Beyond Evangelical | The Blog of Frank Viola

Unveiling Christ

Frank Viola — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:01:18 +0000

After reading Deep Ecclesiology, Jesus Manifesto, or Finding Organic Church, numerous young men who are in ministry have asked me the following question:

“Frank, you talk a lot about preaching Jesus Christ as opposed to preaching ‘things.’ This really resonates. I’ve never heard you speak yet, so can you give me examples from your own preaching of what ‘preaching Christ’ looks and sounds like?”

I’m posting my answer here as I believe it will be of interest to many of you. What follows are five examples. Each message seeks to unveil the staggering glories of the Lord Jesus Christ. The messages are also available on iTunes, Mp3 download, via Google Reader, RSS feed, etc. Just look at the top left-hand side after you click on each link.

Epic Jesus: The Christ You Never Knew

Diary of a Desperate Samaritan Woman: Telling the Story Differently

Remember Peter: Rethinking the Love Christ

Living by the Indwelling Life of Christ

The Eternal Purpose of God in Christ

On a related note, I’ve had many conversations with preachers (and teachers) in which they’ve complained that they often “run out” of things to preach. And thus they’re always on the look-out for new “sermon material.”

A quick word about this. Paul talked about receiving a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But when it pleased God . . . to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him . . . (Gal. 1:15-16)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him (Eph. 1:17)

In my experience, when a person receives a groundbreaking revelation of Christ, they discover a well that never runs dry. From that point on, they never run out of things to preach. And when they do preach or teach, it is always HIM who is declared. What is imparted is not simply words, concepts, and ideas; what is imparted is LIFE. And Christ, who is LIFE, is inexhaustible.

That I might preach the inexhaustible riches of Christ . . . (Eph. 3:8)

Jeremy Myers created a video trailer for the first message to make it easy for people to share with others. Click here to view it.

May the Holy Spirit use these messages to open the door of your heart to a deeper revelation of Jesus Christ.

Rethinking the Gospel

Frank Viola — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:54:58 +0000

As a young Christian, I was taught that the gospel is a plan—”the plan of salvation.” Some Bible teachers used to frame that plan into “Four Spiritual Laws” and “The Romans Road.”

In the first-century Roman world, however, the word “gospel” was used to describe the announcement that a new emperor had taken the throne. “Heralds” would be “sent” throughout the Roman Empire to announce this “good news.”

Their message was, “We have a new emperor. His name is Tiberius Caesar, adjust your life and bow the knee.” Interestingly, the Roman emperor was also called “Savior” and “Lord” and was regarded as the one who would establish “peace” in the Empire.

In addition, the Roman emperor was expected to bring justice, peace, prosperity, and blessings to the world. He was also called “Pontifex Maximus” which means “chief priest.” The Romans also believed that when an emperor ascended into heaven, he was enthroned as being divine. Thus the emperor (at his death) was also called “son of God.”

Consequently, when the apostles (“sent ones”) used the term “gospel” and declared that Jesus was now the Lord and Savior of the world, it was a direct affront to the Roman hierarchy, especially Caesar (see Acts 17:7, as an example). The believing Jews no doubt connected the gospel-preaching of the apostles to Isaiah’s prophecy—a proclamation that God Himself was now reigning in the Person of Jesus (see Isa. 52:7).

If you examine everywhere the term “gospel” is used throughout the New Testament, you will discover that it’s always bound up with the Person of Jesus. (His work is united with His Person. While people regularly separate His work from His Person, you can’t separate His Person from His work. The same is true with His teachings. See Jesus Manifesto for a detailed discussion on this point.)

In His preaching and teaching, Jesus consistently pointed to Himself. Read the four gospels carefully sometime and count the number of times that Jesus speaks about Himself. You will have no doubts that His message—His gospel—was Himself. Paul, Peter, John, et al. preached the same gospel as did Jesus. Their message was also Christ.

In short, the message of the gospel is Jesus Christ as Lord (=world ruler), Savior, the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament (including the Adamic commission, the prophets, the priests, the kings, the sages, the temple, the sacrifices, the land, the Law, the promises, and the entire story of Israel), and Jesus as the Resurrection and the Life.

The gospel is also bound up with the eternal purpose of God in Christ—which is not separate from Jesus—or as Paul calls it, “the mystery.” Romans 16:25, Ephesians 6:19 and Ephesians 3:7-11 associate the preaching of “the mystery” and “the unsearchable riches of Christ” with the gospel. This point is often missed among those who teach about the gospel today, for the eternal purpose (“the mystery”) gets very little air-play in evangelical circles today—even though it’s at the heart of New Testament revelation.

The gospel, then, isn’t a postulate; it’s a Person. Properly conceived, the gospel is the proclamation of Jesus—His Life, Story, and Work—reaching back from the Old Testament story of Adam, the patriarchs, and Israel to the New Testament which announces His first and second appearances.

Jesus of Nazareth is the good news.

For this reason, the four Gospels were regarded as “the gospel” by the early church. And what story do the four gospels tell? They tell the story of Jesus. He is the gospel incarnate.

While many modern Christians reduce the gospel to two verses in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 3-4), Paul’s “definition” of the gospel in that passage actually extends to verse 28 when God becomes “all in all.” And the story found in the gospels is the same story that is told in the New Testament.

Charles Spurgeon got it right when he said, “Preach Christ . . . He is the whole gospel. His person, offices, and work must be our one great, all-comprehending theme.”

Rob Bell

Frank Viola — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:09 +0000

Whatever one wishes to say about Rob Bell, he’s a marketing genius [Frankie V. tips hat to Robbie B]. Last year, Bell wrote a monster best-seller on the subject of hell called Love Wins. He set it off with a masterful “bait-and-hook” video trailer. The bait was taken, and the book caught fire . . . both kinds!

I have gone on record saying that if you’re a Christian author and you want to sell a non-fiction bestseller, you’d be wise to write on one of three topics: (1) Hell (2) Heaven (3) Christians are Too Lukewarm – They Aren’t Doing Enough to Preach the Gospel, To Make Disciples, To Make the World a Better Place – So They Need to Get Off Their Lazy Duffs and Get to Work (that title is a tad long, but you get the idea).

Write a book on those topics and you’ll have a very good chance at hitting the NY Times Bestseller List.

I’m being cereal. Dead cereal.

Anyways . . . since the release of Rob Bell’s book on hell, many have asked me what I thought about the controversial volume. (I’m always surprised by questions like that since [cough] hell isn’t one of my passions or specialties.)

My Take

In a blog post I published last year, I humored my friends and summed up my feelings on the question of hell and the controversy surrounding Rob Bell’s book. Here’s what I wrote:

At the moment, countless evangelicals are immersed in a debate about the existence and nature of hell. Does it exist? If so, what is it like? How long will it last? And who will go there . . . and why?

A fair segment of the younger people who are engaged in this debate assume that this dialogue is new. But many of them aren’t aware that the debate is ancient (centuries old), and it resurfaces on the mainstream Christian landscape every now and then. The 90s was one such time. The book Four Views on Hell originally came out in 1992 when four scholars intelligently and graciously debated one another on their diverging views of hell. (If you are interested in this subject, I’d recommend this book.) I’d also suggest Leonard Sweet’s podcast episode on the subject.

In the midst of the recent blood-up-to-the-horse’s-bit online war that’s been raging over this issue, I’ve been asked numerous times to share my view on hell. So here it is (the following statements were Tweets of mine, hence their brevity.)

The greatest Christian minds differ on the NATURE, PURPOSE and SUBJECTS of hell (subjects = who exactly will go there). But whatever we can say about it, the NT is clear on two points:

1) it exists, and 2) it’s undesirable.

Jesus Christ wins because He was willing to lose ultimately for our sake. What a Lord! #Winning

I am not a universalist.

The task of those who preach: To unveil the stunning greatness of Christ. If people see His beauty, He is irresistible.

“Jesus is not one of many ways to approach God, nor is He the best of several ways; He is the only way.” ~ A. W. Tozer

If there’s life on other planets & they need a Redeemer, Jesus of Nazareth is it.

Some people will pass out after they see who makes it in the end. Angels will be running around all over heaven with smelling salts to wake them up (Luke 13:28, example). [I wrote this line in Reimagining Church.]

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” ~ H. Richard Niebuhr, summarizing the gospel of liberal theology.

Here’s my concluding statement on hell: When I’m finished exploring and declaring the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ with my brothers and sisters, I’ll get around to dissecting the anatomy of hell.

‘Nuff said.

Incidentally, a few people wrote me flaming emails condemning me for not condemning Rob Bell’s book – a book I never read. A few others flamed me for not defending Bell’s book – a book I never read.

Sorry, but I don’t review books I’ve never read. And neither should you. Afterall, it’s been reported that I’m the author of “the most dangerous book people have never read.”

N.T. Wright’s Take

Two months after I published my post, N.T. Wright weighed-in on the debate. You’ll see that Wright makes many of the same points:

My usual counter question is: “Why are Americans so fixated on hell?” Far more Americans ask me about hell than ever happens in my own country. And I really want to know, why is it that the most prosperous affluent nation on earth is really determined to be sure that they know precisely who is going to be frying in hell and what the temperature will be and so on.

There’s something quite disturbing about that actually, especially when your nation and mine has done quite a lot in the last decade or two to drop bombs on people elsewhere and to make a lot of other people’s lives hell. So I think there are some quite serious issues about why people want to ask that question.

Having said that, I am not a universalist. I’ve never been universalist. Someone quoted a theologian saying, “I’m not a universalist, but maybe God is.” That’s kind of a neat way of saying, “Ok, there’s stuff in Scripture which is a little puzzling about this, and we can’t be absolutely sure all down the line.”

But it seems to me that the New Testament is very clear that there are people who do reject God and reject what would have been His best will for them, and God honors that decision. How that works and how you then deal with the questions which result I have written about at some length.

I don’t think myself that Rob Bell has quite taken the same line that I did in Surprised by Hope. I haven’t actually had the conversation with Rob since his book was published. So, one of these days, we will and we’ll have that one out.

I do think it’s good to stir things up because so many people, as I say, particularly in American culture, really want to know the last fine-tuned details of hell. And it seems to be part of their faith, often a central part of their faith, that a certain number of people are simply going to go to hell and we know who these people are.

I think Rob is saying, “Hey wait a minute. Start reading the Bible differently. God is not a horrible ogre who is just determined to fry as many people as He can forever. God is actually incredibly generous and gracious and wonderful and loving and caring. And if you paint a picture of God which is other than that, then you’re producing a monster and that has long-lasting effects in Christian lives and in the church.”

Rob Bell Meets Jon Zens

I don’t know Rob Bell and vice versa. I’ve never read any of his books, and I doubt he’s read any of mine. However, my esteemed friend and colleague Jon Zens has just released a unique response to Rob Bell’s book which he curiously titled Christ Minimized.

I read the prepublication manuscript because Jon asked me to (very nicely with cherries on top). Three observations on Zen’s new book:

Anything Zens writes is worth reading. Even if you disagree with him, you’ll have quite a task on your hands providing cogent answers as to why you disagree. Jon Zens is an incisive and compelling writer. For that reason, a few of his titles made my Best 100 Christian Books Ever Written list.
If you believe Rob Bell’s book is “gospel” or you are convinced it’s Grade-A certified heresy, Zens’ book will throw light on the subject.
Not a few Christian authors have jumped on the Rob Bell bandwagon, publishing their own titles in response to “Love Wins.” (I’ve not read those books either, by the way.) Zens, who I understand has read these other volumes, tells me that his response explores the subject from a different mountain.

That said, I commend to you Jon Zens’ newest release: Christ Minimized: A Response to Rob Bell’s LOVE WINS.

My overall statement on the book: Whether you agree or disagree with everything Jon says, his new book is an important contribution to the discussion. In addition, Jon is one of the most assessable authors I know. So you can dialogue with him directly about his book and tell him exactly where he is in error. Right Jon?, (Cough).

I hope Jon’s book sells as many copies as Love Wins has. You can aid that hope by clicking the “Tweet,” Facebook (“Like/Share”), and “StumbleUpon” buttons below. And of course, by buying a copy or two for your ole’ bad self.

A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTING: For the sake of those of you who are new to the blog, you may want to read the Blog Manager’s rules for moderation before you comment. She doesn’t approve comments that don’t meet her guidelines. Just sayin’ . . .

Recommended Books on the Subject:

Christ Minimized: A Response to Rob Bell’s LOVE WINS

Four Views on Hell

Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World

Beyond Evangelical: Part III

Frank Viola — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:39:23 +0000

“Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

My interview with N.T. Wright yesterday added some spice to our present series. Since the last post in this series, there have been some interesting reactions around the blogosphere. Consequently, I’d like to do two things in this post. First, highlight someone’s comment from last week. Second, interact with some of the other remarks I’ve received.

A Comment Worth Underscoring

I was encouraged to read so many insightful comments on the posts I’ve published since my return to blogging. So many of them were excellent and helpful. But there was one in particular that stood out. It was from Jonathan Cottrell. He wrote it in response to Beyond Evangelical: Part II. Here’s what he said:

Christ is all. My wife and I have been having a conversation of late that revolves around how people would summarize their faith in one word. That one word speaks more than a thousand words, if you ask me. I imagine that the groups would summarize as:

Group 1 [Systemtizers]: “Grace” or “Truth”
Group 2 [Activists]: “Love” or “Mission”
Group 3 [Emoters]: “Spirit” or “Power”
Group 4: [Beyond Evangelicals] “Jesus” or “Christ”

Is there any word that should summarize our common faith than His Name? I think not.

Interacting With Other Comments

Certainly, one of the push-backs to what Jonathan said is, “Are you saying that the other streams don’t love Jesus? Or that they aren’t Christ-centered?”

I can’t speak for Jonathan, but I suspect he would say “absolutely, not.” The point of his comment is that other words and concepts often tend to be more dominant in one’s vocabulary and thinking than Jesus Himself. Here’s what I wrote to another person on another blog regarding this same question:

In my observation, all streams would say they are “Christ-o-centric.” And in reality, some of the leaders of the first, second, and third streams would definitely fit the bill – though *many* in stream 1 would better be described as “God-centered” over/against “Jesus-centered” by their own admission. And in stream 3, many would be better described as “Holy Spirit-centered” over/against “Jesus-centered.” Some (not all) in stream 2 are more “Mission-centered,” arguing that missiology comes before Christology (so they’ve said).

With stream 4, the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ is front and center and permeates everything else, almost to the point of obsession. It comes to close to Larry Crabb’s immortal words: “Our passion for Jesus is the only passion that will not destroy us.” Or as I’ve put it elsewhere: Christ is All, everything else is commentary.

It’s all too easy to replace a “thing” that’s related to Jesus with Christ Himself. I know that from experience. And we are all subject to doing it without realizing it. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with my book Jesus Manifesto written with Leonard Sweet. But the overwhelming response to the book, which was hugely humbling to me, provoked some of the analysis in my series. Many readers said they believed that they were Christ-centered, but realized that they really weren’t. Everyone’s mileage may vary of course; but this response was eye-opening.

Jesus Manifesto is somewhat of a manifesto of sorts for what I’m calling “beyond evangelicals” . . . since that’s the best way I know how to describe such people (and we really do exist) . I hate labels myself, but shamelessly admitted in the beginning of Part II of the series that I don’t know how to communicate intelligibly about the divergent streams within evangelicalism without employing them.

The “eternal purpose of God” (how I believe Scripture unfolds it, at least) and “living by the *indwelling life* of Christ” are, in my experience and observation, missing notes in the others three streams. I say that speaking as one who has been part of all three streams myself before moving “beyond” (so to speak), and in dialoguing with some of the recognized “leaders” of these other streams in private conversations.

Anyways, that’s how the terrain looks from my hill. But I may be looking at the back of the rocks while others may be viewing their fronts.

Further Observations

“Beyond Evangelical” isn’t a movement. Nor do we have a “leader.” And I don’t know anyone who is interested in the job. A number of people (myself included) have been articulating the four notes that beyond evangelicals are passionate about. But that doesn’t make them/us “leaders” of the tribe. Not in any formal sense anyway.

With respect to Part II of the series, there is no better/worse . . . gooder/badder . . . among the four streams. Each stream represents a segment of the body of Christ that is just different from the others. Those who have read my work are well aware that elitism, exclusivism, and sectarianism are at the top of my “hate list.” Different doesn’t mean better or worse.

Discussing the changing shifts within evangelicalism today encourages dialogue. Even though we are only two posts into the series, those posts have generated a great deal of conversation among Christians, the vast majority of which has been healthy and encouraging.

As I stated in the introduction of Part II, labels and categories are necessary to communicate distinctions within a contemporary evangelicalism. There’s nothing inherently evil in using a label. The word “Christian” is a label. And so is “Asian,” “Italian,” “American,” “engineer,” “Democrat,” “Libertarian,” and “blogger.” Labels and categories don’t have to divide people. So whether you object to using (or hearing) “labels” or not, the fact remains: Scores of Christians in their 20s, 30s, and 40s (Mosaics and Busters) share something in common. They have grown tired of the state of modern evangelicalism and what it has produced. These followers of Jesus are evangelical Christians, but they don’t fit the template of either the religious right or the Christian left. I’ve chosen to call this group “beyond evangelicals.” If you want to call them by another name, feel free. Call them “Christians” if it makes you happy. Or just say “those people” if that suits you better.

As I pointed out in Part I, evangelicalism has become a hyphenated movement. Just the other day Zondervan mailed me their new book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. In it, Kevin Bauder traces fundamentalism; Albert Mohler traces confessional evangelicalism; John Stackhouse traces generic evangelicalism; and Roger Olson traces postconservative evangelicalism. This book cuts the line of contemporary evangelicalism using theological viewpoints. By contrast, my series focuses on Mosaics and Busters who don’t fit into classic evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism shouldn’t be confused with evangelism. The former is a classification of belief within Christianity. The latter is an activity. The two are different.

I wish to repeat what I said at the front of Part II as a few people missed it (probably due to “scanning” the post): “Like anything else, there are always exceptions, overlaps, and sub-groups that don’t fit neatly into these four evangelical streams. So don’t regard this survey as an exact science. Yet based on my observation and experience, what follows are the four largest and most influential streams within evangelical Christianity today that are populated mostly by people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s . . . the labels I’m using are simply handles I created to communicate intelligibly about the subject. They are necessary for distinguishing each stream from one another. However, they do not represent any denomination or formal tribe. And they shouldn’t be used to denominate any particular individual.”

All of this clears the terrain and sets the stage for Part IV . . .

N.T. Wright

Frank Viola — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:05:35 +0000

Today, I’m featuring N.T. Wright on the blog. This interview fits in nicely with our series on Beyond Evangelical. But first, a little context.

My favorite New Testament scholar of the 20^th century was the British scholar F.F. Bruce. Bruce was a “bright and shining light” in 20^th century evangelicalism. He was prolific, churning out high quality work year after year. He had the rare ability to write academic books as well as popular (accessible) books. Bruce’s specialty was Jesus and Paul.

F.F. Bruce also understood the importance of chronology in New Testament studies. Consequently, he published a translation of the New Testament that put all of Paul’s letters in chronological order. (Yes – cough — F.F. Bruce was a major inspiration for me. Hence, I credit him in my Untold Story of the New Testament Church.)

In addition, Bruce was a powerful apologist, substantiating the historicity of the Gospels in the face of 20^th century liberalism. To top it off, F.F. Bruce was a capable theologian as well as a New Testament exegete (a rare combination).

Enter N.T. Wright. Another British evangelical scholar.

N.T. Wright is the 21^st century equivalent to F.F. Bruce. What Bruce did for evangelicalism in the modern world, Wright is doing for evangelicalism in the postmodern world.

Like F.F. Bruce, N.T. Wright is remarkably prolific, he has the rare ability to write academically as well as popularly, he specializes in Jesus and Paul, and he is an effective and compelling apologist. (Wright has brilliantly excoriated the arguments of liberal scholars who traffic in historical Jesus studies.)

Like Bruce, Wright is both a theologian and an exegete, and he wrote his own translation of the New Testament (though not in chronological sequence).

To my mind, N.T. Wright is the new F.F. Bruce.

Meeting N.T. Wright

I had the privilege of spending time with Wright in 2007 when we were both featured speakers at a conference in the (cough) . . . Bahamas. (Yes, it was a notable hardship to accept the invitation. But some people must suffer for the kingdom.)

All jesting aside, Wright and I spent several hours talking about various and sundry topics of mutual interest. During the event, we shared a boat ride that lasted 1-hour both ways. We sat together on both legs of the trip and filled our time schmoozing about the New Testament and theology.

All told: I was pleased to discover that Wright and I had a lot more in common than I expected. For instance, we agreed that Paul was the author of Ephesians, that Galatians was Paul’s first epistle (i.e., the South Galatian theory), and other views that are in the minority among New Testament scholars today. We talked about the eternal purpose, the work of C.H. Dodd, the role of the Old Testament narrative on the New Testament story, etc.

In getting to know Tom (N.T.) Wright, and in reading much of his work, he has become my favorite contemporary New Testament scholar. You can find many of my favorite titles by Bruce and Wright in my Best 100 Christian Books Ever Written and my Best 100 Academic Christian Books & Commentaries pages.

Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of meeting F.F. Bruce. But I am happy to have met and befriended Tom Wright.

With that as a background, what follows is my interview with N.T. Wright on his latest book, Simply Jesus. I own virtually all of Wright’s works in my study, and Simply Jesus has quickly become my favorite “N.T. Wright book.”

Every follower of Jesus should get a copy and read it. Especially those of you who are moving beyond evangelical.

One final note. N.T. Wright is someone who is not afraid to challenge the status quo. In this regard, I both resonate with and support him. And I’ve intentionally played “devil’s advocate” on some of the questions as I wanted Tom to have a safe platform in which to respond to “the gainsayers.”

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:9, KJV)

What follows is the uncut, unedited, and unrated version of the interview. It’s meaty, so you may want to do this with it. But because of the uniqueness of the interview, I’d encourage you to share it with others by clicking the “share buttons” at the bottom (Twitter, Facebook, Google+, StumbleUpon, etc.). Enjoy!

Frank: Tom, you have written a small library on the historical Jesus. What motivated you to write Simply Jesus, and how does it differ from your other volumes on Jesus?

N.T. Wright: I was asked to do it as a follow-up to Simply Christian. It’s over ten years since I last wrote a book about Jesus (The Challenge of Jesus); that one was really an attempt to say, much more briefly, what I’d said in Jesus and the Victory of God, adding a couple of closing chapters about the resurrection and the application of the whole thing to some of the tasks facing particularly young academics in the postmodern world (that project originated as lectures at an InterVarsity graduate conference).

This time I stood back and reflected, after spending the best part of the last decade as a busy bishop, on what I was now thinking about Jesus and what he was and is. It wasn’t easy to keep it ‘simple’, because Jesus is always challenging and sometimes we oversimplify him! But some of the earlier themes stand out more clearly – for instance, Jesus as the embodiment of Israel’s God, coming back to rescue his people and reclaim his sovereignty over the whole world. That then leads into some quite new reflections, in the last (quite long) chapter, on the ‘so what’ issues – in dialogue, by implication, with a number of writers, not least James Davison Hunter in his To Change the World.

Frank: The following statement comes from the book: “Part of the difficulty is that Jesus was and is much, much more than people imagine. Not just people in general, but practicing Christians, the churches themselves” (p. 4). And the publisher’s press release says, “Wright makes the startling claim that Jesus’ story has been mistold and misunderstood, even by those who think they are Jesus’ most ardent defenders.”

I agree with these statements and have made similar ones myself. But what do you say to those who would suggest that these statements are arrogant, and they imply that only now in the 21^st century do some people understand the story of Jesus correctly while everyone has gotten it wrong?

N.T. Wright: There is always, of course, a danger of arrogance. But my point is not that everyone else has got it wrong and I’ve got it right, but that in recent years there have been various cultural movements in the western world that have distorted our reading of Jesus and the gospels and that we can witness this happening and do something to correct it. You can see it rather obviously in the fact that for many Christians it wouldn’t matter if Jesus had been simply born of a virgin and died on a cross, doing more or less nothing in between. His ‘identity’ would be secure; he could still be our savior and lord. But the four gospels would protest: you’ve missed out the heart of it! Many would-be ‘biblical’ Christians simply have no idea why ‘all that stuff in the middle’ is there. I have been eager to find out, and to interpret the whole biblical Jesus, not simply the beginning and end of his earthly story.

Frank: One of the main points of your book centers on reclaiming the prophetic witness of the church to speak to those in power when they are violating God’s will. What would you say to those who would argue that in the NT, we only see the apostles speaking to power when they are being prohibited from preaching the gospel? Are there exceptions to this in the NT? If there aren’t, why should we assume that the church should speak to power on matters outside of prohibiting the gospel from being proclaimed?

N.T. Wright: As soon as anyone announces that God is becoming king, they are speaking the truth to power whether or not the powers realize it. Paul in Acts ends up in Rome speaking of Jesus as Lord and God as king, right under Caesar’s nose, with nobody stopping him. Of course, this comes out even more clearly when the authorities try to stop the apostles bearing witness to Jesus, but it’s there all through, following the mandate given in John 16 about the Spirit convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Spirit does that, of course, through the church.

Frank: You argue in the book that part of the church’s ministry is to help the poor and feed the hungry. What is your response to the person who says that if this were the case, wouldn’t we see examples of the church helping the poor of the world in the book of Acts and in the Epistles? We do see examples of this in post-apostolic history. And in the NT, we see the church helping the poor who are part of other churches. But we don’t see any examples in the NT of the church helping the poor of this world (so the argument goes). What is your response to this line of thinking?

N.T. Wright: Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem in Acts 11 with aid for the poor because of the famine. At the end of their visit (if that’s the same visit as Galatians 2.1-10, which I think it is), the Jerusalem apostles ask them to ‘go on remembering the poor’, and Paul comments ‘which very thing I was eager to do’. A recent remarkable book by Bruce Longenecker, (Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World) shows that care for the poor was much closer to the heart of the Pauline mission than we have normally thought.

Of course, the early church was a very small community, and the first imperative was to be sure to look after any poor Christians that needed it. But already in Galatians (6.10) Paul is telling folk to ‘do good to all, especially those of the household of faith’; and in Philippians he urges the church to ‘let everyone know how gentle and gracious you are’, which may well have a sense of Christians reaching out in love to serve their neighbours.

Frank: In the book, you make several key statements about God’s passion to help the poor. You also make a few statements about how the “powers that be” often neglect the poor. In my country right now (USA) there is a huge debate over this issue among Christians. One aspect of the debate revolves around the question, “Who are the poor exactly?” Some Christians argue that there is a distinction between the poor who are trying to find work and/or who are working (but cannot make ends meet) versus the indigent who refuse to work and expect others to support them.

What do you say to this debate? And how do you think Christians should square Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 that if a person “doesn’t work, neither should he eat” with the injunctions in Scripture exhorting God’s people to help the poor?

N.T. Wright: Of course, whenever people discover that other folk are going out of their way to give handouts, some will get lazy and simply try to trade off this goodwill. It’s a telling point, actually, that this was already a danger in the very early church – because you only get that problem arising if the church is being generous. The line between ‘deserving poor’ and ‘undeserving poor’ is very, very hard to draw, and one of the things about poverty, whether one has work or not (some jobs pay so little that the people who do them are still well within the poverty trap), is that it is depressing, and actually saps the energy and nerve and vitality in ways that people like me, who have never been out of work and never been truly poor, can only appreciate by being with and ministering to people who are genuinely and chronically poor.

There is a real danger that in a go-getting country like the USA those who have initiative, energy, advantages of birth and education, can easily look down on those who have none of those things. It simply isn’t the case that every human starts at the same level point so that the rich are those who’ve worked for it and the poor are those who couldn’t be bothered. Throughout the Bible God seems to take special note of those trapped in poverty, and we should do the same.

Frank: A related question to the above: In my country (USA), many Christians wish to help the poor more. But they are bitterly divided as to how to do that. Some Christians believe it’s the government’s job to aid the poor, and Christians should back those politicians who support programs which seek to aid the poor and rebuke those who do not.

Other Christians feel that the government doesn’t really help the poor, but creates a system that perpetuates poverty by keeping poor people stuck in their impoverished state. For such people, helping the poor is the church’s responsibility, not the State’s. Given the practical implications of your book – that Christians should hold earthly governments accountable when they run contrary to God’s will – what do you say to Christians on both sides of this debate?

N.T. Wright: One of the real problems we face in the western church is that ever since the C18 at least the ‘state’ (that’s a very modern idea, by the way) has taken over the running and administration of things that used to be done purely or mostly by the church – I’m thinking of hospitals and other medical facilities, and of course of education. Certainly care for the poor comes into that category. Part of the Enlightenment problem is that the ‘state’ has squeezed out the church.

Granted, the church has made a come-back; in my country, the Hospice movement was started purely by Christians and is still run, very successfully, by volunteers and donations almost all through the churches. Now it may be that God is pleased to work through ‘secular’ authorities – though that brings other problems in its wake, often enough. And of course, whether it’s the church or the ‘state’ that’s helping the poor, locally and globally, it is vital that this be done wisely and shrewdly, with the wisdom of the serpent and the innocence of the dove, to avoid any chance of the trap you mention happening, perpetuating poverty (e.g. by large handouts to foreign countries that then put local folk out of business).

But that danger must not be used as an excuse – as, sadly, it sometimes has been – for saying ‘so there’s nothing really we need to do’. There is plenty, but it calls for serious and urgent study and prayer – and, pretty certainly, some serious reshaping of western capitalism and banking. It isn’t rocket science to see that if a few people are being paid millions in bonuses while others are struggling to survive on a few dollars a week this does no honour to the God of love and justice we know in and as Jesus Christ.

Frank: When you talk about carrying on Jesus’ work in our time, our brothers and sisters in the Charismatic movement will respond, saying, “Yes! But Jesus’ work includes casting out demons, healing the sick (supernaturally), and raising the dead. So we are to do the same.” What do you say to this?

N.T. Wright: God is the healer and hasn’t stopped healing. But, as in ancient times so today, (a) many healings take place through regular doctors and nurses (the early Christians were good at nursing people), and (b) healing always was a mystery (why some not others: note Paul in 2 Corinthians 12, and his concern over Epaphroditus in Philippians 2.25-30 – clearly Paul didn’t just say a prayer and heal him). Yes, people sometimes were raised from the dead; but other people die, in Acts and the rest of the New Testament, and nobody tries to raise them. There are well reported instances of this on the mission field to this day but I don’t know anyone who seriously says we should be trying/hoping to do it day by day. Yes, casting out demons still happens; that is a specialized and dangerous and difficult ministry and we should pray for those who are called to it. I know (as a bishop) enough about that to have the highest respect for those who engage in it and the highest gratitude that I’m not called to it.

Frank: What are the three main objections (or misrepresentations) of your work among evangelical Christians, and what are your responses to those objections or misrepresentations?

N.T. Wright: People have sometimes said, ridiculously, that I don’t believe in the second coming, because I insist that in the New Testament a reference to ‘the son of man coming on the clouds’ is to Jesus’ vindication (in resurrection, ascension, and not least in the destruction of the Jerusalem that had opposed and rejected him) rather than to his return. The second coming is taught all over the place, and I have expounded it, I hope biblically, in Surprised by Hope.

Second, people have sometimes said that I downplay the divinity of Jesus (someone once accused me even of denying the virginal conception). This is a serious misunderstanding. I have done my best, rather, to oppose modern forms of Docetism (the view that Jesus wasn’t really human, but only ‘seemed’ to be). Some modern Docetists, not surprisingly, see this as a denial of Jesus’ divinity. I hope the present book, and its sequel How God Became King, will put the record straight on this one.

Third, many have been puzzled at my embrace of (one form of) what has been called the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul. Actually, one of the key things about the NP, at its best, is that it take seriously the larger vision of God’s purposes for his people and for the whole creation that we find precisely in the four gospels. Often evangelicals have offered a would-be ‘Pauline’ gospel which not only doesn’t do justice to Paul but leaves no room for the four gospels. That has to be wrong, and I’ve tried to show how.

Frank: You are one of the most prolific authors of our time. Talk about your writing routines. What does a normal day and week look like in your writing?

N.T. Wright: Sadly there is no such thing as a ‘normal day and week’. I wish there was but life isn’t like that. There is teaching, grandchildren, chickens to feed and clean out, shopping, examining Ph D theses, and all the other fun of family and academic life. But, left to myself (as has happened all too rarely!), I get up very early (5ish), say my prayers, have breakfast, and ideally am at the desk by about 6.30 or 7. Then I can have a really good morning before a late lunch, perhaps a walk, then back to work mid-afternoon, with supper around 7.30, read something for an hour or two, prayers and bed by 10.30 or 11.

However even within this (highly idealized) scenario, sometimes the ‘work’ will consist of simply writing, as fast as I can; sometimes of reading, slowly and carefully, a major new commentary or monograph; sometimes of a mixture of the two plus combing through journals, reviews, online materials … of all of these I prefer the writing task, because of the sheer joy of words and language and the delight in finding a creative way of saying something. The week in my life which most nearly corresponds to the ideal was the week, in spring 2006, when I wrote Acts for Everyone. I began it on a Saturday, had most of the Sunday off, and finished it in the small hours of the following Sunday. I have no idea how many thousand words that was but all I had to do was to sit down and the desk and turn on the tap. It was exhilarating.

Frank: Your next book, How God Became King, releases in March. From the cover, it looks like a companion volume to Simply Jesus. In what ways is this upcoming book different from Simply Jesus?

N.T. Wright: The new book is a deliberate companion piece: SJ is about Jesus, this one’s about the gospels and the sort of story they think they’re telling. It starts with the challenge of the creed: there’s a big hole there between the virgin birth and the cross, but the gospel seem to think that stuff in the middle is hugely important. What happens when we implicitly trust the creed rather than the gospels? Of course, the creeds weren’t written as a syllabus for teaching, but they quickly became that . . . and we forget the kingdom of God! I then offer four ways of listening to the gospels which, today, have either been forgotten or seriously distorted. When we get these in proper balance, we can ‘hear’ the story the gospels are really telling – and then we can rediscover new ways of understanding the Creeds as well . . .

–

Click here to order Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright in hardcover

Click here to order Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright in Kindle

Subscribe to the blog by Email and receive “The Next Reformation” seminar free

Advertise on the Blog: Reduced prices for January & February 2012

How to Read Long Blog Posts

Frank Viola — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:16:31 +0000

Perhaps a more accurate title for this post would be, “How I Read Long Blog Posts.”

It’s very simple. Perhaps so simple that maybe taking up bandwidth to address it isn’t worth the effort. However, I somehow feel that this post is going to help a few people. If it does, let me know in the comments, would you? I’d be curious.

For starters, I never read long posts online. While some people “scan” long blog posts, I don’t like doing that. There are two reasons:

(1) I don’t want to miss anything that’s of value in a post. If I scan something online, I’ll undoubtedly miss something. Perhaps a lot.

(2) If I comment on the post, I want to accurately understand what the author wrote before I make a remark. I’ve noticed that some people have missed important points in some of my posts because they scanned them. Their comments made this evident. I don’t want to make the same mistake.

So how do I read long posts?

Simple. I print them out and put the printed sheets in a special folder entitled “To Read.” I then read them offline later with a highlighter in hand. If I really like the post, I’ll spread it via Twitter, Facebook, and StumbleUpon (the latter can make a post visible to thousands of people). I usually spread the post after I skim it online, before printing it out. I can tell if a post is worth spreading by skimming it. But I’ll read every word later carefully when its printed.

I have several loose-leaf notebooks full of highlighted blog posts, essays, and articles that I’ve printed out. I keep them for future reference.

Note that I only follow this procedure for lengthy online posts. Examples of what I would consider “long posts” of my own would be:

Advice for Bloggers

Advice for Authors

Beyond Evangelical: Part I

Beyond Evangelical: Part II

So these would be marked for printing.

If a post is short (300 to 800 words), I’ll read it online. But if it’s long, I’ll print it out for later reading.

How do you process long posts?

Advice for Bloggers

Frank Viola — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:33:26 +0000

25 Tips for Bloggers: Established, New, and Pondering

I started blogging in 2008. Almost a decade before that, some of my friends tried to persuade me to start blogging. But I resisted.

My reason: I didn’t have enough time.

Well, I still don’t have enough time, yet I’ve managed to blog for over three years now. And looking back, I wish I had heeded my friends’ advice and started earlier. My bad.

You see, I love blogging. In fact, I enjoy it more than writing books. It’s far less tedious, takes less time, and affords instant feedback.

I also view it as a major way of influencing people with my message on the deeper Christian life. It’s not quite as powerful a tool of influence as a book or a spoken message, but it’s close.

While I’m still learning the craft, I’ve discovered some valuable tips about the art of blogging that I’d like to share with you. They are . . .

1. Buy a Blog Theme That Allows You to Use Plug-Ins. While Blogspot.com, Typepad.com, and WordPress.com are free blogging platforms, they don’t allow you to use plugins. So they are profoundly limiting. They are fine for the beginner (I used WordPress.com for my first two years as a blogger). But if you are serious about blogging, you’ll want to get a different theme and your own domain name. The difference it makes is enormous.

I use the Standard Theme for my blog, and I recommend it highly. It not only allows you to use a vast array of free plug-ins to increase your efficiency and traffic, but I love the look, feel, and speed of the theme.

Standard Theme runs on WordPress.org (not WordPress.com). Like WordPress.com, WordPress.org is also free, and it’s virtually identical to use. You can purchase the Standard Theme for less than $100. I suggest all bloggers get it.

Also: Buy a domain name that uses your own name (e.g., JoeyBudafooko.com) or use the name of your blog. This will make your blog easier to find and spread. (JoeyBudafooko.com is easier to share and remember than JoeyBudafooko.wordpress.com.)

If you don’t already own a domain name, I recommend GoDaddy to buy one. Their prices are competitive and their service is awesome. I suggest HostGator to be your blog-site hosting service. It’s excellent in service and stability.

Again, using the Standard Theme will allow you to choose from hundreds of free plug-ins. Some of them will increase your blog’s readership and visibility. My favorite plug-in right now is nRelate. This plug-in automatically creates small colorful boxes featuring previous related posts below your new posts. I love the screen candy that these boxes add to the blog. Just look at the bottom of this post under the “Share This Post” buttons.

If you need help installing the blog or moving your old blog posts to a new blog platform, such as Standard Theme, I recommend my friend Jeremy Myers. Jeremy is great to work with, and he’ll set up your blog for only $50.

2. Create an Appealing Design & Name. Cosmetic appeal means a lot on the Internet. So use colors and graphics that you (and others) find appealing. Make sure the name of your blog reflects what you write about mostly. My blog is called “Beyond Evangelical.” I write on seven themes that relate to Christians who are moving beyond evangelical. My blog matches my Website and Twitter page. So they are all easy to recognize. Go for consistency in your blog look and name. First impressions are important.

3. Blog Often, But Not Too Much. If you want your blog to succeed, you should blog at least 3 times a week. If you can blog 5 or 6 days week, that’s even better. By the same token, blogging too much will overwhelm and turn off some of your readers. Blogging 3 to 6 days a week – once a day – is recommended.

4. Be Concise. The most viewed posts are between 300 and 800 words. Try not to go over 800 words. Most of my posts are within that range. However, some of my posts are longish because they are reprinted essays, interviews, or tips on a given topic (like this one). If you have a long post, break it up by using numbered or bulleted points. Or turn it into a series. Master the art of compression.

5. Use Subheadings, Numbered Lists, Bullet Points, and Short Paragraphs. The attention span of the average Internet reader is quite short. So make the content of your posts digestible. Using subheadings is a great way to do this. Paragraphs should be short as well. So cherish the line break. Using numbered and bulleted lists makes your posts easy to scan. When it comes to blogging, brevity rules. Thus edit ruthlessly. Reduce as much as you can. And cut until there’s nothing left to cut.

6. Use Proper Grammar and Spelling. Misspelled words and bad grammar communicate that you’re not terribly educated, and hence, people shouldn’t take you seriously. Typos are inevitable. But poor grammar and misspellings hurt your content and message. Blogs are casual. So it’s fine to use incomplete sentences, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc. Poor grammar is when a post is written so badly that readers have to work to understand it. If you aren’t sharp on this, get someone to edit your posts before you publish them.

7. Discern the Difference Between Notifying and Self-Promoting. People who follow you on Twitter want to hear what you have to say. So most of them will want to know when you’ve written a new blog post (or if you are reposting an old one from the archives). BUT . . . tweet it once or at the most twice, then leave it alone. (If you tweet the same blog post twice in a day, put 5 to 8 hours between the tweets.) Tweeting a post that you’ve written over and over reeks of self-promotion, and you will lose readers.

The same is true with your Facebook wall. Because it’s your wall, it’s fine to notify your friends about a post you‘ve written. However, I suggest you simply post the title with the link or frame it with a question (e.g, “Looking for advice on how to blog more effectively?” Link). Saying things like, “You’ve got to read this post I’m launching on Tuesday. It’s a must-read!, etc. etc.” will turn off many readers. You don’t want to call a piece that you have written a “must-read.” Let other people decide that (Prov. 27:2).

I would also advise against posting your blog posts on forums like Facebook groups. Many people will see it as using a public venue for self-promotion purposes. Your Facebook wall is different because people have friended you voluntarily, so you have every right to inform them about your newest work. But to post on a public venue where people are not signed up specifically to follow you is poor taste, in my judgment. And some people will view it as spammy.

At the same time, realize that there are a handful of people who will always read bad motives into your heart, even if those motives aren’t present. As I’ve said elsewhere, whenever someone judges the motives of another person, they are simply revealing what’s in their own hearts. But you don’t want the charge of self-promotion to be justified.

With respect to using Twitter, I recommend this Twitter tool. It has many excellent functions.

8. Don’t Obsess Over Statistics. Some bloggers I know are constantly measuring their traffic to the point of insanity. My advice: Keep track once in a while to measure your blog’s visibility and test the effectiveness of new plug-ins, but don’t obsess over it. Be faithful, and leave the results with God.

9. Never Copy & Paste Someone’s Blog Post on Your Blog or Facebook Page. This is just bad etiquette. Bloggers who write quality posts spend hours crafting them. It takes a lot of time and energy to put out a first-rate post. Consequently, for someone to just copy and paste it on their blog or Facebook wall (which takes seconds) is regarded by many as inconsiderate and lazy.

The blogger who crafted the post will likely feel cheated and robbed. If you like someone’s post, it’s best to excerpt a section of it and then provide the link so readers can view the entire post. This also allows readers to interact with the author about the post if they so choose.

Also, if you post an excerpt of a blog on Facebook or Twitter as a quote, be sure to put the link to the entire post as well. Excerpts are out-of-context soundbytes. As such, they typically lead to misunderstanding (at best) or hostile criticism (at worse). People need to see the whole context of a post if they will completely understand it. So be careful to add the link if you do any quoting.

Finally, if you enjoy a post and want to spread it to others, it’s best to “like” or “share” it (for Facebook) and “tweet” it (for Twitter). See the Like, Share, and Tweet buttons below this post as an example. It takes a second to click those buttons, and people can see the entire post for themselves and comment on it if they like.

10. Use Titles That Are Magnetic. Writing good titles is an art. The title of a post is either going to grab your readers or cause them to lose interest. Make sure the title fits the post, but be creative. Good title-writing is a skill. With time and practice, you’ll hone the craft.

11. Speak To Your Readers Directly. It’s best to use “you” when you are writing your posts. Talk to your readers as if you are having a conversation with them over coffee. This personalizes your posts and makes them more readable.

12. Don’t Talk Too Much About Yourself. Most people are naturally self-absorbed. Thus your readers are more interested in themselves than they are about you. The exception to this is if you’re a celebrity. Then they want to know how many times you floss your teeth! If you’re a Christian blogger, self-absorption is no virtue. So stick to your content and keep self-references to a minimum and in balance. Not too much, but not never at all.

13. Allow Engagement, But Moderate Comments. I realize that not everyone is able to allow comments due to time constraints. Fortunately, I’ve been able to allow them up to this point. Allowing engagement is great for several reasons. However, if you receive a lot of comments, you would be wise to moderate them. The Internet is the Wild Wild West. People can anonymously trash someone if they want. This makes blog moderation a necessity.

Unfortunately, I’ve watched some bloggers allow anyone to post anything they like without any kind of moderation. The result: Some Christians get smeared. This is plain wrong. It violates what our Lord taught, “Treat others the same way you want to be treated.” You wouldn’t want a blogger to allow a comment that attacks your character on their blog.

Your blog should be a platform for edifying conversation, not a venue for promoting the sins of evil communication (Eph. 4:29). All readers should feel safe there. Most bloggers I know responsibly moderate their comments, and some have explicit rules for moderation. You can take a look at mine here (I don’t moderate the comments myself). Some bloggers I know don’t even allow comments because of this problem.

14. Participate in the Conversation. If you allow comments on your blog, try to respond when necessary. You may not have time to respond to every comment. But do your best to respond to the comments that contain questions directed to you. Strive to be a good, accessible host. Your readers will appreciate it.

15. Don’t Post a Link to Your Own Blog While Commenting on Another Person’s Blog. When you visit someone else’s blog and make a comment, don’t add a link to your own blog like: “Check out my post on such and such [with link].” You will be perceived as a spammer. Some bloggers even engage in “drive-by” self-promotion. They aren’t regular commenters to a particular blog, yet they’ll make a quick comment on a post that’s usually generic (“great post!”), then they’ll promote their own blog (“come check out my blog at …”).

Most people who are Internet savvy view this as explicit spam. Therefore, you’d be wise not to engage in it. Of course, if you make a comment (without pointing people to your own blog), and someone specifically asks you a question on a topic, it’s no problem to post a link to your own blog if it contains the answer. In such cases, you’re simply answering a direct question. Even so, most blogs allow you to put your blog url in the comment box before making a comment. So let that suffice.

16. Think Through the Ramifications Before You Post. Once you click the “publish” button, your post becomes visible online for the whole world to see. Including people from other countries, friends, ex-friends, enemies, family, you name it. So if you don’t want someone – anyone – to see your post, or a particular statement in it, don’t post it. Make the changes necessary first. Never underestimate the reach of the Internet—even for blogs that aren’t terribly popular.

17. Make Sure Your First Paragraph is Strong. By “strong,” I mean compelling, grabbing, interesting. Most readers will decide to read an entire post based on the title and the first paragraph. So you can’t afford to make it weak.

18. Rarely Use Exclamation Points. There was a time when an exclamation point (!) communicated passion and emphasis. For many people today, however, it communicates anger. So use them sparingly. Too many exclamation points is distracting to readers. I learned this from my own mistakes in this area! :-)

19. Keep Your Posts on Message. If your blog is about the art of giving atomic knee drops, then focus the vast majority of your posts on that subject. All my posts are related to one of the seven themes related to moving beyond evangelicalism. Your readers will want consistency in your message. So keep your posts on point.

20. Never Defame Another Person. Defamation of someone’s character is a serious matter. Not to mention that it has legal ramifications. Scripture exhorts us to “malign no one” (NASB); “speak evil of no one” (NKJV); “slander no one” NIV (Titus 3:2). It is the nature of satan to slander and gossip. The Lord will never lead you to do this. If you’re angry or upset with someone (or a group of people), resist the fleshly urge to use your blog as a platform to defame them.

21. Link to Others When Appropriate. If you are mentioning another post or article written by someone else, be sure to link to it. Mentioning it without a link is a violation of web etiquette, and it won’t reflect well on you.

22. Create a Series. When you have a ton of material on a specific topic, and it’s too much to fit into a single blog post, create a series of posts on the topic that build upon one another over a period of days. (Blogging Through Bonhoeffer and Beyond Evangelical are examples.) However, for every post, be sure to link to the next post in the series. Failure to do this will frustrate your readers.

23. Keep a Blog Queue. I have to do this myself or else I’ll forget the influx of ideas that come to me for new posts. Inspiration can hit you at any moment, so keep a pad and pen handy at all times. (I use a Day-Timer compact wallet that contains pen and pad; so I’m always armed to jot my thoughts down.) Convert your written thoughts into a blog queue. This has been an enormous help to me in my blogging journey.

24. Mix It Up. Change the pace of your posts using audio, video, interviews, reviews, stories, essays, numbered lists, surveys, etc. Try to build variety into your posting routine so that you don’t bore your readers. On this point, many blog “experts” advise you to always use an image for your posts. Speaking as a “non-expert,” if you have the time, use images. But if you don’t, no worries. My custom is not to use images because it takes too much time to find the right photo, resize it, upload it, etc. I only use images on some of my posts. Your mileage may vary.

25. Resist Discouragement. The blogger’s chief enemy is discouragement. The harassing questions that race through a blogger’s mind are all the same: “Who is reading my posts?” “Am I making a difference?” “Does anyone care?” “Is blogging worth my time and energy?” “I could be watching reruns of 24 right now instead of editing this post!”

I’ve watched a few bloggers crash and burn because they didn’t have a clear vision or commitment when they first set out to begin blogging. So before you put your hand to the plow, count the cost. Blogging successfully will take a lot of hard work. Readers (and subscribers) don’t appear overnight. Blogging requires time, energy, and a devotion to write consistently.

Some people say that everyone should blog. Who says? Why would every human being on the planet be obligated (or “called”) to blog? You may disagree, but I personally think it’s unhealthy for a person to feel pressured to begin a blog if it’s not in their heart to do so.

My 13-cent advice: Take up the task of blogging only if you desire to and you thoroughly enjoy writing. Otherwise, it will be a hard road ahead—a burden rather than a blessing. So a good question to ask yourself is: “Why do I want to blog in the first place?” (You can see how I answered that question myself.)

Keep in mind that even if you have the coolest looking blog on the Web, few people will read it unless they find the material you write valuable. And writing great content takes time, a lot of thought, and energy. So once you’ve decided that blogging is for you, and you’ve counted the cost, roll up your sleeves and get to work. And don’t look back. Strive to write killer posts. But even if you write great content, you aren’t going to please everyone. So follow your own compass.

If you decide later that you missed the mark and should cancel the blog, no harm done. But don’t take it up or quit it unless you’re pretty confident on both ends.

Once you’ve applied all 25 tips, I recommend you get Bryan Allain’s excellent book, 31 Days to Find Your Blogging Mojo (only $4.99 USD). It’s a great supplement to this post. It will give you additional ideas, all peppered with a good dose of humor.

Beyond Evangelical: Part II

Frank Viola — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:43:03 +0000

“All labels have their problems, and, to be sure, ‘evangelical’ is fraught with them. But I am not giving it up.”

~ Roger Olson

As I pointed out in the first post of this series, the center of evangelicalism is collapsing. Countless evangelical Christians are moving to the left or to the right. Namely, they are moving toward liberalism or they are moving toward high church or low church traditions. They are moving toward individualism or communitarianism.

In this post, we will briefly survey the four major streams within evangelicalism with an eye to Christians in their 20s, 30s, and 40s – often called Mosaics and Busters or Generation X and Generation Y (Millennials).

My analysis is based on what I’ve observed in my extensive travels worldwide, speaking in a variety of conferences represented by the different streams (wherein I’ve interacted with the other speakers and attendees), and corresponding with thousands of evangelical Christians in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

Like anything else, there are always exceptions, overlaps, and sub-groups that don’t fit neatly into these four evangelical streams. So don’t regard this survey as an exact science. Yet based on my observation and experience, what follows are the four largest and most influential streams within evangelical Christianity today that are populated mostly by people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The characteristics I’ve outlined below represent the tendencies of most of the people within each stream.

Note that the labels I’m using are simply handles I created to communicate intelligibly about the subject. They are necessary for distinguishing each stream from one another. However, they do not represent any denomination or formal tribe. And they shouldn’t be used to denominate any particular individual.

The four streams are . . .

Stream 1: The Systematizers

* political: tend to be on the right.

* appeal: drawn to propositional truths; seek strong discipline and order in their daily lives.

* search: in quest for theological certainty. Systematizing truth in both thought and life attracts them.

* identification: populates much of the “New Reformed/Calvinist” movement. There is a great deal of theological uniformity within this stream.

* reach: very large online presence; above average on-the-ground presence.

Stream 2: The Activists

*political: tend to be on the left.

*appeal: drawn to causes.

*search: bettering people’s living conditions. Attracted to social causes like acts of mercy, social justice, helping the poor, caring for the environment, etc.

* identification: populates much of “the Emergent Church Conversation,” the “New Monasticism,” and a segment of “the Missional Church Movement.” There is a great deal of theological diversity within this stream.

*reach: above average on-line presence; above average on-the-ground presence.

Stream 3: The Emoters

* political: tend to be on the right.

* appeal: drawn to supernatural encounters.

* search: demonstrations of the miraculous; the healing of emotional wounds.

* identification: populates much of the contemporary “Charismatic Movement” in all of its forms. Strong emphasis on restoring the supernatural: signs, wonders, casting out of demons, healing, etc. and what God will do in the future in terms of revival and miracles. There is significant theological uniformity and diversity within this stream.

*reach: weak online presence; very large on-the-ground presence.

All three streams are part of mainstream Christianity. Consequently, each stream has been featured in the voices of establishment (popular) Christian magazines and e-zines.

Each stream holds conferences that receive wide publicity, being advertised in establishment Christianity magazines and e-zines.

Each stream can be viewed as emphasizing mind, will, and emotion (the three parts of the human soul) respectively in their approach to God. (Systematizers emphasize the mind; Activists emphasize the will; Emoters emphasize the emotion.)

The fourth stream flies under the radar of establishment Christianity because it is not part of it. Yet it’s just as large as the other three streams.

Stream 4: The Beyond Evangelicals

*politically: tend to be apolitical, believing that the local ekklesia (body of Christ) is the new polis and the kingdom of God is the true government. Beyond that, their political positions are enormously diverse.

*appeal: believe that there has to be something more to Christ and the church than what the first three streams present.

*search: discovering and displaying Jesus Christ in authentic, deep, and profound ways.

*identification: Most have come out of one of the other three streams. They belong to no particular movement, tribe, or denomination. And they do not belong to any single expression of church. “Beyond Evangelicals” can be found in all church forms and structures.

“Beyond Evangelicals” are not seeking a theological system (stream 1). Concepts and ideas don’t appeal to them. They are seeking spiritual reality. They view Scripture as fully inspired and true, but approach it as a narrative rather than a system of propositional ideas.

“Beyond Evangelicals” are not seeking any specific cause (stream 2). Religious duty doesn’t appeal to them. They view “good works” as being the natural outflow of living by Christ. They regard pursuing Jesus Christ and seeking causes that are related to Him as being two different things.

“Beyond Evangelicals” are not seeking a supernatural experience (stream 3). They believe that the emotions (as well as the mind and will) can either reflect or hinder the work of the Spirit. One’s feelings are not synonymous with the Spirit’s leading. Miraculous demonstrations don’t appeal to them either, unless they supremely unveil and glorify Jesus Christ.

“Beyond Evangelicals” are in pursuit of a Person above and beyond ideas (stream 1), activities (stream 2), or feelings (stream 3). They emphasize God’s work in and through the human spirit, and believe that mind, will, and emotion are to be governed by the Holy Spirit.

“Beyond Evangelicals” want to know Jesus Christ in reality and in the depths. Yet they aren’t quietists or passive mystics. Outward activity is important, but it’s like fruit falling off a tree. It’s the natural result of living by the life of Christ.

Beyond Evangelicals are evangelical Christians who emphasize four key themes:

The centrality and supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Living by the indwelling life of Christ.
Experiencing church as a Christ-centered, shared-life community.
Living for the eternal purpose of God.

Despite the fact that this fourth stream is largely ignored by mainstream Christianity at the present time, it is growing and becoming more visible.

The common link that ties all four streams together is this: Each group believes that classic evangelical Christianity is inadequate. It has failed to give robust answers to their most serious theological questions and depth to their deepest spiritual longings.

Part III – Answers to Questions & Push Back

Click here if you missed yesterday’s post

Subscribe to the blog by Email and receive the “Next Reformation” seminar free

New: Top Posts of 2011