunday had become the most important day of the week, indeed gave the week most of its meaning. Once thoroughly pagan, Sunday now had a decidedly Christian connotation. It would remain this way for so long that countless generations in the Western world would consider the day's very existence, name, and status as obvious, unquestioned facts of life, as if things had always been this way.
The Son's Day to Sunday | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Monday, October 1, 2007

"We were just there..."

On The War tonight, one of the veterans said something to the effect, "They said we were heroes. We weren't heroes. We were just there and we did what we were supposed to do."

That is the definition of a hero.

Hallelujah, I'm ready

Via RightWingBob, "Hallelujah, I'm Ready." Dylan in Portland, Oregon in 1999:



Hallelujah [I'm ready]
I'm ready [Hallelujah]
Hallelujah, I'm ready to go
I'm ready [Hallelujah]
Hallelujah [I'm ready]
Hallelujah, I'm ready to go.
RightWingBob: Hallelujah

He loves even us

God Loves the "Out-Crowd"
I Corinthians 1:26-29
Steve Crouch
from a sermon
Next time you go to church, look around at the people in the congregation, and take this little survey:
  • How many world-famous movie stars are there? [ ]
  • How many U.S. Senators or Representatives? [ ]
  • How many millionaires? – or at least someone with a seven-figure income? [ ]
  • How many professional athletes? [ ]
  • Is there anyone who has won an international beauty contest?
  • And finally, how many kings or queens are in attendance?
Then add up the total. … That’s what I thought – the total is zero.

Oh, one more question: How many Christians are there in the congregation? [ ]

And that shouldn’t surprise you either. If somebody took a survey like this in all of the local churches in the world, most of those surveys would have the same result. Most or all of the people in most churches are not the hot shots, the big-deal celebrities, the movers and shakers of the world. Most of us are just ordinary folks, and, in many churches, even a fair percentage of down-and-outers. Why is this? Because of this Scripture:
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
[1 Corinthians 1:26-29]How did Paul know this about the Christians in Corinth and other places? As far as we know, he never took a survey. He didn’t have to, because he had been there. He had been to Corinth and met many of the people he was now writing to. In fact, he was the one who first told many of them about Jesus, and started the church there. And Paul had been lots of other places too, met lots of people, saw people come to Christ, and started a few churches.

So I’m sure that as he wrote this, he had actual names and faces in mind, people he could remember in Corinth:
  • Like old Fred – a former slave trader, but now a slave of Jesus Christ.
  • And Weird Harold – boy, was he weird! Everybody always thought he was a complete fool, but now he thought of himself as a fool for Christ.
  • There was John – not his real name, but everyone called him John because he had run a house of ill repute before he became a believer.
  • And Mary – one of John’s former “employees.”
  • And many others: tax collectors, street bums, sick people – some of them lepers – Jews – who everybody called dogs – and of course slaves, lots of slaves.
What we read here in 1 Corinthians 1 is a summary of the kinds of people Paul had met, the people who had heard him “preach Christ crucified,” as he said up in verse 23.

And after a few years of this, it wasn’t hard to see a pattern: Not many movie stars, not many athletes, millionaires, beauty contest winners, kings or queens – not many of them accepted the message of the Gospel. Maybe one or two here and there, but not usually.

Remember once when Paul did share his faith with a king? His name was King Agrippa, and the story is in Acts 25-26. Agrippa actually made time in his busy schedule and gave Paul permission to speak. So Paul launched into the story of his conversion and talked about Jesus being crucified and raised from the dead. He even said “I testify to small and great alike,” meaning small and great people. And Agrippa was one of the great people.

So what did the great King Agrippa think about Paul’s Gospel? He said “You almost persuade me.” And at the end of the interview, his only response was to comment on Paul’s legal status: “This man could have been set free if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar.” King Agrippa heard the Gospel! He had his chance and blew it, just like many other “great” people after him. As far as I know, the first “king” to become a Christian was Emperor Constantine, some 300 years after this.

But there haven’t been very many like that – not many “noble,” not many influential people. Now in all fairness, there actually are quite a few professional athletes who are Christians – and it’s interesting that many of them have been football players – people like Mike Singletary, Roger Staubach, Napoleon Kaufmann who played for the Raiders, both of the coaches in last year’s Super Bowl – and there are many more. That’s great. But there are a lot more Christians in the prisons, and a lot more Christians doing ordinary jobs – or no jobs at all – never making the papers, not known by very many people.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul described these people with words like “foolish,” “weak,” “lowly,” and “despised.” If you took another church survey and asked “How many foolish people are there in the congregation? How many weak? How many lowly? How many despised?” – would anybody raise their hand? Maybe there are other words – better words – to describe some of us: ordinary, hurting, untalented, struggling. I think maybe we have some of those kinds of people in our congregations. And you can bet there are plenty of them out there in the world, hungry for some good news.

And for lack of a better word, we could call these people the “out-crowd.” You’ve heard of the “in-crowd”? – of course you have. You’ve heard of them because they’re famous and glamorous, they get their picture taken a lot. And some of them have photographers and reporters following them everywhere they go. When was the last time the paparazzi followed you around?

You know, the Gospel of Christ should be good news to the in-crowd, because God loves them too, and wants to save them. But mostly it’s been the out-crowd types who find the good news to really be good news. Why do you suppose this is? It goes something like this:
  • When you already have “everything,” you don’t think you need anything. You’re self-sufficient – or you think you are. So what is Jesus going to give you that you don’t already have!
  • But when you can see that you have next to nothing and your situation is desperate, then you are better able to see your need.
There are probably millions of different reasons for why people come to Christ. And all of them come down to: seeing a need in yourself, and realizing that only Jesus can meet that need.

Some people have physical problems that really give them a hard time and show them how needy they are. Some people have lost everything: their health, their family. Or it can be emotional problems, or relationships that are all fouled up. The classic picture of the “down-and-outer” is a drunk who has lost everything, lying passed out in a gutter in the skid row section of a large city. I have seen drunks literally lying in a gutter, and it’s not a pretty sight. There are some very needy people out there.

But the fact is: as tragic as those things are, all of them are just symptoms. The real need is spiritual – and it’s the same for everybody, in-crowd or out-crowd. Everybody is a sinner and needs Jesus and his salvation. Without him, we’re lost. But with him, we have eternal life, and we have hope.

The way it works for most people is that we have to have some “symptoms” to get our attention, and help us realize that we need something outside ourselves. People who have “everything” usually don’t see the need. But the down-and-outers, the hurting people, are more likely to see the need.

Like a man with leprosy who lived in India. Leprosy can be a horrible disease. Yet this man eventually came to the point where he could actually say “I am grateful to God that I have leprosy. If I didn’t have this disease, I would never have come to this Christian doctor, who not only treated my physical disease, but also brought me to Jesus.” The missionary was Dr. Paul Brand, who worked with lepers for many years in India. And that’s how it usually works: seeing the need, and accepting the Lord.

But, as 1 Corinthians says: not very often among the in-crowd. Not many people humble themselves enough to bow down before God and admit their need. When it happens at all, it’s mostly the out-crowd – or at least it’s people who are closer to the out-crowd than the in-crowd. And for those who have ears to hear, it ought to be very good news that God loves hurting people and wants to meet their need and accept them into his family. We have hurting people in our churches – and where would we be without Christ!

Somehow it makes sense that Jesus should love the lowly, the despised and rejected, people with no beauty or majesty, and unattractive – it makes sense because Isaiah 53 uses those very words to describe him. The hot shots of the world saw him as one of the out-crowd. But that makes sense because the out-crowd are his kind of people.

Sometimes when I have been in a gathering of Christians – a local church or a prayer group or a Bible study group – especially when it’s people I’ve never been with before: sometimes I sit there and looked around at these people, listen to them talk – and it almost always reminds me of this Scripture in 1 Corinthians 1. I look at the people and I think “Sure enough: another typical group of Christians. Not many noble, not many with human wisdom, not many influential. Not the big deal in-crowd. Just a bunch of ordinary folks.” And then I think “Praise God for the good news that he loves even us.”

You might know some people who are “out-crowd” kind of people – I mean, besides those who are in your church. Those people need to know that God loves them and Jesus died for them. Will you tell them the good news?

Steve Crouch is the pastor of the Bay Area Seventh Day Baptist Church.