The Salty Peanut Gallery

Dan Phillips raises an interesting issue in his Pyromaniacs post. Dan writes:

…every human endeavor has ways to measure success right now (or shortly), and has an identifiable and quantifiable goal.

Suppose a pastor preaches his Biblical convictions and people (attenders or even colleagues) turn on him. Has he failed? Or succeeded? How can he know?

Dan makes a great point, one in which, as he says, there are no simple answers. I think too this issue is compounded by the fact that we pastors tend to measure our success against that of the mega church “gurus” that have, as Michael Spencer puts it, “missional street cred”. In so doing we tend to get overly enamored with numbers. But here’s the thing. If numbers are the measure of our success then all we’ve really done is reduce church ministry to marketing strategies. If good marketing is all that is needed to be successful in pastoral ministry than who needs the Holy Spirit? Yes, “every human endeavor has ways to measure success”, but that’s the real issue isn’t it? Successful pastoral ministry isn’t a human endeavor at all is it?

It’s interesting who they let speak at pastor’s conferences these days. Regardless of your denomination, I dare say you won’t find very many pastors of small unheralded congregations being invited as the keynote speaker at their national convention. Only the brightest and the best are afforded that honor, men with real credibility when it comes to being “missional” (We don’t need no manifesto!). So the question is, what qualifies someone as a bona fide expert in evangelism. Michael Spencer has a few suggestions:

There are three kinds of credibility that evangelicals should examine very closely these days. Those are the credibility that comes from your web presence, your conference presence and your ability to get published. These three things do not mean you know what you are doing on the ground, that you have any cred when it comes to building missional community or that anyone should listen to you. They don’t mean you are telling the truth or should even be speaking. They mean you have a platform. That’s it. Beyond that, someone should look deeper.

Having a church is another claim that should be taken with a grain of salt. Some gurus have churches so big, multiplying in so many ways that they could claim to be making converts by the kind of toilet paper they are using in their facilities and it would have cred. Hundreds and thousands of Christians coming to your church so they get to say they go to the “cool” church should give you no cred at all as being missional.

It’s unfortunate how much emphasis we place on human endeavor when it comes to the credibility of a man’s pastoral ministry. Those who demonstrate an identifiable and quantifiable measure of success are deemed credible to tell others how they can be missional. But as Spencer explains:

I really don’t see any value in telling someone else how to be missional with anything other than a lot of humility. It would be arrogant for me to say that the converts are anything other than the work of the Holy Spirit, since nothing we do has any spiritual power apart from God himself.

The apostle Paul wrote. “But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Galatians 6:14). Last time I checked the work of the Lord is still being done by the Lord. We don’t save souls. We are merely the instruments God chooses to use. That’s it. We’re just along for the ride. The only credibility that anyone might have is in giving testimony to the great things that God has done. How ‘bout a conference speaker that can do that?

Send up a prayer today for the Steven Curtis Chapman family. Yesterday evening a tragic accident took the life of their youngest daughter, 5-year-old Maria, as she was playing in the drive along with some other children. Maria’s teenage brother was driving the family SUV down the long, gravel driveway of their rural home west of Franklin, Tennessee and apparently did not see the girl playing in the area when he struck her with the car. Maria was transported by helicopter to Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital where she was pronounced dead.

Maria, the youngest of six children, was one of three Chinese girls brought into the family through adoption. Longtime supporters of international adoption, Steven Curtis Chapman and his wife, Mary Beth, had founded Shaohannah’s Hope, an organization to help families who want to adopt. During his most recent concert tour Chapman was promoting a campaign called “Change for Orphans” in which audience members were encouraged to bring their spare change to the concert to assist a local family with adoption.

John Styll, president of the Gospel Music Association had this to say:

“I don’t know of anybody who loves his children more than he does and is so committed to the adoption concept, and to lose one, no matter what the circumstances, is heartbreaking beyond all comprehension. He talks about his kids all the time. That’s his life. His kids are more important to him than music, that’s for sure.”

May the God of all comfort grant the Chapman family His grace and peace in the wake of this tragic loss.

If you’d like to meet Maria and express your condolences:

In Memory of Maria
A special blog set up for you. We invite you to share your condolences here. The Chapman family is so grateful for the incredible outpouring of love and support at this difficult time.

Last Wednesday during a press conference at the National Press Club “An Evangelical Manifesto” was made public for the first time. This was a result of a three-year project by a group of theological scholars and Christian leaders attempting to define the term “Evangelical” in a day when it is most often used to describe a sociopolitical demographic. There goal? “…to draft a document that reclaims the term and the calling for both the culture and community of faith.”

This is a rather interesting concept. Apparently the framers believe that the word itself isn’t bad per se just misunderstood. They readily admit that many “now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.” This attempt at reclamation assumes that they at least believe it still does. It’s certainly a lovely sentiment. The question is does it really do what it claims to do? Not everyone thinks so.

Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for James Dobson of Focus on the Family had this to say:

One of the things that disappointed Dr. Dobson was that when the manifesto was initially circulated, no African-American pastors or theologians were on the invite list. His thinking was, “How can this purport to represent the voice of evangelicals when people so vital to who we are as a movement are excluded from involvement?”

Dean Nelson, conservative black pastor and head of the Network of Politically Active Christians also agrees.

African-American Christians have been involved politically for years, and for them to have this type of document without having participation from the minority community really calls into question if [the writers of the Manifesto] are really serious about being progressive, as they say that they are.

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has misgivings of his own. He believes “this document says far too much on the one hand, and far too little on the other.” Dr. Mohler writes:

The document says a great deal about this confusion, and much of it is helpful and prophetic. I am in total agreement with the argument that Evangelicals “should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.” But when the Manifesto presents a theological definition of Evangelicals, it turns out to be a rather minimal definition.

The Manifesto is brave in calling for an end to “culture warring” that threatens to unravel the society and shut down civil conversation and deliberation. But its bravery does not extend to any specific proposals about how this can be done.

Wheaton English professor, Alan Jacobs, doesn’t consider it to be much of a Manifesto either.

If only it had given us some sense of whom it is speaking to. Once all the self-description is out of the way, it turns out that the heart of the document is a kind of urgent appeal: Please don’t call us fundamentalists or confuse us with them. This strikes me as a regrettable tack, for two reasons. First, it is defensive, and manifestos should never be defensive. Second, it suggests a concern for labels and public perception that is not attractive in Christians.

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost considers the Manifesto “a worthy effort”, but even he acknowledges the flawed logic behind its writing.

No doubt much of evangelicalism is not evangelical (or even Christian) but that has little to do with the perception people have about the term “evangelical” being used as a synonym with right-wing politics. That blame can indeed be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media. The media considers the term “evangelical” to be political rather than theological because of their own willful ignorance.

And it’s not very likely that will change any time soon despite this particular effort. For all the theological wisdom of its distinguished authors and more than 70 signers and for all their good intentions, this document really doesn’t do what it was intended to do and that is reclaim the term “Evangelical”. One wonders whether or not that is even possible. In the end the Evangelical Manifesto is turning out to be a colossal waste of time.

First there was “Testamints” mints wrapped in a verse of scripture. Then there was Bible Gum that let’s you chew your way to spiritual enlightenment. Now there’s a new wave in faith-inspired commerce. Spiritual Brands Inc. introduces new “Spiritual Water”. Read the Prayer… / Drink the Water … / Believe in God! / Believe in Yourself! It’s that simple. What could be better than that? Immerse yourself in eleven different prayers that bear detailed images of Jesus Christ, St. Michael and the Virgin Mary.

A recent article in “The Miami Harold” gave this description:

Alongside the standard nutritional facts — zero calories, fat, sodium, carbohydrates, protein — the bottles are printed with prayers in English and Spanish. Product varieties include Power Water with the Apostles’ Creed, Strength Water featuring the Serenity prayer and Essential Water with the Guardian Angel prayer.

“Church is on Sundays, but people need something to help them through the week,” says CEO of the company, Elicko Taieb. “The whole idea is for people to feel better and to know God is with them,” he says. “Everybody always has bottled water with them. In the car. At home. In the gym. Because it’s the most important liquid for the body. The ingredients are the image and the prayer, which is for your body and soul. It’s water from God. It purifies your soul and helps you to think positive.”

“There is a story behind every bottle. It gives people something positive to talk about,” says Eitan Peer, executive vice president.

Cecilia Joseph liked Spiritual Water so much she became a distributor. “You drink it, and you just feel like you are in church,” she says. “The pictures are so beautiful. You look at them and read the prayer, and it just feels good.”

Now I know what you’re thinking. As humorous as this all sounds, no, it is not a parody or a satire. This is as real as it gets, but in reality it is no laughing matter. There are real people swallowing this perversion of the gospel hook line and sinker and the consequences are devastating. It’s what Paul referred to as “a different gospel, which is not another” (Galatians 1:6-9). Of course it’s really not another gospel at all. There is only one message that truly leads to salvation. Any message that is either more or less then that is a message that leads to destruction.

Paul explains that the consequence for spreading a different gospel is to be accursed. The word accursed translates “anathema” which means “that which is dedicated for destruction.” In other words those who would presume to do this should certainly be discounted, but they should also be left to God’s judgment. That’s some pretty serious stuff. And you thought it was just water.