In contrast, it is our responsibility as Christ-followers to be positive change agents- bent solely on the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer to the Father: “YOUR KINGDOM COME, YOUR WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.” We cannot do this alone, thus our desperate need for Christian community and cooperation. Thus, the Church.

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, Let light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:1-6, ESV]

May I wake up tomorrow with the desire and ability to be a good servant of Jesus Christ to the world. To you.

A note from Joe: BA Stewart is a friend of mine from seminary in New Orleans. He’s one of the most intelligent and thoughtful guys I’ve ever known, and I’m grateful for our many conversations that elevated my knowledge and comprehension of philosophy (and photography). Please enjoy his guest post.

C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity is among one of his more popular non-fiction works. Lewis’ objective in his book is to discover what it means to be merely Christian–that is a Christian without the perceived trappings of Christianity. He does so by starting with general revelation and concluding Jesus through a series of arguments from emotion and joy and avoiding Christian jargon and divisive theological issues so that the reader is not distracted by such things. Lewis has found many friends among Christians who share his sentiment that Christianity in and of itself is a beautiful, but is often tarnished, duly or unduly, by the perception that Christians are divided, bigoted, old fashion, hypocritical, or one of a million other indictments that keep people away from the faith. Interestingly enough, even some of these attempts to recover the basic teachings of Christianity are now used to as fodder against Christians. Take for instance Christian fundamentalism. This movement was bread out of a series of pamphlets released at the turn of 20th century entitled, “The Fundamentals”, which attempted recapture the basic doctrines of Christianity. This among other movements to one degree or another have all in one shape form or fashion attempted to discover mere Christianity.

Reclaiming the essential doctrines of Christianity is a tough gambit, as inevitably one will include a doctrine that some consider extraneous, or one will exclude a doctrine another considers essential. I have my theological convictions of which I will not relinquish, but there are other doctrines I hold more loosely. To me, however, the more important question to Christianity is, what does it mean to be merely Christian, practically speaking? I ask this not to diminish doctrine. I personally believe that doctrine is more important that praxis because theology undergirds praxis–without the doctrine the praxis  is meaningless. I ask this because as Christians, we have a theological conviction that we have a highly doctrinal message that the world needs to hear and believe. Interestingly, Jesus cared a lot about praxis too. The bulk of his teachings are practical theology as opposed to philosophical theology. But with this said, Jesus did not give a huge list of do’s and don’ts or a how-to guide for delivering the message. Rather, he summarized his commands into two commands and spoke largely in the form akin to wisdom literature. Paul was not a whole lot more specific. We do get somewhat synoptic view of his ministry in Acts and autobiographical glimpses in his letters, but this raises the question, are such things prescriptive or descriptive? At the end of the day, I am not sure, but taking in to account the message of  Romans, perhaps the most systematic theological work in the Bible spends 12 chapters talking about one particular doctrine, (namely the gospel) and reduces the implications of the gospel to a matter of conscience in Chapter 14, so if I was to err, I would err on the descriptive side. But nevertheless I do understand that everything they did was for the purpose of spreading the the gospel.

As a person interested in such things, I have run the gauntlet about how I’ve approached praxis. I was raised in a rather fundamental environment. While I don’t think that there is anything inherently evil about my upbringing much of what I was told as to what Christians do as a child was a product not so much of biblical teachings but of rather traditional forms of Christian behaviors. I however did not become a Christian until I was 18. After becoming a Christian, I rather embraced the more fundamentalist precepts I already knew because to me, such things were what Christians did. But then I changed. I went a trip to another land and came back and did a pendulum swing the other way. I became highly critical of Christian practices in America and rejected many of them on my own accord. It took some time to center myself again, although Joe probably still thinks I’m a fundamentalist .  While I probably over-reacted to my experience, I think lesson burned in my brain is one of self-evaluation. I constantly ask myself a personalized form of the one I asked earlier: are the actions that I perform merely Christian? Relating back to my experience, I was amazed when I stepped off the plane in another land how the in-house “wars” American Christians fight diminished. These Christians weren’t debating young earth creationism against old earth creation against theistic evolution against intelligent design. There weren’t  arguments over traditional and contemporary forms of music. There weren’t “emergents” critiquing the “seeker sensitive”/relevance movement critiquing church growth movement critiquing whatever came before that. There weren’t debates over which translation was the best and which ones were from the devil — in fact, most were happy to have a translation, period. There wasn’t much discussion at all, really, other than discussion over what the Bible say, talks about whom they shared with this week, who they would share with next week, prayer, and where they would meet next week as to not draw too much attention to themselves.  In personal reflection when I ask myself the aforementioned question, I am amazed how much of my quote “Christian” practices melt away. This is not an indictment of American Christianity, but a self-evaluation, and one that I think needs to be asked. This helps me stay focused on the task that God commissioned his disciples to do.

*Disclaimer* – These are my brief thoughts. These are not intended to be the “final word” but rather the “beginning of a conversation”

Church Planting is highly romanticized and is the “sexy” thing to do within the sub-culture of the American pastor. If you are truly revolutionary, edgy, a rebel, then you, my friend, need to plant a church… or at least that’s what we’re told.

But there are not only one, but multiple elephants in the room. Everyone is thinking it, discussing it at their local trendy coffee shop (or, as in the case of the newest “cool place” to hang – Panera Bread) and talking about it on Twitter. And, yet, nothing is changing. The peer pressure is just too great for most.

Church Planting is a heavy endeavor not for the faint-hearted. It truly is a difficult task that needs to be for the truly called (which, sadly, knocks about 1/2 of you reading this out). I don’t know what the current statistics on the survivability rate for church plants is, but a few years ago it was 20%. That means that 80% of church plants failed. That means that either A) God didn’t know what he was doing or, B) 80% of those who planted weren’t really called.

So what is the future of church planting? What needs to change within the church planting circles in order that we may see a new breed of planter emerge? I hope this begins the discussion on the right path.

Church Planting and the Status Quo

What Joe didn’t know when he asked me to do this was that I have been working on this for quite some time. This is just a brief outline of my total thoughts on the subject. I hope that this brief synopsis begins a discussion about some serious elephants in the room.

Most planters would be violently opposed to me saying this seeing as how many are disgruntled people who want to simply “buck the system” and start something “fresh.” But “fresh” is not what most planters end up with. Many end up just Febreezing the old fabrics of the organized institution and making it smell better, for a time, and organizing other disgruntled people. Let’s face the facts, most new traditional church plants (by “traditional” I mean the, “If you build it, they will come” mentality) just initially attract people who have left the church because they “weren’t being fed” (an infant mentality) or they like the “edgy new church in town” (a carnal response). Now, don’t get me wrong, reaching those people are just as important than reaching those who have never stepped foot inside a church before. But as I mentioned above, most new churches are just a perfume-covered version of the old institution.

Everyone Has to Pay the Bills

I once read Andrew Jones as saying that seminaries are partially responsible for the consumer mindset of the western church. Follow me on this – most seminaries (at least the ones I am most familiar with) do not have student loans available. Most do not have an abundant source of scholarships and grants. This makes students rely on credit cards and personal loans with high interest rates to complete their education. In turn, when they graduate, they are so deep in personal debt that they can’t plant a church because the thought of the possibility of no stable income is more than their families can bear. So, they seek out an already existing church with a promise of a stable income in hopes that “someday” they may be able to chase this vision of starting a new church. Sadly, someday almost never arrives. I call it new church abortion.

But that is just one aspect of paying the bills that affects church planting. Another aspect is the fact that most church planters spend an enormous amount of time raising money for this new work – and rightly so – only to jump into bed (apologies for the euphemism) with anyone and any organization willing to give a few bucks. We have seen it over and over again where a planter raises funds only to have to pay back upwards of 25% of their tithes and offerings back to 10 to 15 different organizations. If this doesn’t kill the forward momentum of the church, it severely hinders it. It’s this mindset that we have to be big quick along with the fact you have to pay the piper that drives this model.

Everyone Is the Next Big Thing

There are several terms in the church world that get on my last nerve. Mostly because those saying these terms are either A) copying what someone else said at a conference (we’ll discuss this matter in a moment), or B) they don’t truly understand what they are saying. Here are just a few examples of terms that drive me crazy: “Authentic” – As in, “I just want to be authentic.” or “We strive to be authentic in our worship.” As if every other church in the world is trying to be un-authentic. Really?

Another term is “community.” I know. I know. Community is desperately needed and is the fundamental building block of new churches (only if it is built with true disciples and not merely consumer minded “lay-persons”). Why this term community invokes a knee-jerk, baby-throw-up-in-the-back-of-the-throat reaction from me is because, like authentic it communicates that every other church is not about community. Even in the most traditional and dead or dying churches, I have found some form of community.

Both of these terms convey an anti-kingdom mindset. NorthWood has taught me a lot, but hands down, the largest lesson learned is the idea of the kingdom. I hear many preach, teach and talk about the kingdom but very few live a kingdom context.

Living a kingdom context means it’s not merely about you, your church, your people. It’s about all believers all around the world being the body of Christ… with HIM as the head, not the preacher. I completely believe in Hebrews 13.7 “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” The role of the pastor as a leader to be followed, respected, and imitated is key. But when that role goes to their heads, it’s a death knell for kingdom expansion. Too many want to be “THE guy.” The guy who everyone in the city calls pastor (but rarely do they want to actually pastor a city). They want to be the guy who is called to speak at all the cool conferences, the guy who writes all the cool books, the guy who has the coolest and most downloaded podcast… the list goes on and on. In short, they want to be the next big thing and they see church planting as their means of getting that prestige.

But to live in a kingdom context means that you are willing to share the limelight – even give it up – so that Jesus gets the glory. It means that you are willing to admit that there are other churches in your city who have strengths. It means you are willing to admit you have weaknesses. It means that your people have the freedom to create new ministry opportunities in their neighborhoods and workplaces… and invite others to join them! Living in a kingdom context is the most free way to live, but it costs more than most are willing to pay. Remember, to GOD be the glory and the great things HE has done.

Trapped In the Copy Room

For a while, I was seeing too many people come across my attention that had a recycled version of someone else’s vision. I would usually see that phenomenon sometime within a few months of a large conference somewhere. Guys would come in with a well polished prospectus and convinced that I had never seen or heard of anything like it (c’mon, I was at the same conference for cryin’ out loud!).

I am seeing, though, more and more people coming to me who have truly spent time with God getting a fresh vision and a true passion for their city. It’s been a breath of fresh air for sure! But I still see people trying to use someone else’s values and vision as their own. Very seldom does that work… ok, I’m being generous here… it NEVER works! They may draw a big crowd, but are they producing true disciples? Here’s the other thing about this, when I ask them what a disciple of “X” church looks like, I rarely get an answer of any kind. More often than not, I get the deer-in-the-headlight look.

So, with all that being said, what kind of planter will it take to see a real Jesus movement happen in the U.S.? Here’s my answer: It doesn’t take a “planter”… it takes a true disciple who makes disciples. I would love to hear your answers for this!

In the end, many Haitians will profess Christ and turn to him. However, in this repentance, there is a turning to Christ in the sense of “adding on to the deities who can be called upon for favors and blessings” rather than “turning away from evil and false past beliefs and practices.” If there is to be spiritual maturity, if there is to be a movement to entrust spiritual formation to indigenous pastors, then there must be increased awareness of sin and the personal responsibility each person has for their sin as Scripture reflects. Missionaries who are concerned with the qualitative value of their evangelistic work as much as the quantitative value will do well to bear these issues in mind.

First, it is imperative each individual begins to see him/herself as culpable of sin. The Apostle Paul indicates in Galatians 3, as well as the rest of Pauline literature, that individuals are responsible for the choices they make. Prior to conversion, rural Haitians engaged themselves in sinful idolatry, removing God from the center of their thoughts and replacing him with selfish desires to manipulate lwa (supernatural spirits). The Haitian’s thinking needs modification in understanding him/herself as responsible for reprehensible or sinful behavior and not the lwa. The Christian Haitian experiences regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit enables the new convert to choose to act in obedience to God. Although they view the lwa as the guilty party, it is commonplace to understand one is able to “sin” against another individual or the community. The biblical account of sin incorporates this dynamic into its description of sin, but ultimately all sin is seen as offending God. If Haitians are to come to a biblical view of sin, they must realize they not only are they responsible for their actions, but they are also responsible for their attitudes, thoughts, and unbelief as well.

Secondly, this new insight into personal responsibility will lead to an evolved idea of confession and forgiveness of sins. The view of confession and forgiveness of sin as some type of ritual leading to accessing the power of Christ does not evidence a proper understanding of repentance. Genuine confession and repentance results in the forgiveness of sins and demonstrates an understanding of personal blameworthiness on the part of the repentant sinner. In addition to teaching biblical principles regarding sin, confession and forgiveness, missionaries would also strengthen the Haitian Christian’s understanding of sin if the missionary would be vulnerable enough to discuss battles with sin in their personal lives. Too often missionary workers are unwilling to confess their sins and shortcomings for fear the indigenous people will lose confidence in them and reject the Gospel. Instead, missionaries try to maintain the status of a type of “saint” in the eyes of the Haitians rather than a “saved sinner.” This mentality exacerbates problems of failing to be accountable for one’s sins. While there are certain limitations, missionaries would serve their populations well to model confession and forgiveness of sin to the believers in Haiti.

While basing claims of the Gospel of Christ upon Scripture, the missionary fails to consider what presuppositions he/ she might bring to the Biblical text. In addition, the missionary, as well as the recipient Haitian listener, make assumptions that one another categorize and conceptualize ideas about sin and salvation in similar ways, which leads to more frustration and confusion. The Protestant church is growing in rural Haiti, but not without significant problems. Many appear to be converting for the purposes of gaining more power and adding Jesus to a list of other deities they can manipulate to appease the spirit world. Even individuals who renounce voodoo after conversion find themselves rooted and based in voodoo beliefs and thinking. A fatalistic outlook dominates their view of reality as they attribute everything that transpires to the control of the spirit world. This attitude leads to a severe lack of understanding concerning personal moral responsibility. In order to move towards a more Biblical understanding of sin and moral responsibility, missionaries must attempt to fix these mistaken ideas about sin by overcoming many cultural presuppositions as well as teaching the Haitian about the true nature of repentance and acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions.

Throughout the history of Haiti, there has been an economic and social aspect to these religions as well. On a macro level, Catholicism thrived in urban areas because the majority of the education available was through Catholic schools and typically served the elite and wealthier populations, as well as their agendas. On the contrary, Protestants failed to gain much ground in urban areas, and thus focused their energies and attentions on poorer rural areas with remarkable success. Despite this success, it is troubling that Voodoo has remained the dominant world view and lens through which the majority of Haitians view all aspects of life.

Because of these factors, Protestantism gained momentum toward the last half of the 20th century, especially in rural Haiti. On the one hand, being a pastor/ clergy is one of the few jobs for men in rural areas other than agriculture. Association with a Protestant mission signifies upward mobility, both figuratively and literally. Another reason for success in rural Haiti has been the support of using the common language of Creole in literacy (Scriptures) and sermons rather than French. In addition, Pentecostals were effective because they systematically covered the entire country and covered the poorest segments of the population. Furthermore, there has been a mass exodus from the Catholic Church because of a perceived lack of spiritual power. This dynamic power was evidenced in some Protestant churches, namely Charismatic/ Pentecostal churches, and has resulted in a substantial growth in rural Haiti.

9. They mention that their life is “purpose driven.” = + 1 point

To add up your score with over a 130 other ideas on this scorecard, visit stuffchristianslike.net.

A note from Joe: This has been a guest post by Jon Acuff from Stuff Christians Like. I hope you enjoyed it.

A note from Joe: I met Casey in New Orleans while attending seminary. We both were a part of Edgewater Baptist Church, and we were in the same small group. Casey’s wife Briana was in medical school and now they live in Seattle where she does doctor stuff at a hospital. Casey is a self-described stay-at-home pop, but I think he’s more than that. He spent a lot of his younger years in Haiti with his family, who run the Real Hope for Haiti Rescue Center. He’s my Haiti expert. I asked him to write a guest post on Haiti, and he shot me some in-depth, yet brief documents that I’m now sharing with you. Instead of one or two posts, I’ve broken his two papers into six posts that will go live over the next two weeks. Casey’s understanding of the Haitian culture stands as a gleaming example of how every missionary should understand the culture around him. You can find Casey on Twitter here.

Like the spoken language Creole, which is a mixture of the languages of the African slaves and the French Colonialists, religion in Haiti is also a mixture of sorts. Because of the ritualistic nature of Catholicism, voodoo has absorbed it well. In fact, voodoo temples are typically adorned with crucifixes, statues of Mary, the paintings of saints, and altars similar to those found in a Catholic Church setting. In similar fashion, Catholicism has been profoundly impacted by voodoo in Haiti as well. After gaining independence, the newly founded republic was isolated politically and religiously from the rest of the world. Early leaders feared that voodoo would further alienate them from the developed world and thus named Catholicism its main religion. The Catholic churches that remained were immediately indigenized, as all foreign priests fled and Rome cut off all relations. This resulted in voodoo being pervasive in Haitian Catholicism and is why the two appear to co-exist so easily in a system of religious pluralism even today.