Race Maps

Here are some interesting maps of some US cities color-coded by race. I recognized the top one as Detroit as soon as I saw it. The north red-blue dividing line is probably the famed 8 Mile Road. The pocket of red in the middle of the picture is probably the New Center Area and Wayne State University area. The pocket of orange in the center, just below the middle of the picture is Mexicantown. Our church is located just to the right of the blue section at the bottom of the map.

The data used to make this map is ten years old, but it is interesting nonetheless, not just in terms of racial grouping but also in terms of population density. My suspicion is that 30-40 years ago, this map would be more similar to the NYC map in terms of population density.

Here's a page with some information about the various neighborhoods in Detroit.

I wonder how this type of data might be useful for church planting. It seems that certain types of people are often best able to reach certain types of people. It seems to me that willingness is important, but it is not the sum total of a call to a particular location. I think there is a place for churches to steer people into places of ministry that they might best be suited for.

Obviously, there are some dangers with that. We don't have a heirarchy of bishops that assigns men to places of ministry. But we do have churches, knowledgeable pastors, and community residents who should be able to assess background, gifts, desires, and abilities to help guide young men (or older men) into ministry situations that best fit his ministry skills and heart.

The fact that someone feels called to a particular area is a start, but it is not the end. I have seen some good men fail at church planting because they were doing something that they apparently were not gifted to do, or perhaps doing it in an area to which they were not well-suited. This leads to great frustration, wasted money and effort, and sometimes abandonment of ministry altogether.

I think the local church's role in ordaining and commissioning pastors should be taken very seriously. How all that works out in a particular local church is obviously up to that church. But I would call us to consider the idea.

No Half-Jesus

Jesus will not be divided. People have tried. Even those closest to him.

In Mark 8:27-33, Peter tried to divide Jesus. After Peter proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ—the Messiah, the King—Jesus prophesied of his own death that would make him the Savior.

Peter’s immediate response is to divide Jesus by trying to prevent Jesus from going to the cross. You see, Peter liked a King Jesus, one with great miracles, great teaching, and great power; he didn’t like a Savior Jesus, one who would be rejected and die.

Jesus called him Satan for this division because Jesus will not be divided. Peter, by trying to have a half-Jesus, was acting as a tool of Satan.

Interestingly, in the very next verses, Jesus now calls the crowd to him. He is no longer speaking only to his disciples, the already committed. He is now speaking to everyone. 

To this crowd, he warns them against accepting him as Savior but not as Lord. These are people who want the Savior Jesus but do not want the King Jesus. They want to live as their own master, while pretending to trust in someone else as Jesus. They want Jesus on the cross, but they do not want to pick up their own cross.

To these, Jesus says, “If you are going to follow me, then you are going to have to follow me. To fail to deny yourself and take up the cross is to lose your existence—your life, your soul, the very thing you are trying to save.” And that life is lost at the return of Christ when Jesus is ashamed of you.

I think it very difficult to make the case that Jesus is saying merely that he will be embarrassed by one of his children at his second coming. I think he is saying what he says in Matthew 7 and other places: “Depart from me. I never knew you.” Or Matthew 10:33 where Jesus says, “I will deny him before my Father in heaven.”

You can pretend that Jesus is calling on those already committed to take some extra step of commitment to discipleship. But I think it hard to reconcile that with the fact that Jesus is speaking to the crowd, not the core. And I think it hard to reconcile that with the fact that Jesus ties eternity to it. And I think it hard to reconcile with the fact that the Bible, the New Testament which is our final rule of faith and practice, has no apparent use for a distinction between salvation and discipleship, between the saved and the disciples. And if Jesus had no room for that, either in his own ministry or in his early church, then we must question why there are some who pretend to know more than Jesus did.

You see, Jesus will not be divided. He will not be a King without being a Savior. And he will not be a Savior without being a King.

Yes, it’s a hard saying.

But it’s Jesus’ saying.

And we have no right to say anything else.

Rainer on Millennials and Leaders

No, this isn’t about eschatology. It is about those who were born between 1980 and 2000. They are called the Millennials.

Thom Rainer at Lifeway recently gave four characteristics that Millennials desire in leaders, and he didn’t just make them up like many people who talk about this generation do. These are the results of surveys that ask questions. Here are the four:

1. Mentoring
2. Gentle spirit
3. Transparency and authenticity
4. Integrity

If you want to influence the younger generation, this is what they (the people you are trying to influence) say you need to be and do in order to get them to listen to you.

I think this list is not just true of Millennials in general. I think this list is true of the so-called “young fundamentalists,” many of whom are Millennials raised in “fundamentalism” (in quotes because much of what they are departing from bears no resemblance to biblical fundamentalism).

I think the this list demonstrates why the tactics of some who are desperately trying to influence these young people won’t work.

They do not have a gentle spirit. They are combative, arrogant, and cross. They routinely and vitriolically attack those who disagree with them, even over minor matters. They use strong language. They have an abrasive attitude, and it’s not about ideas but about people. They are just plain rude at times. They claim they are standing for the truth, but the truth is that they are too often contradicting the truth by their attitude. To quote a friend of mine, it makes me glad to be a fundamentalist so I can separate from them.

They are not transparent and authentic. They speak boldly about others, littering the world with their dogmatic statements, even when they aren’t accurate. They just don’t tell the truth sometimes. And they won’t be honest about themselves, even when the truth is obvious to everyone else. They are a lot about show and a little about substance. They will quickly shut down conversations if it threatens them. They are about self-promotion and winning silly little battles and missing the big war.

They do not have integrity. They say things that are clearly not true, or they shade the truth in a particular way while not admitting that there is another side. They run to extremes, and stay there even when challenged. They complain about others while doing the very thing they complain about.

Few, if any, would say, “I want to be like that person.” And that’s why they have little to no influence. I believe that you will never have a positive influence on people who do not want to be like you.

And they will not like me saying this.

Finally, I think this list begins with what real ministry is all about—mentoring. It is why the cyber world and blogs are not the places that young fundamentalists (or young Christian leaders in general) will be created or held onto, or trained, or influenced. Because mentorship is face-to-face, person-to-person. It won’t take place on a blog defending this or attacking that. It won’t take place through demagoguery or intimidation.

Sure, today’s generation is more connected than ever before. They will read widely on the internet, but chances are they won’t read deeply. They live life in soundbytes—tweets and facebook status updates. Email is old to them. Texting is the way the communicate. The use blog readers and news readers in order to skim the first line or two to see if they are interested enough to read on (which is why many will never see the end of much that is written, including this).

But true leadership and mentorship will take place large through side-by-side ministry partnership (otherwise know as biblical fellowship).  It will be face-to-face exchanges across coffee with no holds barred and no comment unchallengeable.

Oh, to be sure, there will be a few select voices in cyberspace that will be heard by many. And most will probably agree to some degree and disagree to another.

And in young fundamentalism, that’s okay. There’s no need to be monolithic. There’s no compulsion to do what someone else does, or draw lines exactly where someone else draws them.

And in young fundamentalism, disagreement will be expressed, just like it is in “old fundamentalism” … with some rancor, some anger, some bad arguments, and some bad interpretation of arguments.

But I suppose we should expect a certain amount of immaturity from the younger crowd. It’s the old guys who should be past that. Too often they’re not. And they do not have the decency to shut up.

In the Diner

It was a first this morning.

A purse-snatching. (Not my purse, mind you. I always keep that close to me.)

It was taken right off the counter.

Right in my line of sight.

And I missed it.

I saw the guy walk past out the door, and a few seconds later I hear, “Where’s your purse? … That guy took it.”

So we went after him.

Caught up with him in the alley a couple of blocks away.

He claimed he thought it was his mom’s. “She forgot it and sent me up there to get it.”

I said, “Don’t lie, man. You know that wasn’t your mom’s.”

I later told him, “We live here. Don’t ruin our neighborhood by doing this stupid stuff.”

I felt a bit like Barney Fife … and Rick Simon all in one. We caught the guy but couldn’t do anything with him.

He left before the police showed up because we didn’t call until he was actually walking away. The response time was actually pretty quick though … probably less than two minutes after the call was made.

I went after him for a few more blocks but too much time had passed so I didn’t see where he went. I have to admit the thought crossed my mind about whether or not he was packin’. When I saw someone in the distance, I slowed down and ducked a bit behind the corner of a building. It was a different guy though,

In the end, the purse was returned, and the keys also when they fell out of his pocket. He ended up with a new pack of cigarettes and an inhaler. (That’s a strange combination now that I think about it.)

Now to get some work done …

Coral Ridge Ending Age-Segmented Worship

So proclaims Out of Ur, citing an unlinked article in The Christian Post.

What are they actually doing? They are actually ending their practice of having a traditional and a contemporary service, something that dates back to the days of D. James Kennedy. Now, Kennedy’s successor Tullian Tchividjian says it’s time to do away with that.

Here’s a quote of interest:

The megachurch pastor also said he doesn't view separate worship services by style or age as any different from racial segregation, except that it's more subtle.

Allowing for the fact that Tchividjian may not have actually said this (there is no link and it’s not a direct quote), this is an interesting ploy that, to me, smacks of silliness.

It seems these days, that whenever someone wants to make a really strong statement on something, they often connected it to race because almost everyone cares about race and virtually no one wants to come down on the wrong side of that.

But how, in the name of anything rational, is having multiple services of different styles similar to racial segregation?

Simple answer: It’s not.

People choose which church they want to attend, and which service they want to attend. They are welcome to sit where they like (unless they get there late and the back seats are already filled). No one looks at their appearance and then funnels them into certain places. I was at Coral Ridge one Sunday, as a relatively young man, and went to the traditional service. No one tried to get me to go somewhere else. It was completely voluntary.

Racial segregation was not. It was enforced, both legally and culturally.

In other words, this argument by Tchividjian is, quite frankly, just a dumb argument. It sounds pious, but it makes no sense. It does injustice to real racial problems, and it doesn’t solve anything.

I am all for having one type of service, and one service rather than multiple services. I think young people should be in at least part of the service with older people because “One generation shall praise your works to another,” which is hard to do when the generations are separate (Psalm 145:4).

But whatever a church does with its services, let’s see through cheap ploys to appeal to people’s sensibilities by playing the race card.

We have enough race problems and worship problems in our churches without confusing the two.