Is God cruel or loving?

People have trouble enough dealing with the dilemma of why an all-powerful and loving God allows evil. Yet the Old Testament stories make it clear that God, not only allowed but, was very much involved in the events recorded there.

One mistake people make when reading the biblical accounts is to assume that just because God permits something, He condones it. However, if God allows free will, it follows that people will sometimes choose to do things which are outside His will. Not everything which occurred during this period had God’s blessing. He often rebuked people for what they did.

Though that is true, to a certain extent it begs the question. The fact is that God often, not only condoned but commanded massacres and genocide. What kind of God would do that? What sort of God would sanction bloody civil war, the destruction and looting of defenseless villages and the forced marriages of captive women?

In light of the facts, many have concluded that the God we read about in the New Testament cannot be the same as the God we encounter in the Old. How can the God who loves so much that He sent His only Son to redeem mankind possibly be the same as the vengeful, vindictive and seemingly cruel God we read about in Joshua and Judges? For example, the founder of the Foreign Legion wrote, “…Yahweh (Jehovah) is the tribal god of the Israelites. …By treating the threats and fulminations of Yahweh as the words of our God, we increase man’s misunderstanding of the divine Spirit. When we study the Gospels, we find much of the Old Testament to be at variance with the teachings of Christ.” (John Baggot Glubb, The Way of Love, Lessons from a Long Life, Hodder and Stoughton, 1974, pp. 111-115)

The problem with that conclusion is that Jesus, Himself, made it abundantly clear that the God of the Old Testament is indeed the same as His Father in heaven. For example, He said to the Jewish leaders, “…My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.” (John 8:54-55 NIV)

Nowhere did Jesus ever make a distinction between the Father, and the God of the Old Testament. On the contrary, He upheld both God and the Old Testament Scriptures. He said on another occasion, “…Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came – and the Scripture cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:34-38 NIV)

Not only did Jesus clearly say that God is the same in both the Old and New Testaments, He said that His actions were identical to God’s. The Father was doing His work through Jesus. “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.” (John 14:10-11 NIV)

Since Jesus does not allow any difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New, we who are Christians must also accept that He is the same Person. How then, can we reconcile the God of wrath and vengeance we read about in the Old Testament with the God of love and mercy in the New? The truth is that both these aspects of God’s character are revealed in both Testaments. The difference in perspective is that each Testament pertains to a different period of salvation history.

Life, An Inalienable Right?

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of God’s character to accept is His ordering the annihilation of whole peoples. To many, the death penalties imposed by the Law of Moses for some things which are widely accepted and practiced today are bad enough, but genocide? According to the Nuremberg Charter and other international criminal codes, that falls under the heading of “crimes against humanity.”

In the West, people have been deeply influenced by the United States Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” To put it succinctly, they regard life as a right which cannot be transferred to another. No one has the authority to take life away from another. Many argue that even the life of murderers and other egregious criminals cannot be taken.

But is life really an inalienable right? Leaving aside the issue of whether capital punishment is ever appropriate, there is something which those who object to God’s commands to the Israelites to destroy other peoples, forget. There is a difference of degree between mankind and God. The same Declaration which proclaims that Life is an inalienable Right also says that the Right was granted by the Creator. If the Creator is the Granter then, by definition, He is outside of the grant or stipulation.

No doubt it is true that no person is inherently more worthy than another. No one has an innate authority to take life from another. By the same token, no one has the authority to give his life into the power of another. We can see the truth of these assertions in God’s statement to Noah after the flood. “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” (Genesis 9:5 NIV) The same principle is endorsed in the Law of Moses in the commands against murder (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17).

However, there is another side to this. If the right to life comes from the Creator, then only the Creator has the authority to transfer that right or remove it. This means that though a person does not have authority over another’s life, God most certainly does. The Bible is clear and consistent that God is the One who gives life. “…the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7 NIV)

Our patent and copyright laws recognize the concept of intellectual property. An inventor or artist (and no one else) owns and has complete control over his invention or work of art. In the same way, if God is the One who grants life, does He not also have the right to take it or do whatever else He likes with it? The New Testament teaches that He does. “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory –” (Romans 9:21-23 NIV) What is wrong for man – depriving another of his right to life – does not apply to God. As the giver of life He is fully justified in taking it whenever He chooses.

James also upholds God’s right over life as well as the limit on man’s jurisdiction. “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you – who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12 NIV)

God Is Consistent

Though God has the right to take life He does not do so arbitrarily. He does not destroy nations or peoples on a whim. On the contrary, throughout human history He has followed the same pattern. When God does destroy, He does so for cause.

1) God waits until people’s wickedness is so great that He has to act.

God does not want to destroy. “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23 NIV)

In Noah’s day, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.”” (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV)

Even so, God gave mankind 120 additional years to turn away from evil before bringing the flood upon them. The Apostle Peter writes that God waited patiently during that time (1 Peter 3:20). But the people did not turn from their evil.

God also waited 400 years to bring destruction on the Amorites. He told Abram, “In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” (Genesis 15:16 NIV)

Thus we see that the destruction of the Amorites during the Israelite’s conquest of Canaan was not something arbitrary. It was the consequence of their sin from which they would not turn away.

2) God gives opportunity to repent.

A mistake which many people make is to think that the peoples whom God destroyed never had the opportunity to hear the truth. How could they turn away from wickedness if they never knew anything better? But it simply is not true that people did not have the opportunity to know God and do what was right. The fact is that if people didn’t know, it was because they chose not to know.

For example, through Noah, Christ preached to the people who lived before the flood. They died, not because they didn’t have a chance to hear the message, but because they disobeyed it when they did hear it (1 Peter 3:18-20).

The entire earth was repopulated by the eight people who survived the flood. Every one of them knew the truth. They all knew about God. Yet most of their descendants chose to turn away from Him and embrace wickedness.

Even then, the nations which embraced idolatry still retained some knowledge of God. For example, during Abraham’s day, God communicated to Abimelech of Gerar in a dream (Genesis 20:3). Melchizedek was a priest of God (Genesis 14:18). God appeared to Laban (Genesis 31:24). Moses’ father-in-law was the priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1). One of the purposes of the plagues was so the Egyptians would know the Lord (Exodus 7:5) and the other nations would learn to fear Him (Exodus 15:14-16, Deuteronomy 2:25). Even Balaam communicated with God (Numbers 22:8 and following). Yet, in spite of all these witnesses and opportunities the nations, for the most part, did not repent and turn to God.

3) God always accepted those who did turn from their wickedness.

In spite of the fact that God decreed destruction for the people of Canaan, He still allowed all those who wanted, to enter into the Covenant. There is a long list of those who did so.

Rahab and her family turned to God and were spared from the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6:25). She is in the ancestry of Christ.

Joshua 8:35 mentions the aliens who participated in the renewal of the Covenant at Mt. Ebal and Gerizim.

The Gibeonites entered into a treaty with the Israelites and became part of the community (Joshua chapter 9). Later, God punished Israel because King Saul violated that treaty (2 Samuel 21:1).

Ruth the Moabitess renounced her gods and entered the Covenant in spite of the fact that God had instructed the Israelites not to have any ties to that nation (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). She became the ancestor of king David and, therefore, Christ.

Uriah the Hittite is one of the best examples of faith, loyalty and dedication in all of Scripture (2 Samuel 11:7-17).

David purchased the land where the Temple was eventually built from Araunah the Jebusite who is another example of faith (2 Samuel 24:18-25, 1 Chronicles 21:18-26).

Men from Gath proved to be some of King David’s most loyal troops (2 Samuel 15:18).

4) People chose to reject God.

In spite of knowing about God, and the opportunities they had to accept Him, the peoples chose to reject Him. Since they would not accept the truth, no alternative was left but to allow them to reap the consequences of their decision.

The kings east of the Jordan river chose to fight Israel even though the Israelites tried their best to avoid conflict (Numbers 21:21-35).

The citizens of Jericho were fully informed about the plagues in Egypt, Israel’s victory over the eastern kings and God’s promises to the Israelites. Instead of responding like Rahab, they chose to reject and defy (Joshua 2:2-11).

The kings in southern Canaan chose to fight against Gibeon for making a treaty with the Israelites instead of following their example and seeking a treaty of their own (Joshua 10:1-4).

Instead of seeking a peace treaty, the northern kings of Canaan chose to fight the Israelites (Joshua 11:1-5).

The Philistines learned all about God when they captured the Ark of the Covenant. They got a graphic lesson about God’s superiority over Dagon. Yet, they still clung to their idolatry instead of turning to God (1 Samuel, chapters 5 and 6).

The Broader Picture

When looked at in context, there can be no doubt that judgment fell on the peoples of Canaan because they deliberately turned away from God. He destroyed them because they would not repent and turn away from evil though they were given every opportunity and all the time they needed to do so. In contrast, those who did seek God were spared, accepted and included in the Covenant.

However, there were other considerations which made the destruction of the people living in Canaan necessary. God was not only concerned about the people of that time but about all mankind in all times. Paul teaches us that even before the world came into existence God had a plan to redeem mankind (Ephesians 1:4-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10). The plan would not only redeem those after Christ, but also all those whom God counted as righteous before Christ (Hebrews 10:3-12, 11:39-40). To bring that plan to completion, it was essential that the Israelites be kept separate and distinct from all others.

Why the Israelites? We don’t know all the reasons why. God doesn’t give us a complete answer. We can say this much that starting with Abraham, they were the lineage of faith. More people from them than any other branch of the human race sought and trusted in God. That in itself would have made them unique.

Though Scripture does not say this, I suspect that another reason God chose to bring His plan to fulfillment through the Jewish people is that they were the ones who kept the accounts of what happened. Though at one time all the peoples of the earth knew the stories of how God had created the universe, how sin entered the world, the flood and what happened afterwards, only the Israelites preserved them. All other cultures forgot the truth or distorted it with myth. In spite of all their rebellion, their flirtations with idolatry and their attempts to assimilate themselves into the surrounding cultures, a remnant always remained faithful to God and the Covenants. There was always someone who kept the record. Someone always kept the witness and testimony alive.

If God had not chosen the Israelites, He would have had to select another people to fulfill the plan. And, whether it was the Israelites or someone else, God had to keep them distinct and separate. One of the reasons, which is repeated time and time again, for annihilating the inhabitants of Canaan, is so they could not lure the Israelites away from the Covenant and, therefore, away from their part in God’s plan in redemption. For example, “When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-10 NIV)

God Is Still The Same

God was fully justified in destroying the peoples of Canaan during the time of the Conquest and Judges because it was His right as the Creator, they would not turn from their wickedness and enter the Covenant, and it was necessary to fulfill God’s plan to bring salvation to all mankind. However, there is something we, who are accustomed to look at God through the lens of the Gospel, tend to forget: God is still the same. He does not change. The God who brought destruction upon the Canaanites is the same God who offers us salvation through Jesus Christ.

Throughout history the cycle is the same. God offers, mankind rejects, God waits patiently, God brings judgment.

While reading the Bible we need to keep in mind that different portions of it deal with different portions of the cycle. The aspect of God which is portrayed will vary depending on which part of the cycle is recorded. When we read the books of Joshua and Judges, we are looking at a judgment section of the cycle. Therefore, God appears harsh and vengeful. When we read the New Testament, we see the part of the cycle where God offers. There we see more of God’s love.

But God is still the same. Even in judgment we still see glimpses of His love. Even when He woos us with the offer of pardon through Jesus Christ we can still see glimpses of His severity. The aspect of God’s character we ultimately experience depends on us and how we respond to His offer of a covenant relationship.

What Kind Of People?

The Canaanite people experienced God’s judgment during the Conquest and time of the Judges. The Israelites experienced God’s judgment at the time of their Exile. Today, we are in another cycle. God has made His offer. He has presented the Gospel to us. We have the opportunity to enter Covenant through the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. Now God is waiting patiently for those who will respond. In the meantime, mankind continues to travel down the road of corruption and wickedness. One day, the judgment portion of the cycle will come again. Only this time, the judgment will be final. There will not be another offer. The final and complete sacrifice for our redemption has already been made. Another one will not be made.

The Apostle Peter sums it up this way: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.” (2 Peter 3:9-14 NIV)

What kind of people are we, indeed? Are we at peace with God?

Note: Except for a few changes, this essay is excerpted from my book Conquest and Judges. You can buy a copy of the whole book by clicking on one of the links in the right panel.

Everyone has a message he or she needs to share.

There’s a saying in church circles that everyone has at least one sermon in him. What I mean when I use the expression is that each person, no matter how long he or she has been a Christian, is passionate about at least one thing, one topic. Each person has a message which he or she feels other Christians, or the church as whole needs to hear.

The message might be a very positive one, for example, an aspect of God’s blessing or His grace which this person understands or has experienced more than others. It might be a message of encouragement and hope when others are in despair. It might be a message of comfort in the face of distress and grief. It might be a message to motivate. Or, it might be a message of rebuke to the complacent or those who are drifting away.

The tragedy is that most people never have the opportunity to share that special message with the rest of the church. All too often not only our assemblies and classes but the whole congregation are dominated by one or two individuals who do the speaking. At best, someone with a message that others need to hear might get to share it in a small group.

The lack of opportunity for people to express what is on their hearts has at least two unhealthy consequences. The first is that the church never gets to hear their message. And, because we never hear those messages, we remain bereft of much wisdom, guidance, insight and encouragement. Scripture tells us not to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19). Yet how many times do we do precisely that because we have cut ourselves off from the guidance the Spirit is trying to give through the agency of someone whose voice the church has stifled? How ironic that we, as a church, pray for leading and direction, yet so often are blind and deaf to it unless it happens to come through the “anointed” few we allow to occupy the pulpit!

A second unhealthy consequence of stifling the voices in the congregation is that people do not get the opportunity to develop their gifts and talents. In just about all the congregations I have attended, there is a perpetual lack of teachers, counselors, encouragers, exhorters, and those who know how to share their testimony. Yet, many of the same people who seem so incompetent in expressing themselves in spiritual things, perform well in their jobs. Why are they competent at work but not at church? I suggest it is because we have not allowed them to be. How can anyone grow and develop without opportunity, without practice? People don’t have confidence in their ability to express themselves because we haven’t given them the opportunity to do it.

There’s a corollary to this. I read someone, it may have been Tozer, who pointed out that each Christian inevitably feels lonely and isolated. The reason is that we all grow in our spiritual walk at different rates. As a result though we are all in Christ, to a certain extent, we travel alone. I suggest that there is another reason Christians feel alone and isolated. It is because their voices are not heard. They walk in silence, unable to express that one sermon or message God has given them. Even though they are in God’s family, they feel like outcasts, pariahs because they have no voice.

Everyone Has a Story

What got me started on the above rant is that there is a similar saying in the literary world. “Everybody has at least one novel in him.”

There are an awful lot of people out there who want to write a book. Many of them have been toying around with a concept or a plot for years. The problem is that very few people ever get anything down on paper. Someday they’re going to sit down and write it out, but someday never comes. Of those who do start to write, very few ever finish.

I was no different. Over the years I’ve had ideas for several novels. I even did a fair bit of research for one of them. But somehow, I never got around to writing anything except for a few notes and the beginning of one scene. Though the idea of writing a book was very alluring, actually doing it was daunting. There was always a good reason to put off the writing for another day.

Then something happened which changed everything. About a year or so ago I heard about a program that encouraged people to write a complete novel in a single month. Since the month was already over by the time I heard about it, I more or less shrugged my shoulders and forgot about it. And really, writing an entire novel in a month? The whole idea seemed rather preposterous anyway.

However, every once in a while I’d run into another mention of this annual event. Finally, I decided to do a little research and found the website. It turns out that National Novel Writing Month is not the fly-by-night gimmick I had thought it might be. Every year, hundreds of thousand of people from all over the world attempt to write a novel of at least 50,000 words during the month of November.

My daughter encouraged me to make the attempt. So eventually, with some trepidation, I signed up. With the exception of a few short stories, all of my writing has been non-fiction. Since articles and lesson plans generally take me several days to complete, I honestly didn’t know whether I’d be able to write 50,000 words in only a month. I also didn’t know whether I could come up with a story that long. I didn’t know whether I’d be able to force myself to work through those times when the words just don’t want to come.

Much to my relief, and somewhat to my surprise, the writing came fairly easily. In fact, I found that I was able to write enough each day to get ahead of the game. My novel came in at a little over 53,300 words, and I finished it early. I am now an official winner. I was amazed at what a sense of accomplishment that’s given me.

Why write about this? Because in the process I learned some things about achievement and motivation which I think are directly applicable to the problem I mentioned earlier – allowing people in the church to deliver their message.

A Positive Culture Which Breeds Success

What makes NaNoWriMo successful? Here’s what I observed:

1) They break the task down into achievable steps. 50,000 is a large number. Thinking of writing that many words is daunting. If the goal of 50,000 was the only thing they held before us, I doubt that many people would even attempt it. Instead, they broke the number down into an average daily word-count that would add up to 50,000 by the end of the month. Yes, 50,000 is daunting, but 1,667 words in a day is very achievable. I ended up averaging about 2,200 a day, roughly four pages, and I am not a fast typist.

In the context of church we, all too often, expect people to somehow automagically become fully formed and competent speakers and teachers from their first attempt. This is what happened to me 30 years ago. I had no experience, yet one day the preacher told me I was going to be the teacher of a youth class. Total cold-turkey. To say it was daunting doesn’t begin to capture the terror I felt. How much better it would have been if the task had been broken down into small, incremental steps and he had allowed me to build up to it!

2) They celebrate milestones. There’s a section in the NaNo forums for what they call shoutouts. People may still be a long way from reaching 50,000, but they’re encouraged to let others know when they’ve reached a goal which is significant to them. Reached 5,000? Let people know! Hit 25,000? Take some time and celebrate making the halfway mark!

As Christians, our goal is to become like Christ. That’s daunting. It doesn’t happen all at once. There may be many areas in our lives where the Holy Spirit still has significant work to do. But how often do we allow people to celebrate the mileposts on the journey? Do we let them share their victory over that habit? How can we rejoice with them when they are able to master their temper if we never hear about it?

3) They applaud progress and growth rather than dwell on failure. There are a lot of people who don’t make the whole 50,000 words. Sometimes, people have tried for several years and still can’t do it. However, one thing I noticed, both on the NaNo site itself and in the forums is that there are no put-downs. Instead there is positive appreciation and encouragement for whatever has been accomplished. Did someone only manage to get 800 words written? Instead of chiding them for not putting out 49,200 more, they congratulate the person for the 800 they achieved. Hey, it’s 800 more than you had before! That’s good!

How often at church do we concentrate on what people have not done, or the distance they still have to go, and ignore the progress they’ve made? How often do we express appreciation for honest attempts to grow in the Lord? Do we congratulate people for the progress they make in becoming a better speaker or expositor, or do we continually point to their weaknesses and how far they still have to go in order to meet whatever standard of competence we’ve created?

4) They provide help for those in trouble or who are discouraged. There are many potential pitfalls for the would-be novelist. Perhaps we suddenly realize that we have no idea how to train a dog or fix a computer. Perhaps we don’t know proper operating room procedure. Maybe we don’t know what all a pilot checks off on his list before takeoff – or a million other bits of data that we need to stick into our novel in order to make it believable.

Perhaps we have all the facts and procedures we need down pat, but are having trouble with plotting, structure, character names or…

Maybe we just get discouraged with the whole process. The words aren’t flowing as we’d like. Or, we’ve written ourselves into a corner with no visible out and feel like throwing in the towel.

There are sections in the forums to help in all these situations, and more. People are willing to help you chase down that elusive fact. They can make suggestions on structure or how to express an emotion. There are suggestions to help with character names. Most of all, they are willing to lend an ear or a shoulder to lean on when the whole process just gets to be too much.

It’s made me wonder how supportive we are to one another in church. Do we listen? Are we willing to help out when someone has a question? Can we offer advice? Do we have a word of encouragement when the going gets rough? Doesn’t Scripture say something about spurring one another on to good works? Doesn’t it tell us to bear one another’s burdens?

5) They do not insist on conformity. The stated intent of NaNo is to write a novel. The stated goal is to churn out 50,000 words in one month. However, there are a substantial number of people who don’t want to write fiction. Instead they want to work on their memoir, or a cookbook or some other non-fiction project. Some want to write short stories rather than a novel. Instead of aiming for 50,000 words, some just want the discipline of writing each day. Some set goals of as little as 200 or 300 words a day. The point is that there is room for all these people in the NaNo tent.

Now I’m not trying to suggest that when it comes to church there are no standards. I’m certainly not saying that we should be inclusive to the point where we look the other way from sinful behavior. No, there can be no compromise in exhorting people to live holy lives. Becoming like Christ is not an option – it is the essence of our covenant relationship with God. Scripture also tells us to be like minded.

However, there are areas where I think we harm ourselves and the church by insisting on conformity in non-essentials. I’m thinking in particular about speaking styles. How often have voices been silenced because they didn’t line up with someone’s preferences? A person isn’t “dynamic” enough to address the congregation. Someone else dares to use a “teaching” style and engages the congregation in dialog rather than the approved “preaching” monologue. Another person likes to pace, or puts his hands in his pockets or… I’ll let you fill in the blanks.

I can’t help but wonder how much the church has missed because it won’t listen to someone who doesn’t fit the approved stereotype. How much depth could we have gained if we were willing to hear people coming at Scripture from different, but still very valid, perspectives. What riches have we missed by not listening to the “small, still voice?”

6) They provide a true sense of community. One of the things which makes NaNo work is that the people who participate have a real sense of doing this thing together. Periodically, the originators or sponsors will email pep-talks and encouragement to everyone. They remind us that we’re in this thing together and that we’re not alone when we face obstacles and challenges. There are parties where people are encouraged to talk about the novel they’re working on. There are write-ins where people who live in the same geographic area get together in the same location and write. And so on.

Our church assemblies and small groups are supposed to give us that sense of community as well. To some degree they do. Yet all too often, I’m afraid, we don’t have that sense of all going the same direction, of all striving for the same goal. Part of the problem is, I think, that we often forget what the goal is – becoming like Christ. Instead we get side-tracked by secondary, sometimes trivial, issues which not every one can agree on. Instead of our assemblies drawing us together, they give us the sense that we’re headed down different roads.

But another reason I think we often don’t have a sense of community is that we’re prevented from communicating. Most of the communication which does take place in our assemblies is one-to-many instead of the rich, many-to-many communication we catch glimpses of in the New Testament. Whatever the reason, all too often, we end up feeling like outcasts instead of like the family we’re supposed to be.

7) They trust, yet offer validation. NaNo is based on trust. If you say you’ve written 15,782 words, they take your word for it. Your progress bar (which is visible to everyone if you post to the forums) will show whatever word-count you happen to supply from day to day. They figure that the only person you hurt if you cheat, is yourself. On the other hand, if you want to officially be counted as a winner, and get the certificate, you have to validate your word-count by pasting your novel into the official word counting tool on the site. Even then, no one checks to make sure you haven’t just copied one word 50,000 times.

I wonder sometimes how much further along we would be in our congregations if we had more of a culture of trust. I freely admit that it’s sometimes hard to give people the benefit of the doubt. It can be hard not to suspect motives. But we have to remember that Christ is the Master, not us.

A Matter of Quality

“But what about quality?” you ask. “It’s one thing to bang out 50,000 words in one month, but how good are they? Will your novel be worth publishing?”

In most cases, probably not. I don’t know whether my novel is any good or not. Authors are notoriously unable to judge the quality of their own work.

But if you can’t be sure of the quality of what you have at the end of the month, then what’s the point? The point is to turn off the inner editor and critic and just get the words down. The people at NaNo point out that you have to have something to edit. If you never get the words out, you can’t correct them. Remember what I said earlier about most people never writing their stories at all?

But there’s another point, too. You only get good at something, no matter what it is, through practice. Your first novel or two may be dreadful, but each one gives you more practice. It’s only by doing that you discover what works and what doesn’t. It’s only by writing that you discover your unique “voice” which distinguishes you from all other authors. It’s only by practice that you learn to use the “tools” of your trade.

This concept has a direct bearing on our church experience. We want competent, fluent and articulate teachers and speakers. Yet how can they ever develop those skills and talents unless we give them opportunity to do so? We complain about the incompetence of our people, yet withhold from them the very things they need (opportunities to practice and develop their skills as well as constructive criticism) in order to gain competence.

“What’s your novel about anyway?” Glad you asked. It’s about a teacher who is asked to set up a training program for church leaders in a foreign country. The working premise is that, in one way or another, we’re all outcasts. Through various circumstances, God fills the voids in our lives and shows us that we belong. “‘…I will restore you to health and heal your wounds,’ declares the LORD, ‘because you are called an outcast, Zion for whom no one cares.’” (Jeremiah 30:17 NIV)

What motivates us to do right?

My daughter aspires to a career writing children’s literature. I think she’ll succeed. She has a good imagination, she’s developed a unique voice in her writing and has the necessary discipline to park fundament in chair in front of computer for the requisite time to capture her plots. Where she may have some trouble is on the business side of things. You see, these days there are too many choices to make. It isn’t like the old days when there was basically only one route to publication.

A Matter of Choice

She and I were talking about the revolution which is going on in the publishing industry due to digitization. I was reveling in the choices writers have compared to the past. I’m excited by the fact that I can bypass the old “gatekeepers” when publishing my books. I like having control over the formats and formatting, choosing cover art and where to upload the finished product. It amazes me that I can make my work available to the whole world without having to give away a (large) percentage of my rights and royalties. The down side, of course, is that if something goes wrong I have no one to blame but myself.

My daughter is not so enamored of the new publishing landscape. She doesn’t like the fact that the old wisdom no longer applies. Though she would like having a say in formats and cover art, she doesn’t think the ability to bypass the gatekeepers is a good thing. She feels that no one should be published unless they’ve “paid their dues.” She would be more comfortable if there was only one route to publication like there used to be. She said something to the effect of, “I like it when there are rules. Just tell me what to do, give me the procedure, and I’m good with that.”

There are a lot of people who like order and an established way of doing things. Too many choices and the responsibility for making those choices are frightening. Too many variables can lead to computational overload, indecision or even paralysis.

Fortunately, this does not extend to all areas of life and not all people are affected the same way. In other areas, my daughter deals with complexity and choices just fine. While I revel in the choices I have in publication, a trip to the grocery store can give me sensory overload. I like choice, but how can you choose between fifteen varieties, styles and brands of string beans? From my perspective, it would be better to only have two or three to choose from.

Rules and Disputable Matters

Having to choose vs. following established guidelines and parameters has profound implications in spiritual things, also. Let me explain. I was teaching a class on Christian living, that is, how being in Christ should impact the way we live. The question came up how we should determine what we ought to do in what Paul calls “disputable matters” – those areas where there are no clear directives in Scripture.

I explained that the proper way to approach such problems is to look in Scripture for principles which might apply. Then, make your decision based on those principles. Act on what you know, retain an open mind and modify your decisions and your behavior as you gain further insight. I also took the class through several examples of this methodology.

Inevitably, the question of alcohol came up. Someone in the class asked whether it is alright for Christians to drink and, by the way, “What is the church’s position on this?” It surprised and disconcerted me that some in the class wanted me to issue a ruling. Was drinking permissible and, if so, how much?

On another occasion I taught a seminar for church leaders. To demonstrate the absolute necessity for humility in leaders, my co-teacher and I washed the participant’s feet. They were fascinated by this and asked a lot of questions. I was disappointed that the most pressing issue on their minds was how often foot-washing should be done. They wanted to take something intended as an object lesson and turn it into a ritual.

In both these cases the attitude was, “Just tell us what to do and we’ll do it.” The motives were good. They wanted to do what is right. But they missed the whole point.

I refuse to legislate where Scripture does not. In many cases it would make life easier – at least in the short term, but in the long-term it would be self-defeating. People might be willing to follow rules, but following external rules does not develop conviction. Right behavior which reflects inner character is far more valuable than right behavior produced by external coercion. When the chips are down, people will always act according to what they really believe – not according to something imposed from the outside.

No Rules = Soft on Sin?

Refusing to impose rules can also lead to misunderstandings and awkward situations. People sometimes assume that by not making a rule against something you condone the behavior, or that you are soft on sin. For example, I was taken to task for not forbidding someone from smoking. My reply was that it is a matter of spiritual growth and conviction. The person in question did not yet understand the sinfulness of his behavior. If I were to forbid his smoking and he complied, it would not be from conviction. (If I forbade and he did not comply, then it raises the stakes and becomes a matter of church discipline.) Far better to extend grace until the Spirit convicts him in this particular area. Then we can work together, rather than at odds, in overcoming the habit. And, by the way, would you like me to make some rules about your behavior in areas that the Spirit has not yet convicted you about? If not, then allow the same grace to others.

It’s not up to me to do the Spirit’s job. My responsibility is to teach biblical truths and principles and let the Spirit do any convicting which may be necessary. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not at all saying that we should be “soft” on sin or that we should not confront people when they are doing what is wrong. Far from it. I’m not talking about unambiguous sins, but about things that are not necessarily crystal clear – the “disputable matters.” Where there are clear directives we need to point them out and expect people to comply. For example, Scripture is very clear that Christians are to avoid getting drunk (Ephesians 5:18). The stated reason in that verse is that it leads to debauchery. There are other Scriptures which also lend support to this directive. Therefore, if a fellow Christian does get drunk we not only have the right but the responsibility to confront him or her with his or her sin. However, even then, we must do it gently and with the intent to restore rather than condemn (Galatians 6:1-2).

Paul’s Example

It’s instructive to think about how Paul dealt with this business of legislation vs. the operation of the Spirit while confronting the situation in the churches of Galatia. False teachers had infiltrated the churches and told the Christians that they had to observe the Mosaic Law if they wanted to please God. Bear in mind that this was not a “disputable matter.” The very character of the Gospel was at stake. Yet, Paul did not deal with the situation by issuing rules and directives. Instead, he appealed to the people’s experience of the working of the Spirit. “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” (Galatians 3:3-5 NIV) Later in the letter he tells them to live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26).

Assuming, as I do, that Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians after the Jerusalem Council which is recorded in Acts 15, why didn’t he settle the matter by simply referring to the letter that the Jerusalem church wrote to the Gentiles? Didn’t that ruling solve the problem for all time? We know that Paul agreed with the letter for he delivered it to several churches (Acts 16:4).

Why, then, didn’t Paul cite the ruling of the Apostles as final when addressing the churches in Galatia? Had Paul merely pointed to the letter the Council had written, it would have been easy for people to regard it as a replacement for the Law. The result would be to substitute one law for another. Paul was after something much more profound. He wanted people to experience life in the Spirit. He didn’t want them to think in terms of rules and boundaries but of becoming like Christ.

Led by the Spirit

The Law kept people in line through external rules and regulations. In Christ we do what is right because He has given us a new nature. That new nature inherently does not want to do anything which is contrary to God’s will. This is the fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New. The Old is based on compliance to an external standard. In the New, God’s laws are written “on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:7-13). We are being transformed into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18) and the more we become like Christ the less we need rules to govern our behavior. We will automatically do God’s will.

I’m fully aware that in some respects it’s a whole lot more comfortable to have a bunch of rules. It makes life simpler. In X situation, you’re supposed to do Y. But the day inevitably comes when none of the rules seem to fit. Then what are you supposed to do?

On the other hand, it can be very disconcerting if there aren’t rules. “You mean I have to understand principles and figure out what to do based on them? It’s so confusing!” It may be difficult; it may be confusing; it means we have to actually think instead of leaning on somebody’s list of guidelines. But, if we can learn to recognize the direction of Christ’s Spirit who lives in us, we’ll find that we will know how to act all the time, in every situation. We won’t go far wrong if in everything we ask, “Will this make me more like Christ?” “Will it bring glory to Christ?” Is this how Jesus would act?”

We are works in progress. Jesus didn’t come for those who don’t need help.

One of the arguments I’ve heard against Christianity is, “If Christianity is true, then how come so many people who aren’t Christians are nicer than those who are?” I can answer that question because I happen to be one of those people who struggles with character flaws. You see, I tend to be a cynic. It’s easy for me to slip into the habit of seeing the negative and expecting the worst from people. It’s easy for me to be sarcastic and to make caustic comments. Occasionally someone has to take me to task for how I express myself. Then, there’s my temper. At times, even after over 40 years of being in Christ, I still have to watch it. Bitterness has been another huge struggle for me. It’s all too easy to dwell on the wrongs and hurts which others have inflicted.

Yes, it would probably be pretty easy for someone to criticize me for not being as nice a person as I ought to be. But, as C.S. Lewis points out in his book, Mere Christianity, the real question is not how I compare with someone outside of Christ, but what I would be without Christ. Someone in the world may be a lot nicer than me because he was born with a nice disposition and has not had to struggle to overcome my particular character flaws. The measure is not what I am, but how much progress I have made and the direction I’m going. Lewis points out that the nice people might not even be able to recognize that they need to change. They might not realize that they need Christ just as much as those of us who have had to struggle with a nasty disposition. It’s those of us who know we aren’t what we should be who turn to Christ for help and healing. As Jesus, Himself said, “…It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17 NIV)

I still have a long ways to go, but the good news is I’m not what I used to be. There has been a lot of progress. Galatians 5:22-23 tells us that, “…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…” (NIV)

Because of what Jesus has done for me, His Spirit lives in me and I can see the changes He is making in my life. I can see the gradual increase in the Spirit’s fruit. Without Christ, if I were even still alive, I might very well be a crusty, curmudgeonly, misanthropic hermit living alone in the back of beyond with a rifle propped next to the cabin door.

Though it is sometimes a painful process, I thank Christ for transforming me. I thank him not only that he has made me different than what I was, but for the hope He gives that someday I will be perfect. I rejoice that someday, I will be like Christ.

Why programs seldom produce expected results, and what to do about it.

Everybody knows what happens in a church service. Right? In fact, with only minor variations, the “order of service” is remarkably similar across denominations. And, most congregations hardly vary anything year in and year out. Drop a total stranger into just about any congregation at a random point in the assembly and he could probably tell you what’s going to happen next.

Why are our church assemblies the way they are? For the most part, tradition. We have a sermon as the filler in our “hymn sandwich” or its “contemporary” equivalent because that’s what we’ve always done. If someone were to ask why, most people would be at a loss to answer. It is something which just is.

Tradition and Fads – What’s the Purpose for What We Do?

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with tradition. Tradition may be what holds a group together and gives it stability in a rapidly changing or hostile environment. The traditional feasts and rituals are one of the things which has enabled the Jewish people to retain their unique identity through a very turbulent history. The Apostle Paul exhorts the Christians in Thessalonica to hold onto the traditions he had taught them (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And, he praises the Corinthians for keeping the traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2).

Where we get into trouble is when we allow our traditions to replace or interfere with what God has told us to do. Jesus got upset with the religious leaders of His day for that (see Mark 7:1-13). One of our problems today, I suspect, is that we are so steeped in our traditions of what should happen during our church assemblies that it has anesthetized us to the purpose of it all. A fundamental question, and one which is rarely asked is, “What is the purpose of our church services? What are they supposed to accomplish?”

In addition to tradition, we are afflicted by fads. Every few years there seems to be an idea or practice which sweeps through the churches – often across denominational lines – which grabs everyone’s attention and then, after a while, fades away. Bus ministries come to mind. Anyone still remember using film-strips in evangelism campaigns? How about the programs where we were taught to ask, “If you were to die tonight…”? Remember when everybody started projecting sermon points and Scripture on the screen?

The Silver Bullet Syndrome – A Cycle of Ineffectiveness

Why do we succumb to fads? I suggest that it is because we are looking for something which will miraculously fix the problems we see in our congregations. Church X is growing or has the reputation of being able to reach this generation. Naturally, others are curious about what they are doing to generate that success and try to copy it. Second tier adopters, in turn, report some success in using the method or program. Still others start to copy the second-hand adopters in the attempt to replicate their success. Soon the idea or practice has spread all over and congregations everywhere start to think that if everyone else is doing it, it must have validity and be the thing to do. It’s the “silver bullet” syndrome. One congregation finds a way to slay the particular “werewolf” which is plaguing them and everybody else decides that the same bullet will slay theirs too.

Unfortunately, it seldom proves as effective in other places as it did in its original setting. Why not? In her article, Life of a Silver Bullet, Sarah A. Sheard points out one reason copy-catters don’t get the same results is that their environment is not the same as the original adopters. The underlying problems the solution is intended to solve may be different.

Let me cite an instance I know about. A large and growing congregation became concerned about people “falling through the cracks” and started asking everyone in their assemblies to fill out an attendance card so they could get a handle on when people went missing. Another congregation looked at what this church was doing and decided to copy it. “After all, since they use attendance cards and are growing, we’ll start growing if we use them.” What they apparently didn’t take into account is that something intended to solve a specific problem in a congregation of 500 is simply not applicable to a congregation of 30 or 40. In a small congregation where everyone already knows everybody else, you simply don’t need a card to keep track of whether someone is missing. The cards were irrelevant in their situation, and certainly did not produce numerical growth!

There is an even deeper problem with “silver bullets”. I was asked to help start the congregation I attend because of a paper I wrote in which I explained some of my ideas and convictions about the church. It is my understanding, and I believe accounts written at the time bear this out, that my paper served as a catalyst in facilitating the start of the congregation. During the kerfuffle which led to my resignation as an Elder, my co-founders told me that they never had agreed with my paper. I was shocked and dumbfounded. If they hadn’t agreed with what I wrote, then why in the world did they ask me to join with them in founding the congregation? It made no sense.

After pondering a long time I think I finally understand. In my paper I wrote that it would be possible to implement much of what I suggested and still miss the whole point. Apparently, this is what my co-founders did. They saw the things I recommended, such as speaker rotations and participatory assemblies as techniques rather than reflections of biblical principles. Either they didn’t agree with the principles or, more likely, were blind to the principles behind the practices.

After we started the congregation I was puzzled by resistance to adopting even more of what I thought was a natural progression from the principles I see in Scripture. Now it makes sense. If the others didn’t recognize the principles to begin with, it is no wonder they couldn’t see what I suggested as a logical outgrowth or expression of those principles. It’s no wonder they became dis-enchanted with the things we had already implemented. The practices, and therefore the results from the practices, didn’t match the philosophical model they were operating under. Frankly, in view of their failure to embrace the principles behind the practices, I’m amazed at the spiritual growth and progress we did see in the congregation. To me it is a tremendous validation and affirmation of the concepts that so much was accomplished in spite of my co-founders’ not accepting the principles behind what we did. What could have been accomplished if only they had!

This is the main reason “silver bullet” solutions seldom work. People try to implement a system, a program or a method without understanding or buying into the principles behind the system, program or method. It’s like trying to build a house with no foundation. It might look pretty for a little while but it isn’t long before something settles and the doors go out of plumb and start to stick. Soon cracks appear in the walls and, before too long, the entire structure comes apart.

What’s even worse is a partial implementation. People take a concept and try to patch it onto some other structure. When things don’t pan out as expected they blame the concept rather than understand that they failed to buy into the beliefs and principles behind the concept. (Jesus had something to say about this in His parables of the wine-skin and old clothing. See Matthew 9:16-17 and its parallels in the other Gospels.) Having decided that the concept doesn’t work, they abandon it and start looking for another “silver bullet” to solve their problems. And, the cycle repeats itself.

Put Principles Over Method

How can we avoid the “silver bullet” syndrome? By continually putting the emphasis on principles rather than method. By always asking, “Why are we doing this?” By considering the purpose for everything.

It would be easy for me to give you a list of what I think we ought to be doing in our assemblies and how we ought to be doing them. But a list of methods and practices without a discussion of the principles behind them would be, at best, another clip of “silver bullets”.

My personal conviction is that the church needs to adopt not only the doctrine of the New Testament church, but its practices as well. But I have come to realize that it would be entirely possible to adopt those practices and still miss the whole point – and, therefore, miss the power and effectiveness of the practices.

Principles to Consider

Rather than hand you another “silver bullet” I’m going to ask you to consider just three broad principles which should inform our practices.

1) In 1 Peter 2:4-10 Peter writes that Christians are a “holy priesthood”. Ask yourself what priests do (as described in the Bible, not some ecclesiastical tradition!). Do the people in your congregation have the opportunity to function as priests?

2) Look at the “one another” Scriptures. I don’t have a precise count, but there are probably over a dozen such passages. Make a list of the things we Christians are supposed to be doing to and for each other.

3) Think about what it means to “equip” in passages such as Ephesians 4:12.

Here’s the question: If we really bought into the principles of the priesthood of all believers, one another and equipping, how would it change what we do in our assemblies? I suspect that our assemblies would be radically different than they are now. While there may be different expressions of these and other principles which should affect what we do, my guess is that what we came up with would be a lot closer to the church practices we read about in the New Testament. Not because we copied them, but because we came to the same conclusions the first Christians did when they implemented the principles I’ve mentioned.

But, in any case, whatever you do, whatever practices you adopt, whatever methods you decide to try – start with the principles first! Practices and methodologies must flow from principle. Otherwise, they are just another “silver bullet” doomed to ineffectiveness.

An overview of training methodologies.

Re-stating the Problem

In part one of this series I talked about the shortage of leadership the church faces. For over 100 years, churches have looked to the Bible colleges and seminaries to train and provide their leaders. However, in spite of all the effort and money lavished on our institutions of learning, we still face a perpetual lack of people to fill leadership roles.

Not only do we face a shortage of leaders, the quality of the output of the colleges and seminaries is open to question. In my own experience, I’ve often been surprised, if not shocked, at graduates from the institutions who don’t seem to have a good grasp of basic Bible knowledge, let alone principles and foundational doctrine.

Part of the problem is that most of the graduates from our institutions of learning are young. They simply haven’t had enough time to mature and gather the life experience they need to be leaders. Some are still in the process of figuring out who they are and their own beliefs and convictions. It’s unreasonable to expect someone who doesn’t yet know himself and is unsure of his own faith to be able to ground others in the faith.

But the problem goes deeper. In his book, Organic Leadership, Neil Cole remarks, “I remember the shock of one day realizing that my master of divinity degree, which cost me five years and fifty thousand dollars, was of no value at all in the world. It had value only behind the walls of the institution.” (Neil Cole, Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are, Baker Books, p. 34) Cole goes on to point out that since a seminary education does not equip people to earn a living outside of the church or the religious education system, they are trapped by that system. They are almost forced to find a living within the church even if they are not suited for the role. The result is predictably poor leadership, poor scholarship and anemic churches.

A friend of mine in the ministry has said basically the same thing. He agrees that the colleges and seminaries don’t prepare people for the real world (he has a masters degree from seminary). His observation is that a typical graduate will ruin one or two churches before concluding that the ministry is not for him. Since he doesn’t have the skills or knowledge to get a decent job elsewhere, he winds up selling insurance.

The situation can be infinitely worse in areas where there is high, endemic unemployment. It is all too easy for people to start thinking of the church in terms of a career and a paycheck rather than a calling and a ministry. A missionary professor wrote, “In general we find a large proportion of seminary students are poorly motivated, having little interest in theology for its own sake, or in learning practical techniques for ministering the Word of God. This must be because their primary interest is in qualifying for a position, not in learning how to serve.” (J.G. Meadowcroft, Theological Seminary, Gujranwala, Pakistan, Theological Education By Extension, p. 2)

He goes on to say, “One of the curses of the church has always been clericalism. This “professional” attitude towards Christian service, in which the pastor expects, and is dependent upon, a living from the church, is a direct result of seminary training taken early in life as preparation for a career. Hence many clergy are more pre-occupied with preserving their rights than with serving their people.” (Meadowcroft, p. 3)

To illustrate the point he writes, “Some time ago I was in a certain city and met a young pastor who graduated a few years ago from seminary. As a student he was fairly mature and intelligent, and I had some hopes for his ministry. Since being ordained he has worked hard in his spare time to further his university studies. I asked him what serious Bible study he had undertaken since he left seminary. His reply, which quite staggered me, was that he found it impossible to study theology without a teacher. Here was a man, appointed to teach others, who did not know how to study from books, or use a commentary or concordance. I believe that the primary reason, however, was that he was not really interested in the subject he was paid to teach. Motivation was completely lacking.” (Meadowcroft, p. 5)

He writes that the basic issue with our attempts to train is, “We may believe that we can make a leader of him by putting him through the course and laying hands on him afterwards. This assumes that the virtue of leadership is in the course, not in the man. It is this notion that is generally held by those who choose seminary candidates. By some kind of metamorphosis a young fellow who has no qualities of leadership is expected to emerge from the chrysalis of the seminary as a “leader of the community”. And so he also considers himself to be. The fact, however, is that nothing will make a man a leader if he does not possess the attributes already.” (Meadowcroft, p. 5-6, emphasis in the original)

In light of all this it seems to me that we have things backwards. Instead of training the immature and inexperienced in hopes that they will develop a call to serve, we ought to be looking to mature and capable people who are already making their way in the world and are now, as a result of their life’s experiences, feeling the call to serve. I think it is far better to train people who already know what life is all about and who already have a means of livelihood, than those who are unsure of God’s call on their lives but are looking for a means to secure a living.

You might think that my assessment of the Bible college/Seminary system is overly harsh. While it is true that I do criticize the system, my major beef is that the church has made the system necessary. Since the church has not made a serious effort to address the problem of training and equipping its own people, there was little choice but to turn to the colleges. Please understand, I do not question the motives of the teachers, professors and administrators in our institutions of learning. They have tried valiantly to fill a huge gap. We could argue that the situation would be far worse than it is without the colleges.

Here’s the problem as I see it: We need a way to train mature, experienced and motivated men for leadership, who are already making a living outside the church. Some would argue that the colleges and seminaries could train such men just as easily as the young, callow and unemployed. In theory, this might be true. In fact, however, it isn’t happening. Certainly not on the scale the church needs. As a practical matter those who have the greatest potential, already have career and family obligations which often prevent them from attending a college or seminary.

How, then, can we provide necessary training without totally disrupting the lives of the people we want to become leaders in the church? Our solution must not require people to move from their homes. It must not disrupt their careers and occupations. It must not place an undue burden on their family life. It must not be a financial burden. Most importantly, it must not remove people from their home congregations. After all, we are attempting to prepare people to serve in their home congregations, not to lose them to other places.

Distance Learning

In a commendable attempt to answer some of these problems, the seminaries are starting to provide some of their curriculum via distance learning techniques. The thought is that if students are unable to go to the seminary, perhaps it might be possible to bring the seminary to the student.

A form of distance learning which has been around for a long time is the correspondence course. The instructor sends lesson material to the student. The student reads it and/or does the exercise or experiment called for in the lesson. Then, he takes a test or writes the required report and sends it back to the instructor. Student and instructor never meet and, most likely, never even speak to one another. The training is entirely impersonal. And, it is entirely linear – the same course fits all. There is little or no variation for individual learning styles or individual strengths or weaknesses. Those who need more review or examples in order to grasp a concept don’t get it, while those who get it quickly are forced to plow through redundant material.

The advent of the Internet has enabled some changes to the basic concept of the correspondence course. A student can read a text or other course material on his own time. Then, he can log onto a secure website and take a test. If he has questions, he can email, chat online with, or even text his instructor. While less impersonal than a classic correspondence course, this method still shares the same weaknesses. It is difficult to make it fit the individual needs of the students.

Web-based training has the potential, at least in theory, to overcome some of the limitations of the correspondence course. Online instruction can be interactive in the sense that the lesson can tailor itself somewhat to the individual needs of student. For example, if the student demonstrates a good grasp of certain principles, the lesson program can skip over material which would be redundant for him. Similarly, if the student is having trouble with a particular concept, the lesson program can provide him with additional or supplemental material.

Well-designed Web-based training can also be interactive in the sense that it allows students to communicate and collaborate with each other. While no replacement for the interactions which take place in a “real” classroom, it can break the isolation inherent in not actually being with other people.

While distance learning techniques do have the virtue of not requiring students to travel to where the professors are, they still have some major problems. One is the impersonal nature of it. It is hard to develop a true mentoring relationship with someone you have never seen, let alone met. And mentoring may be one of the most important components of training church leaders.

A second problem is the expense. It is not trivial to prepare the courses. From my own experience, I know that it is not easy to put together even a worthwhile correspondence course. Preparing interactive, online courses with many branches can be much harder. I’ve read estimates that it takes anywhere from 100 to 600 hours of development time for each instruction-hour. I’ve never really tracked it, but I tell people that it takes me about 10 hours, on average, to prepare a sermon or a traditional 45 minute lesson. (I’m talking about expository sermons and adult Bible lessons.) If that guesstimate is anywhere near accurate, it would take at least 10 times the effort to produce a worthwhile online version covering the same material.

I don’t have any personal experience in preparing online courses, but if the above figures are true, it does not surprise me that most of the seminaries I’ve looked at provide only a small portion of their courses online. It also does not surprise me that the courses they do offer online cost the student almost as much as the traditional courses.

The cost of preparing online courses can probably be cut – perhaps even by an order of magnitude – by using one of the several free or open-source “Virtual Learning Environment” systems which are available. These systems provide a ready-made framework and the tools needed to prepare a course. This spares the instructor from having to build the transport and presentation mechanisms in addition to the course content. Regardless of the quality of the environment, however, it still takes a lot of hard work to structure and adapt the content. There is no doubt in my mind that it takes several iterations – with feedback from real students – to develop a truly excellent online course.

The issue of feedback points to another limitation of correspondence or online courses. They are best suited for conveying facts. It is much harder to design something to teach principles where the answers are not necessarily true/false or multiple-choice. Sometimes real-time feedback and interaction with other people is necessary to learn how to think and derive principles. In other words, online courses may not be the best method for teaching the application of wisdom rather than conveying knowledge.

Virtual Classroom, Teleconferencing

A natural development from the online course which the Internet makes possible is the virtual classroom. The wide availability of inexpensive or free teleconferencing services now makes it possible for teachers and students to meet in virtual settings. The students and their teacher may be in totally different locations, or even time-zones, and still interact with one another in real time.

Aside from allowing students to remain in their own locations, virtual classrooms have two major advantages over other online courses. The first is rapport and immediacy. The students can develop a relationship with their instructor. They can get to know him or her, and the other students as people. They can ask questions and share their concerns immediately. They can also interact with other students. The instructor can stimulate discussion among the students. He or she can mentor the students in ways that are not possible with the typical online course. To put it another way, the technique can bring back some of the intimacy of the classroom without the drawback of having to be physically in the same location.

The other major advantage of the virtual classroom over online courses is that an instructor can use basically the same course material as he or she would in a real classroom. It isn’t necessary to write specialized software in order to present the course. No longer is it necessary to try to program the things which good teachers automatically and instinctively do based on the feedback students provide during a particular lesson. Adjustments, digressions and amplifications happen naturally as students and instructor interact with each other.

Theological Education by Extension (TEE)

Theological Education by Extension, or TEE, is another way to take the seminary to the student. In the TEE methodology students remain at home and complete course workbooks at times of their own choosing. In this it resembles correspondence or online courses. However, there are also some important differences.

One of the differences is in the type of testing. Online courses generally test after each unit or lesson. The intent is to see whether a student grasps concepts and how to apply them. In contrast, TEE material often seems to emphasize content over concepts; information over principles. Every couple of paragraphs students have to answer questions about what they just read. Often these are fill-in-the-blank type questions which merely restate the text. While this approach may encourage rote repetition, it may not be as beneficial in teaching people how to think or apply what they learn in practical ways. I suspect that the TEE approach is probably most useful in areas of the world where rote learning is the norm rather than areas where students are encouraged to think for themselves and explore concepts on their own.

To be fair, the above criticism is a generalization. I have personally read several TEE workbooks which are as described. I find the approach irritating, not only for the simple-minded repetition, but because I find that breaking up the flow of the text with questions inhibits me. It does not fit my learning style. On the other hand, I have read some higher level TEE material which was excellent. The text was not broken up into tiny chunks and the questions encouraged thought rather than rote repetition.

Another difference from most online courses is that students enrolled in TEE programs are required to meet together with an instructor, generally once a month. Typically, the instructor travels to an area where several students are enrolled in the course. He or she spends a whole day with the students. They discuss the material they have studied over the previous month. The instructor is able to answer questions, clear up problems and may give supplementary classroom instruction and/or provide additional material to the students. Another benefit of these meetings is it gives the students a chance to get to know each other and interact. These contacts help break the feelings of isolation many students develop as they work on their own, and lay the groundwork for cooperation in later ministry.

Something else which makes TEE distinct from some of the other approaches mentioned above is that students are expected to take part in the practical work of their home congregations. From my perspective, this is one of the main strengths of this approach. There are many aspects of ministry and leadership which cannot be learned from a book or in a classroom. They are acquired and developed only by doing. Teaching, itself, is an example of one of these skills. Books can suggest certain approaches or techniques, but no one can learn to teach until he or she has actually tried to impart information or a skill to someone else. It takes practical experience to discover which techniques fit your own personality and to develop an effective teaching style of your own.

The TEE programs with which I am familiar provide three successive levels of training. The first level is appropriate for people who may have only a grammar school education. It is an introductory set of courses which provide a broad overview of the Bible, Christian life and ethics, and some basic doctrine. Upon completion students receive a certificate.

Next is a series of intermediate courses which build on the previous level. In them students learn the basics of Bible study and are introduced to specific Bible books. An introduction to sermon preparation may also be included. Upon completion students receive a diploma.

The third tier in the TEE program provides college level courses. In them students are exposed to more in-depth studies of various Bible books, biblical languages, church history and comparative religion. Students are granted a degree upon successful completion.

Church-Based Theological Education

While all of the methods discussed so far have a place, they share a common weakness. All of them depend on some entity, usually a Bible college or seminary, outside of the local congregation to provide the training. And, one of the points I’m trying to make in this series of essays is that the institutions of learning we have grown to depend upon to train our leaders are inadequate to the job. It is my conviction that the church will never have enough people to do the work of the church as it ought to be done unless it learns to develop and equip them itself.

What prevents the church from developing and equipping its own people for ministry? There are at least three things:

1) Time. There are only so many hours in the day. Most church leaders I know already have a schedule filled to overflowing. The thought of carving out significant blocks of time to train others is daunting. Yet, I have to ask what most leaders spend their precious time doing. Much of it is consumed in the mechanics of running the organization. They run from one business meeting to another. They are “busy putting out brush fires.” I sometimes wonder whether church leaders have forgotten what they’re there for. They need to remember that one of their primary responsibilities is to equip (Ephesians 4:11-13). Once they get their priorities sorted, they will make the time to train and equip. Like the Apostles they will delegate lessor tasks to others (Acts 6:3-4). And, the beauty of it is that once they have started equipping others to take on responsibilities, there won’t be as much pressure on their own time. Others will be able to take on the administrative details while the leaders focus on equipping still others for ministry and “works of service.”

2) Feelings of inadequacy. I suspect that many church leaders feel incompetent to train others – particularly if they, themselves, don’t have advanced degrees. Part of this feeling of inadequacy is that, all too often, we’ve bought into the idea of credentialism: If you don’t have a piece of paper issued by some authority, you are incompetent. If you aren’t accredited, you have no right to train others. This was one of the things which upset the Pharisees and Sadducees about Jesus and the Apostles (John 7:15, Acts 4:13). What leaders need to realize that it is not a sheepskin which is important, but how much time they’ve spent with Jesus. They may not have the shiniest and most expensive diploma, but surely they can pass on what they, themselves, have learned from the Master? And, one of the best ways to master a subject is to try to teach it. A leader may feel inadequate and incompetent, but the more he teaches the more mastery he will gain. One of the ways we learn is by doing. Start doing what you can with your current skill-set in the sure knowledge that the Lord will equip you to handle any task He sets you.

3) Pride and insecurity. Unfortunately, one of the reasons leaders are reluctant to train others is they look at them as a threat to their own position. What if they turn out to be a better speaker or teacher than me? What if people start liking them more than me? I might lose control of my church!

It is time we realized, once and for all, that it is not “my” church. It is not “your” church. It is not “our” church. The church is the Lord’s and His only. If Christ truly is the Lord and Head of the church, then we don’t have to worry about who is greatest, who is the more talented and who gets the most accolades. We can leave all such matters to Lord in the assurance that our commendation and reward comes from Him alone. It is not our place to worry about position and honor. Our only responsibility is to obey – and let the chips fall where they may.

It is also time we got hold of the biblical concept of multiple leadership. God never intended local congregations to have only one “Pastor” or “Minister.” It was never His intent for only one or two people to do all the teaching and speaking. In contrast, in the New Testament we see a model of mutual ministry shared among many. We see congregations overseen and shepherded by multiple Elders. We see edification given by all.

In this context, what can we do about teaching, training and equipping the multiple leaders churches need within the church itself? In recent years a new model has been emerging. I mean “new” in the sense that it is something which is quite foreign to Western educational practice. In another sense it is not “new” at all, because it is the model practiced by the first Christians. For lack of a better title it is “Church-Based Theological Education.”

This type of instruction or training has some distinguishing characteristics.

1) It is not centered on an institution of learning such as a seminary. Rather it is an extension of the church.

2) It is not merely church-housed. There are many churches which provide facilities for an institution of theological training. However, aside from the location, there is little to distinguish them from normal Bible colleges or seminaries. Their presence has little impact on the church and the leaders of the local church may have minimal involvement in the training given. Most of the student body comes from outside the local congregation.

3) It is not separate from the functioning of the church. Instead it is an integral part of body life. While some instruction is given in classroom settings, much of the learning takes place in the context of actual ministry.

4) The pedagogical approach is different. Theological education as practiced in most seminaries relies heavily on formal instruction by lecture. Assessment is made through testing and the emphasis is on the acquisition of knowledge. In contrast, Church-Based Education revolves around mentoring. Instruction is dialogic, that is, it takes the form of discussion. Instructors prompt self-discovery by continually asking questions of the students. The emphasis is on practical application of principles rather than the mere acquisition of knowledge. (However, knowledge is not minimized!) The aim is character development.

What does such an approach look like in actual practice? How can we integrate ministry and instruction? What specific courses should be taught? Possible answers will have to wait for another essay.

In the meantime, you might find some of the following resources helpful:

Allen, Roland, Education In The Native Church, World Dominion Press, 1926

Cole, Neil, Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are, Baker Books, 2009

Reed, Jeff, Church-Based Theological Education: Creating A New Paradigm, BILD International, 1992

Reed, Jeff, The Churches of the First Century, BILD International, 2009

Rutt, Couglas L., Some Caveats For Theological Education By Extension, M750 Issues in International Theological Education, Professor Robert Newton, 1991

Wood, William B. and Tanner, Kimberly D., The Role of the Lecturer as Tutor: Doing What Effective Tutors Do in a Large Lecture Class, CBE-Life Sciences Edition, Vol. 11, 3-9, Spring 2012

Dealing with rejection.

They asked me to resign. I’ve been thrown out of the eldership by the very people whom I helped ordain. And it hurts. It hurts really bad.

“What is the kerfuffle all about?”, you ask. “Why did they toss you out?” Sorry, but I’m not one to air the church’s dirty laundry before the whole world. This essay is not an exposé, rather a discussion of how we should deal with disappointment, rejection and betrayal. And therein lies a problem. I regard what happened to me not only as a personal slap in the face but, more importantly, a betrayal of the fundamental principles we had when we began the congregation. It’s the death of a cherished dream. The ones who “did it to me” don’t see it that way at all. In their view, the radical change in direction they chose was in the best interests of the congregation. From their perspective I’m the stumbling block and they don’t understand why I have the convictions I do.

They’re someone else’s servants

In situations like this I need to keep reminding myself that, ultimately, no one answers to me. It is not my congregation, but the Lord’s. In another context Paul wrote, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls…” (Romans 14:4 NIV)

I am passionate about the church. When I see someone do something which I believe is not in the best interests of the church, it not only saddens me, there is a part of me which wants to react like Nehemiah did when the people of his day didn’t take God’s word to heart. (Read Nehemiah, chapter 13, sometime!) But that is not my place. It is up to the Lord to prove the worth of each person’s work, and it is up to Him to reward or punish accordingly. Paul writes, “…But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15 NIV) Paradoxically, there are times when the best thing I can do for the congregation is to just let go and realize that God is the quality inspector – not me.

Forgive

Remembering that the Lord is the One who judges is a passive response to rejection and betrayal. But He requires much more from us. He also wants us to forgive. One of the tough things about forgiveness, at least for me, is that it is not supposed to be conditional. By that I mean we are supposed to forgive regardless of whether the persons who have hurt us show any remorse or not. It’s my responsibility to forgive whether or not they apologize or ask for forgiveness. Oh, that is hard! But Jesus made it plain that my own relationship to God depends on whether I forgive those who have wronged me. He said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15 NIV)

Something which sometimes makes it really hard for us to forgive those who have wronged us is that forgiveness does not erase consequences. For example, God forgave David for his sin with Bathsheba but that didn’t bring Uriah and his fellow soldiers back to life, nor did it remove the family troubles which came to David as a result of that sin. In my situation forgiveness will not erase the damage which has already been done to the church, nor will it prevent the fallout which is surely coming down-road.

But that is not my responsibility. What the Lord requires of me is to forgive – and leave the consequences up to Him.

Pray

Jesus made it plain that we are to not only forgive those who wrong us, we are to pray for them. “…Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28 NIV)

This is something else which is really hard for me to do. Rather than pray for the well-being of those who’ve done me dirt I want vindication! Like David I cry out, “Awake, and rise to my defense! Contend for me, my God and Lord. Vindicate me in your righteousness, O LORD my God; do not let them gloat over me. Do not let them think, “Aha, just what we wanted!” or say, “We have swallowed him up.” May all who gloat over my distress be put to shame and confusion; may all who exalt themselves over me be clothed with shame and disgrace. May those who delight in my vindication shout for joy and gladness; may they always say, “The LORD be exalted, who delights in the well-being of his servant.”” (Psalm 35:23 NIV)

While David wanted vindication, he also had the wisdom to know that it came from God. It’s something I need to remember as well. Yes, I want to be proved right. Yes, it would bring a morbid satisfaction if the things I fear will happen to the congregation actually come to pass. But vindication comes from God. I am not to lift my hand against those who have harmed me, and I am not to actively bring about the negative things I think are in store for them and the congregation. Instead it is my responsibility to pray for them and the good of the congregation. It would only compound the tragedy if even more people are hurt or turned away from the Lord. Therefore it is my duty to pray that no one will be hurt. Vindication, if it ever comes, will be from the Lord. ““See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc; no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.” (Isaiah 54:16-17 NIV)

Give thanks

Probably one of the most difficult commands to obey in all of Scripture is 1 Thessalonians 5:18, “give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” (NIV) The command is all the more remarkable because it was written to a group of Christians who were going through severe suffering (1 Thessalonians 1:6). It can be extremely difficult, at least for me, to be thankful for anything when I’m suffering – particular the kind of spiritual and mental anguish I’ve experienced in the situation I’ve been going through. Yet, regardless of my circumstances, it is God’s will for me to give thanks.

Why? A full discussion of the reasons why God wants us to be thankful is beyond the scope of this essay. The short answer is that thankfulness is both an inoculation against, and the antidote to, bitterness. The truth is that we cannot have a proper relationship with God, nor the kind of fellowship we ought to have with other believers if we harbor bitterness in our hearts. Unfortunately, bitterness is also very infectious. It doesn’t just affect us – it has the potential to destroy others as well as ourselves (Hebrews 12:15). And, so God requires us to find something to give thanks for regardless of how badly we’re hurting.

But it doesn’t stop there. There’s another passage which is even harder to put into practice. We are not only supposed to give thanks in all circumstances, we are also supposed to give thanks for the circumstances! Ephesians 5:20 says, “always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NIV)

How can this be? How can we possibly give thanks for situations which are wrong or evil? We have to understand that our God is greater than any situation or circumstance. He has promised that He will bring good out of everything He allows His children to encounter or experience (Romans 8:28). This is not just some generic good, but individual and personal good for us. It comes down to faith. Do I believe God’s promise? If I do, I will give thanks for what I’m going through, knowing that, some day, I will be able to look back and see the blessings which could not have come to me any other way. But, oh is it hard to do now!

Examine yourself

When something like this happens my natural tendency is to point out all the faults and inconsistencies in the people on the other side of the issue. I want them to recognize their faults and take remedial action. As important as that may be, it may be even more important for me to take stock of my own motives and character. Jesus said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5 NIV)

As much as I hate this situation, it has given me an opportunity for introspection. I’ve been surprised at some of my own reactions. I’ve discovered some areas where I still need to grow and mature. I’ve had to deal with some things in my own character that I thought I had already overcome. Though I hate what’s happened, it would be even more tragic not to learn and grow and benefit from it. I like to think that I am a little wiser now. I like to think that I will come through this with a stronger faith. I like to think that this will make me a better person. Peter writes, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade – kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith – of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire – may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (1 Peter 13-7 NIV)

Wait

I’d rather not go through something like this at all. If I must endure it, I want it to blow over very quickly. But it hasn’t been quick. In fact, there is no resolution in sight – even though I have done all that I know to do.

People who know about the situation have asked me, “Why don’t you leave?” I understand where they’re coming from. And, believe me, I’ve been tempted to do just that. But I have a conviction that it is not wise to take action in situations like this without the Lord’s leading. So far, the Lord has been silent. I have not heard His call to move on. No opportunity for ministry has opened up elsewhere. Without the Lord’s direction, I don’t think I should even look. I am in limbo. At this point it is unclear whether I will ever be able to serve much here again, but no alternative has presented itself.

Over the years I have become convinced that God often calls on His people to wait. In fact, frustrating though it is, I suspect that God calls us to wait more often than to take action. Moses had to spend 40 years in the wilderness before conditions were right for God to use him. Even Jesus had to wait some 18 years after the incident at the Temple until the time was right for Him to begin His ministry (see Luke 2:41-52, 3:23).

For all I know, God may open up some amazing new opportunity for me tomorrow. But for now, He’s called me to wait; to be patient. One benefit of waiting is that it helps take ego out of the equation. I’d like things to get going now – I want a resolution to this situation. But by waiting, I know that when something does break, it’s more likely to be God’s leading, not my own pride talking. Peter writes, “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:6-7 NIV)

And that’s exactly what I intend to do.

Let it be clearly understood that I have nothing against missionaries. I was raised on the mission field and have served as a missionary, myself. Over the years I’ve met quite a few other missionaries, visited their works and read plenty of mission newsletters. I’ve also read a fair number of mission books, not only historical accounts and biographies, but books about mission theory and practice. So I reckon I know a little about missionaries and what they do. From what I’ve observed, read and experienced, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a high rate of missionary failure and that, to a large extent, the failure is self-inflicted and self-perpetuating.

The failure is not, in the main, due to character flaws. Certainly, as with any other group of individuals some missionaries are incompetent – whether from lack of ability and gifting, or from being mismatched to the task. You’ll also find some who are vain, egotistical, impatient, angry, insecure, discouraged, just plain lazy, or subject to any of the other human failings. We live, after all, in a fallen world. As a group, however, it would be difficult to find people who are more talented, dedicated, sacrificial and humble. Most truly do display the character of Christ. For sure it would be difficult to find people who love others more.

No, I have no beef with missionaries. In fact, I’ll go further and say that, as a general rule, I don’t think anybody has a right to criticize who either hasn’t served on the field, or who isn’t willing to serve. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be accountability or that missionaries are above the scrutiny of the common herd. I am saying that there’s no place for Monday-morning quarterbacks who’ve never had to run with the ball – especially those who don’t even know what the game is, let alone what the rules are.

In harmony with those sentiments, I don’t claim to have any kind of expertise in your part of the world. I can only comment on what I’ve seen and experienced. If my observations are helpful to you – great. If not, I’d be glad to hear how my take on things needs to be modified to fit where you are.

Before we can talk about missionary failure, we’ve got to define what it is that missionaries are supposed to do. The charter for mission-work is Matthew 28:18-20, “…Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”” (NIV)

We call Jesus’ command the “Great Commission.” There are two parts to it. The first is “make disciples.” The second is “teach them to obey everything.” In light of the command we can call missionaries the successors of the Apostles. (The literal meaning of the word “apostle” is “one who is sent”.) No, missionaries are not divinely inspired like the Apostles were. Nor do missionaries have authority over the entire church, nor are they in the foundation of the church (see Ephesians 2:19-22). But missionaries do carry on the Apostles’ work of taking the Gospel to people who have not heard it and bringing those who believe together in congregations.

Be that as it may, it’s the second part of the job that got me thinking about missionary failure. Yes, we missionaries do introduce others to the Gospel. Yes, we do form the new disciples into congregations. But have we really taught those disciples to obey everything? I hardly think so.

To illustrate what I’m getting at, compare a typical mission church to a typical new-church-plant here in the States. (Before going forward I should make clear that I’m talking about starting the kind of independent, autonomous congregations we read about in the New Testament. I’m sure that the hierarchical, so-called “main-line” churches have similar problems in mission work, but their process is quite different than what I’m talking about. Their biggest problem, of course, is that their very form of church structure is contrary to the example we have in the New Testament.)

There are a number of different ways in which new congregations can come into existence. The exact method isn’t really important to the point I’m going to make. However, it often goes something like this: Someone sees the need and develops a burden for starting a new congregation in a particular place. He approaches a church-planting organization for help in doing so. (By the way, if the whole concept of a “church-planting organization” doesn’t curl your hair – it ought to. But I’m describing reality here, not how things should be.) The church-planting organization assesses the aspiring church planter to see whether they think he’s capable of bringing a congregation into being. If they think he has potential, they give him additional training and a methodology and time-table of important milestones to aim for in the process. They arrange for on-going mentoring and periodic assessments of the new work. In addition they either provide or help arrange for start-up funding.

At the beginning the church-planting organization is heavily involved in the new congregation. However, the involvement doesn’t last forever. It tapers off fairly rapidly after the first few years. If, after a certain time, the organization feels that not enough progress has been made, they advise the church planter to terminate his efforts and they pull the plug on support.

Now as much as I may cringe at the concept of an organization doing what really ought to be one of the functions of the church, they have the right idea. After a certain amount of time, generally about three years, they expect new congregations to be capable of standing on their own. What does that mean?

Going on a century ago, Roland Allen made a study of the missionary methods of the Apostle Paul. He concluded that Paul was so successful in starting congregations because of three principles: Paul enabled the congregations to become self-governing, self-propagating and self-sustaining. Though they may use different terminology, the church-planting organizations generally agree with Allen’s conclusions.

After about three years or so, they expect new congregations to be able to pay their own bills. Similarly, they expect a new congregation to be capable of selecting leaders and running its own affairs. They also expect a new congregation to be growing numerically – and not just through the efforts of the original church planter.

Contrast this with the situation in many mission churches. I know of churches which still rely on outside funds, not only for capital improvements like new buildings but, for the normal operating expenses through they have been in existence for over half a century. In one place I was flat-out told, that it was useless to teach on giving or to expect the locals to support their own church. The attitude of the members was that if the church expected them to give, they’d go to a congregation which didn’t. Is it any wonder that that particular congregation is not as healthy as it might be? In another congregation a leader made it very clear that as far as he was concerned my coming – though I had spent long hours teaching the people – was pointless unless I had brought a stack of money with me. Needless to say, if his attitude was typical, I thought my coming was pointless too.

I know of mission churches which have been in existence for decades, yet still do not have any Elders or Deacons. Even worse, there is no system or plan in place to develop any. The congregations are still run by missionary-appointed preachers rather than leaders selected by the congregations themselves. (I recently ran into an extreme example of this from the denominational world. On a mission trip I met a rather imperious, middle-aged, white woman who, if memory serves, had just arrived from a tour of Egypt and the Sudan. Her father – a foreigner – had been the Bishop over this huge area. He had died several years before and, if I got the story straight, either a new Bishop had not been appointed or the new Bishop had to work with, or through, some sort of council. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood or don’t remember correctly but, the impression I got was that by virtue of the fact that this woman’s father had been the Bishop, she had a great deal of say in how that bishopric was governed. If I remember correctly, no new clergy could be ordained without her presence. Even worse, there could be no new confirmations. Since she could tour the area only every couple of years or so… Well, you get the idea. Though I do not agree at all with the denominational structure involved, I found it appalling that a foreign, white woman from a totally different culture had so much power over the affairs of the local churches.)

Things look quite a bit better in the area of self-propagation. However, I have known of situations where the missionary had to approve candidates for baptism. (See the story above where the foreign woman had a say in who got confirmed.) A number of the congregations I know are enthusiastic about evangelism. But even there, the concept that they ought to be thinking in terms of sending out missionaries of their own to other parts of their own country, let alone to foreign lands, is something they can’t even imagine.

Why do these failures and weaknesses still exist even though the congregations were established decades ago? The congregations are the way they are because we’ve taught them to be that way. They aren’t self-supporting because we’ve taught them to be dependent upon outside funding. Instead of teaching them to take care of their own, by our actions we’ve taught them to turn to us as the first resort whenever there is a financial need. For example, when a medical need arises, the people turn to the missionary first for help paying for treatment instead of taking the need to the church. Similarly, I’m not implying that they are capable of building and maintaining buildings like ours, but surely they could come up with the means to obtain and maintain meeting places which are appropriate and suitable for their culture and their circumstances?

The churches aren’t self-governing because we haven’t trained them to develop their own leaders. We have inadvertently taught them to depend on outside or foreign institutions to provide leaders for them. Otherwise, why do the people think that someone who was ordained by a foreigner has more legitimacy than a man ordained by the local church? We’ve also conditioned them to embrace credentialism. For example, there have been semi-literate and biblically-illiterate people who have discounted the teaching I’ve provided them because I don’t have a formal degree. Never mind that what I presented was far beyond their ability to come up with on their own. Since they look at me – a foreigner – like that, woe betide the local man, no matter how spiritual or capable a teacher he may be, who doesn’t have a certificate or degree of some sort!

The local churches might not be able to supply the equivalent of our degree programs, but are the degree programs necessary even for leaders in the missionaries’ home countries? Surely the locals are capable of passing on what they’ve been taught? Surely they are capable of developing some of their own curriculum and teaching materials? If education is important to them, surely they could come up with enough money to pay for such things as adult literacy courses? If individuals are too poor to buy study aids such as concordances for themselves, can’t the churches find the wherewithal to obtain a copy or two for the church? But we have taught them to turn to us rather than develop their own solutions.

The churches aren’t better at propagating themselves because we’ve taught them to rely on us to spread the Gospel. Granted, they often don’t have the resources to do some of the things we can – like produce radio programs and publish literature. However, we have not even taught them the basics such as to designate a portion of their tithes and offerings for evangelism or mission work.

I can’t help but wonder why we so often have such different expectations for mission churches than for church-plants in our own country. Do we harbor a subconscious belief that we are somehow superior to the foreign people among whom we labor? I hope not, but the end results tend to suggest that conclusion.

As serious and tragic as these failures are, there is another type of failure which hinders our effectiveness. This one is particularly insidious because it stems from genuine caring and a desire to alleviate suffering. (This failure relates to the first part of the Great Commission.) I’ve heard people say that you can’t share the Gospel with a starving man until you’ve fed him. What? Just because you don’t have the means to solve the hunger problem are you going to deprive people of the Gospel, too? Let’s face it. There is a vast ocean of need out there. Our ability to meet that need is a mere drop in comparison. As Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you…” (John 12:8 NIV) If we wait to share the Gospel until we’ve met every other need, we’ll never share the Gospel. We have the resources to do only so much. What is more important? Providing for someone’s physical wellbeing or their spiritual wellbeing? Shouldn’t the spiritual take precedence over the physical?

Not too long ago I read an article (which I now can’t find) which described an interview a church leader conducted with a bunch of Bible college students who had just returned from a short-term mission trip. The students were all enthused about the wells they had helped dig and the medical assistance they had provided. No doubt they had helped save lives and helped raise the standard of living for the people. Yet, the person who interviewed them was appalled to find that not a single one had shared the Gospel with the people they served. What good is it to save a person’s physical life if we withhold spiritual life from him?

Are the community development projects which are divorced from spiritual teaching even effective in the long run? Just a few days ago I met with an old missionary who’s been a family friend for over 50 years. He’s served in several different countries including Afghanistan and Hong Kong. He was in Iran during the Khomeni revolution. He and his wife still travel extensively throughout Asia, teaching in seminaries and meeting with many different development groups. [Note: The man died after this essay was written.] During his mid-seventies he went back to university and earned another doctorate. In his doctoral thesis he states that evangelism is very difficult unless the physical needs of people are also addressed. However, he made an extremely interesting observation based on the groups and projects he studied. If a spiritual emphasis is lacking in development work, the projects will fail. There will be no long-term benefit. Unless people come to understand that they are created in the image of God and, therefore, there is a plan and purpose for life, they will not believe that betterment is possible. In other words, altruism will not succeed unless it imparts a transcendental knowledge of divine purpose. To try to better people’s lives without also teaching them the foundational biblical truths is, in the long run, an exercise in futility.

“But a starving person won’t listen to the Gospel!” Sure he will – provided that you are willing to starve along with him. Now I know first-hand just how much missionaries give up and sacrifice in order to go to foreign lands and proclaim the Gospel in other cultures. It’s not just a matter of accepting what is often a much lower standard of living and risking contracting diseases than one would normally never be exposed to. There’s more to it than putting up with the frustrations of not being able to accomplish nearly as much in the same amount of time – having to cope with a society that has very different ethical standards and an often byzantine bureaucracy. There is also an “opportunity cost” to serving as a missionary. By leaving his home country a missionary gives up all kinds of opportunities and perks he would have had by staying – not to mention a very real difference in earning power.

The fact remains, however, that as great as the sacrifices are which missionaries have to make, the local people consider them fantastically wealthy. And, from a local perspective, they are! Some of this perception is skewed by a lack of understanding. I remember the incredulous looks I got when a relatively poor man asked how my house in my home country was constructed. He was dumbstruck when I told him it was made of wood. In his country, it is unthinkable to build with wood – not only because wood is scarce, and therefore expensive, but because termites would destroy a wooden house in short order. This man lived in a modest house made of brick. He didn’t know what to think when I told him that I couldn’t afford a brick house. Another time someone asked me whether I owned a car. I’m not sure he believed me when I told him that it was cheaper for me to drive my own car than to ride public transport.

Mis-perceptions and cultural differences aside most missionaries really are wealthy in comparison to the people among whom they go to live and serve. If for no other reason, the missionary has a safety net that the locals simply do not have. If necessary, he can appeal to his embassy to extract him from a sticky situation. His sponsoring churches or mission society will pay his medical bills or fly him home.

There is no doubt that this disparity in wealth and opportunity can create a barrier and hinder our proclamation of the Gospel. As much as missionaries give up to take the good news to other cultures, they need to give up much more to truly be effective. We need to adopt the same incarnational approach that Jesus did.

While preparing a series of classes on the book of Philippians, I was struck by how applicable Paul’s description of Jesus’ attitude and His coming into this world is to mission work. The following is a description of a missionary and his work loosely based on Philippians, chapter 2, starting with verse 3.

(Verse 3) There was nothing selfish about him. He didn’t go about ‘tooting his own horn’ or displaying his degrees and credentials. Instead, he had a genuine appreciation for other people and their innate worth. He never gave the impression that he thought he was superior to anyone else because of his heritage or culture. He was a humble person. He realized that anything in his culture or heritage was truly superior only to the degree it was a reflection of Christ and biblical principles. Nor did he ever excuse the shortcomings of his culture or background. (Verse 4) Instead he was more than willing to admire the good he found in other people and learn from them. Though he was not a doormat nor did he hide his opinions and desires, whenever there was a conflict between what was best for someone else and what he wanted, he willingly conceded his own rights or interests. (Verse 5) He hoped that people would be able to see past him to see the character of Christ.

(Verse 6) He was, in truth, an American but did not flaunt it. On the contrary, he did not hold on to the rights and privileges of his American citizenship. He never appealed to the embassy to smooth his way or rescue him from difficulty. He shunned the special treatment and special access which his citizenship could have obtained for him. (Verse 7) In order to serve those to whom he ministered he gave up his income, his savings and financial security. Going to a far country he lived as a peasant. (Verse 8) Though, in the world’s eyes, it was a real come down, he learned to live and make do with the same level of income and material possessions as those to whom he ministered. He entered into their lives and shared their misery as well as their joys. No one could accuse him of being arrogant or having a ‘holier than thou attitude.’ In all he did he tried his best to be obedient to Christ, even at the peril of his life.

(Verse 9) As a result, Christ was highly honored. The people realized that Jesus did not come merely for the rich, nor was Christianity merely a means to better their social, economic or medical status. (Verse 10) They learned to bow before Jesus because the missionary was, himself, submitted. (Verse 11) They confessed Christ as Lord because they first saw that He was sovereign in the life of the missionary. And in this way much glory was given to God the Father.

I’m fully aware that the above description probably raises as many questions as it answers. For example, it does not address the issues of family and what a missionary should do about educating his children – particularly if they are going to return to his home country. Each missionary will have to figure out the details to fit his particular (and unique) situation. However, I am convinced that we have not paid sufficient attention to Christ’s example and that we would be far more effective if we did.

As I listened to speaker after speaker my sense of frustration and defeat grew. Oh, I appreciated their enthusiasm. I was impressed by their courage. Several had never spoken in public before. Others had to make their presentation in a language which was not their mother tongue. One man was almost illiterate. Yes, I admired their desire to share their insights and their willingness to risk looking foolish. Yet every single one of them, whether they were new converts or had been in the Lord for decades, whether they had spoken in public for years or this was their first time, regardless of their education or lack of it, all of them without exception, followed the same tired, worn-out formula in their talks. The reason for my discouragement was that this was a graphic demonstration of my shortcomings as a teacher.

The exercise was a relatively simple one. As a condition for being allowed to attend a seminar I taught, each of the participants had to present a five-minute Communion talk during the last session. During the seminar I stressed the importance of remembering the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. I pointed out that focusing more attention on the Communion or Last Supper has the potential of revitalizing every thing else we do in our assemblies. I also told them about my own experience that giving various men in the congregation an opportunity to speak about the Communion fosters spiritual growth and is a good way to give them experience in speaking to others about Christ. I not only told them about the benefits, I showed them how to prepare a Communion meditation. Then, I assigned each person a section from the book of Ephesians. I asked them to imagine that someone else was going to give an expository sermon from that passage – their job was to prepare a Communion meditation which would complement or harmonize, but not interfere with or rehash the sermon.

Things didn’t work out as anticipated. Instead of writing a meditation on the same theme as the assigned text, each person began his talk by reading the Ephesians passage followed by the words, “May God bless the reading of His word!” Then he proceeded to give a talk which, more likely than not, was more a mini sermon rather than something designed to draw our attention to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Now, I have to take responsibility for part of what happened. Afterwards I realized that I had never explicitly told the men that during their talks they were not to use or refer to the Ephesians passage I assigned them. To me it was simply obvious, both from the example meditation we had written together during class and from the hand-outs I provided. What was perfectly obvious and clear to me didn’t even register in their thinking.

But I was not the only one at fault. I had offered assistance to anyone who had questions or needed help preparing their talk. Nobody took me up on it. When everyone finished giving their talks, I asked how many had read the instructions I had given them. No one had. I asked how many had read the Communion-meditation examples I had given them. Again, nobody had. They were so sure that they knew what a message was supposed to be like that it apparently never occurred to them that it could be otherwise or that they needed to look at the instructions for the talk they were assigned.

What astonished me, aside from the fact nobody bothered to read the directions, was that everyone, without exception settled on the same formula. These guys came from several different congregations. They came from a wide geographic area. Some of them were new to the faith. Yet each presentation followed the exact same pattern. Amazing! And scary. Is it possible for a particular practice or piece of church culture to be so deeply ingrained that even newcomers automatically default to it? Apparently so.

In my postmortem analysis it occurred to me that there was also another factor at work. In this particular church environment topical sermons are the order of the day. It’s all they know. Expository sermons are virtually unknown. I’ve tried to introduce the concept of expository speaking more than once. So far, they just don’t get it. They may catch a glimmer that, in theory, it is possible to structure a message around the natural flow of a passage of Scripture but, in practice, it doesn’t happen. With maybe one or two exceptions I think the idea goes right over their heads. For whatever reason, they can’t grasp the concept. Or, they don’t see the value of it.

So, here I was asking them to imagine that someone was going to present an expository sermon. It was their job to create a Communion talk which would go along with the theme of the sermon. But if they didn’t even get the concept of expository speaking, how in the world could they understand the assignment? I was asking too much. I was trying to build a structure on top of a non-existent foundation.

It shouldn’t surprise me that not everyone is always ready or capable of understanding or accepting everything I’d like to teach them. Jesus often faced the same kind of frustration. For example, He told the disciples, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.” (John 16:12 NIV) There were some concepts the Apostles didn’t get until long after the day of Pentecost.

However, there’s something else which scares me a little. Are there things I’m unable to bear right now? Are there concepts that go right over my head because I don’t have the background or foundation to understand? I can shake my head over the rut the seminar participants fell into, but what ruts am I stuck in? I know congregations right here that are every bit as ritualistic or formulaic in their Communion practices as the people in the seminar. I’ve heard plenty of topical sermons right here based on the formula of proposition and three points.

The experience was a needed reminder to take nothing for granted; to not get too comfortable in our practices. We need to continually re-examine what we do, why we do it and how it lines up with Scripture. Do we act from principle reasoned from Scripture, or are we doing things merely because we’ve always done them that way?

How God communicates with us / Christ as the image of God

In another of these essays I used the metaphor of a computer game to illustrate the point that, if God exists, we cannot infer, with certainty, anything about either the beginning of the universe or its end by observing current conditions. Just as the actual origins of a computer game cannot be inferred by a character within the game merely by observing the state of his environment, we cannot know how our universe began by extrapolating the laws of physics backward in time.

The problem with scientists – even Christian scientists – is that they treat the universe as if it were a closed system. I don’t suppose there are many scientists who would deny that the physical laws indicate that our universe came into being through some sort of ‘Big Bang’. But if a Creator exists all bets are off as to whether the Big Bang actually occurred. The act of creation itself is a disruptive event which physics can’t look behind. If Someone is out there with the capability to create a universe like ours, then He is capable of creating it in any particular state – just as the computer programmer determines the state of the game at the start of play.

A while after developing the metaphor of a computer game to illustrate my understanding of the origin question, it occurred to me that the metaphor can be extended to illustrate how God communicates with us. Think for a moment about the constraints under which God has to operate in order to communicate. Assuming that God wishes us to believe in Him of our own free will, how can He disclose Himself to us without destroying our freedom of choice to believe? How can God receive our love, freely given, if He takes away the choice to reject Him? He must provide us enough information about Himself, and His love for us, that a reasonable person can believe, yet He cannot force Himself upon us without taking away choice.

A programmer faces the same dilemma as God. Suppose there’s a character in your game called Gus. Suppose you want Gus to know you and give you his love. How can you communicate with Gus so that he can? First of all you, as the programmer, live in an environment that is so removed from the game that Gus cannot even imagine it. There are dimensions to your environment that Gus has no inkling of. How can he possibly relate to you?

Secondly, how can Gus learn anything about who you are and your characteristics unless you tell him? And how can you even communicate with Gus unless you do it using his language? How can you tell him enough about yourself that he can know you, yet still leave enough room for doubt so that he has a genuine choice about whether to believe in your existence? How can you disclose enough about yourself so that Gus can love you, but not force belief?

Natural revelation

Like any thinking person, Gus, no doubt wonders about his environment. Where did it come from? What is the purpose of it? Why am I here? By observing his environment Gus can deduce that it was created and since created, made by someone who is greater than him. Since the environment was created, Gus can also deduce that he, himself, owes his life to the creator of the environment.

In the same way, because the creation is an expression of God we can learn something about God just from observing what He has made. In Romans 1:20 the Apostle Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (NIV) We are awed by the power of the ocean waves, by the destructive energy of hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes. Even though we observe and experience them, the power that drives them is beyond our ability to grasp and comprehend. We thrill to the beauty of the sunset, the majesty of a snow-capped peak, the taste of a delicious fruit or a melodious sound. How much more awesome, majestic and beautiful must be the One who spoke the universe into existence!

We call this type of revelation, ‘Natural Revelation’ because through nature we can catch a small glimpse of God. But, though we can catch a glimpse of Him the Creator appears remote, impersonal and unknowable. As the prophet Job exclaimed, “…these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?” (Job 26:16 NIV) Before we can understand the Creator as a person, rather than an impersonal force, another form of revelation is needed. A higher revelation.

Verbal revelation

We call that higher form of revelation, ‘Verbal Revelation.’ Through verbal revelation God speaks to us in human language. We call the people through whom God revealed His message, ‘Prophets.’ The Apostle Peter writes, “…you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21 NIV)

It is through the words the Prophets recorded in the Bible that we learn about God: Who He is, what He is like and what His will is. Getting back to the game illustration, if you wanted the character in your game to know more about you than to just infer your existence, you would need to send him a message.

“Dear Gus, I made you. I love you. I want you to learn to love me too. Stay on the path and I will protect you from the viruses of the anti-programmer. Faithfully yours, The Programmer.”

It would be extremely difficult to learn about God without the words of the Prophets. But even that is not enough. Knowing about someone is a very different thing than knowing him. In order for us to know Him, God had to use an even greater revelation.

Personal revelation

Think of it this way. If the game programmer wanted Gus to really know him, instead of just knowing about him, what could he do? Gus cannot leave his environment. He cannot even comprehend the dimensions in which the programmer lives. So, since Gus cannot ascend, in order to make it possible for him to know the programmer, the programmer has to descend to the Gus’s level. The programmer has to make an image of himself and inject it into the game. The image thinks and acts exactly as the programmer would if he could descend into the environment of the game. It is only by interacting with the image that Gus can comprehend and understand the nature and character of the programmer.

And this, essentially, is what God did. John writes, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, [or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 NIV)

Hebrews 1:3 tells us, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being…” (NIV) It is only through Jesus, the exact representation or image of God, that we can comprehend, understand and have a relationship with God.

This is the message of the Bible: We are incapable of approaching God or comprehending Him. So, He descended to our level so that we might know Him, be reconciled to Him and, one day, be raised to His level. In other religions God sends down. In Christianity, God comes down.

An exact image

This raises one of the fundamental paradoxes of the human experience. How can the Creator subject Himself to the constraints of His own creation? How can the divine become fully human? It is a misunderstanding of this paradox which, I believe, leads so many religions to deny that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. They are quite willing to accept Jesus as a great teacher or even a prophet, but deny His divine nature.

On the surface their denial sounds plausible. God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted. God is omnipotent, yet Jesus became tired. God is omnipresent, yet Jesus was subject to time and distance. God is all-knowing, yet Jesus professed ignorance of certain things. God is eternal, yet Jesus died.

What those who deny Jesus’ divinity fail to recognize is the limitations of the medium or form into which God injected Himself. This is the key to understanding the paradox. While it is true that, objectively, Jesus is less than a perfect representation of God, this is not so within the limitations of “bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). Within the limitations of the “bodily form” Jesus is a perfect or exact representation of God. It is impossible for it to be any more exact or perfect. This is why Jesus could say, “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9 NIV)

Stated the other way round, if you want a more perfect representation of God than that provided by the earthly Jesus, you have to go beyond the medium of “bodily form.” Even if God did so, we would be unable to appreciate or comprehend it. Since we are locked into bodily form, we would be destroyed if we ever saw God in another form. “…no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20 NIV) To see or experience God as He really is will require putting aside this nature and acquiring a different one. This is the significance of the ‘spiritual body’ Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 15. John flatly states that the day we see God, we will be like Him – that is, we will share and participate fully in His nature instead of this one (1 John 3:2).

Let me try to illustrate the difference between God’s true nature and His image in Christ by referring back to the computer game. The image of himself which the programmer injects into the game might be an excellent likeness. Though the image is perfect and is obviously derived from the programmer, it is just as obvious that there are huge differences between them. It is a likeness, not a clone of the programmer. There are differences in the number of dimensions between the two. There are differences of scale. Most importantly, the programmer and his likeness have different natures. The programmer is flesh and blood. His image has no material existence. It is composed of 1’s and 0’s which are themselves merely the expression of an idea.

The image may be a perfect and exact image, but it will never be the same as the person it represents. It is as human as the nature and form of the game environment will allow, yet it has, of necessity, had to give up much of human nature in order to fit into the game.

In just this way, Jesus is as perfect an image of God as this universe can contain. Yet He had to give up much to fit into human form. He “…made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:7 NIV) How could there be any greater proof of God’s desire to communicate with us than this?