thejakers

Josh Harris writes a pithy post on the wrong reasons we often have for loving the church. It’s worth the read, and worth reflecting on even more.

• Don’t love the church because of what it does for you. Because sooner or later it won’t do enough.
• Don’t love the church because of a leader. Because human leaders are fallible and will let you down.
• Don’t love the church because of a program or a building or activities because all those things get old.
• Don’t love the church because of a certain group of friends because friendships change and people move.

These seem simple and obvious, but I’m willing to bet we rarely give thought to them. I hear of people leaving churches all the time, and usually it’s because they’ve put their hope in one of those four things instead of fully in Jesus.

And I know I’ve done the same myself.

We’ve started a new sermon series at Praxis Church called “The Survivors Guide to the Apocalypse”. We wanted to have some fun with this one and decided to go with a 1950s fallout theme. We created a guidebook and an innovative little film series. Here is the first film in the series. I’ll post up the others each week.

Identifying your Apocalypse – Survivor’s Guide to the Apocalypse. from Praxis Church on Vimeo.

I want to say great work by everyone on the Praxis Creative team. This was an awesome effort that produced exceptional results.

Update: Here is the video for Week #2 – So, You’re Having a Biblical Apocalypse! & Week #3 Possible Apocalyptic Scenarios.

So, you’re having a Biblical Apocalypse – Survivor’s Guide to the Apocalypse. from Praxis Church on Vimeo.

Possible Apocalyptic Scenarios – Survivor’s Guide to the Apocalypse. from Praxis Church on Vimeo.

This Miller Lite ad that was pitched a decade ago by the famed Ogilvy & Mathers agency has surfaced on YouTube.com.

Gross, right? Miller executives thought so too…that’s why they killed it. But thanks to a spec reel on a personal website, we all have the pleasure of watching. There’s a lesson here in making sure that you have control of all your collateral – even the stuff you kill.

In any case, I’m sure you can find a sermon example from this video…maybe something relating back to dogs eating vomit?

We’re always trying to balance risk-taking with accessibility at Praxis Church. Above all else, we want to capture people’s attention and help communicate the Gospel effectively by adding to the overall impact of our sermon series.

This Advent we took a big risk with our “Give of Yourself” campaign. For the four weeks of Advent, Pastor Justin is preaching on generosity. My team came up with the concept of people literally giving of themselves to highlight the sacrifice true generosity takes. To be honest, I was skeptical that we could pull this off without being creepy…but hats off to my team for doing a great job. In the end, we approached the art to make it campy and over-the-top, which helped take the edge off. Here’s what we came up with.

We incorporated this art into our sermon study guide, which you can download here. The Church’s response has been positive.

Finally, we took a more conventional approach to our sermon intro videos. I firmly believe that culture is created by sharing stories. As such we chose to highlight four stories of extraordinary generosity in our congregation. Here are the two of the four videos.

Sacrificial giving – Advent from Praxis Church on Vimeo.

Giving for the sake of community – Advent from Praxis Church on Vimeo.

What is your church doing for Advent? I’d love to see what other Creatives are up to out there!

Found this little gem over at Tim Challies Blog. Pretty sure it’s a joke…at least I hope so.

In a recent post over at Swerve, Pastor Craig Groeschel talked about the need to “let go of old assumptions about how to reach people.” In making his argument, Pastor Groeschel uses some troubling language to open his post: “The world is changing faster every day. Too many Christian leaders are working off old assumptions rather than new revelations.”

To be clear, this post is not an argument against new methods in ministry, or even Pastor Groeschel, whom I’ve never met. It’s just that his post got me thinking. I understand the importance of utilizing the latest technologies and implementing new strategies to reach people with the gospel of Jesus. My concern is that often times we buy into the myth of the new. As such we can easily turn the chasing of the latest fad into an idol for our ministry. It’s easy to get sucked into the mindset that new = better. And that’s just not the case.

We don’t need new methods for the gospel to be effective. Period. It is the Holy Spirit that works to make the gospel effective. Not our technology. Not our preaching methods. Not our music styles. And not our innovation.

As the writer of Ecclesiastes so wisely wrote thousands of years ago, “What has been is what will be. And what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

While some may dismiss this as poetic hyperbole that can’t be prescriptive, the reality is that there is much wisdom in this verse. God is ageless, timeless, enduring, the alpha and the omega. He is sovereign and the creator and sustainer of all things. But, “Man is like breath; his days are like a passing shadow” (Psalms 144:4).

As passing shadows, let’s not think too highly of our new methods and ways. I have a hunch that they too are like breath.

Rather, let our focus be on the enduring and unchanging Word and only Revelation of God – Jesus Christ.

We do not need “new revelations.” Though it doesn’t hurt to have new ways and tools to preach the Revelation of Jesus.

[Photo by splorp]

Interesting post by Dr. Mohler on the increasing prevalence of boys wearing skirts in America’s high schools.

Here’s a snippet:

“The controversy over boys wearing skirts to school is a symptom of our loss of sexual sanity and the will to preserve any reasonable and healthy understanding of gender. These teenagers are telling us something important — we are losing our sexual sanity.

For Christians, the issue is a matter of biblical concern. The Bible reveals a concern for respecting and honoring gender as God’s gift. In the Old Testament, the Law taught respect for these distinctions and roles. In the New Testament, we find similar expectations. As the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11: 7-15:

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

While addressed to the specific concerns of a church setting, this text also generalizes the point by making a specific reference to what nature teaches concerning the recognition of the difference between males and females. The Creator is honored and glorified when men and boys dress and present themselves as males and when women and girls dress and present themselves as females. Culture by culture and generation by generation the specific form of this distinction may change, but the point remains.

God made human beings to show His glory, and an essential part of that glory is the visible difference between males and females that is reflected even in the public presentation of dress. We should be able to tell the difference between a boy and a girl by the way they dress and present themselves in public.”

I agree with Dr. Mohler that boys wearing skirts is disturbing. But is it really a Biblical issue? Or is it more of a touchy cultural issue? I’m genuinely curious as to what you think. I believe it can be a Biblical issue, but I’m not sure the way Dr. Mohler framed this is convincing.

Here’s some food for thought and discussion:

• Dr. Mohler equates dress with gender identity and tries to make a biblical case for it by quoting a Paul’s discourse on headship, which talks about hair and does not mention dress specifically. My first question is should we start having women wear head coverings, so as to be careful not to blur gender lines? Secondly, should we start telling men that long hair is an abomination and shaming girls who have short hair? There may be a compelling case for Dr. Mohler’s arguments in scripture, but I’m not convinced this is it. What do you think?
• Women now wear pants, and it is commonly accepted. Don’t remember when I’ve seen Dr. Mohler write a blog about the abomination of women wearing pants. Is this a double standard?
• Clothing styles have changed throughout history. How can we even begin to start explaining what is a masculine and feminine style of dress in a biblical context? Isn’t that more of a cultural question? And is it right to syncretize the two?
• Is it our clothes that create our gender identity or the way in which we interact? It seems Paul is more concerned with how men and women interact than their style of dress. What do you think?

To be fair, Dr. Mohler says, “The Creator is honored and glorified when men and boys dress and present themselves as males and when women and girls dress and present themselves as females. Culture by culture and generation by generation the specific form of this distinction may change, but the point remains.” But he doesn’t seem to really believe this by the tone of his post. After all, couldn’t boys wearing skirts simply be the “specific form of distinction” changing. He says “the point remains,” but is the point the way we dress, or the way we act?

Flame away.

In case you missed it, I was privileged to do a series of guest posts on the topic of online church over at Rethinkmission.org, Jonathan McIntosh’s blog. If you don’t read Jon’s blog, you should. It’s an awesome blog filled with some great content.

My series was in response to Doug Estes recent blog tour to promote his new book, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World. In particular, I was responding to his post on Out of Ur. It’s probably no secret that I don’t support the notion of doing church purely online, though I do think the Internet is an invaluable tool for churches and ministry. I was disappointed that Doug seemed to be attacking straw men, rather than engaging in a fruitful debate on this topic. Thus, I wrote the following series linked below. Thanks again to Jonathan for letting me soap box on his digital lawn.

Rethinkmission.org Guest Posts:

In Defense of Physical Community – Part One

In Defense of Physical Community – Part Two

In Defense of Physical Community – Part Three

In Defense of Physical Community – Part Four

[Photon of church in Second Life by rafeejewell]

Here’s an amazing video from Christianity Today’s, The Global Conversation, on the prosperity gospel’s exportation to third-world Africa.

The Prosperity Gospel from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.

As someone who grew up in a Charismatic church that was heavily influenced by the prosperity gospel, I know first-hand the damage that can be done by this gross bastardization of the Gospel of Jesus. While watching this video, I surprising found myself crying. Seems the pain of my former church experiences aren’t as healed as I thought.

Here’s another great video from John Piper on the topic as well. (Thanks to Mike Pohlman for sharing these too.)

Freaking powerful words.

All this brings to mind the conversation making the rounds on the blogosphere on the $130 million new building project being started by First Baptist Church of Dallas. There has been a lot of chatter and backlash on this project.

I think the reason for this can be best summed up by the reasoning behind senior pastor, Robert Jeffress rationalization for the project, ”The finest facility in this area should be one that glorifies almighty God.”

Here’s my question, Can a facility really glorify God? No, it is the people who make up the church in that facility. And I’m pretty sure spending $130 million to help the poor and destitute is a better way to engage this recession and glorify God than to take advantage of low construction costs.

Jeffress declares his goal is to create a “spiritual oasis” in Downtown Dallas…and that’s really the problem, isn’t it?

How about we bring the living water to those that are dying of thirst instead of calling them to come to an opulent oasis.

The other day I was teasing my 3-year old, Liam, telling him I was going to put him in diapers.

“I don’t wear diapers,” he said indignantly. “Diapers are for babies!”

“Oh, that’s right,” I said. “You wear pull-ups.”

“Yeah!” He said. “I wear pull-ups. They’re for big boys.”

The point is that words are important. To the hearer, they signal different meanings – even when they are talking about the same thing. We have to be aware of the words we use and how they are received.

What words are you using? Are there better ones you can use? And do you think about how your audience is receiving those words?

Food for thought.