Salvation: Only Sinners Need Apply

Any attempt to remove the reality of sin from a presentation of the Gospel is absolutely misguided. The more I recognize and embrace my own sinfulness, the more I cling on to the Gospel of Christ. Yet, many evangelicals are discrediting sinfulness as the reason Jesus came to save. Instead of saving sinners from their sin, Jesus saves purposeless, hopeless people, uneducated people, those needing a hug or family or community or joy or happiness, or those with a hundred other felt needs. Salvation is, for them, a superficial solution to social problems.
Others reject sinfulness as being the issue, and insist instead that it's poverty, homelessness, injustice, abuse, slavery. Jesus is a social redeemer, accomplishing His mission of creating first-world conditions for third world souls in our neighbourhoods and in the nations.
Don't get me wrong, all of those things are good! Hugs, justice, education, joy, purpose, hope, prosperity and all the rest are implications of the Gospel.
But why do these issues exist? Why do we need to correct the wrong? What's wrong? When God created the world, He named it "Good". Right now, it's anything but "Good". And the Bible explains the discrepancy in this way: sin entered the world.
And it doesn't just exist out there. It exists in me. And the solution to sin isn't entry into a community. Jesus didn't die to give you a hug.

OK, I'll admit it, I make mistakes. I drive over the speed limit sometimes, breaking the law of Canada and therefore God's law. Oops. Sometimes if somebody pisses me off ill raise my voice, and say something I regret later. Oops. I might apologize later, it's cool. My mistakes are usually somebody else's fault anyway. Not really my issue. But can I admit that I sin? Do I ever intentionally ignore my wife's need to have a break from the kids and housework, because I'm choosing selfishness over love? Would I curse somebody under my breath, hoping they'll get what's coming to them? Do I neglect my duties while at work, hoping the boss won't notice? Do I steal time? A pen? Do I take credit for somebody else's contribution? Do I take glory away from God?
If I can't admit that I am intentionally, unintentionally, and in all other ways a "sinner" then I don't really need to be saved. Maybe everybody else needs to be saved from me, but I don't require salvation myself. What I need is for Jesus to give me sympathy, friends who understand me, a wife who puts up with me, and maybe some specific revelation (a "prophetic word") that I'm not really as bad as I feel about myself in quiet moments.

That's the message we believe. That's the message we preach, because it attracts far more people than the "repent from your sin' message we don't want to hear. If we want more people on Team Jesus, then Jesus needs new PR. He needs a makeover.
The problem is that the Jesus we've made over isn't a Jesus who can save. Mostly because we don't want Him to. We want a hug. We want Him to solve poverty. We don't want Him to put our sins to death on the cross... because we don't have any live sins anyway!
It looks like we've built up an idol. A false Jesus. Because the Jesus in the Bible has come to save sinners from their sins. It's right there in Genesis 3:15. The Bible is written in such a way that it gives a really clear description of the problem of sin and its effects. That's called the Old Testament. Then it gives the glorious solution in the New Testament. And it's not just a Jesus who hugs children. It's Jesus with a bloody sword defeating what? Oh right, sin.

So salvation is only for those who need to be saved, who know that they need to be saved. Before God can do a work of particular redemption, a soul must understand that it is particularly in need of redemption. That revelation is, itself, an act of God. Only sinners can be saved. Don't kid yourself.

Know The Song!

I recently heard a worship song leader introduce the song "Glorious Day" like this; she said something like, "Even though it's cloudy outside and it looks like it might rain, we are trusting God to move away the clouds so that we can have a great church picnic this afternoon. Let's sing together, trusting that it will be a 'Glorious Day'!"
After I picked my jaw up off the floor and got over my rage that such a great song would be misused like this, I engaged with the truth of the lyrics being sung:
"Living, He loved me
Dying, He saved me
Buried, He carried my sins far away
Rising, He justified freely forever
One day He's coming, oh glorious day!"

Nothing about sunshine, rain, clouds, or church picnics in there at all. I wonder if the song leader was simply trying to make an announcement along with the song intro, or if she really thinks that the song is about God making every day a 'glorious day'. Regardless, she led me as part of the congregation she has the role and responsibility to lead into worship, rather into confusion.
A worship song leader should know the song he or she is having the congregation sing! Many songs are quite popular but have bad theology (a few come to mind, but I won't list them for the sake of brevity). Others are simply confusing. But if a song leader is asking the congregation to sing it in a worship setting, she should at least try to unpack some of what the song is singing. Take the song "Hosanna" by Brooke Fraser for example. Is this a praise song? A song of surrender? Of prophecy? A song declaring eschatological beliefs? An encouragement or hope or prayer? Yes, all of the above. I think it's tricky leading this song. Where do you go with it? On the occasions I have led this song (which have been many) I try to emphasize a part of it - the prophecy part ("I see a generation..") or the eschatology part ("coming on the clouds with fire...") or the surrender part ("break my heart for what breaks yours...") or the praise part ("Hosanna in the highest"). I resist the urge to give a 15 minute explanation of how these themes fit together, but I do try to lead the congregation to understand a part of what the song is trying to say and, of course, how that fits into the themes of the particular service or gathering.
I remember the first time I was stirred by singing a worship song. The song was "Faithful One" by Brian Doerksen, and the song leader had us imagine ourselves on a boat crashing on the waves, and when somebody drops the anchor even though the storm still rages, the boat stays still. I sang out "Your love is the anchor" with tears streaming down my face because both Brian Doerksen and the song leader had made that truth come alive to me.
Song leaders, know the song you're leading! Do your homework. What themes does it explore? How will it fit into your gathering? How will it flow? How can you introduce it? Will you have to explain something? How will your music emphasize a particular phrase? Get accustomed to singing it yourself, and feel the emotions of the truth it conveys.
Otherwise, stop singing it. You're doing nobody any favours by performing a popular song "just because".

Mountain-Top

All roads lead to the top of the mountain, and it's arrogant to believe that one does and another doesn't.

That's what some authors and celebs endorsing 'New Spirituality' want us to think. Oprah, Deepak, Ekhart and others look down on me and other 'one way' Christians with distain because we believe in the words of Jesus, "I am the way" (John 14:6). To them, Jesus is a way up the mountain to get to God, heaven, nirvana, happiness, fulfillment, what have you. My belief is narrow and antiquated in our day of tolerance and agreement between religions. Their view is accepting and accommodating toward everyone, treating all people and religions with equal dignity.
But that's not true.

In attempt to become accommodating, what they're doing is throwing daggers at everybody. Christians, Jews and Muslims each have, wrapped up fundamentally in their beliefs, the doctrine that they're right and the others are wrong. For these 'new spiritualists' to say that everybody's right is to knock the legs right out from under these faiths. Since they can't say that Jews, Muslims and Christians are equally right, what they're saying is that we're equally wrong and that THEY'RE right. They're buying in to the same arrogance they accuse us of. At least, as a Christian, I am honest about my ideological exclusivity. These people promote 'unity' by condemning anyone who doesn't agree with them. They don't offer unity, but rather another method of separation.

'All roads lead to the top of the mountain'. Says who? How can we trust that what Oprah says is true? Has she had a message from an Objective Source? Is she claiming to be that Objective Source? What I'm asking is, has Oprah seen the mountain and the mountain top, or is she simply assuming that she knows better than other promoters of exclusive ideologies, her fellow sojourners? Admittedly, Oprah, Deepak and Ekhart are fellow sojourners, not gods but 'blind guides'.

Knowing the mountain, the mountain top, and where the various roads dead-end (or don't) requires an objective point of view - one that we humbly lack as humans. We are at the mercy of One Who can tell us and lead us to the mountain top, Who can help us avoid the pitfalls and traps, Who can give us direction to the top. As a Christian, I believe that One is Jesus Christ Who, as God, has the whole mountain view. He invites us, 'Do you want to be reconciled with the Father? Then come through me. No other path will bring you all the way in - I am the way'.
Now the Muslim and the Jew - they have their paths. Will those paths lead to God? No. They'll lead them to other gods, doomed to destruction. But the invitation is to the Muslim and Jew as well, to Oprah, Ekhart, Deepak and you - come to God and be reconciled to Him through Jesus. There's no other way to the mountain top, but thank God that there IS a way!

Between Two Worlds - is there overlap?

I've been meeting with people over the past week. I talked to a guy with the Acts 29 network, I met with me longtime mentor Brian, I talked with my District Superintendent Rob, I met with the Canada Catalyst from Vision 360, and I've been talking about my vision for church planting which, instead of becoming more and more crystal clear is actually becoming more of a mist.

When I started this journey toward church planting - when I initially got the bug to go out and do it, it was in the context of youth ministry where I saw so much potential for more impact in the youth culture. I was also a disgruntled pentecostal/charismatic who wanted more of Jesus, His love and gifts flowing in and through my life. I really identified with the ministry of Soul Survivor, an Anglican Renewal youth movement out of the UK. They had it all - loads of kids getting saved, crazy outreach tactics and events, missionality coupled with justice and worship, and an undercurrent of ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit. It's all hopping, juiced-up, frantic, loud, and fun!

In my old age (I say that partially tongue-in-cheek) I have been drawn to and come to appreciate the solid theology, the high view of Scripture, the attractiveness of 20-and-30-somethings to the Acts 29 Network who, they say, are 'Reformed Charismatics' - Refomed in theology and Charismatic ("with a seatbelt on") in expectation and practice. They're thoughtful, deep, Scripture-centric, devoted, missional, and sometimes funny.

I'm caught between these two worlds. I want to partner with Acts 29 and I believe what they believe honestly and truly. I also love what Soul Survivor is about and I want to see that kind of impact made here in Aldergrove. Now, I'm not saying that I can't be about both things - in fact what I'm saying is that I AM part of both worlds... but it's hard to describe and explain. Even to myself. I'm part of two worlds, not entirely at home in either one of them without the other. It's kind of a lonely place to be...


Thinking about it a little further, Acts 29 is a network of like-minded (theologically/missiologically speaking) reformed charismatics. They are a movement, to be sure, but not a model. Soul Survivor I guess would be more of a model, with some heavy distinctives (DNA) in terms of worship and Holy Spirit ministry. I suppose the overlap could/would/should occur in the way I do ministry, my ministry style.
I'm reading up on stuff, meeting with people, getting loads of information. I want to combine all the things I love - the Evangelical Free Church of Canada, Acts 29, Soul Survivor... and the things I admire. But I guess the caution in that might be not having too many cooks in the kitchen, and that I need to have clarity in vision. God, please help me in that.