Comment on "Metro-Evangelicals"

A friend pointed me to an article about the emphasis in Evangelicalism on urban ministry.  The article, at least in part, explores what some see as a put-down of ministry in small places, like Covington VA, where I have invested my life.  But, you red for yourself:  http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/are-the-metro-evangelicals-right/
 
As a guy who has spent his life ministering in a small, getting smaller, city, and sparsely populated county, it would be easy to jump on this.  I resist.  I see the rational for Urban ministry as kind of like the old bank-robber's line:  "Why do you rob banks?" " . . . minister in the cities?"  "That's where the money/people is/are."  Since there are buildings in major cities that contain more people than my city, and since guys like you, Bart, tend to move away from places like Covington, to places like Washington, all other things being equal.  Pastors like Keller are going to have greater influence than pastors like Merrell.  I'm content to influence a creek.  That water flows into major streams.
Strong influential ministries like Redeemer Church add something to the Evangelical culture that helps folk like me.  We have used Keller's books for studies here.  Keller has opportunities in NY that he didn't have in Culpepper, VA.  I'm glad.  From my perspective, he (I don't know much about Driscoll.) has used those opportunities in ways that have helped those of us in smaller places.  I'm thankful.  When I think of it, I pray for Tim Keller & his ministry.
Bottom line:  I assume that those who choose to minister in the big cities choose to do so for the same reason I have invested my life in a small place.  I think this is where God wants me.  I think there are people here who need what I have, by the grace of God, to offer.

Note some of the comments.  The headline writer is guilty of being too cute.

A horrible tragedy, and a smaller one that didn't happen:

The horrible events in Sandy Hook, and a blog-post by a mom greatly in need of our prayers, have caused me to reflect again on an incident that ended well, but could have been tragic.
I'll get to the incident in a moment, but first some context.
I'll leave the details to historians; anecdotal generalities are sufficient to make my point.
In the early-mid 70s when I began my ministry I remember visiting patients at Western State Hospital in Staunton VA.  It was an institution that had begun in 1828.  Over its history the worst abuses of psychiatric care--lobotomies, shackles, straight-jackets, poorly controlled electro-shock, forced sterilizations, etc.--had taken place there.  By the time I visited there the worst of these abuses had been eliminated, or largely so, but, still, it was a terribly depressing place to visit.  It didn't take long to figure out that many of these people had been very effectively rehabilitated.  Unfortunately, the habitation in which they were best able to function was Western State Hospital.  The place was ready for Jack Nicholson.
A national combination of budgetary constraints and compassion swept our nation about that time.  Places like Western State were closed or drastically reduced in size in as close as a bureaucracy can come to overnight.  All over the country patients who were marvelously well equipped to live in a mental hospital were placed in nursing homes, half-way houses, or just on the street--environments where they didn't know how to function.
"They'll be fine as long as they take their meds."
"Who will make sure they take their meds?"
"That's up to them."

It was late enough that I was already asleep--asleep soundly enough that when Kathy woke me up, my main thought was to get back to sleep.
A neighbor had called and told Kathy the "Annex (a house our church owns and uses for various ministry purposes) is on fire."
I figured it was just some lights reflecting off the picture window, or something like that.  I just wanted to get back to sleep.
Kathy stepped out to where she could see for herself and confirmed.  "The Annex is on fire!"
I had no choice, now.  I got up jumped into some pants and started walking/running the seventy yards, or so, to the neighboring building.  A few steps in that direction, I turned and yelled for Kathy to call the fire department.  There is a porch/carport on the front of the building.  I could clearly see the flames under that roof.  After moving a bit closer, I yelled back, to call the police as well.
There was a pile of firewood under that porch roof.  We used it for the fireplace in the Annex.  There was also an old church pew there in the shelter.  The firewood, flames licking at the wooden ceiling above, was burning brightly.  An older man was sitting on the bench, looking for all the world like this was exactly what one was supposed to do on a cool night.  I don't remember whether I spoke first or immediately started throwing burning pieces of firewood out into the yard, but rather quickly I asked the man, "What in the world are you doing?"
He calmly replied, "I'm just trying to keep warm."
I remember reading somewhere, something like, "Even the actions of the most disturbed person make sense, if you look at the world the way they see it."  I have no clinical language for this man's problem, but he saw the world in such a way that it made perfect sense for him to build a fire under a wooden porch roof, attached to a house that he did not own, and then sit down on a wooden bench and warm himself.  I think, had I been a few minutes later in arriving, I would have found the old gent slumped over in the pew from smoke-inhalation or lying in the yard with third-degree burns.
Being awakened in the middle of the night convinced me that folk who think building fires on other people's porches shouldn't be allowed to be out on their own.  Later when the police officer arrived he told me that they had found the gentleman on an earlier occasion trying to sleep in a tree.  It wasn't and isn't illegal--though I understand there is a bill in congress--to sleep in trees, so he was turned loose.  Building a fire on somebody else's porch is outside the law, so he spent the rest of the night in a warm place.

Right now, I can hear a friend of mine yelling, "So what's the point?"
Let me make it mostly with some questions:

• I understand that before my time it used to be common for families to keep mentally/emotionally troubled family members out of sight.  Sometimes that was cruel, but in light of the fact they didn't burn down porches or, infinitely worse, go on shooting sprees at elementary schools, can we say that is all-together bad?
• It was horribly abused--I saw the tail-end of that abuse nearly forty years ago at Western State--but do we too easily dismiss the old thought that there are those from whom the rest of us need to be protected, and indeed, who need to be protected from themselves, and that some of these folk have never, yet, broken the law? 
• I personally have run into the syndrome that frustrates the mom in the blog-post I referenced, that kept local police from doing anything about a man who tried to sleep in a tree, and that may have been part of the story in Sandy Hook.  Is there something wrong with a system that tells a parent, or one who truly cares, "Unless, this person breaks the law, there is nothing we can do?"
• Have we elevated the concept of personal freedom--even for people who can't personally handle it--to such a place in our culture that it trumps all other considerations?

I end with questions because I have more of those than answers.  I pray there is an intelligent conversation going on at a level where it can make a difference.

Team MERRELL, Bible Run Around the Island:

Many of you know that I am involved with Pacific Islands University, a small Christian College on Guam, serving the People of Micronesia and beyond. We are doing a fund-raiser, prayer encourager, awareness-raising event on January 5. I wo

n't be there for the Bible Run. (it is a pretty good trip.) But I will be participating as an off-islander. I'll get my mile(s) in with family in Texas. We'll be praying for the ministry of PIU. I'm encouraging friends to join Team-MERRELL. You can go to the sites below, or get in touch with me. If you join Team-MERRELL you will receive a commemorative email, which you will cherish until your hard-drive crashes. :)
Make a donation to the School in any amount. You can do so online here: http://www.piu.edu/advancement/donation/
Message me and let me know you are a part of Team-MERRELL. I'll post a picture of my participation.
http://www.piu.edu/2013-bible-run-for-off-islanders/

Merry? Christmas:

Since this STTA has an editorial flavor, I'm posting it here as well as over at the STTA site. It has begun.  I speak of course of the annual--at least in recent memory--fight over whether store-clerks and such should say "Merry Christmas," or "Happy Holidays."  And, "Is that evergreen in the park, the one with all the lights on it, a Holiday Tree or a Christmas Tree?"  There are some inconvenient facts that line up on each side of the argument.   On the side of Merry Christmas: It is the name of the Holiday in question. There is our undeniable heritage as a nation--"Christian" or at the least strongly influenced by Christian thought. Most Christians don't seem to get bent out of shape when Jewish merchants recognize Hanukkah, or Muslims observe the fast of Ramadan.  "Why," we ask, "all the fuss over Christmas?" On the other side: Though not a majority, a significant element of our population belongs to a non-christian religious group.   A minority of Christians find the 21st Century Christmas celebration offensive and want no part of it.  (I'll leave aside the fact there is a significant group of Christ-followers who observe Christmas in January.) It is the task of the church, not Walmart or the US government to proclaim Christ.   Business people should be free to observe, or not observe, religious based holidays, and we should be free to steer our business to those businesses we choose to patronize. The middle ground is strewn with, "Yeah, but!"s and ugly accusations.   For the record: I have already started wishing folk "Merry Christmas."  I am seeking to use the holiday as an opportunity for spreading the name of Christ.  I appreciate it when businesses enter into that spirit.  You'll notice, I even donned a Santa hat for the season. I am, however, going to avoid any Yuletide arm-twisting, and I encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to do the same.  Rather than demanding that Merry Christmasbe on store clerks lips, let's put our energy into living and witnessing so that the Christ of Christmas is more likely to enter their heart and make them truly Merry.      It's STTA.   Find lot's of information about how God stepped into our world to meet needs we cannot meet on our own, here.

Thankful:

Thanksgiving began tonight.
For the last, who knows how many, years Covington Bible Church has participated in a Thanksgiving service with several other local churches.  This year it was our turn to host the service.  We chose to keep it simple, to emphasize the ministries of labor in our churches every week, and to give an offering to others who have needs.  I hope the other folk who were part of the service appreciated it as much as I did.  I am thankful.
It was good to be reminded of why we should be thankful, even in hard times.  It seems that we have gotten really good at whining and complaining.  It was good to be reminded that what we ought to be doing is offering thanks.  No one who participated in the service was whistling in the dark.  They were folk who had lived long enough, looked hard enough, and yielded to God's plan completely enough, that they have come to see that indeed God is good.
Thanks.
A group of young people from our church presented a funny and thought-provoking drama about the importance of thanksgiving.  I confess that there are times in my life when I could be rightly arrested for failure to be thankful.  Lord deliver me.
Thanks.
It was good to be reminded that I am part of a team.  Several churches banded together in tonight's service.  I could focus on those who weren't there--if you look at the rolls of the participating churches there were far more who weren't there than were--but I choose to focus on those who were: fellow pastors, dedicated missionaries, solid leaders, dedicated workers--the kind of people who build the Kingdom of God.
Thanks.
Thanksgiving began, for me, tonight.  May it last all year.

Christianity is about faith in Christ

From the message this morning at Covington Bible Church, from Acts 24:24-26. The rich, powerful, and beautiful Felix and Drusilla, heard Paul on faith in Christ Jesus.

In our day of pluralism and tolerance gone amok, we need to be very clear.  Christianity is about faith in Christ.  Not just faith in a generic Supreme power kind of a God, the great Architect of the Universe, or the Higher Power however you define she, he or it.  We are talking faith in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, Who was born as a man, lived a sinless life, died as our substitute, came forth from Grave in victory and lives today to intercede for and save forever all who put their trust in him.We need to be kind and polite and respectful to Jews and Muslims and believers in the gold mega-ball, but we cannot back off one inch from the reality that there is “one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  We must not compromise from the absolute conviction that there “is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”  

Except for my gray hair I look like a paleo-evangelical, but I'm not quite ready to adopt the label as mine.

A young friend of mine, Bart Gingrich, recently introduced me to a new label, here.  I'm pretty tired of labeling, and particularly relabeling--as if calling something by a new name somehow made it different.  This label, though, caught my attention.  Bart, in his article, responded to an article by Thomas Kidd.  A colleague of Bart's also contributed a piece--sort of an across-the-table-with-coffee, friendly debate.  This morning again through Bart--he expands the view from my keyhole--I found that the new moniker, and Bart's article had been passed up the food-chain to First Things, here.

I've had three primary reactions to the discussion about "paleo-evangelicals":

1. I regard it as a very good thing.  I have for sometime thought that the dual sleeping arrangement between a large section of Evangelicalism and what I would call conservative politics has been unhelpful, and, more importantly, unhealthy.  It appears to me that those who are saying, "I guess I am a paleo-evangelical."  Share that discomfort with their political bedfellow's snoring.  My thinking on this was advanced and clarified by some of Chuck Colson's writings, and a very practical straight forward little book, Blinded By Might, written by two former associates of Jerry Fallwell,  Cal Thomas, and Ed Dobson.  To a lesser extent my thinking was tweaked by David Kinnaman & Gabe Lyons' book, Un-Christian.
2. I was actually surprised--pleasantly so, mostly.  As the name of my blog would imply, I don't get out much.  Even as I type this, I have other, much more local things to do.  So it isn't hard to bring up things in the bigger world that surprise me.  I think, though, that I'm more thoughtfully surprised on this one.  I know that the first half of the hyphenated term was transplanted from a well established--though not popularly recognized--label, Paleo-conservative."  Applying "paleo" to evangelical would indicate that this is what evangelicalism was, before it became what it is today.  If I'm wrong about that, I hope my better informed friends will correct me.  But what I find somewhat shocking is that Evangelicalism has morphed into a movement--at least this is how it appears to a significant body of thinking observers--that is identified more by its politics than it's Theology.  At this point I go back to reaction #1.  I'm glad for the recognition.
   I also offer an apology.  I get the idea that I'm much older than most of the voices in this conversation. I'm about forty years older than Bart.  I don't regard myself as directly responsible, but on the part of my generation, I just want to say that I'm sorry.  I'm sorry that we made, or allowed "Evangelical" to become a political term rather than a word that calls to mind what it originally meant--Good News, John 3:16, and Amazing Grace.
3. This is really #2 from the other side, and a return to #1, sort of:
   I am an Evangelical.  As you can tell from some of my previous postings on this blog, I have been somewhat conflicted over that title, but I wear the title with much more comfort than I ever have before.  I grew up in the result of, and the core of my education came from, the Fundamentalist movement that took place in the first half  of the Twentieth Century.  I was taught that "Evangelicalism" was a bad word.  I still have friends that regard it as such.  As I observed what happened to Fundamentalism in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and as I grew (I hope).  I came to mostly reject the label Fundamentalist.  I hadn't really changed what I believed, but I saw that in the eyes of many--in particular young people--Fundamentalism was seen as something that I wanted no part of.  So, with apologies to some of my forebears, I, mostly, quit using the title.*
   At the same time, though, Evangelicalism took on overtones with which I was not comfortable.  Unlike many of you in this conversation, I was alive before the Moral Majority.  A large part of my thinking here was shaped, not by broad reading and careful reasoning, but by association with some very Godly people who were absolutely Evangelical in the Biblical sense, but thoroughly un-evangelical as defined as a political movement.  If you search this blog for "political" and/or "politics" you'll find that on my side of the keyhole I've been campaigning for some time, that evangelicalism is not a political movement.  I'm sorry we have allowed it to become seen as such.  I would challenge others in the conversation--unless they are political operatives of the ilk who can tell you which way Toyota driving accountants are going to vote (I guess you are paid to that)--to stop looking at Evangelicalism through a political lens.  Yes, because Evangelicals tend to take seriously what the Bible actually says, we are likely to be pro-life, for instance, but to say Evangelicalism is pro-life, as if that defined us, is to distort us.  

Bottom line.  I reject the label Paleo-evangelical.  Not because what I've seen so far does not describe me, it does, mostly.  I said as much in my comment, here.  I reject the label, because I'm not prepared to surrender most of the field and claim just a corner.  I maintain that what is described as Paleo-evangelicalism is really Evangelicalism.  Let's describe the other folk as Politically-distorted-evangelicals, and reclaim the word "Evangelical" for what it really means.

*It doesn't quite fit in the flow of this piece, but the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, helped clarify my thinking.  Chiefly, the editors choice to include Fundamentalism as one of the subsets of Evangelicalism confirmed a view I have had for some time.  Historically, and Theologically they have common roots.