Mixers, Sliders, and Politics

In times of political tension and division, we don’t have to look far (perhaps in the closest mirror?) to find an example of someone who assumes a rigid position on many things, and who views those who disagree as misguided, ignorant, wrong-headed, or worse. Couple this attitude with a polarized viewpoint, and the odds of a meaningful discussion of the issues become slim indeed.

What happens when a majority of people in a nation, or other political entity, learn to approach political questions in this manner? The result will be, depending on the number and relative power of those holding conflicting beliefs, either deadlock that produces continuous conflict without resolution, or dominance by a majority that tramples on the rights of the unfortunate minority. Over time, neither result is good for the nation or its citizens.

Americans, as well as people in some other countries, have witnessed nearly unprecedented divisiveness and polarization that seem to permeate nearly all political conversations (if vitriol and name-calling qualify as conversation). And most are ready to admit that, at least for those on the other side of the issues, such behavior is at best unhelpful, and at worst seriously detrimental.

Perhaps it is time that those of us who are convinced of the correctness of our own viewpoints take a step back and ask ourselves a couple of questions (don’t worry, I’m not even going to suggest that we consider the possibility that on some issues we might actually be wrong, and the idiots who disagree with us could be right). These two questions will be followed by an analogy that may help answer them:

1) Are my beliefs and the beliefs of my “opponents” really diametrically opposed? That is, do we believe the exact opposite from each other?

2) No matter what labels or emotion-laden expressions might be applied to our respective positions on an issue, is it reasonable to assume our views are as far apart as such labels and expressions suggest?

Mixers and Sliders

Virtually every event that uses electronic amplification and multiple microphones or other inputs also uses a mixer - sometimes called a soundboard – that controls the tone, balance, gain, etc.  Typically, mixers use a sliding control to adjust the “fade” or relative volume of each input or channel. A modern mixer may control a few channels or, at considerable expense, dozens.

Now, for the analogy -- we won’t use the whole mixer, but just the fader control (the sliding bars at the bottom).

In the same way that an audio engineer assigns an input to each channel on a mixer, let each channel on a mixer represent a person’s position on a particular issue. Your opinion on an issue is one channel, and the dunce who disagrees with you is another channel. If a third person enters the conversation, we will need a third slider bar. Thus, a pair of adjacent slider bars represent your opinion next to someone else’s opinion on a single issue; to compare your opinion with two other people’s opinions, we use a set of three adjacent slider bars. For a different issue, we need another set of slider bars, for a third issue another set, etc.

Now, imagine assigning an issue to each set of slider bars, defining what the top and bottom numbers of the slider bar mean, and then each of you setting your slider at the number that seems to represent your opinion. If three people are involved, each sets one of three slider bars at a number that approximates their opinion on the issue being debated.

Most issues can be expressed in the form of questions. For example, “How much should corporations be controlled/regulated by the government?” Let’s say the scale of the slider bar goes from 0 to 10. For this question, a “0” would represent an opinion that there should be no regulation, a “10” represents total regulation (in other words, government ownership of corporations), and the numbers between are more middle-of-the-road opinions.

A second example might be, “Should abortion be legal?” In this case, a “0” would mean all abortions should be illegal, and a “10” means abortions should be totally legal, including throughout the pregnancy. Someone who opposes abortion but would accept it in some cases, for example, rape and incest only, might set their slider bar at “1” or “2”, while someone who opposes abortion only after the second trimester might set their slider bar at around “6” or “7” (the precise value is less important than the position compared to those of the others involved).

Any number of political or other issues can be dealt with using the sliding scale of the “Mixer Model” with “0” representing “no” or “not at all” and “10” representing “yes” or “totally.” Examples of questions that could be asked include:

• ·       To what extent should K-12 educational policy and curricula be controlled by the federal government?
• ·       To what degree should health care be funded by the federal government?
• ·       To what extent should the federal government aid citizens whose income falls below the poverty level?
• ·       To what extent should the country’s military depend on a volunteer force?
• ·       What proportion of Europe’s defense spending should be funded by the U.S.?
• ·       To what extent should race be considered in admittance to public universities and colleges?
• ·       To what extent do you agree with the proposal to implement a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border?
• ·       To what extent should the federal government fund education at public colleges or universities?
• ·       To what extent do you agree with substantially increasing corporate income tax rates?

Of course, these examples just scratch the surface, and only the political surface, of the vast array of issues to which the “Mixer Model” could be applied. Doing so is hardly a panacea, but may potentially result in at least these outcomes:

1) A realization that in many, if not most, instances our opinions are not the antithesis of the opinions held by those we view as having an “opposing” viewpoint (that is, on very few issues will the chosen settings of the ‘sliding bars’ reach “0” or “10” and we may have, at least to some extent, some common ground of agreement).

2) When we discuss the logic behind our “mixer settings” with those with whom we disagree, we and/or they may find reason to “adjust our settings” to partially close the gaps between them.

3) When we discuss the logic behind our “mixer settings’ we may well gain an understanding of why others hold the opinions they do, and may even (perhaps begrudgingly) accept their opinions as valid even if we do not agree.

4) A mutual appreciation for looking at issues in a new way and, as a result, strengthening of the relationships among those involved.

To repeat, this rather quirky method is certainly not a panacea. But if your initial reaction is to totally oppose the idea, then for the issue “To what extent do you support the use of the “Mixer Model” for issue discussion?” place your sliding bar at “0” and let the discussion begin. J

What? Free Coffee Mugs? -- Thoughts on Contemporary Church Growth

The current situation

A generation or two ago in America, in many communities virtually everyone attended some type of church, and those who did not were nevertheless familiar with the basics of Christianity and Christian worship services. Those days are gone.

Church attendance and other types of religious activity have waned. According to the Barna group, 45% of Americans have not attended a church service in the past six months, weddings and funerals excepted. And although 72% of Americans describe themselves as Christian, only 31% say they practice their faith. Another 42% are non-practicing Christians (can there really be such a thing?). And among churchgoers, 51% say they have not even heard of the Great Commission.

It is increasingly true that those outside the church have scant knowledge of the Christian faith. Many cannot identify the Ten Commandments, the books of the Bible, or other key fundamentals. Over half report a belief that “good works result in going to heaven.”

Clearly, contemporary America needs the Gospel. Yet, in Barna’s research, when people were asked whether they have a personal responsibility to tell other people about their religious beliefs 54% said they did not. This raises the question, “How is the modern American church going to reach the unchurched?”

This is certainly a question on the minds of many pastors and church boards. A wide variety of approaches and techniques have been suggested as ways to attract people to church ... and maybe even entice them to come back again. First-time visitors may be offered free books, DVDs, or coffee mugs. Many churches, in an effort to be more relevant to the general population, have abandoned traditional worship forms such as confessions and creeds, while embracing contemporary music and a casual setting. In some large churches, attendees get their coffee from the Starbucks in the lobby.

Churches across America are struggling to draw more people into church, and to hold them once they are there. Understandably, they are experimenting with all sorts of ideas, activities, programs, and attractions to expand their attendance. But despite the wide variety of techniques being applied, in most churches the responsibility for growing the church falls almost totally on one person -– the pastor (or pastors). The majority of church attendees are consumers of the church’s ministry rather than participants in the ministry.

Those who have attended church services regularly for years may not have ever seriously considered the question, “What is the main purpose of our church service?” Accustomed to a certain routine Sunday after Sunday, we grow comfortable with those around us and, although we make some effort to be friendly to visitors, if we are honest we rather like our church the way it is. We really don’t need a bunch of strangers joining the church and wanting to do things differently from the way we like to see them done.

So, back to the question of the purpose of a church service. There are at least three primary purposes of a weekly church service:

1. Worship – by this we mean worship in the fullest sense of the word, including all the ways believers show reverence and adoration to the almighty God during a service.

2. Equipping the saints – this includes all the activities that prepare believing members of the congregation to (a) live out their faith as God intends and (b) share their faith with others. More on this later.

3. Becoming a family – in ‘church speak’ we might say “building the body of Christ,” but that’s language the unchurched will likely not understand.

In the three elements above, notice the emphasis on believers. The regular worship service is primarily intended for believers. What we call a church service should be a time for believers to praise the God they believe in, learn how and commit to serving Him with their whole lives, learn how and commit to spreading the faith they share, and growing together as a family, i.e., increasing in love for one another.

There are certainly other types of services directed more toward the unchurched. Revival services are often wholly targeted toward unbelievers, and seeker services address those who have expressed an interest in learning about the faith. But the regular weekly service in intended primarily for believers.

If we accept the idea that Christian church services are for those who are already Christians, how do we explain things like:

• Sermons or other parts of the service where a brief explanation of the faith is offered as though the congregation does not know such basics?
• Altar calls or other invitations that invite those present to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and make a profession of faith?
• Announcements that prayer teams and/or pastors are available to speak with those who want to pursue a possible relationship with God?

If church is for believers, then why do our services include these things? The answer may be uncomfortable for some. Simply put, someone has not been doing their job, and it is not the pastors of our churches.

Who, me? The Laity and Evangelism

A major reason so many pastors feel compelled to formulate their church services, sermons, and other church activities with the unchurched in mind is that they bear the bulk of the burden for church growth. Higher church attendance is not the sole measurement of church success. Nevertheless, if attendance increases we tend to praise the pastor, and if it declines we are ready to credit him/her for the failure to attract more people to our church.

Although the efficacy of the preaching in a church contributes significantly to a church’s health, this does not excuse the laity from their responsibility to play a major role in growing the church. Too many times we have unfairly placed the responsibility for leading people to Christ on the shoulders of our pastors.

Scripture commands (it does not suggest) that all believers fulfill their obligation to share the good news of the Christian faith. Our failure to do so has, on a massive scale, stunted the growth of God’s church. This accusation, of course, does not apply universally to every church member, but it is sadly appropriate for many.

Following are five groups of Bible verses that address the role of the laity in church evangelism. The first three sections describe actions that are incumbent on all believers. The fourth addresses the hesitance to evangelize, and the fifth speaks to the church as a body of believers. Scripture quotes are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.

I. All Christians are to strive to live exemplary lives as a witness to others.

Although Scripture sets the bar incredibly high, it also promises that through the power of the Holy Spirit we can fulfill the instructions found in these verses. God does not tell us to do what he knows we can’t; he only tells us to do what we know we can’t do on our own. These verses graphically illustrate the standard Christ has set for us, which if met will certainly pique others’ curiosity enough to open a door to spiritual conversation.

^{Matt 5:16} ... let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

^{II Cor 5:11} Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

^{I Cor 9:23} When I am with those whose consciences bother them easily, I don’t act as though I know it all and don’t say they are foolish; the result is that they are willing to let me help them. Yes, whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so that he will let me tell him about Christ and let Christ save him. [The Living Bible]

^{Col 2:6-7} So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

^{I Pet 2:12} Live such good lives among the pagans [ESV: Gentiles] that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us [TLB: when Christ returns].

II. All Christians are to “go” –- to go beyond their local church, beyond their comfort zone, and beyond themselves in order to reach out to people wherever they may be.

At first glance, we may want to excuse ourselves by pointing out that Jesus gave special healing powers and perhaps other abilities to the original apostles. But, the verses below are not limited to the twelve. And we are not exempt from his command to go.

^{Matt 28:19-20a}Therefore go and make disciples of [teach] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

^{Mark 1:17} “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for [CEV: How to bring in] people.”

^{Luke 9:1-2, 6} When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. ....  So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the good news [RSV: preaching the Gospel] and healing people everywhere.

^{Luke 10:1} After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go

^{John 17:18} As you sent me into the world, I have sent them [AMP: believers] into the world.

^{Acts 8:40} Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

^{Acts 13”47} For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles [ERV: the other nations], that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’

^{Acts 18:7-8} Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

^{II Cor 5: 20a} We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors [ERV: we have been sent to speak for Christ], as though God were making his appeal through us.

III. We are called to speak the truth in love to a hurting and broken world that desperately needs the good news of the Gospel.

If we are honest, we will likely admit (at least to ourselves) that we are often reticent to share our faith. Why is this? Do we really believe what we say we believe? If so, do we really care that many in our community do not know Christ? Do we take seriously the eternal destiny of those who do not yet believe? We are not advised to remain silent or to be timid about our faith. We are commanded to speak.

^{Psalm 51:15} Open my lips, Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise.

^{Acts 4:20} As for us [Peter & John], we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.

^{Acts 4:33} With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

^{Acts 5:42} Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.

^{Acts 8:3-4} But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.

^{Acts 8:25} After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

^{Acts 16:13} On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.

^{Acts 19:9b-10} He [Paul] took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

^{Acts 28:30-31} For two whole years Paul stayed there [Rome] in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!

^{Romans 10:14} How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? [ERV: But before people can pray to the Lord for help, they must believe in him. And before they can believe in the Lord, they must hear about him. And for anyone to hear about the Lord, someone must tell them.]

^{II Tim 4:2} Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. [NLV: Preach the Word of God. Preach it when it is easy and people want to listen and when it is hard and people do not want to listen. Preach it all the time. Use the Word of God to show people they are wrong. Use the Word of God to help them do right. You must be willing to wait for people to understand what you teach as you teach them.].

^{I Pet 3:15} but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

^{I Pet 4:10-11} Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God.

IV. When we consider the magnificence of what God has done for us, the eternal value of his offer of free salvation, and his promises regarding evangelism, we cannot find a valid excuse to resist the call to share the Gospel.

It is incredibly easy to think of a reason not to share the good news, including our own life stories, with those around us. Now is not the right time. I’m not well-versed enough in the Bible. They might have questions I can’t answer. Maybe they don’t want to talk about religion. What if I say the wrong thing? I’m just not cut out for evangelism. If I miss one opportunity to share my faith, is it really that big a deal? What if I embarrass myself?

None of our self-protecting reasons can outweigh the commands of Scripture. We must remember we are not responsible for how others respond to the Gospel, but we are responsible to obey the command to share it.

^{Luke 12:8} “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God.

^{Luke 15:7} I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

^{Acts 4:4} But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

^{Luke 12:11-12} “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

^{Acts 4:13} When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

^{Acts 6:10} But they could not stand up against [NKJV: resist] the wisdom the Spirit gave him [Stephen] as he spoke.

^{Acts 10:44} While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

^{Acts 17:32-34} When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject. At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed.

^{Acts 20:24} However, I [Paul] consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.

^{Acts 28:23-24 [“they” = Roman Jewish leaders]} They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.

^{Romans 1:16a} For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes.

^{I Cor 1:17} For Christ did not send me to baptize [Phillips: to see how many I could baptize], but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence [NASB: not in cleverness of speech], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power [CSB: its effect].

^{I Cor 2:4-5} My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words [Phillips: brilliance of speech or intellect], but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

^{II Cor 5:14} For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 

^{II Cor 3:12} Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold [CEB: we act with great confidence].

^{Eph 2:10}  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

^{II Tim 1:7-8a} For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid [TLB: afraid of people], but gives us power, love and self-discipline. So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord [ERV: to tell people about our Lord Jesus]

^{II Tim 3:16-17} All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

^{James 5:20} remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins [ERV: save that person from eternal death and cause many sins to be forgiven].

^{I Pet 2:9} But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

^{I John 2:20} But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth [ESV: you all have knowledge].

^{I John 5:2} This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

V. In order for the laity to carry out their obligation to share the Gospel, the gatherings of believers (“going to church”) must provide opportunities for the prayer, teaching, and fellowship necessary to equip them as effective witnesses.

This does not mean that our church services must exclude the Gospel message at a level the unchurched might understand. It does mean that redirecting the primary responsibility for evangelism toward the laity enables the pastor(s) to focus his/her efforts on teaching and building up the church (the body of believers) so they are capable of effectively fulfilling their role in sharing the good news of the Gospel.

To many lay people, this may be a new and uncomfortable role, primarily because we have in many churches fallen so far short in this area. However, if the early church was effective doing the things they did (which does not imply the modern church must follow their example in all respects) we ought to at least consider why it worked for them and whether it might work for us.

Of course, even if the laity assumes its rightful role, the pastor(s) is still left with the challenge of teaching and encouraging all of the saints -- from the new believer with no church background to the mature believer with a good deal of Biblical knowledge. But this “equipping the saints” is a vital part of the pastor’s role; the goal is a cadre of mature believers who effectively witness to the unchurched and mentor newer believers.

^{Acts 2:42, 45-47} They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. .... ⁴⁵They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

^{Acts 4:31} After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

^{Acts 14:21-22a} They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples [ERV: many people became followers of Jesus]. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith.

^{Acts 15:41} He [Paul] went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

^{Romans 1:11-12} I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.

^{I Cor 14:12} So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up [CEV: will be most helpful to] the church.

^{I Cor 14:26} What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

^{Eph 4:11-13} So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists [CJB: proclaimers of the good news], the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

^{Col 1:28} He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ.

^{Col 3:16} Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish [CJB: counsel] one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

^{I Thes 3:2} We sent Timothy, who is our brother and co-worker in God’s service in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,

^{Heb 10:24-25} And let us consider how we may spur [NASB: stimulate] one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

“Real World” Lay Evangelism

Based on the above, a local church fully equipped for lay evangelism might apply its members’ capabilities in a sequence similar to the following:

1. Believers meet together regularly (“go to church”) primarily for the three purposes described at the start of this article. The primary (not exclusive) focus of the pastor(s) is the teaching, counseling, and encouragement of the members.

2. The laity is equipped for effective evangelism through a combination of #1, above, and personal and/or small group prayer and Bible study.

3. Lay people preach “invisible sermons” through their daily lives, interacting in distinctly Christian ways with their fellow believers, families, friends, neighbors, fellow students, co-workers, etc. Relationships formed are real and natural; nonbelievers are never viewed as “projects” or “targets” for evangelism.

4. Through healthy relationships over time (sorry, it usually takes time) lay people who are sensitive to the needs and personalities of others find opportunities to share their personal testimonies, and introduce them to Christ. They then help new believers lay (no pun intended) the foundation of their faith through:

• One-on-one conversations
• One-on-one or small group Bibles studies/prayer groups
• Introduction to “church” as a gathering of fellow believers, including early on inviting them to serve in some capacity in the local church
• Mentoring the new believers for as long as appropriate for the individual(s)
• The pastor supports this process (beyond equipping his congregation for this type of evangelism) by
• Handling questions/challenges the lay evangelist may be unable to answer
• Sharing his/her beliefs and vision for the local church
• Accepting the challenge of providing or identifying members of the congregation who can provide the teaching, counseling and encouragement that will help the new believer grow spiritually.
• If the local church does not appear to be a good fit for the new believer, using his/her contacts with other pastors to recommend a local church that may better suit the person(s) involved.

5. As new believers are added to the congregation, over time they develop the knowledge and commitment needed to effectively witness to others, and the organic growth of the congregation continues.

Conclusion

The above is not a panacea, it is not an easy thing to carry out, and it takes time. Even if people of the local church are equipped and fully committed to effectively share the Gospel, may they reasonably expect a result like that experienced in the first century by the apostle Peter?

^{Acts 1:38-41} Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It is safe to say that any one of us witnessing to those around us is unlikely to claim “three thousand were added to their number that day.” But if each of us shares the Gospel at each opportunity, who is to say what the total outcome will be? And if the number added is more or less than three thousand, is not each person worth the effort? Remember, “... you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” I Pet. 2:9

Gun Control

The U.S. is famous for its liberal gun laws, gun population, and Second Amendment rights. Even a long series of mass murders has produced very little other than heated rhetoric on both sides of the issue of gun control. As a gun owner, I support mandatory background checks, waiting periods, safety training, and sales only through licensed dealers. Unfortunately, it appears the NRA has enough influence to prevent Congress from acting on these items. Most fully automatic rifles (think “machine gun”) have been illegal in the U.S. since 1935, with additional restrictions under the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which included prohibition of magazines larger than 10 rounds. However, without Congressional action the 1994 law expired in 2004, despite pleas from law enforcement officials.

Representative Eric Swalwella of California, seeking to prompt enactment of legislation or to enhance his own popularity (or maybe both), recently proposed banning and confiscating all "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons." Irrespective of the Congressman’s real intent, his language suggests he is either disingenuous or ignorant. Use of the phrase “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” is inaccurate and misleading, and therefore contributes nothing toward a rational discussion of how to best keep guns out of the hands of those likely to create havoc.

1. First, a brief recap of the purposes/uses of guns –- I understand the position of those who dislike or even hate guns in general, and I do not object to that at all. Many people find all guns offensive because of the great harm caused by those who have used them. Five uses of guns come to mind (I may have missed some), all of which are intended to cause damage to something:

1) Target shooting -- this is how I use mine, and I have caused great damage to a number of paper targets in doing so.

2) Self-defense -- usually, keeping a gun in one's home in case one's home is broken into and/or the person is attacked (I'm prepared for this one, but hope to never need to do so).

3) Hunting -- this is a broad category ranging from persons who hunt game animals for purposes of eating the meat (I don't do this, but it is not totally different from buying meat in a grocery store, provided the animal was killed quickly in both cases) to shooting an animal without use for its meat so one can have it ... or just its head ... stuffed and displayed somewhere (I don't happen to know anyone who does this, but I think it’s terrible).

4) Personal attack -- this includes assault, robbery, murder, etc., all of which are despicable and evil, but very common and the reason for #2 above.

5) War -- the sad event that has been a consistent theme throughout human history, whether the weapons used were clubs, maces, swords, arrows, guns, or bombs. Books have been written about the necessity for war as well as how to end all wars, but none of them have made much difference; mankind has simply known very few times of peace. One could argue that those engaged in war can be divided into good guys and bad guys (the bad guys being those from the nation that was the aggressor or attacked first),, but doing so is overly simplistic. It is highly unlikely the common soldiers on either side of a war wanted or started it; they are the tools used by those in power to get what they want. People have made war on each other at least since the dawn of recorded history and will in all likelihood continue to do so with whatever weapons are available.

2. The existence of #5 above (war) involves military force and therefore military weapons. And it is the existence of military weapons that enable the congressman from California to propose banning and confiscating all "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons." It is this description that led to the conclusion that he is either seriously misinformed or blatantly dishonest. The congressman has the right to propose any type of gun restriction he wishes. And if Congress enacts whatever he introduces, the Supreme Court can decide whether or not it is constitutional. But his use of the phrase "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" plays on the emotions of the public in a misleading and inaccurate manner (details below).

3. A brief explanation of “assault weapons” -– There is no uniform definition of an assault weapon. Research the term and you may find descriptions that may include things like adjustable stocks, removable magazines, short barrels, etc. (some even include the color black), none of which delineate a military weapon from a civilian one. A recent web search found this definition: “a civilian version of a military machine gun, one that is less capable of rapid fire. Although the firearm automatically reloads, a shooter must pull the trigger separately in order to fire another round." This is partially correct in that semiautomatics do reload for another firing. However, semiautomatics are far from “civilian versions of military machine guns.” Machine guns are capable of rapid and continuous fire and designed for such use; civilian semiautomatics are not. Using a civilian semiautomatic in a military action would be foolish and probably suicidal.

4. A brief explanation of “semiautomatic” -- Semiautomatics were invented for military purposes but quickly adapted for hunting for two reasons: (a) if the hunter misses and wants to shoot again, the noise of manually reloading may well spook the animal and it will be gone before a second shot can be fired, and (b) if the hunter hits the animal but not in a fatal spot, very quickly firing a second shot in a fatal area will instantly kill the animal and prevent it from suffering. Semiautomatic handguns were developed for a similar reason: a person defending himself may not be accurate enough to stop the person attacking him with one shot and has very limited time to shoot again. You may object to gun use in both hunting and personal self-defense, but this is the factual background regarding semiautomatic guns.

5. Conclusion -- (1) Describing guns as “military-style” is pointless. It seems to mean something that looks like something used by the military. Does this mean any gun painted black? Or in camouflage colors? Or shaped like a gun used by the military? Does it include BB guns? Cap guns? Water pistols? What does military-style mean? (2) It is nonsensical for the congressman to attack the ownership of “semiautomatic” guns. If he means automatic guns he should say so, presuming he knows the difference. (3) The term “assault weapons” is as meaningless as the term “military-style.” Any weapon used to assault someone can be called an “assault weapon.” What the congressman means by the term is not clear, but what is clear is his intention to gain publicity and popularity by using emotion-charged and vague language that appeals to the fears of the public.

That being said, citizens and voters are free to hold as strong anti-gun positions as they wish, and to argue vehemently for any and all types of gun control. I hope they will do so with more honesty and intelligence than that of the congressman from California.

Christmas

Poised atop the universe, standing amid splendor

He gazed down into the abyss.

And gathering the courage borne of love

Stepped off the edge, and dove into the world he had created.

Down, down he plunged, farther and farther from the warmth and the light

Into the darkness and the coldness and the squalor

Past the holy and the righteous, past the proud and the mighty

Until he reached those most unlike him.

There he stopped, amid the most unlovely

Standing with those we despise, the ones we think are least

And reached out his hands, covered with scars and calluses

To carry their burdens and their pain.

He stayed with them, through the long, dark night

While we enjoyed our goodness

And having given them all he had, soared back to the pinnacle

Leaving them a promise of life and love.

I have stuff! So am I blessed?

Many religions promise the possibility of a better life. Some say reincarnation will reward those who strive hard enough with an opportunity to move upward along a supposed hierarchy of beings. Some posit a type of behavioral balance scale in which doing more good things than bad things increases one’s chance of a pleasant eternal existence. Others rely on some combination of faith in a deity plus good works (or at least trying hard) to attain an enviable afterlife. And almost all view positive circumstances in this life as evidence that God (or god, or gods) is rewarding the faithful for their belief and/or behavior. The sequence is simple: first I do what is required, then I am rewarded accordingly (“blessed”), and finally I feel grateful for my circumstances.” The concept is easy to understand, even if hard to live up to.

But Christianity is different. Jesus was a first century Jewish rabbi, steeped in the theology and traditions of Judaism, as were most who initially followed him. And the predominant schools of thought within Judaism at the time interpreted positive circumstances in this life in a manner virtually identical to other faiths. Good things (health, wealth, and happiness) were evidence of God’s favor; trouble and sufferings were signs of God’s displeasure. The Jews believed that the blessings of God, and particularly financial wealth, were evidence that those who enjoyed them were living lives pleasing to God. Poverty, sickness, and misery were evidence that the person (or their parents) had offended God, and were receiving appropriate punishment.

Jesus turned this thinking on its head. He did not abolish the “rules” for living (e.g. he affirmed the 10 commandments) or ever suggest that doing good to others was not important. In fact, he commanded his followers to commit to the highest imaginable standards of behavior toward others (“love your neighbor as yourself”). But he replaced the usual sequence of behavior-blessing-gratitude with a different sequence which runs counter to that of other religions. Jesus challenged our natural desire for a positive self-image by teaching that people simply cannot perform well enough to deserve the favor of God. God is perfect, people are not, so they will inevitably fall short. Basically, Jesus said that the teachings about gaining a place in paradise through one’s efforts or behavior were false.

Jesus then gave his followers a new teaching with a different sequence from the behavior-blessing-gratitude model they had known. He taught them about a God who recognized their imperfection and wrong behavior (“sin”) but who, rather than condemn them for failing to achieve perfection, offered them eternal paradise as a gift simply because he loved them. And he taught that those who accepted this gift (“salvation”) were to then show their gratitude through their behavior toward God and others. Thus, he gave the traditional behavior-blessing-gratitude sequence a radical reordering, with the new sequence being blessing-gratitude-behavior. The new model presented to Jesus’ followers no longer required a certain standard of behavior for people to be accepted by God. They could come to him just as they were, with their faults, problems, addictions, wrecked lives, pride, conceit, etc. and receive an offer of complete forgiveness and an eternity of bliss. And, as God healed their minds and spirits, their behaviors would reflect their gratitude.

The majority of first century Jewish leaders rejected Jesus’ teaching. They found the idea that people were unable to somehow earn God’s favor insulting. They also objected to Jesus’ attention and devotion the poor and downtrodden. The religious leaders of the day held firmly to the belief that wealth was an indicator of a life well lived and a direct blessing from God (this belief correlated nicely with the fact that most of them were relatively wealthy). Prosperity was a blessing, but not undeserved. Follow the rules and God will pour out riches upon you. Don’t follow the rules, and you’ll likely end up in poverty. The proof of this concept? I’m a good person, I’m wealthy, and others are not.

For a long time, followers of Jesus and his teachings believed and adhered to the sequence of blessing-gratitude-behavior. And their behavior was so exemplary that even those who rejected Jesus and viewed the early Christians as a ridiculously radical offshoot of Judaism were impressed. Secular historians recorded extraordinary acts of generosity and self-sacrifice, both toward fellow Christians and non-Christians. When plagues struck Rome, healthy citizens escaped to the countryside, leaving the sick to die alone. On their way out of the city, they met Christians rushing into the city to care for the sick at the risk of their own lives. Christians who possessed wealth shared it freely with others in need. All of these things were done out of a sense of gratitude for the blessings (and particularly the greatest blessing, that of salvation and eternity in paradise) already received from God.

But there are some legitimate questions about people’s circumstances in this life that none of this quite answers. For example, is it wrong to be wealthy? Are those who enjoy prosperity not blessed by God? Is money really the root of all evil? If I follow “the rules” and try hard to be good, why wouldn’t God bless me? I feel blessed to have all the things I have; is there something wrong with that? Are we to think that money is bad, and God likes poor people better than rich people (that sounds ridiculous)? I know some Bible stories – King David and Solomon and others were really wealthy; doesn’t the Bible say they were blessed with wealth? Good questions! Here are some responses:

• ·       Yes, every good thing in this life, including life itself, is a blessing from God. That includes health, family, relationships, and everything we possess.
• ·       No, it is not wrong to be wealthy. But wealth demands answers to two questions: (1) How did you become wealthy? [implication: if by mistreating others, your wealth is illegitimate], and (2) What are you doing with your wealth [implication: if you are not truly generous to others, your wealth is being misused]
• ·       No, money is not the root of all evil. It seems that in 21st century America the pendulum has swung from the first century idea of wealth as an indicator of God’s favor (“I’m wealthy, that means I’m a good person”) to the opposite idea that wealth is an indicator that one does not deserve God’s favor (I’m wealthy, therefore I’m despicable). This extreme swing is evidenced by the vehement dislike expressed toward those who are wealthy (often referred to as “the one percent”).
• ·       The root of all evil referred to in the Bible is “the love of money.” Simply put, this applies to those who are more dedicated to money/possessions/status/stuff than to God or their fellow human beings. The label of “evil” applies based on attitude toward possessions, whether a person’s net worth is $2000 or $200,000 or $200,000,000.
• ·       No, there is not a linear or “one for one” relationship between the “godliness” of people’s lives and their wealth. There are myriad examples of godly but poor people, godly rich people, ungodly poor people, and ungodly rich people. And there is no promise that trying to live a godly life will guarantee prosperity.

Over the centuries, the original teachings of Jesus have often been misinterpreted, misquoted, twisted, or simply ignored in favor of other philosophies and theologies. One of the most dangerous of these distortions in modern times is what is called “prosperity theology.” This is a type of heresy that teaches there is a direct relationship between people’s belief/commitment to God and the material blessings they receive. It is often presented under the guise of supposed dedication of one’s life to God with an expectation of substantial wealth as a reward. As one might expect from the charlatans who preach this concept, one’s expectation of wealth (“name it and claim it”) can often be enhanced by contributing financially to the church in which this falsehood is taught.

Simply put, prosperity theology is not Christian, is not Biblical, and does not work. It is used to prey upon people with a hunger for wealth and an ignorance of Scripture, often to benefit so-called pastors who live sumptuous life styles at the expense of their parishioners or contributors. If you have been tempted by the principles of prosperity theology, or if you know someone who has, please consume the antidote – careful Bible study, with particular attention to what Jesus actually said and did, accompanied by a prayerful request for understanding of the truth he taught and demonstrated.

Oh, and one final thought. I do have quite a bit of ‘stuff’ ... so is that a blessing? Sure, in a sense. But it is also a responsibility that demands answers to the two questions noted above: (1) How did you become wealthy? and (2) What are you doing with your wealth?

I’m not telling. J

The incarnation

Christianity rests on three principle tenets: (1) Because God loves, he came to earth as a human, (2) He [Jesus] gave his life as the price of offering people forgiveness, (3) He came back to life, and will gather his followers to eternal paradise. Myriad doctrines and theological positions exist within the Christian faith, many of which are arguable, but to rightly identify as a Christian, these points are non-negotiable. [These also provide a useful contrast to Islam, which specifically denies all three, but that is another topic].

The event in which God came to earth as a human is called the incarnation (not to be confused with reincarnation, the idea that dead people’s spirits return for additional lives as other people or animals). For many centuries prior to Jesus’ birth, the Jewish people had looked forward to the messiah/savior/liberator promised in their sacred scriptures (the Bible’s  “Old Testament”). Although their scriptures said the messiah would save people from their sins, the Jews living at the time of Christ hoped he would free them from Roman rule and re-establish their theocracy. This was not his purpose, and he explicitly said so [John 18:36].

The story of the incarnation -– of God coming to earth/becoming one of us/being a human – is told in various ways. At Christmas, churches around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus through songs, sermons, and reenactments complete with angels, shepherds, and three wise men from the East (we’ll ignore for now the fact that December 25 was almost certainly not Jesus’ birthday, and the ‘three wise men’ were an unknown number of astrologers who visited many months later). Congregants sing “Away in the Manger’ as they envision his birth. We picture him as a baby in a little crib filled with straw, and with all the usual appeal of babies ... cute, cuddly, innocent, and already exceptional (“no crying he makes ....).

At Christmas, we are encouraged to recognize the great sacrifice God made in coming to earth not as a king or a mighty leader, but in the humble form of a human baby. True, the Son of God chose to trade the glory, majesty, and power of heaven to live as a human (incarnate), an exercise in love and humility that should leave us in absolute awe. But he did not become human the day he was born of Mary. The incarnation actually took place nine months earlier when, as an angel had predicted, the virgin Mary became pregnant [Matthew 1:18-21, Luke 1:30-31]. God initially came not as a baby but as the fertilized egg in Mary's womb. He shared our humanity to the extent that he began at the very beginning of human life, just like we did.

The incarnation is a miracle of even greater proportion than that of a baby born to a virgin. It was God’s way of showing his total commitment to becoming like us, to face all we face and more, to lower himself to our most humble and helpless level. This adds another dimension to our appreciation of how far God was willing to go to connect with our humanity. And, although we hardly expect “Away in the Manger” to be replaced by “He came as a Fetus”, the stark facts of his incarnation have implications regarding how his followers should view abortion.

Social, Capital or Communal?

Recent political discussions (including many for which the word ‘discussion’ implies a degree of civility and willingness to listen that is non-existent) include arguments for or against socialism or capitalism as a preferred system. The opinions voiced often fall short not only in politeness, but also in clarity and logic. In addition, many pundits seem to lack an understanding of the basic types of systems, or the differences between economic and political systems.

Three Contrasting Systems:

Productive debate depends on agreement about the meaning of the terms used. For this article, the following definitions will apply (source: the Oxford Dictionary):

·       Socialism -- A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole; (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

·       Communism -- A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

·       Capitalism -- An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

It is important to note that not only do these three systems differ in how they treat certain aspects of a community/group/country, but in the scope of their respective definitions. For example:

Communism involves a system that disallows private ownership of property in an attempt to ensure production based on ability and distribution based on need. The classic view of communism does not specify a governmental structure, but assumes one that implements its principles with fairness.

Socialism allows for private ownership of property as long as the property involved in economic matters is controlled by the community/group/country (usually, via a central government). Like communism, it does not specify a governmental structure, but assumes a mechanism that manages the public ownership/regulation of the economy.

Capitalism, in its purest sense, excludes community/group/country ownership or control of economics in favor of private ownership and a profit motive. It does not specify a governmental structure, but implies that whatever government exists does not interfere in economic matters.

Critique of Each System:

Each of these economic systems has serious shortcomings, due primarily either to false assumptions about human nature, or touting an appealing economic theory while ignoring the realities of human behavior. The respective systems’ flaws include:

Communism – This system makes two seriously faulty assumptions of theory, and adds a third in practical implementation:

(1) The principle “from each according to his ability” assumes workers self-motivation based on a non-selfish dedication to the good of all members of the community/group/country. Unfortunately, it ignores a basic trait of humans ... self-interest. People are naturally selfish (to verify this, observe a group of toddlers ‘sharing’ toys), and benefit to self is their natural primary motivation.

(2) The corresponding principle “to each according to his need” follows the same false assumption regarding human nature. Only if people subvert their self-interest to the good of the community/group/country will they be satisfied with only their “fair share” of the available wealth.

(3) When communism is actually adopted, a third shortcoming is encountered. The governmental structure put in place is assumed to be one that will manage the public ownership of property in the best interest of the populace. This implies fairness, efficiency, and commitment to equitable treatment of all members of the community/group/country. In reality, every large scale attempt to implement communism has proven disastrous in terms of economic productivity, societal advancement, and human rights. **

** Because implementation of communism requires a uniform commitment to the good of the group that outweighs the members’ natural self-interest, the system has generally proven unable to attain and sustain success. Notable exceptions are relatively small groups, usually those whose shared religious beliefs are sufficient to subdue individual’s self-interest. Examples in the U.S. include Iowa’s early 20th century Amana colonies, and the upper Midwest’s Hutterite colonies.

Socialism – This system stands on its own, despite Marxist’s insistence that it inevitably leads to communism (an idea negated by real history). Some observations about the socialist system:

(1) Socialism is not as inherently flawed as communism, namely because it does not often advocate the same degree of central ownership and control of the various facets of the economy. When analyzing socialism, one must recognize the term can be applied to an extremely broad spectrum ranging from that of dominant private ownership and minimal governmental control, to dominant public ownership and extensive governmental control.

(2) Socialistic systems are probably best viewed as a continuum stretching from minimal to maximum ownership/regulation of facets of the economy. The farther the system moves along this continuum, the more it begins to face the same three shortcomings exhibited by communism. That is, it runs afoul of human nature in the areas of motivation, self-interest, and equitable governance. Increased governmental authority equates to increased likelihood of undesirable results in the same three areas.

(3) In a practical sense, most systems described as capitalistic are, in fact, a blend of capitalism and socialism (more on this later).

Capitalism – This system, like communism and socialism, has embedded in its structure certain flaws or faulty assumptions which, when the system is implemented, become apparent. The primarily issues include:

(1) Perhaps the strongest attribute of capitalism, its ability to motivate, is closely related to one of its key weaknesses. The profit motive appeals to the self-interest of individuals; this aligns with human nature. Private ownership of many aspects of the economy offers financial rewards that motivate people toward the levels of effort and risk-taking that generate high levels of production and innovation. Unfortunately, self-interest - the same human attribute that prompts a high level of motivation – too often engenders disregard for others and an attitude best described as greed.

(2) One modern aspect of capitalism has simultaneously fostered the greatest economic advances in history and a great imbalance in wealth (probably not the greatest imbalance ever, but still very significant). This is the invention of business structures (trading companies, stock companies, and more recently corporations) which allow individual investors to combine their capital to form large, economically powerful organizations. The positive aspect of these mechanisms is the ability to fund businesses far beyond the scope of individuals (which of us could fund General Motors or Google?) which then possess the resources to produce more and better goods and services. The negative aspect is that the financial rewards of these organizations accrue only, or at least primarily, to those who are in some way part of them, e.g. a stockholder, employee, or manager.

(3) If left unregulated, there is nothing inherent in capitalism that commands the attention of business other than the profit motive. Free and unfettered capitalist organizations focus on the good of the entire community/group/country/world only to the extent that the stakeholders (in particular, board members and management) wish to do so. The history of modern business is replete with examples of enterprises which, in their pursuit of profit alone, exploited their employees, their communities, and the environment.

Some Conclustions:

1. Each of the three economic systems discussed above, even if theoretically advantageous, carries within it one or more “fatal flaws” which, if left unchecked, work to the detriment of the broader community/group/country/world.

2. Though one hardly expects this to be covered in economic texts or classes, the common denominator of all three systems is their vulnerability to a single human trait – self-interest (aka selfishness, aka greed). The individual’s natural tendency to place self above others, which honesty requires us to recognize as universal, may be the greatest economic challenge in any system.

3. Communism and socialism are closely related, share the same weakness in terms of incompatibility with the reality of human motivation, and vary principally in the degree to which the theories are at variance with reality.

4. There is reason to believe that capitalism best leverages people’s natural drive, and that the profit motive is compatible with their self-interest. But left unregulated, there is no reason to believe capitalism will act for the greater good of the community/group/country/world.

5. The description of America as a capitalist country is only partially accurate. Ownership of economic production is primarily private. But in most types of businesses, government is highly involved both as a regulator and, in some areas, an owner or investor. Government also exerts control over many businesses in its role as the largest consumer of goods and services.

6. A realistic appraisal of human nature leads to the conclusion that both unregulated capitalism and either communism or complete socialism will undoubtedly fail to maximize the potential and well-being of the populace. Unrestrained capitalism will exploit them; communism/socialism will de-motivate them. The reasonable answer is a blend of regulated capitalism (to leverage natural self-interest) and very limited socialism (to avoid destroying the motivation of natural self-interest).

7. Business should in most instances be privately owned and financed, but regulated to an extent that will (a) retain financial rewards that appeal to their stakeholders’ self-interest, and (b) hold in check the stakeholders’ natural greed.

8. Arguments framed in an “either/or” view, and favoring either unregulated capitalism or full socialism as “the solution” ignore the reality of human nature and the role of self-interest both as a positive and a negative. The issue is not one of “either/or” but of balance. The optimal blend of capitalism and “conservative socialism” (via regulation) will sync with the realities of human behavior, and thereby best serve the members of the community/group/country/world.

A final comment: I have chosen not to address “democratic socialism” because it is not an economic theory. It is instead an imagined hybrid of an economic theory and a type of political system. As such, it merely obfuscates the discussion of capitalism and socialism.