Sanity

I was glad to hear today that World Vision's board had reversed their earlier decision. I thought their original decision was misguided, their theological reasoning for it woefully inadequate, and it appeared naive of the inevitable consequences. Notwithstanding my disagreement, I was troubled by how quickly some Christian thought leaders rushed to question whether the leaders of World Vision were actually Christians.

World Vision's board repented today, saying

The board acknowledged it made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. … We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority.

As I remarked to a friend, "I respect them for that. It's hard for people, especially sometimes accomplished people like those who sit on boards such as World Vision's, to admit mistakes and correct course. It's also admirable because historically most of WV's support has come from mainline denominations and liberal Christians... Exactly the groups who will be most upset by this and most likely to withdraw their support. The board felt Godly conviction, reversed itself, and did so in the face of almost certain sacrifice. That's praiseworthy. It's not always what we do right, but often how we respond to failure, that shows what we're truly made of."

I also read today some sanity on Jen Hatmaker's blog:

“We needn’t race to our laptops with our hair on fire every time another Christian offends our personal sensibilities.”

Brothers and sisters, I am starving for reasonable, measured Christ-followers to become the dominant voices in the ongoing culture wars. We needn’t race to our laptops with our hair on fire every time another Christian offends our personal sensibilities. We certainly ought to consider calling another believer’s salvation into question the gravest action.
 
We need intellectually honest Christians capable of critical self-evaluation. The church has never, not for one millisecond of its entire history, been right about everything. This sobering fact should give us pause and inject some much needed humility into our ethos. It should at least produce Christians who are swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. Better to treasure our beloved gospel with humble hands than mar it with arrogant hearts, because as often as we consider ourselves its gatekeepers, we are really only its unworthy recipients, usually blind to our own defects while remaining crystal clear on everyone else’s. 

If we are truly concerned about revival, about God’s sustained presence in our generation, then our only recourse is to get on our knees and beg Him to purify our own sinful hearts. Let us not cast the burden on “them” and “they” but take faithful responsibility to allow God’s spirit to reign in you and me. May we take precious care of our fellow man, treating hearts and minds and bellies with the utmost respect, daring to believe that love is indeed the most excellent way. And may our generation not be remembered by all we tore down but by all we built back up.

“You will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.”
Isaiah 58:12

On Christian education and the dangers of indoctrination

Dr. Nijay Gupta is joining the staff of George Fox Evangelical Seminary as a professor of New Testament studies. I have the pleasure and privilege of serving at GFS as adjunct faculty and doctoral advisor. I'm very pleased the students at George Fox University and Evangelical Seminary will soon be benefitting from Dr. Gupta's well-regarded scholarship.

I appreciated Dr. Gupta's recent essay at Missio Alliance: "President White, Biblical Gender Roles, & The High Cost Of Indoctrination". It's well worth taking the time to read and consider.

Roger Olson church membership

"Belong, believe, behave?" or "believe, behave, belong"? Theologian Roger Olson has some thoughts on church membership:

What should a Christian church require for “belonging” in the full sense of church membership (including holding office and/or teaching)? At minimum a Christian church should require members to believe in (if not fully understand) the doctrines of the incarnation (deity and humanity of Christ) and Trinity. I would add also belief that all people stand in need of salvation which is by grace alone by faith and cannot be earned. In addition, members should affirm that Jesus is the risen Lord who left the tomb empty, lives forever more and will return in glory.

What should a church require for “behaving?” At minimum, a Christian church should require members to affirm repentance for sin and desire to live a Christ like life with the help of the Holy Spirit and the community of God’s people. The person should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or in the name of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who cannot affirm those beliefs (even with mental reservations) and desire to live that kind of life should not be given full membership in any Christian church. However, that is not to say they cannot belong in some sense of the word, depending on whether they are perceived to be moving in the right direction. A person who flagrantly denies those beliefs and rejects repentance and living a Christ like life should not even be allowed to think he or she “belongs” (even as they are allowed to attend).

Would that we all

Shane Claiborne writes of Pope Francis:

Picture: AFP/OSSERVATORE ROMANO Source: AFP

Picture: AFP/OSSERVATORE ROMANO Source: AFP

He didn’t don the snazzy red shoes and fancy papal attire.  He chose a humble apartment rather than the posh papal palace.  He washed the feet of women in prison.  He touched folks that others did not want to touch, like a man with a disfigured face, making headline news around the world.  He has put the margins in the spotlight.  He refused to condemn sexual minorities saying, “Who am I to judge?”  He has let kids steal the show, allowing one little boy to wander up on stage and stand by him as he preached.

And, one of my favorites on the Pope’s greatest hits of 2014:  he stopped the Pope-mobile to pick up a hitchhiker, one of his pals from Brazil.

I enjoy Pope Francis. In so many ways he is what the Catholic Church needed. His humble demeanor, the unprepossessing way in which he sets aside all the usual pomp and ceremony of his lofty office, his embrace of those on the margins of life; all these show him to be a man of extraordinary and laudable virtues. One might even say in many regards Francis exemplifies the life of a Christ-follower. If one takes Jesus' own words seriously, this conclusion is incontestable.

Meanwhile Evangelical Christians doubt Francis, if he really believes Catholic doctrine, is a Christian at all. Evangelical leaders caution Evangelicals about Catholicism and the Pope when Francis is talked about approvingly by the news media, and warn Evangelicals to not get caught up in "magisterium envy."

It's unfortunate some Evangelical leaders feel the need to refight the Reformation so strongly they squander important opportunities to affirm and promote behavior of a major leader showing Christianity at its best. To be sure, there are significant, substantive doctrinal differences between Catholics and Evangelicals. But, when Francis models for us a lifestyle and relational ethos that in most regards typifies that to which Jesus called his followers, Christian leaders should applaud.

Photo from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/16/2943221/rise-progressive-catholicism-pope-francis-polling-worlds-catholics/#

Photo from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/16/2943221/rise-progressive-catholicism-pope-francis-polling-worlds-catholics/#

Christians who make every news story or personal approving mention of Francis a referendum on the theological failings of Catholicism aren't building the Kingdom, however much they may relish their role as defenders of doctrinal purity. They would do better to leaven their words with kindness and grace, noting that Francis is setting an example all Christians should emulate (Matt 25:37-40; John 14:15; John 13:34-35). Imagine for a moment what the reputation of the Church in the world would be like if a majority of Christ-followers behaved as Francis does.

Of course, some Christians are by temperament and training prophetic types. They feel compelled to point out where other Christians have gone wayward in faith and life, and call them to repentance. Maybe, just maybe, however, next time Francis is in the news for doing something strikingly beautiful or heart-touching they could think of aiming their rhetorical fire elsewhere. Instead of bashing him, perhaps they could praise him for getting it right.

It is beyond argument that Francis' positions on the Ordo Salutis or the Five Solae are never going to pass Evangelical muster. Notwithstanding the very significant theological differences Evangelicals have with Francis, they should embrace and praise his example in actually practicing what he preaches. His gentleness, his humility, his discipline in resisting the pride-stoking limelight of celebrity and seeking to live a life of simplicity, are all marks of Christian character that have been sadly lacking in some notable Evangelical leaders of late. Perhaps before slinging stones at Francis and his Catholicism, we should consider with humility the degree to which we all fail to emulate the perfection of our savior (John 8:4-11). 

In the light of where scripture is crystal clear, the most pertinent question to be asked is not whether Francis can believe what he believes and still be a Christian. Rather, Evangelicals might better ask themselves why more of their leaders' ministries and lives aren't typified by the same marks of love, beauty, and goodness that resonate throughout the whole of Francis' life.

Spreading the Gospel in the Czech Republic

My family and I are supporters of Josiah Venture/KAM Ministries, a fine missionary organization working diligently to share the Gospel in the Czech Republic and throughout Eastern Europe as a whole. Most American Evangelicals are unaware that over 80% of Czech people identify as atheists, and yet a huge percentage of Czech youth express a high degree of interest in learning more about Jesus and the Bible despite their identification as atheists. 

Throughout the year Josiah Venture sponsors a series of Christian concerts and outreach events in Czech public schools called the EXIT tour. They speak to the youth on a variety of life issues. Threaded throughout all their talks is a presentation of the Gospel. As a draw for these events, they also present a Christian concert at the end of the week which is used to also kick-off an outreach and follow-up campaign by local churches.

The Josiah Venture story is a great one, and it's a missionary organization well worth supporting. Here are one band's reflections on what it was like to be a part of the EXIT tour.

What do Walter White and celebrity pastors share in common?

James Duncan has a provocative article over at First Things entitled, Celebrity Pastors' Walter White Problem: on megachurch megabucks. Duncan writes,

In the final season of Breaking Bad, Walter White, the chemistry teacher turned drug kingpin, has made more money than he can spend without breaking his cover as a mild-mannered cancer survivor. In one scene, he and his wife stare disconsolately at a ton of hundred dollar bills stacked two feet high, realizing it was all but useless to them.

Recently we’ve been discovering that celebrity pastors understand that they have a similar conundrum. Having built megachurches with budgets in the tens of millions and generous salaries to match, they can’t really spend all the money they’re earning. Unless they’re fully certified prosperity preachers, there’s a certain decorum that pastors must follow when spending their congregation’s money. When you live off money given to God, your public lifestyle ought to be just slightly constrained.

It’s the Walter White Problem. White couldn’t spend his fortune because it was dirty. Pastors can’t spend theirs because it’s holy.

In recent months more than a few intrepid journalists and internet bloggers have begun to illuminate the interestingly intricate ways in which some megachurch pastors shield their true income from the view of their church members and the public at-large. Strange and complex book deals and publishing arrangements and not disclosing income to church members (a contentious and debatable topic for most churches) are but two ways in which church and parachurch leaders shield income from disclosure. Some, if they have sophisticated tax lawyers and accountants, may use things such as Charitable Remainder Unitrusts (CRUTs). At least one famous megachurch pastor has done so, according to public records. 

As I understand it, the way a Charitable Remainder Unitrust works is that a donor creates a legal trust, and chooses a non-profit organization (sometimes a church) as the beneficiary of the trust's funds. The donor then funds the trust with money. When the trustee of the trust (usually also the donor) dies, the beneficiary organization gets the "remainder" (all the money remaining) in the trust. That explains the "Charitable" and "Remainder" aspects of the trust. What about the "Unitrust"?

When the trust is formed, a non-charitable beneficiary must be selected and a set percentage of the trust's assets (5-50%) is to be distributed each year to that beneficiary. This is the "unitrust" part of the arrangement. The distribution continues for a set time or until the death of the "settlor," usually the non-charitable beneficiary. The IRS requires that 10% of the trust's assets at creation must pass to the charitable beneficiary.

Why would especially high-earning pastors use CRUTs? From a tax planning perspective, these kinds of trusts may provide a number of tax-favored benefits that increase the amount of earnings the high-earning pastor retains. They also provide a side-benefit that some pastors might find appealing.

Say a pastor writes books, and receives a major advance from the publishing company or the book sells so well the pastor receives $1 million in compensation. The pastor can donate all the money to his CRUT of which the pastor is the non-charitable beneficiary with an annual payout rate of 50% of the trust assets. His church is the charitable beneficiary. In such an arrangement, the pastor might technically and legally claim he gave the entire $1 million of his book profits to the church. But, in actuality, the pastor will be drawing, in this arrangement, from the proceeds for the rest of his life. By the time the church actually receives the funds there may only be 10% left. So the pastor "gave" $1 million to his church, but in the end tally the church received $100,000 and the pastor $900,000.

What I find particularly interesting in all this is the underlying question of "why?" If pastors and their boards want to set a pastor's salary in excess of $1 million a year, as some are purported to be earning, that's really their and their churches' business. As long as they are doing nothing illegal, then what they are paid is an equation of business, ethical, moral, and theological factors to be worked out by the individual church or ministry. So why do so many megachurch pastors go to such great lengths to make opaque what should be transparent, if in fact there is nothing to hide?

It seems to me, and perhaps I being woefully naive here, megachurch pastors and church boards should operate with the utmost transparency in how they designate, assign, and use "God's" money. After all, these are not businessmen who have amassed great fortunes by virtue of selling goods or services that multitudes wish to purchase. Instead, their salaries are directly underwritten by the parishioners who believe they are giving back to God and his work. If these pastors and their church boards think they are righteous in paying extraordinarily high salaries, they should be more transparent about what they are doing with what they claim i "God's money."

Covering up the inner workings of a church or ministry's financial apparatus with a legal accounting smoke-screen rarely works out for ministries. Inevitably the truth comes out. People are savvy enough these days to know that when it comes to financial scandals, wherever you see smoke, there's probably fire. 

Opera Friday

Leontyne Price had one of her first great successes in 1952 singing the role of Bess, in Gershwin's opera Porgy and Bess. She soon left Bess behind, and went on achieve success in many other great roles. Her rendition of the aria/song "Summertime" from the opera that proved to be her launch to stardom remained an important part of her concert and recital career.

Here she is singing "Summertime" with the Boston Pops, decades after first singing the aria, still bringing the roof down and the audience to their feet.