In our attempt to think Christianly, I’ve suggested that there is no real “good” without God. Today I will add that there is little actual wisdom to be found without God. So, if our desire is to be “good” and “wise”, I believe we’ll find these things as we seek after God himself. Wisdom and goodness, in other words, come as a by-product of godliness.

There are five books in the Old Testament that are known as the Books of Wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon). All focus, to varying degrees, on what it means to be human and how we all encounter evil, suffering, injustice and love.

The Book of Ecclesiastes is known for its pessimistic refrain, “Meaningless, meaningless, utterly meaningless” (or “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity”). The point the author makes is that, for a life bound by time and space (“under the sun”), restricted to a brief lifespan, overshadowed by pain and injustice, leading inevitably to death, with no external reference point — life, indeed, is as pointless and profitless as “chasing after the wind”.

Only God — Creator, Judge, Beginning, End — can, by adding the missing elements of transcendence and eternity to our lives, give us meaning. Thus, in the alchemy of God’s kingdom, the apparent folly of pursuing and serving an unseen God, of living a cruciform life of self-sacrifice and service, is transformed into wisdom.

In contrast to the pessimism of Ecclesiastes, we discover another maxim often repeated in the Wisdom Literature: “The fear of the Lord — that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding” (Job 28:28; cf. Psalm 110:10; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; Ecclesiastes 12:13). Here we find the two most important realities in all of human life: God and evil. God personifies all that is good (love, creativity, truth, beauty, etc.); evil is the absence of all those things and the presence of their opposite (fear, monotony, deception, destruction, etc.). These two categories dominate life on earth. One brings fulfillment; the other brings alienation. One gives hope; the other gives despair.

Wisdom, then, is a right attitude towards both. Wisdom is loving and embracing God (and, thus, that which is good) while also rejecting and hating that which is evil.

Viewed this way, the commands of God (especially those great commands to love God completely, love self correctly and love others compassionately) don’t appear burdensome and dreary. They appear now as the only lifestyle that really makes sense, the sanest way to live.

That’s what theocentric thinking will get you!

A couple of weeks ago, I walked through what I called a “Fourfold Framework”. We talked about Creation, the Fall, Redemption and Consummation, and we saw that what the Bible has to say about these four distinct eras of human history allows us to view history in its proper perspective, as the unfolding process of God working out his purpose. I also suggested that seeing these four major events clearly, teaches us important truths about God, human beings and society.

I want to begin today to expand upon that last sentence. These four great events, teach us important truths about God, about human beings and about society. So, let’s start with the most obvious: God.

The Fourfold Framework (which — if I didn’t confess this earlier — is a phrase borrowed from John Stott) is rooted in theocentric thinking. In fact, it amounts to viewing history from God’s perspective. It is God who creates. It is God who judges. It is God who redeems. It is God who completes. All of this comes via God’s initiative.

Theocentric thinking, then, has some consequences. For example, the concept of blind evolutionary development is completely incompatible with our framework. The idea that life is random or absurd or meaningless cannot be reconciled with our position. The primary assertion of most of what passes for “self-help”, that I can and must pick myself up by my own bootstraps, appears not only foolish but downright mean-spirited.

These ideas are “secular” in the truest sense because as they leave no room for God, God’s intention, God’s design and God’s provision.

It is my belief that human beings can only truly be defined in their relation to God, that without God we cease to be truly human. Being creatures, part of the created order, we are dependent upon our Creator. Being sinners, our sin is accountable to him and comes under his judgment. Being fallen, we do not merely need a helper, a coach or a cheerleader; we need a Redeemer. Being imperfect, we await and cooperate with God as he completes his process of reforming us and our world.

Theocentric thinking means we understand the term “goodness” above all in terms of “godliness”.

I suppose this is at the root of my problem with so many Christians speakers’ and writers’ attempts to help people live better lives without ever introducing them to Jesus. it seems like, in the words of my good friend Tony Myles, we’re “putting the cart before the horse“. It feels like we’re trying to help them be “good” without God, and I have a hard time defining the first word without the presence of the second.

Warning: This post is likely to be fraught with clunky church-speak.

I have a friend, and my friend has a dream. His dream is to introduce everyone on planet earth to a particular lifestyle that I would describe as a “Kingdom Lifestyle”. Using a sophisticated psychological model, he is trying to help people live lives characterized by the peace that passes all understanding, lives of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

And he’s been quite successful at this. He’s written a best-selling book. He’s appeared on nationally televised broadcasts. He speaks to large groups of people all across the country and is beginning to travel abroad, taking this message of peacemaking with him everywhere he goes.

He is also very discrete in his language. He is a Christian — a strong one at that. He went to a Christian college. He’s involved in his local church. He reads his Bible, and he prays before meals. But he doesn’t always sound like a Christian when you hear him speak. You won’t hear any Bible verses or biblical references. I’ve never heard him talk to an audience about sin or repentance or the need to be “born again”. Consequently, doors have opened for him to take his message into communities that might be hostile to more explicitly Christian speakers (like me).

He believes he is partnering with God in a mission to spread the message of peace and peacemaking. He is merely doing it covertly. I don’t think he’s ashamed of the gospel or denying Jesus or any of that. I believe he is authentically and intentionally choosing words that won’t present obstacles to his hearers.

And yet….

I wonder about attempting to persuade people of the rightness of living a “Kingdom Lifestyle” without also introducing them to the King. Granted, some of this is a result of my modernistic upbringing. I was raised in an environment that was very linear and compartmentalized. There was regeneration first. This was followed by sanctification. First, one must be born again. Then one learns to live the Christian life. We were very concerned about salvation as an event and not very concerned about salvation as a process.

Every sermon turned into an altar call. Our message was explicit and unmistakable: Without Jesus, nothing else mattered. In fact, we overstated things, giving the impression that only your relationship with Jesus matters. Better parenting, financial responsibility, good work ethic — none of that matters in the long run. Just make sure you’re going to heaven because all this other stuff is temporary anyway.

I know all of this, and I’ve learned over the years to focus my attention more on the process involved in following Jesus here and now. But I still have some — what? — qualms with the notion that we can separate Jesus’ Kingdom from Jesus’ Kingship.

Enough of my ramblings. What do you think about all this? Is it okay to be “discrete” or even “sneaky” with our Christianity in order to introduce people to the teachings of Jesus without them realizing it’s actually Jesus’ teachings? Is that deceptive and unethical? How explicit should we be?

The question I was asked is this:

What would you say are the three most important factors determining whether a church thrives or struggles?

Here’s how I answered:

This question is a little bit of a trap, and it belies some modernistic underpinnings. I’m guessing everyone reading this would agree that God is the primary factor in determining whether a church thrives or struggles. Beyond that, however God does call us to be good stewards of our resources, so from a purely human, systemic perspective, I’d offer the following three factors:

The way a church defines success.

The willingness to honestly measure success.

The ability to strategize for success.

What do you think of that answer? Did I leave anything out or miss something? I’m really enjoying all the interaction lately, so speak up!

Let’s be honest about something: most churches in America are plateaued or declining numerically. I would suggest — although I have nothing on which to base this other than anecdotal evidence — that they are also plateaued or declining in terms of the growth of its members. If the statistical research of the Barna Group and others is to be believed, people who attend church don’t behave differently from those who do not attend church when it comes to divorce, addiction, abuse, etc.

The lack of discipleship has been, for far too long, the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

The good news is that churches seem to be more open about acknowledging this sad state of affairs. The bad news is nobody seems to have a good answer to the problem.

I have some thoughts about how a church could develop a strategy for discipleship, but what started me thinking about this today is that, in that same questionnaire that asked me to name the three most important theological issues of our day, I was also asked the following:

What would you say are the three most important factors determining whether a church thrives or struggles?

How would you answer that one?

The question I was asked is this:

If you had to name the three most important theological issues of our day, what would they be?

My answer was this:

Bibliology, Christology and Ecclesiology.

Did I get it right? Did I get partial credit? Way off base? What do you think? Did I get the job, or did I step in a trap?

When a church is looking for a new preacher/pastor, they often develop a questionnaire for candidates to answer. Most of the time, I open these questionnaires with a strong sense of foreboding. Traps abound in these seemingly innocuous documents!

For example, I recently read one in which the following question is asked:

Would it be sinful for a youth group or any other group from a congregation to participate in activities sponsored and conducted by the Lord’s church where false teachers are speaking or unscriptural activities are being participated in?

Um…I don’t even know where to begin. Actually, that’s not true. I begin by closing the document immediately and running the other way as fast as possible.

Once I was asked the explain my view of the gift of tongues. I wrote the following: “Tongues are a great gift from God. Without tongues we could not speak or taste our food. The tongue is a powerful part of the human body.”

I was recently asked, “Is there anything in your present or past life that, if made public would bring embarrassment to the life and work of [this] Church?” Honestly? Probably! I went to college. I was an adolescent. I am male.

C’mon…is there anyone who would answer “No” to that question?

But sometimes the questionnaire contains legitimate, substantial questions. Take this one, for example:

If you had to name the three most important theological issues of our day, what would they be?

How would you answer that one?

One of the churches that’s approached me recently has created a document profiling who they are and who they want to become. Documents like these can be very helpful and very revealing when read properly.

For example, this one has a section containing three lists: (1) What they want to preserve; (2) What they want to achieve; (3) What they want to avoid. That’s a good exercise, and I think more churches would benefit from creating those kinds of lists periodically.

However, I ran into something in this particular instance, and I’d like to ask for your help decoding it.

On their list of things they want to achieve, they list “Growth” as number one.

But on their list of things they want to avoid, they list “Growth for Growth’s Sake” — which they define as “Growing too much and losing the small church feel, becoming a megachurch”.

In the words of Dennis Miller, “I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but….” So many questions come to mind. How much is too much? Who gets to say when we’ve lost the small church feel? And…this is big…I thought it was God who would provide the increase. Should we pray for God to increase us but not so much that we might qualify as a megachurch?

Let me stop myself before I really get going and ask for your input. Am I missing something here? What do you think may be the reasoning behind these two seemingly incompatible statements?

Update: At about 2:45 this afternoon, my fantastic web guy Jeremy fixed the problem and turned my blog back into the cool looking site it was before the tragedy that took place this morning. “What tragedy?” you ask. Read on, my friend.

So, this morning, WordPress informed me that the new version (2.8) is available and that I could automatically upgrade by clicking a single button.

Such a deal!

Of course, I didn’t think about the implications of this upgrade — the most obvious, of course, being the fact that all my groovy formatting might be wiped out, and my blog may reset itself to the default theme and end up looking like a generic brand blog.

So, yes, I am blue. Hopefully, my ace web guy Jeremy will fix it quickly. That is, of course, if he can overlook that hundred bucks I owe him….

Now, this does bring up an interesting subject. Sometimes we do things, little things, seemingly insignificant things, and those tiny, seemingly insignificant things done without a second thought wreak all kinds of havoc in our lives.

Turning my blog blue is one thing. Turning my life upside-down…that’s a ballgame of a whole different color.

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, because there have been some pretty high profile ministry guys who have taken a header on the rocks of their own immorality. God knows I’ve done plenty of things that qualify as immoral, and it is only by God’s grace that so few of you know about my junk.

But, as I thought about these people and the public humiliation they’ve experienced, I wonder if it might have started as innocently as my morning did today. An opportunity shows up. You mindlessly press the “Yes” button, and then, realizing that this might not have been the best choice, you try to find the “stop” button. But, by then, it’s too late. It’s gone too far. Your whole format has been erased in a matter of seconds. Before you’ve even realized what’s happened, someone from the other side of the country sends you an email saying, “Have you seen your blog today? It’s blue!”

And you’re left sitting there feeling like a fool, knowing everyone can see the consequences of your thoughtless blunder.

If you’ve never been in that position, thank God. All too many of us, though, know all too well what it is to feel the weight of our shame and embarrassment as the stares start and the fingers point and the whispers begin. You start to wish the earth would open up and swallow you. It would be better than having to endure the ramifications of your own thoughtlessness.

I’ve never met anyone who simply woke up one morning and said, “Today is the day I’m going to embezzle money from the church.” It just sort of happens.

I’ve never met anyone in ministry who wrote in their DayTimer, “Thursday: Budget meeting, follow up with first-time visitors, have affair with secretary, mow lawn.” It just happens.

I turned my blog blue. A pastor here in north Georgia recently turned his family and friends blue. The difference may simply be of degree rather than kind.

Our thoughtless, private actions have startlingly loud and public implications. The real questions are: What would you like from others when you’re in a situation like this? How do you want them to interact with you? What’s the most helpful thing that can be said or done?

I’ve written about this before, but it’s officially pastoral migration season — the time of year when preachers and pastors begin moving, leaving behind empty pulpits and bewildered search committees.

There’s actually a rhythm to all of this. See, preachers — especially if they have school-aged children — prefer to move during the summer. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that a preacher willing to move his family during the school year might have a higher tendency to prioritize his work above his family. Churches ought to consider this in light of their hiring practices.

Unfortunately, the way the system is set up in many places, the preacher decides to move, tells his church in late spring (to avoid killing any Easter-related momentum and to avoid being a kind of “lame duck” leader) and moves in early summer (to get the family situated before school starts). In some places, the church finds out when the preacher put his house up for sale.

This often puts churches in the awkward position of beginning a hiring process (which in itself is terribly screwed up and dysfunctional — but that’s another post) in May. The problem with this is that if the process begins in May it’s not likely to be finished until September (because it’s so screwed up and dysfunctional), which puts a guy in the position of moving his family during the school year as described above.

And so it goes.

So far this year, I’ve talked to 12 churches in 6 different states. Four of those churches are off the table, leaving eight possible preaching places remaining.

I know of few other professions that operate like this. It’s quite possibly the worst system imaginable, except no one seems to be able to come up with another system. Committees and questionnaires. Spin control. Image management. The inflation of numbers. The padding of resumes. It’s exhausting, and I sometimes wonder if we wouldn’t do better to go back to the old school method of putting all the candidates’ names in a hat and offering the job to the first name picked.

Some of you have no idea what I’m talking about. This is as foreign and strange to you as a set of Ikea assembly instructions.

But some of you have served on search committees. In fact, I bet some of my newer readers are serving on committees right now.

And some of you have been searched for by committees. You’ve been through the ringer. I’d love to hear your stories. When has this process worked really well? When has it been disastrous? Anyone have any funny stories about the whole search process?