Rob Salvato and Ted Leavenworth are joined by Miles DeBenedictus (Cross Connection Church) to discuss how current societal trends and economic forecasts help form our vision-shaping process. More specifically, we will talk through forming vision for our churches as move past the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and into an economic recession in 2022.

—-

Cross Connection Church — lifeinconnection.com

If you are paying attention, I think you will agree that the discourse in the United States over the last two years has been divisive. The vast majority of the division is political. But the partisan divide has manifest in the form of fissures of racial division, socioeconomic division, division between white and blue collar sectors — you name it; there are deep divides in our nation.

Though no one individual is to blame, where this division is concerned, the argument could be made that one of the chief conductors, at the head of this discordant orchestra, is our Commander in Chief, President Donald J. Trump. Merely highlighting this, and using his name, will be enough to cause some to stop reading and write me off just two paragraphs in. Please don’t. This isn’t about President Trump — neither for or against. But it is about an issue that he’s helped ignite into an outright wildfire, having to do with what some refer to as a “constitutional crisis.”

A Constitutional Crisis!

The American President has an open disdain for the “fake news media.” I feel strange even writing that, though I’m quoting him in doing so. But his contempt for his critics in the press has stirred quite a response from those in and among the media outlets he criticizes. As Newton’s third law states, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” There has been an equal and opposite reaction for sure.

The press has responded to the president with equally hard-hitting editorial, comment and reporting. That is to be expected. And quite frankly, it is what we (if you are an American) should want. In the U.S., the press is sometimes called “the fourth branch of government.” It is the “Fourth Estate.” Thus when President Trump, this year, called the press “the enemy of the people,” he set a depth-charge that rattled the media establishment.

You might not like the president. You may not like the press. The fact is, neither has high approval ratings (actually, the president’s approval rating is nearly double that of the media). But both play an essential role in our republic, and both are constitutionally established. Therefore, when the president’s rhetoric targets the press, the fourth branch sounds the alarm, “It’s a constitutional crisis!”

The First Amendment

Perhaps you think that response is a bit extreme. There are those who have told me that the president is joking when he says these things. If not kidding, “It’s just rhetoric, playing to his base, but certainly not to be taken seriously.” On the other side, his words are considered dangerous, “a dog whistle inviting violence against the media,” and absolutely “unpresidential.” Wherever you land on this issue, you cannot argue that the press, and it’s freedoms, is not enshrined in the Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution makes very clear that, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” While not unique only to us, the constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of speech and the press are quite distinctive of the United States. We should be grateful that we have such rights firmly established, and we should be united in our opposition to any individual or group that would seek to restrict them.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that there is any serious attempt, in 21st century America, to restrict or “abridge” the freedom of speech or of the press. Sure, there are outliers and fringe dissidents who tweet and blog their objections. Indeed, the president has used his freedom of speech to do so. But I’m not yet convinced that such things have significantly harmed the press. No more so than their own bias and missteps have damaged them. And there is no legislative move on the freedoms of speech or the press.

But while I have yet to see any true attack — in recent times — against the freedoms of speech and the press, the same cannot be said for attacks against another aspect of the First Amendment.

The Five Rights

If one carefully reads the First Amendment of the Constitution, it will quickly become clear that the single, 45-word sentence contains five liberties or rights:

1. Freedom of religion

2. Freedom of speech

3. Freedom of the press

4. Freedom to assemble peaceably

5. Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances

In our day, nearly every time one appeals to the First Amendment, it is regarding the freedoms of speech or the press. Both of these liberties are important and even essential. But as our culture shifts, and as it becomes increasingly secular, there seem to be those who forget, or at least overlook, the first words of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

While I’ve seen no serious attack upon the freedoms of speech or the press, that is not the case where the free exercise of religion stands. That’s not to say — and I don’t intend to say — that the free exercise of religion is legitimately threatened. It’s not. At least not at the moment. But it’s undoubtedly been attacked.

To this point, the freedom of religion has not seriously been threatened because (1) the vast majority of Americans are still quite religious and (2) the Supreme Court has — so far — consistently upheld religious liberties. Though, the margin has been rather thin. And one of the chief reasons so many Christians voted for Donald Trump, while not strongly supporting him, was to maintain the slim Supreme Court margin.

The Need For Consistency

I am a wholesale supporter of the freedom of speech and the press. I don’t always like what people say, or how they express themselves; but I support their right to do so. I often disagree with the positions and perspectives of some in the media, but I’m grateful for the press and — for the most part — the work that journalists do.

As I said previously, we should be grateful that we have both free speech and a free press, and we should be united in our opposition to any individual or group that would seek to restrict these liberties. But I would have much more sympathy for those in the press if they were as ardent in their defense of the first right of the First Amendment as they are for the second and third. Unfortunately, that does not always seem to be the case. In fact, many of the journalists that are the most alarmed by the president’s rhetoric have been the least vocal in defense of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, the Masterpiece Cake Shop or the California crisis pregnancy centers, when their First Amendment rights were infringed.

Finally, a note to those who are Christians.

It is important we recognize that Paul understood his rights as a Roman citizen and wisely called upon them at the opportune time (Acts 22:25). We face a temptation to be silent. We can be afraid of rocking the boat. But the fact is, we need to be resolute about our faith, even if there is the potential of suffering as a result of doing so. But we also need to be vocal about our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is a reason that the founders determined to make it the first of our fundamental rights. But if we are silent when it is brushed aside, we may wake up one day to realize its power has all but disappeared from our society.

Back in June, I wrote an article on “Why Jordan Peterson Matters,” and why Christians should take notice. My article got pushback from some Christians who — though I’m not sure they thoroughly read it — incredulously questioned why CalvaryChapel.com would run an article on Peterson, or why a pastor (me) would encourage people to listen to or follow such an individual. If one read the article, they would know I didn’t do that. That said, the conversations and feedback I received, and something I’ve heard Peterson say several times, got me thinking. I hope it might do the same for you as well.

In a recent interview on the PBS show “Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,” Peterson was asked a question, the gist of which he’s received many times before.

“I want to ask you about your personal faith. Christians who watch you have listened closely, over the last two years, about whether you self-identify as a Christian or not. … Why not take on this question of the existence of God?”

That is precisely the question that many Christians (and atheists for that matter) would like Peterson to give a concrete answer to. But his response, though not as clear-cut as they’d like, has been consistent for a very long time. And in the “Firing Line” interview, he gave a slightly amplified version.

“It isn’t obvious what belief means. People think that what they believe is what they say they believe. I don’t believe that. I believe that what people believe is what they act out. And so I said, ‘I act as if God exists.’ That’s a sufficient statement as far as I’m concerned. You know, what’s the old saying? ‘By their fruits, ye shall know them.’ Same idea, right? It’s a matter of action and a matter of commitment. It’s not a matter of me parading out my explicit statements about a metaphysical reality that’s virtually impossible to comprehend. You risk when you reduce, and I’m not willing to do that. And I’m not interested in providing people with easy answers.” (emphasis mine)

Don’t Reduce It to a Sound Bite

Immediately before giving that answer, Jordan said, “It’s not something to reduce to a sound bite, fundamentally.” I think there is a lot of truth to that. But that’s exactly what we often desire. We want the simple sound bite. The 240 character or less, tweetable proposition. Whether you’re a Christian or not, we like everything boiled down to broth, when in reality, these meaty issues require something far more substantial.

Unfortunately, our culture has been continuously digesting milk and not solid food for several generations. That is true among Christians, just as it is outside the church. In his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves To Death, Neil Postman concluded that this was a product of broadcast television. It’s an issue that a preacher in the 1960s hit on when he said:

“And so it wasn’t long until it got to our generation where the whole plan of salvation was to give intellectual assent to a few statements of doctrine, and a person was considered a Christian because he could say, ‘uh-huh’ at four or five places that he was asked to. And if he knew where to say ‘uh-huh’ someone would pat him on the back, shake his hand, smile broadly and say, ‘Brother, you are saved.'”
— Paris Reidhead, Ten Shekels and a Shirt

Have we reduced it all that much? Thankfully, I’m finding that many of the people I interact with want more than mere one-liner propositional platitudes. I’m hopeful they’re not outliers.

More Than Mental Assent

Like it or not, Jordan Peterson’s answer is quite good: “I act as if God exists.” I took note of it the first time I heard him say it, and it has been stuck in my mind ever since.

As the Apostle Paul was testifying before Governor Felix in Acts 24, he said, “I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.” Paul is effectively saying, “I act as if God exists.” He had hope in God, and in His promised resurrection, which caused Paul to live differently both before God (in whom he trusted) and man. Paul’s testimony is an echo of what James writes in his New Testament Letter.

“But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” (James 2:18-22).

It is not enough merely to say “uh-huh” to the question, “Do you believe in God?” Belief cannot be a casual mental assent. It must become a conviction, resulting in action. Faith, if it has not works, is dead.

Actions Prove Our True Faith

On a few occasions, I’ve met with “believers” that are actively living in an adulterous relationship. They say they believe in God, but they act as if He were not there. The same is true for the Christian who perpetually looks at pornography. Or cheats on their taxes. Or lies to their spouse. Or lives a prayerless, thankless, anxious, hopeless life. It would be far better for one to act as if God exists than to simply say that they believe in His existence. Or better yet, say that you believe He exists, and let your actions say it too. Let’s not forget, it was Jesus who said, “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” Or the most frightening of Christ’s sayings: “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'”

The devastating reality is that many professing believers are, unintentionally, practical atheists. Such practical atheism is one of the realities that make many atheists all-the-more steadfast in their unbelief. It strengthens their unbelief when you say you believe in God and live with little or no regard for His command or glory.

It is because of this that over the last seven to 10 years, I’ve stopped asking people to “believe in Jesus,” but instead to “trust in Him.” That may seem like nuanced semantics to you, I assure you, it’s not. The meaning and value of the word “belief” has diminished in our modern vernacular. “Belief” seems now to connote something of a loose, intellectual acknowledgment of an idea. But “trust” implies a certitude of confidence and conviction, which compels dependence, hope and expectation. When I ask someone to trust in Christ, I’m asking them to entrust themselves to Him and to act in accordance with His resurrected existence.

Our culture loves to pigeonhole, label and “straw-man” nearly everything it disagrees with. Which means, if you’re a miracle-believing Christian, then in the eyes of a growing demographic, you are branded a “science denier.” And in 21st century western culture, because of the high value placed upon “science,” that’s among the worst things you could be accused of. But foundational Christian teachings such as the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, will earn you the badge faster than just about any transgression.

Acceptance of the Biblical narrative causes many non-theists to view Christians as “irrational.” They conclude that the Christian’s faith “does not align with clearly established science.” The Bible speaks of miraculous events, and miracles are difficult (at best) to support scientifically. Therefore, Christian, you’re a “science denier.” For some Christians, the moniker is (strangely) worn as a badge. But for the larger majority, once labeled, many will back quietly away from the conversation. Why engage when you’re going to be branded and stigmatized?

Science is the new faith and doctrine of many naturalists. For them, Christians (i.e., “science deniers”) probably believe the Earth is flat, and that we didn’t go to the Moon too. In fact, if you listen to some skeptics, in their perspective, Christianity is the greatest of all conspiracy theories to be foisted upon us throughout history. But as you probe a bit deeper, one must ask, do not many naturalistic atheists also deny (certain) science? Do not many that hold to strong “left-of-center” political and social views, and often pride themselves as having progressed beyond “belief,” do this as well?

Non-theist naturalists deny (certain) science too.

Perhaps deny is too strong a word. “Selective,” where science is concerned is probably more appropriate.

Take as a first example a TED talk I watched some time ago called * “The History of the World in 18 Minutes.” In the opening minute of the well-produced talk, presenter David Christian (ironic last name) grips the viewer’s attention with a video of scrambling an egg. But the mind quickly registers an inconsistency. The egg, which at first appeared to be scrambled was actually reconstituting, from scrambled, to a whole egg. As it does, Christian narrates:

“…We all know in our heart of hearts that this is not the way the universe works. A scrambled egg is mush—tasty mush—but it’s mush. An egg is a beautiful, sophisticated thing that can create even more sophisticated things, such as chickens. And we know in our heart of hearts that the universe does not travel from mush to complexity. In fact, this gut instinct is reflected in one of the most fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy. What that says basically is that the general tendency of the universe is to move from order and structure to lack of order, lack of structure—in fact, to mush. And that’s why that video feels a bit strange.”

To that point, the theist is tracking perfectly with Christian. But he continues:

“So here’s a great puzzle: In a universe ruled by the second law of thermodynamics, how is it possible to generate the sort of complexity I’ve described, the sort of complexity represented by you and me and the convention center? Well, the answer seems to be, the universe can create complexity, but with great difficulty.”

Entropy. It’s “one of the most fundamental laws of physics.” Miracle. “A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” David Christian’s presentation doesn’t jive with one of the most fundamental laws of physics. It doesn’t align with “science.” It sounds a lot like a miracle. But that doesn’t change his naturalistic conviction. Is he a science denier?

A second example. The science is becoming clearer every day. Life begins at conception. Call it a fetus all you want. It is not—as was wrongly assumed 50 years ago—just a “clump of tissue.” As ultrasound technology has refined, and the ability to study in utero child development has advanced, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude that a fetus is not a human life.

To this reality, many non-theist naturalists have chosen to call the fetus a “potential human being.” But they refuse to ascribe “personhood” to the unborn child. Some sociologists even argue for extending non-personhood beyond birth! Apparently, it’s legitimate to deny clear medical and biological science when it fits with a social position. This seems like scientific malpractice for the sake of strongly held personal or political convictions. Or perhaps social science is higher on the hierarchy of value than biological or medical science? It appears that grant dollars and media space think so.

Consider a third example. Gender studies departments, in the humanities sector (again, within the social sciences) of the modern western “church”—the university—have promulgated theories that are in outright, and even hostile opposition, to extensively researched and peer-reviewed biological science regarding sex. What becomes very clear when you begin reading the publications from these institutions is that they love to attach the word “science,” or better yet “established science” to anything that has received grant dollars and has been researched according to a scientific method. Then, if anyone speaks up with counterfactuals, even scientifically researched ones, they are lambasted and labeled “junk science.”

For most people, ideology and political persuasion trumps science.

Let’s be very clear, politics is the new religion of the West. In the United States there are two state denominations (i.e.parties), and within those denominations, many factions and networks. And although a large segment of theistically minded individuals (who often lean right politically) are accused of science denial as a result of their beliefs, those that adhere to the religion of Leftism, fight ardently for worldview positions that, also, do not align with many of the sciences. They too do so because of ideology. Generally, this ideology has been birthed and has grown through the evangelical and discipleship efforts of higher education. Especially the humanities. So why the pejorative labeling?

Agreeing to disagree, agreeably.

I suggest that neither the theistically minded Christian or the atheistically minded naturalist are necessarily science deniers. Science isn’t a worldview to deny. It’s a methodology of hypothesis, observation and experimentation, to discover the legitimacy of our worldview. But such scientific endeavor is always biased by preliminary assumptions. In other words, you can use “science” to “prove” a lot of different things. Just like wrongly interpreted, or out-of-context Biblical study can be used to approve all kinds of abhorrent positions.

To my leftist and non-believing friends—and I do have them—let’s dispense with the nonsensical ad-hominem attacks, labeling people “science deniers.” As if that somehow ends the debate. Let’s agree that in the hierarchy of values you (and we) have elevated, or the convictions (be they religious, ideological or political) we maintain, that they are more ideological and religious than scientific. Which means that we need to return to a rigorous debate of ideas, evidenced by logic and science-based rationale. Let’s acknowledge that conversations that descend toward character assault and bluster rarely produce anything worthwhile and are typically employed when one has no further winning argument.

^{* CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every outside source attached amongst these diverse pieces of content. By providing these sources, we hope to help you stay informed of important events, conversations and ideas taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.}

I have watched, somewhat in awe, over the last couple of years the rise of Jordan Peterson on YouTube, through podcasts and other media formats (books, blogs, etc.). I haven’t always been sure how to classify him or categorize his ascent. He’s not a Christian, at least not in an orthodox sense. Though I’ve heard him self-identify as a Christian, he would make a distinction. He would probably call me, and others like me, a “fundamentalist.” In some respect, that’s not far off, though every time I’ve heard him use the term, it seems to be dismissively, if not pejoratively.

Peterson is a celebrity by accident. He did not aspire to notoriety, but he’s certainly achieved it in the last year. He currently has over 700,000 Twitter followers and 1.2 million YouTube subscribers. His most recent book, Twelve Rules For Life, has been an Amazon bestseller since it’s release in January (it’s currently number two after nearly six months). As I write, Peterson is speaking nightly, nationwide, to sold-out crowds, on what is an extended book tour. Tickets cost as much as $600 apiece. Also, he’s pulling in an estimated $80,000+ a month from Patreon supporters. The once clinical psychologist, a professor at the University of Toronto, has no reason to ever return to the classroom or his clinical practice.

As I said previously, I’ve been intrigued since I first heard of him. I began following him when he first rose above the radar over a controversial Canadian legislative bill in the fall of 2016. He has a lot to say, and much of it reverberates with Judeo/Christian tones. Which is precisely why Christians should take notice. In watching and listening to him, several things come to mind. Five of which beg more in-depth consideration.

Long-Form Monologue is Not Dead

For as long as I’ve been preaching (20 years next year), voices in our culture have been saying that preaching, especially long-form monologue, is dead. Those promulgating this perspective have told us that the collective attention span in the West has devolved. Americans, raised on 30-second ad spots and 22-minute television programs cannot handle more than 25-30 minutes of preaching, they say. Many of the same voices tell us that dialogue is essential for the 21st century westerner. “You cannot give a message from a platform; it needs to be a conversation in a circle.” Peterson proves that’s not true.

In the summer and fall of last year (2017), Peterson gave a series of 15 lectures, in the Book of Genesis, on the “psychological significance of the Bible.” He “preached” more than two and a half hours each time, to some 500 listeners, all of whom paid admission to come. He’s since promised that he will pick the series up again in the future with the Book of Exodus. If that happens, I’m certain of three things. First, he’ll need a larger venue. The 500 seat theater was already too small a year ago. His following has only increased. And the live audience pales in comparison to the millions of views the recorded lectures have received on Youtube. Second, he’ll charge a lot more for admission. By his admission, he’s an “evil capitalist.” Simple supply and demand will require much higher costs of entry. Third, his messages will not get shorter. Peterson loves to talk, and he’s found an audience of people who are longing to listen. In this he’s proved long-form monologue preaching is not dead

Westerners Are Interested in Scripture

Another cultural lie we’ve been told for the last 20 years: “The Bible has no place in our [post]modern society. We’ve advanced beyond its archaic ideas, views and teachings.” Really? Not only is that not true, it’s not true by a large factor.

Just this week (June 12, to be exact), Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning, came out in audiobook format. It’s more than 30 hours of audio, read, of course, by the author. It’s an instant bestseller. In print, it’s 564 pages. Much of it goes back to Scripture, and it’s significance. I guarantee that most of the consumers of this audiobook are males, ages 20-40.

Now, it should be noted that Jordan Peterson’s interpretive lens for Scripture is not something with which any preacher I know would be comfortable. He approaches the Scriptures from a purely allegorical and mythological angle. He does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. He does not use a historical, grammatical, interpretative method. As far as I can tell, he does not take the Scriptures literally, and he questions much of its history too. He is not an evangelical Christian. He is a Christian only so far as he sees value in the Christian ethic and the mythological narrative of the Bible. But, he’s gathered a large following of predominantly educated, millennial, male westerners. The very segment that Christians both need to reach and have had a hard time reaching over the last two decades. And the fact that he’s gained a devoted audience with this demographic leads to my final three considerations.

God is Not Dead in Academia

Peterson’s rise informs us that the need for classically trained, academically minded Christians is greater than ever. This isn’t a new observation. Groups like Francis Schaeffer’s L’abri, more than 40 years ago saw this with prescient clarity. Ravi Zacharias’ International Ministries has sought to address it for more than 20 years. Christians in the 21st century western world need to think and speak the academically oriented language of higher education, and they need to enter academia as missionaries.

Many in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields are atheistic, or at the very least agnostic. The arts and humanities are almost worse. But that does not mean that God is dead among academics or in great academic institutions of the West. There are strong holdouts with well-reasoned Christian faith in the academy. But we need many more Christians to step into the academic sphere and “contend earnestly for the faith.”

It has been said that “the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” I think that’s true, and being that it is, Christians cannot vacate the academic domain. Especially when you consider, that many of the great universities of the West, were originally founded by individuals with a strong Christian faith.

In seeing this reality, I am more than a little discouraged by my own experience. Twenty years ago this week, I graduated from high school. And when I did, I didn’t enroll in college or university, partly because of the discouraging tone of Christian leaders I esteemed. More than a few of the Christians who influenced my decisions at that time exhibited a suspicion and distrust of higher education. I know now that was not a helpful attitude. Be that as it may, as the Church moves further into the 21st century, we must realize that we need to adjust, as our culture has changed.

Christians Need a New and Passionate Apologetic

The apostle Peter said, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” This we are to do in meekness and with respect. The concept of an apologetic arises almost solely from this verse. The word translated “defense” in many English translations of 1 Peter 3:15, is the Greek word apologia. It could also be translated “give an answer.” Christians have been doing this effectively for 2,000 years. But the answers are always in response to the changing questions of culture.

The questions of culture change continuously from generation to generation. Every worldview endeavors to answer these questions coherently. The far-reaching growth of the Christian faith from the first to the 21st century proves, I believe, that it’s answers are the most compelling. That is a truth that will not change, even if the pressing questions of culture do. And though the specifics of those questions vary, at the level of abstraction, the most important issues of meaning and value all fall under five essential headings: origin, identity, purpose, morality and destiny.

After listening to his lectures, watching his interviews and reading his books, I think Peterson is seeking to address these issues apologetically. And it is fascinating to see that, like many Evangelical Christians, he does so with something of apocalyptic fervor. He is passionate about his convictions and exacting with his words. I’m convinced that many are attracted to Peterson precisely because of his well-reasoned, authentic and genuine message, which seems to explode from a grave concern that our culture is fast descending into an abyss. Like an Old Testament prophet, Jordan Peterson is sounding an alarm in the West. He sees an unseen force of gravity, pulling our culture past the event horizon, into an inescapable black hole. And though he has met stiff opposition, he does not seem to be backing down. Which shows, finally…

Strong Warnings and Stern Exhortations Are Not Unacceptable

In our über-tolerant culture, some things are not tolerated. Peterson’s emphatic warnings and clarion appeals are definitely on the blacklist. The applications of Peterson’s message are hyper-individualistic (he despises collectivism) and gut-checkingly challenging. There is no wishy-washiness in his exhortations. He is dogmatic in every sense of the word. That too is not tolerated by many in the West. You might expect this would be a turnoff for his mostly millennial followers. And yet his appeal only seems to be growing.

Since the rise of the seeker movement of the 1980s, Christian leaders have promoted a softer, life-coach spirituality. “Don’t call people out. Address the collective ‘you plural.’ Focus on felt needs. Don’t be direct. Be encouraging.” In many ways, modern American Christianity fits perfectly in the $10 billion a year self-improvement industry, right next to Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Oprah Winfrey and even Jordan Peterson.

His book, Twelve Rules For Life, exists among other self-improvement titles, but it’s set apart by it’s bold and confrontational tone. “Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.” “Tell the truth—or, at least don’t lie.” He’s mocked by his critics for calling on people to clean their room. But when he says, “If you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?” you can hear the echoes of Jesus, “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s.” Or Paul, “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.”

Among all the nuanced and subjective shades of grey that are 21st century western culture, the objective contrast of white on black is refreshing. And though I in no way want to make Messianic allusions, Jordan Peterson’s rise is a reminder that when Jesus had ended the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, “…the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

^{Above photo of Jordan Peterson credited to Time Magazine}

“Know When to Fold ‘em!”

Though I wouldn’t refer to myself as a mountain biker, I do own a nice bike and have ridden a few trails. In doing so I quickly learned a valuable trail-riding lesson that I’ve come to see as helpful in ministry too. Avoid ruts!

I’m sure that an avid off-road enthusiast would school me on how great it is to ride ruts, but wisdom and a bit of personal experience has taught me otherwise. One of the easiest things to do in church ministry is to just keep doing it the way you’ve always done it, especially if there appears to be any possible fruit associated with the task or event. But easiest is not always best, and if you ride the rut, you’re at its mercy.

While change for the sake of change is frivolous, objectively (and sometimes critically) evaluating the things we do as a church is essential. That being the case, I’ve told our ministry team several times, “the list of things that are immutable at Cross Connection is very small.” There are very few things we will not change, even if they appear—at first glance—to be fruitful. If there is no real or lasting fruit then it likely needs to go. But how do you know?

Start with Vision

In many ways, discerning what to do or not do as a church is simple, when you start with your purpose or vision. If you have no vision of who you are or why you exist as a church, then you will quickly succumb to ministry “congestion” and every new idea will end up being added to the ever-growing list of events, processes and ministries. But when you understand who you are, you can easily say “yes” or “no” when ideas end up on the table. You can be certain, if a senior executive brings a great new menu idea for a killer hamburger to CEO Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A, it won’t go very far. In much the same way, at Cross Connection our vision—“life in connection with God, one another and the world, through Jesus”—helps us say “yes” or “no” all the time.

If the event doesn’t help us better connect with God, one another, or the world in some measurable way, then it probably won’t fit into our church for long. If the ministry isn’t helping the church to connect: with God through worship, one another in fellowship or the world evangelistically, then the ministry leadership is encouraged to tweak it or kill it.

Is it Fruitful?

“WAIT! What if the ministry or event is fruitful? You can’t just go around getting rid of important ministries?” I’ve heard it many times before, which is why it is important to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of your ministry efforts. The fact is, when inspected, many ministries are found to be leaf-laden, fruitless fig trees that need to be cursed. They look spectacular until you start moving the leaves around and looking for fruit. Often times in the process of inspection you will find that there is the potential for fruit if some hindrance is removed or sucker branch pruned. But you’ll never know if you never evaluate.

Golden Calves are Idols That Must Fall

“It sounds good in theory, but are you really serious about this? Do you really kill important ministries?” Yes!

About twelve years ago the previous leadership of our church set aside the mid-week Bible study to do home groups for a summer. We went from about seventy adults involved in the mid-week study to over 300 in home groups. At the time the leadership was not ready to do away with the mid-week completely. It took six more years and a change of senior leadership to make that change. While the mid-week was considered an essential item on our menu, it was ultimately a golden calf that needed to die. Now, more than a third of the church attends home groups that we call Connect Groups.

For more than twenty-five years our church held an annual Halloween alternative “Harvest Celebration.” Every October 31st more than 150 volunteers setup and ran an event that attracted over 1,250 visitors, and though it appeared successful there was no evidence of lasting fruit beyond the event itself. So, this last year it too found its way to the stone table. To be fair, we didn’t entirely kill it. Instead we split one big event at church into 10 “Neighborhood Harvest Parties” in the front yards of Connect Group host-homes and outreached to trick-or-treating families throughout our community.

Two Ways to Die

Ministry euthanasia is not easy and sometimes it’s outright arduous, but in time pruning produces greater fruit. Thus the question moves from “Should we?” to “How should we?” For us it has typically come down to one of two ways. We either deliver a decisive deathblow or we deprive it of oxygen.

Decisive action is the classic “ripping off the Band-Aid”, it’s quick, but it’s also much more noticeable and often a bit painful. The other method—“oxygen deprivation”—is usually as effective, but takes a bit longer and requires more finesse. I say “usually” because sometimes well-meaning emergency ministry technicians try to “resuscitate” the ministry you’re trying to kill, so you’ve got to be committed to the ministry DNR when you cut off its funding, promotion and all other life-sustaining measures.

Lead!

It may seem a bit coarse and insensitive (I’ve certainly been called worse). Leadership involves tough decisions that not everyone has the stomach for, and that is often the line between minimum and maximum fruitfulness. If you’re in church leadership there are times when you just need to lead, because the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Like it or not, when something you’ve done for a long time becomes the mainstream, you are not viewed as the trendsetter, but just another “band-wagoner”.

You may well have been born and raised a Seattle Seahawks fan, but if you wore the hat or jersey while they were sailing through the playoffs toward the championship last year, you were labeled a band-wagoner. It’s just the way it is.

You may have liked Pectoralz when no one knew who the band was. It may have bothered you when they changed their name to Starfish. But once they had hits and toured under their final name, Coldplay, you were just another lame follower.

Calvary Chapel was all about church planting when it wasn’t hip.

In fact, Calvary Chapel didn’t even know that they were identified as a church planting movement, because they weren’t planning to, or trying to be a church planting movement. But they became just that by simply doing what Jesus commissioned His disciples to do!

Today church planting is the cool thing among young American Christians. In the last decade, dozens of books have been written and nearly every denomination or group has their own opinions, positions and conferences on the topic. It’s mainstream. But one of the unfortunate hazards for early followers and fans is they are inclined to become disgruntled when their thing becomes the thing.

In a nation such as ours, given to extreme excesses, there is one thing that America could use a lot more of- churches! We, as a family of churches, cannot succumb to the temptation of being irritated that others are now engaged in the work of propagating the Gospel through church planting. Sadly, in the last several years that has happened among a vocal minority in our fellowship of churches.

Anyone who is not against you is for you.

In the Gospels, both Mark and Luke record that John came to Jesus and said, “Master, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn’t in our group” (Luke 9:49 NLT). So many of us know the rest of the exchange, and our familiarity can sometimes cause us to gloss over the important application. Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! Anyone who is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:50 NLT).

Redeemer, City to City, Verge, Sojourn, Exponential, Acts 29, Triangle, ARC, PLNTD, Kairos, Launch, Sovereign Grace, New Breed, Stadia, and Spanish River are not in “our group”. Yes, some of them baptize babies, others have a less charismatic expression in worship, and nearly all of them hold differing views on eschatology, ecclesiology and polity (i.e. church government). But they’re definitely not against us, so may it be that God blesses them as He blesses us in the work of proclaiming the Gospel through church planting.

I could never have imagined being as blessed as I am. I live in a great community. I serve an awesome church. I’m married to a beautiful wife, and we have four incredible kids. It truly is a wonderful life. One of my favorite times of the day

(I think most parents of young children can relate) is bedtime, and one of the highlights of bedtime is putting our two-year old, Evangeline, down to sleep.

It’s at that time, every night, that we pray the same prayer.

“Thank You, God, for this day, and for Ethan, Addison, and Elliott (her brothers and sister), for Mommy and Daddy, for our Grammies and Papas, for Walter and Jack (her doggies) in Jesus’ name, Amen.”

Occasionally, we even pray for Mike Wazowski, Eva’s favorite stuffed animal. It’s a simple and sweet prayer, which is almost always followed by her insisting that we sing “Jesus Loves Me” at least twice through, maybe three or four times, if she can get away with it.

If I prayed the same way and sang the same song week after week with the congregation at Cross Connection, more than a few people would take issue with it. I imagine that some might find it cute – once. But to continue to do so for three or four consecutive weeks would most certainly invite some anonymous “comment cards”.

It is easy for us to speak pejoratively of relevance, but the fact is that we need to contextualize, nearly all the time. To speak of substitutionary atonement with Evangeline would be fruitless. But to explain in simple terms that Jesus loved us, died on the cross, and rose from the dead to save us is appropriate and fairly clear, even for a two-year-old.

Illustrated like this, there are few people that would take issue with topics of relevance and contextualization. Still, there are some in Evangelicalism today who are genuinely uncomfortable with it.

Yet, if we are going to reach the lost, we must contextualize the message. Yes, in doing so there are dangers. The opportunity for miscommunication or misrepresentation is real. But the objection that all relevant contextualization is a deviation from the full gospel is, at best, a straw-man argument, and at worst a denial of the incarnational aspect of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

The fact is that we in the church speak a completely different language from those outside of it. To require that non-Christians learn our jargon before hearing the Gospel, disregards 2,000 years of missions history and smacks of a Christianity that would opt for the return to a Latin Mass. Men and women throughout Christian history have died to allow the message to be presented for the common man; it is unfortunate that some are still being “crucified” for doing so today.