Category: Contemporary Christianity

“Divided: Is Modern Youth Ministry Multiplying or Dividing the Church?” directed by Philip and Chris LeClerc

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

A new documentary DVD sponsored by The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, is beginning to make some waves. Divided: Is Modern Youth Ministry Multiplying or Dividing the Church? explores the pitfalls and problems of how we’ve done church for the last thirty to forty years (and more). You can watch the entire 54 minute DVD online through September. I have the video embedded below, but you may want to click through to watch it full size on Vimeo.com.

I found the DVD thought provoking and definitely worth my time in watching. Age segregation is a new concept in the church, and has only been around in the last hundred years or more. There is a strong argument to be made that it has contributed to many of the problems in the church.

The documentary interviews current youth ministry gurus, youth ministers with misgivings, and former youth ministers. Also included are interviews of church leaders in the Family-Integrated movement such as Douglas Phillips, Scott Brown, and Voddie Baucham, Jr. as well as other leaders less known for their preference for Family-Integrated churches, like R.C. Sproul, Jr., Ken Ham and Paul Washer.

The movie itself flows at a nice pace, tracing the investigation of Philip Leclerc into the problems surrounding youth ministry in the church. The filming is superb and well-planned, interesting shots abound. The setting of the interviews also are visually appealing and the whole movie is a great production. The Leclrerc brothers criss-cross the country interviewing leaders and digging into this problem.

Still, after all the interviews and the questions have been presented, I don’t think the case against modern youth ministry is as fool proof as the documentary claims. At our church, children age 5 and up sit with us in the worship service and that alone contrasts with what many churches do. We have age segregated Sunday School classes, but also foster a unity in spirit throughout the church cross-generationally. More could be done though. And just opening eyes to the questions in this debate can make a big impact.

I recommend you take the time to watch Divided. You may want to pick up a copy of the movie to have it in your library and show it to your church leaders. Learn more about Divided at DividedtheMovie.com. You can purchase a copy of this movie direct from the movie’s website, or through Amazon.com.

If you’ve seen this, or if you take the time to watch it, please join the discussion. Let us know what you think.

Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo.

“Christians Get Depressed Too” by David P. Murray

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Today’s Church has been beset with numerous challenges. Few have been so distressing as the problem of depression. Good people are weighed down with their own depression or perplexed about that of friends and family members. In some sectors of the Church, this is complicated by a stigma associated with depression. Sin ultimately causes depression, it is assumed. And the conclusion follows that good Christians don’t get depressed.

To counter these notions about depression, David P. Murray has written an incredibly helpful book entitled, Christians Get Depressed Too. Murray, Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, has encountered depression in ministry and personal contexts enough to be both well versed on the topic and sensitive to the need for sound resources. The book he has written is intentionally short: since “depressed people cannot read hundreds of pages.” (pg. xi). It serves as a resource for caregivers as well as a source of hope for the depressed who consciously decide they want to get better.

Murray explains what depression is and what it signifies. He counters the approach which assumes as a default that behind most bouts of depression lie hidden sin problems. The picture is much more complex than that, he claims. He exposes the faulty thinking patterns which often contribute to depression, and finds examples of such thinking, and even the depression which results, in the lives of people in Scripture. In defense of the physiological nature of much of depression, Murray appeals to Puritans such as Richard Baxter.

On the role of medicine, Murray finds two unhelpful extremes: too much dependence on medicine, and the aversion of any use of it at all. Along these lines, he says:

Treating a depressed person with medication is often no different from giving my eight-year-old daughter one of her many daily injections of insulin for diabetes. I am not merely alleviating symptoms, but addressing the cause–depleted insulin due to dying or dead cells in her pancreas. And if she is lethargic, weepy, or irrational due to low sugar levels, I do not ask her what commandments she has broken or what “issues of meaning and relationship” she has in her life. I pity her, weep for her, and thank God for His gracious provision of medicine for her. (pg. 64-65).

This is not to say, Murray merely refers Christians suffering from depression to their local psychiatrist. Rather, he offers an abundance of help from the Scriptures on how to correct thinking patterns and learn to receive even depression as a gift from God’s very hand. He points to a little remembered passage where Scripture says, “God left” Hezekiah, “that he might know all that was in his heart” (2 Chron. 32:31). Murray elaborates:

This is not an objective leaving, but a subjective leaving. God withdrew Himself from Hezekiah’s spiritual feelings so that he lost his sense of God’s presence, protection, and favor… But God had a wise and loving purpose in this…. Sometimes… [God] may wisely, temporarily, and proportionately withdraw the sense of His favor and presence to remind us of our state without Him and to lead us to greater thankfulness and appreciation for Him. He may do this… by lovingly afflicting our brain, disrupting it’s chemistry and electricity, just as He does when He lovingly afflicts one of His dear children with epilepsy, or any other disease. (pg. 65).

This small book of 120 or so small-sized pages, will prove an immense help to both caregivers and those suffering from depression. It is a primer on depression and in it, Murray offers a careful list of recommended resources, for those looking to continue their study of this topic. The book’s attractive cover, and handy, almost “pocket” size, make it an ideal book to giveaway to friends dealing with this issue. I’ve already loaned or given out copies of this inexpensive book, and plan on using this as a resource for years to come.

You can read purchase a copy of this book from any of these fine retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon.com or direct from Reformation Heritage Books.

“God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?” by John C. Lennox

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The new atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, are ever in the public spotlight these days, or so it seems. The idea that brilliant physicists and scientists can make sense of this world without a God appeals to many. Certainly the conclusions reached in books such as Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design — that there is no God and no ultimate point to the universe — are conclusions many atheists and secularists are all too eager to affirm. Since everything does fit so nicely together, however, should we wonder if the case made is really as air tight as claimed? If the conclusions are made to order, we might have warrant to carefully scrutinize the claims of these New Atheist authors.

John Lennox, author of God’s Undertaker, and a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford in his own right, takes on Stephen Hawking’s arguments in a forthcoming book published by Lion Books and distributed in the US by Kregel Publications (available July 15). In God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?, Lennox exposes the circular reasoning and non sequitors that abound in Hawking’s The Grand Design. Lennox begins by framing the scope of what science can really address as it attempts to examine metaphysical questions. He then points out both Hawking’s dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of Christian theism. God is not merely a “god of the gaps”, an explanation for the world as we know it. The Christian understanding of God has Him outside the boundaries of creation as Lord over all of it, not some explanation for unknown phenomena. As for philosophy, after rejecting it as “dead”, Hawking jumps in and tries his own hand at several metaphysical questions that philosophy has long addressed. Hawking’s attempt at doing philosophy is all the poorer for his outright rejection of it.

Lennox then takes Hawking to task for claiming that the theory of gravity, or scientific laws in general, can operate as a “creator” in a sense, and be the ultimate cause for our universe. He clarifies what a law or rule of nature really “is”, and illustrates how Hawking makes more of such laws than can really be claimed. He then goes on to show how Hawking’s “M” theory of the “Multiverse” conveniently sidesteps objections by positing the existence of infinite universes. Still the question remains, why are there any universes instead of no universe? Lennox reveals that other major physicists have their own doubts as to the ability that M theory really has for being an explanation of everything.

Lennox also addresses head on the claim that miracles cannot happen because the laws of science would be invalidated. He pries open the layers from this question and shows the irrationality of claiming that science strictly forbids the existence of exceptions or miracles.

By the end of this short book (it’s only 100 pages long), Lennox has made a convincing case for theism and demonstrated that reasonable scientists continue to affirm the divine. Lennox’s book is accessible and clear, even as it interacts with quite complicated elements from Hawking’s writing. The book doesn’t own the six-day, young earth Creationist view, but it doesn’t rule it out either. Lennox argues that often the new atheists assume that to believe in God is to believe in a young earth view, and he shows this is not true. Lennox marshals arguments from science (the very idea of the big bang supports the Bible’s claim that the world has a beginning – something science has only admitted in the last hundred years), philosophy, history and the realm of human experience. The resulting case is convincing and should serve to bolster the faith of any troubled by the new atheism. At the least, it offers avenues of further exploration available in grappling with these issues.

Before closing my review, I should excerpt a small section from this book which captures some of Lennox’s craft in action. This excerpt will illustrate his style and the way he can cut to the heart of an issue with incisive logic.

Suppose, to make matters clearer, we replace the universe by a jet engine and then are asked to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we follow Hawking: dismiss personal agency, and explain the jet engine by saying that it arose naturally from physical law…. It is not a question of either/or. It is self-evident that we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent explanation: they complement one another. It is the same with explanations of the universe: god does not conflict or compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is the cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws of physics to describe.

To this I add my “amen”. I encourage you to pick up this little book as it offers an excellent primer on how to deal with the claims of the new atheism. Even if you differ with Lennox on a point or two, his clear style and succinct arguments will equip you in thinking through these issues on your own.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

You can purchase a copy of this book from any of these fine retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon.com or direct from Kregel.

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.

On Blended Worship: Intentionally Mixing Music Styles to the Glory of God

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

A recent comment concerned music styles and the worship wars. The three way split, envisioned by the commenter included the following.

1) Those want to do nothing but maintain the status quo, whether that is the contemporary style that is now familiar (with no new forms like Christian rap), or a traditional hymn-focused style — this group wasn’t going to budge from their stance.
2) Those who want to move back to the psalmic/hymnic tradition handed down to us from the early church — this group was further described as “Conservative Christianity”.
3) Those who allow for anything within the worship service.

What is missing from this list is “Blended Worship”. Why is it that we have to worry about being “comfortable” in our style? What about loving others and using styles that are accessible to others? Certain styles or songs may move me more than others, but they may hit other people where they are at more readily than they do for me. That has been my view of the issue for the last five years or more, now.

On this front, here are some quotes from documents on worship from my old church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper.

Because we value the importance of old and new , historic and current, we will pray that “the Holy Spirit may lead us into ways of worship that are continuous with the historic witness of worship given to the church throughout its history in the world, and at the same time He may lead us into the discovery of new forms and patterns that meet the needs of the people of our day” (R. Webber, “Worship Old and New” ). We will continue to be a “both/and” people that cherishes all the richness and freshness that comes from God.

Because we value the importance of both head and heart in our worship experience , we will continue to fill our minds with Biblical thinking about God, others, ourselves, and life, while at the same time putting renewed and greater emphasis on giving expression to our heart’s affections for God during worship.

Because we value being a singing people with growing appreciation for diverse expressions of love for God, we will use as many musical styles and forms as are helpful to worship and respond to God appropriately, as we seek the “significant range” of “at-homeness” referred to in Fresh Initiative #2. We will encourage whole-hearted participation by the entire congregation in all parts of the worship service, as the defining sound of Bethlehem worship becomes the singing voices of all God’s people praising Him.

Because we value increasing in a humble willingness to support others whose tastes are different than ours, we will put understanding above accusation, forbearance above faultfinding,and Biblical unity above the demand for uniformity. We will create opportunities for God’s reality to be conveyed more powerfully by learning to affirm the forms and styles that edify our brothers and sisters. Our relationships of love for each other will lead us to patiently support and rejoice with those who appreciate other styles, believing that God is able to meet us in the context of any Christ-exalting worship style.

Because we value growing in appreciation of both fine and folk elements in worship, we will strive to affirm the strengths and avoid the weaknesses inherent in both forms. We will worship within the range of gifts that God bestows on us, never compromising spiritual qualifications for aesthetic considerations, as we pursue undistracting excellence in spiritual leadership.

Because we value a determination to welcome people different from ourselves for the sake of Christ, we will continue to embrace God’s call for visible manifestations of love toward each other and our neighbors, providing opportunities before, during and after the service to reach out to those God would have us touch.

Because we value being more indigenous to the diversity of our metropolitan cultural setting, both urban and suburban, we will seek ways to communicate and worship that allow for a significant range of diversity in those whose worship is driven by a passion for the supremacy of God in all things.

Sunday morning worship is a corporate expression of our passion for the supremacy of God. We sense God’s leading to develop fresh expressions of this passion that 1) allow for a more focused and free lingering of love in the presence of the Lord; 2) reflect musically the diversity of our congregation and our metropolitan culture; 3) interweave the values of intense Godcenteredness and more personal ministry to each other in the power of the Holy Spirit. The following clarify our worship distinctives at Bethlehem:

We will continue with one common worship service format, “that with one accord [we] may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Our worship life will have a “defining center,” with significant range on either side of that center, resulting in a broader worship life than in the past that people can comfortably call “home.”

The mingling of historic and contemporary music No church or service can be all things to all people. But we do not value stylistic narrowness. We believe there are affections owing to God that different tunes and different texts and different genres may awaken better thanothers. We will strive to be who we are without exalting our own tastes as the standard of excellence or power. We will see God’s guidance in each worship setting to be both indigenous and stretching.

The last paragraph was excerpted from What Unites Us in Worship, and the other paragraphs were excerpted from Bethlehem’s Philosophy of Worship. There is a lot more in the philosophy document than what I’ve shared, but these sections focus on “blended worship”.

What do you think? Does your church emphasize a “blended worship” style?