“The starting point for any theology of the church today must be a theology of social change….A church whose life is defined and shaped by what God is now doing in the world cannot be imprisoned [by antiquated ] specifications. It must allow itself to be broken and reshaped continuously by God’s continuous action; hence the need for a theology of social change.”

~ Harvey Cox. The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective (1965)

At the Exponential Conference this year, Tim Keller gave a talk in one of the breakout sessions talking about perhaps one of the least talked about and possibly more uncomfortable topics out there… revival. Keller was unapologetic about the use of the word revival and even said that “Biblical, Spiritual Revival is what is missing in the modern church planting movement” and even perhaps the church today. Revival is a topic that is not currently being written about, talked about, or even being mentioned very much in many circles—yet Keller asserts that it is an essential component if church planting is to move from action to a movement.

I’ve been reflecting over Keller’s 16 characteristics of revival the past couple of days and although listed below I want to begin really wrestling through them in community. So, for the next several weeks I’ll be posting them individually with some reflection and hope to really begin understanding what revival truly looks like and how unpredictable and possible it really is.

The 16 Crucial Dynamics of Revival
1. Recovery of the difference between Gospel & Religion
2. Extraordinary Prayer
3. Creativity/Innovation
4. Nominal Church Members are converted
5. Sleepy Christians wake up!
6. Unbelievers are drawn in, in numbers that programs cannot produce
7. Edifying/Dynamic Worship
8. Great Teaching/Preaching
9. Life-changing Community
10. Evangelism –> Outward Focused
11. Passion for Justice/Poor
12. Cultural Engagement
13. Always a loony fringe
14. Always a backlash
15. Always a lot of churches planted
16. Real Social Healing

N.T. Wright speaks with Martin Bashir on Nightline about the life after the after-life…

You can view the video here.

Scot McKnight wrote an article for the Leadership Journal called The Hermeneutics Quiz that describes a recent online quiz that evaluates your hermeneutical stance from conservative to progressive. It’s a short, 20 question quiz that might just surprise you with your results. (I know I was surprised!)

Take a gander, and let me know in the comments how you fared… that’s where I’ll reveal my results at some point.

NT Wright articulates his views on heaven in a TIME Magazine interview.

It’s a good, short interview that articulates some of the same thoughts he’s had on heaven for quite some time. Take for instance my reflections on a Wright seminar last January at Calvin College. Wright is continually propagating his interpretation of new creation which is not only very compelling, but makes a great amount of sense in comparison to the cultural understanding of heaven that we have maintained for so long.

my friend glenn posted this video on his blog and i thought that it’s a fitting video to leave up throughout the next few days leading up to christmas as i take a hiatus from the blog until after christmas.

it’s a very beautiful song depicting the story of Jesus by dave matthews. (a little known factoid: dave matthews comes from the quaker tradition, which helps to explain his infatuation with Jesus in his lyrical content not only in this song but others as well.)

Breeze alerted me the other day to a wonderful and exciting resource to take a look at… Piper’s new book on Justification in response to N.T. Wright is free and downloadable here!

Take a look at it… it looks pretty interesting.

joel osteen made his way into the spotlight on cbs’ 60-minutes last night in an attempt to pimp his new book… i’m not so sure it turned out the way he would have hoped.

i like the internet monk’s take on osteen. especially this quote:

“Osteen is a Gospel preacher like Col. Sanders is an army officer.”

john macarthur vs. doug pagitt… they couldn’t have gotten 2 more extreme views than this.

(ht: joshbrown)

earlier this year i started an on-going series called “questions” in an attempt to look at some of the various things within our ecclesial patterns that i was struggling with or wanting to question… well, lately i’ve been having some theological questions that i’d like to throw around and shove into the same series. so come along, grab a cup of coffee and join me in this conversation if you would.

God’s sovereignty has been on my mind a lot lately, and not in a questioning sort of way but rather seeking to understand the extent, or the scope of it. I think that how one lands on the sovereignty of God completely affects their understanding of his character, his will and his very being. So, in my investigations I’ve found myself listening to a lot of John Piper’s seminars and messages from various conferences because of he heavily he lands on the issue of God’s soveriegnty. (If you’re going to start somewhere—start with the most extreme view right?)

Pipers position in a nutshell (which isn’t completely fair because it misses the nuances) is that God is 100% completely sovereign and in that sovereignty he knows exactly every single thing that you will decide from the moment you were born… He takes this a step further by saying that all of your decisions are not really decisions at all because they are God’s will for your life—therefore, no matter what you do you are constantly in God’s will. Meaning that even when you sin, you are in God’s will. (I have heard Piper say this on 2 separate occasions—the Desiring God conference podcasts and Reform and Resurge conference podcasts.) Piper then goes further to say that when we sin God is furious at us and his anger and wrath are pummelled down upon us… But why would God express his wrath at sin when it is ultimately in his will? If by sinning we are in God’s will—we are doing what God wants—then why would he be angry? It makes God sound as if he has Dissociative Identity Disorder… are we worshipping a crazy God? If anything I would think that this position give us license to sin…

Ultimately, I wonder that if in God’s sovereignty he has the ability to know all the decisions that I will make, then can I surprise God in any way? And if not, then can I really ever disappoint God? (Is disappointment dependent upon surprise?)

What then is a healthy view of sovereignty? By going to the extreme you have these sorts of problems/issues… and by going soft on God’s sovereignty we fall in the land of an incompetent God that doesn’t really know anything… so where’s the balance? What is the scope of God’s sovereignty? Are we diminishing God’s sovereignty when we don’t talk about it in a 100% sort of way… or are we diminishing it by talking about it in a 100% sort of way?

The following is ripped from Out of Ur the Christianity Today blog:

Sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura,…sola radio? The following conversation is based on true events.

Church member: “Pastor, I’m very disturbed by something you said in your sermon yesterday.”

Pastor: “I’m glad you came to talk with me about it. What’s bothering you?”

Church member: “In the sermon you mentioned Erwin McManus.”

Pastor: “That’s right. I quoted something he said about church membership.”

Church member: “Well, I’m very disturbed that you would reference someone like him in a sermon? McManus is part of the emerging church, and I have serious problems with their theology based on what I’ve heard on the radio.”

Pastor: “You do know Erwin McManus is a Southern Baptist and I’m pretty sure his theology is quite orthodox. In fact, our denomination invited him to speak at our convention two years ago.”

Church member: “Yes, I know they did and I’m very bothered by that as well. McManus is part of the emerging church, and the emerging church is involved in all kinds of heresy.”

Pastor: “The label ‘emerging church’ is used to describe a lot of different things, and I know some emerging church leaders are pushing the envelope with their theology, but I don’t think Erwin McManus is one of them. To tell you the truth, I’ve never really considered McManus part of that movement. I think his books are just packaged and marketed to that crowd. I don’t think you have to worry about his theology. Have you ever read one of his books?”

Church member: “No, but I don’t have to. I listen to Chuck Coleson on the radio and he says the emerging church is very, very dangerous. It’s not something we should be messing around with, and the fact that you’d quote an emerging church pastor in your sermon is very alarming.”

Pastor: Well, I’d encourage you to read up on what McManus teaches and believes, and if you find something problematic let me know. I’d be happy to talk with you about it.

Church member: “I don’t think you heard me. Coleson said on the radio that the emerging church is full of heresy. It’s dangerous. Why would I read one of those books?”

Pastor: “I haven’t listened to Chuck Coleson’s program, but I can assure you in my study I’ve found nothing wrong with Erwin McManus, and neither have the leaders of our denomination.”

Church member: “Yes, but Chuck Coleson is on the radio. I’m just letting you know it really bothered me yesterday. I hope this isn’t the start of a trend. I don’t know what I would do if this church started becoming emerging.”

I’ve recapped this conversation for you because it jives with something Brian McLaren wrote a few years ago. He said:

Sometimes I think that the most powerful and popular denomination in America is a stealth one. It’s not the Baptists or the Catholics or the Methodists or the Assemblies of God. It’s “radio-orthodoxy”—the set of beliefs promoted by religious broadcasting. Do you doubt the power of radio-orthodoxy? Just try contradicting it.