I've written on apostles on two occasions-- consider the meaning and the usage today. Today we take a closer look at the term apostle-- both what it means and who they were. In his short essay, Michael J. Wilkins provides a clear, biblical understanding and application of the term.

As I'm doing all year long, I am giving away a free HCSB study Bible to a commenter. To be entered to win this week's giveaway, share with us your thoughts on the term and the people we know as apostles.

---

The apostles of the New Testament lived through what is arguably the most significant era of human history. They experienced the personal entrance of God into history in the person of Jesus Messiah, and their lives were permanently changed. Their transformation catapulted them into the entire then-known world with the message of what they had experienced--the arrival of the kingdom of God and salvation in Jesus' name.

The term apostle has a significantly different meaning than the word disciple. "Disciple" is the term used to designate all those who have believed in Jesus and have followed Him as their Savior. The title "apostle" designates those who have been commissioned to be leaders of the church and Jesus' representatives with the gospel message. From out of the large group of His disciples, Jesus chose the Twelve to be sent out as His apostles (Lk 6:13-16).

Therefore, coming from the verb apostello, which means "to send someone away to achieve an objective," the noun "apostle" indicates a "sent one" or "messenger." It occurs in the NT in at least four ways.

Four usages of "Apostle" in the New Testament

First, the term is used especially to refer to the "twelve apostles" who were eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly ministry. They were first sent out to Israel with the gospel message of the arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:1-7), and after Jesus' death and resurrection they were sent out with the gospel message to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:18-20). They witnessed Jesus' resurrection appearances, which Luke tells us demonstrated the reality of Jesus' victory over death and the certainty of the kingdom of God in this age (Ac 1:2-3). They were among the first to receive the filling of the Spirit at Pentecost (Ac 2:1-4), and their preaching of the gospel established them as the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). After Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and killed himself, another eyewitness of Jesus' earthly ministry and resurrection, Matthias, was added to the Eleven (Ac 1:21-26).

Second, the term apostle also refers to those who saw the risen Lord and were commissioned by Him for ministry (cp. 1Co 9:1). This is the sense in which Paul identifies himself as an "apostle of Christ Jesus" (1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1). He was not one of the Twelve (e.g., 1Co 15:3-11; Gl 1:17-19), but Jesus granted him a unique apostleship to the Gentiles (Gl 2:8-9).

Third, the term apostle can have the more general sense of "missionary." This was the case for Barnabas (Ac 14:4,14), perhaps Timothy and Silvanus (cp. 1Th 1:1; 2:7), and Andronicus and Junia[s] (Rm 16:7). The last may have been a husband-wife team; they were commended by Paul for spreading the gospel along with the other apostles.

Fourth, the term apostle sometimes referred more broadly to "messengers of the churches" who were sent out to perform certain tasks (2Co 8:23). This includes among others, Epaphroditus, who was sent as a messenger to minister to Paul by the church at Philippi (Php 2:25-30).

These different types of apostles had different roles, but what they had in common was either their encounter with Jesus in His earthly ministry or in His risen and ascended ministry, or else their being directly commissioned by one who had met these qualifications. And their transformation in understanding Jesus' identity as God incarnate, offering salvation to the world, became the foundation of their message. The Twelve and Paul are dramatic examples.

Diversity and unity among the Apostles

The Twelve displayed a remarkable personal diversity. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John were partners in a successful fishing business on the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:9-11). Matthew was a hated tax collector (Mt 9:9-13), seen as a traitor because he worked for the Roman occupying government extracting as much tax as he could from his own people. Simon the Zealot was a revolutionary who was willing to die for the cause of liberating Israel from Rome. In normal circumstances these men might be ready to stick a knife in each other, but their individual encounters with Jesus transformed them into a cohesive unit dedicated to declaring Jesus to be the only way to eternal life (cp. Jn 6:67-69).

Peter's preaching at Pentecost is an example of his dramatic transformation from one who denied Jesus to one who fearlessly preached to the multitudes in Jerusalem. His message was clear: "Repent . . . and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . . Be saved from this corrupt generation!" (Ac 2:38,40). For over 30 years Peter traversed the ancient world proclaiming the same message, until finally the Roman government executed him. But Rome couldn't silence the message, for the church continued to proclaim the gospel fearlessly in the face of persecution.

The apostle Paul was a former Pharisee (Php 3:4-6). The Pharisees were well-known critics of Jesus (Mt 12:14), and Paul himself actively persecuted the church as a Pharisee (Ac 22:3-4). But after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul was radically transformed from an enemy to one who gave the rest of his life as a servant of Jesus. Paul's own testimony of what produced the transformation
is found in his letter to Titus. He speaks of his former life of foolishness, malice, envy, and hatred (Ti 3:3), but then says:

"But when the goodness of God and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us--not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. He poured out this Spirit on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life" (Ti 3:4-7).

The apostles seem an unlikely group to be used by Jesus to establish the church and proclaim His message of salvation and transformation. But what empowered them was not their own charisma or powerful preaching, nor an ambition to create a movement. Rather, it was the operation of the Spirit that caused their transformation into the image of Jesus, which then impelled them to proclaim Jesus' glorious message of salvation and hope of change to the entire world.

Michael J. Wilkins
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Much has been said over the past week about the nature of the Trinity and the three persons which make up the God-head. This week's essay, featured in the HSCB Study Bible, is penned by Stephen J. Wellum. In his essay, Dr. Wellum takes a closer look at the human and divine natures--commonly known as the hypostatic union--of Christ, the second person in the God-head.

As I'm doing all year long, I am giving away a free HCSB study Bible to a commenter. To be entered to win this week's giveaway, share with us your thoughts on Christ and his incarnation.

---

This week we are taking a closer look at the atonement in the Old Testament. This essay, featured in the HSCB Study Bible, is penned by Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill. Dr. Merrill has likely forgotten more about the Old Testament than many of us will ever know. I'm thankful for his work and for his continued commitment to raising future scholars as he serves as Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

As I'm doing all year long, I am giving away a free HCSB study Bible to a commenter. To be entered to win this week's giveaway, share with us your thoughts on Christ in the Old Testament and how that has impacted you.

---

In honor of the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, this week we take a closer look at the Bible and civil rights. This essay, penned by Kevin L. Smith is featured in the HSCB Study Bible.

As we will do all year long, we are giving away a free HCSB study Bible to a commenter. To be entered to win this week's giveaway, tell us how the Bible has impacted your view of civil rights and the dignity owed to all mankind.

---

The Bible was central to the thought, rhetoric, and development of the Civil Rights Movement. This was influenced by the essential role of black churches and preachers in the organization of the movement. Not only was the movement characterized by meetings in churches and the singing of Negro spirituals, it was also marked by biblical themes and biblical rhetoric.

On Wednesdays in 2012, I will be running a series of articles from some of the study Bibles that B&H publishes. While the authors will not necessarily be interacting on the blog, in the comments section you can interact with their ideas. I will also be giving away a free HCSB Study Bible to a commenter each week. I hope you find these articles as enjoyable and informative as I do.

Since this is a new feature here on the site, it needs a name. So this week's study Bible will go to the commenter who provides us with the winning name for these posts. Leave your entry in the comments below.

Recently Liberty University hosted a helpful discussion on English translations of the Bible. Guests included biblical scholars Ray Clendenen (B&H Publishing), Doug Moo (Wheaton), and Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary). Each highlighted a different translation of the Bible and engaged in a panel discussion responding to one another (taking questions as well). B&H will publish a book based on the symposium some time in the future.

This week on the blog I am giving away free stuff. I hope you don't mind.

Collin Hansen has written an article in Christianity Today about the current controversy in missiology relating to ministry to Muslims. At the heart of the controversy is how to best translate the Bible. But, it's not just a matter of translation. It is also an issue of contextualization. For example, is it appropriate to use the word "Allah" (a title older then Islam) to refer to God in these new translations? Another key translation issue is what to do with Jesus' title, "Son of God." Since last week's discussion of the MissionSHIFT book was focused on contextualization, it seems this might be a worthwhile addition to the topic.

While this title and its meaning are very important to identity of Jesus, proponents of dropping the term indicated that Muslims become confused over it and "believe this phrase means that the Father engaged in sexual relations with Mary." If you have ever had a serious conversation with a Muslim, this always comes up. I mentioned this is my talk at the Global Faith Forum, with Muslims, Christians, and Jews all in attendance. To overcome such a misunderstanding, one translation instead refers to Jesus as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God."

Bible Study Magazine is a non-denominational publication that works to provide readers with tools and methods for Bible study, as well as insights from respected Bible teachers, professors, historians and archaeologists. The content is diverse, always interesting, and helpful. I was recently interviewed for the magazine and am allowed to share a few excerpts below.

I was asked the following questions for the interview:

• Why is reading and studying the Bible important for you personally and for Christians in general?


• How do you read the Bible?


• What is something that is surprising about your Bible study habits?


• What about memorizing Scripture? How important is that?


• How can pastors better encourage people to read the Bible more consistently?


• Why is it so hard for people to read the Bible?


• Can you give us an example of digging deeper into the Old Testament?


• You have written about some of the challenges in churches today. How do you think Bible study relates to that?

There is a another world out there. It is a world that, honestly, I have never entered. I have a Wii and play it with my kids. I see all the commercials for much more interactive games than my Wii Bowling, but they might as well be commercials for woman's clothing. They mean very little to me because I am not in that world.

But, this is a big world. For example, the first-person shooter video game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, currently holds the record for the largest entertainment launch ever, bringing in over $550 Million in 5 days, outpacing the films "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," "The Dark Knight," and any music album for a release.

There is a lot of talk about the gospel these day. Yes, it's all gospel and gospel-centeredness, and yet many are still fuzzy when it comes to defining the good news of Jesus Christ.

In my Missional Church class at ReTrain this week, I share some thoughts on the gospel. Why? Well, I believe that what you believe about the gospel will be the foundation for your understanding of the mission.

To do that, I first reviewed some gospel definitions assembled by Trevin Wax at his blog Kingdom People. You can find a PDF and lists by names by clicking this link. Then, I shared a few of them (at first I did not identify the source). You can download a PowerPoint of the ones I shared here: Gospel Definitions.ppt. I took some pleasure in watching the students agree (at times) with the definitions from people with whom they disagree.

As I explain in this post, whenever I teach on the missional church, it is always an opportunity to talk about the Gospel since I tend to present the ideas around:

What is the Gospel?
What is the mission?
What is the church?
What is the Kingdom?

So, we began our definitions at ReTrain by having the cohorts make a definition and report back. Here are those gospel definitions...

The Gospel is the good news that God has sent his son Jesus Christ into the world in order to reconcile Creator to creation, which will renew all things and he has done all this through Jesus' perfect sinless life, bloody atoning death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. - Admin Cohort's Definition

Our glorious God created everything we know. We, his creation, rebelled seeking our own glory and deserving the full wrath of God. The gospel is the good news that Jesus lived the life we should have lived to the glory of the Father. He died in our place, for all our sinful, false worship. Through Jesus, by the power of the Spirit, we live a new life to His glory. As we behold the glory of Jesus we are transformed to look more like Him, united in the Church as His body through which his kingdom is advanced making all things new.
- Worship Cohort

God created man in His image to glorify Him
Mankind rebelled against God in sin
The gospel is the good news of Godʼs provision of redemption
Through the atoning work of Jesus the Christ
Who died in our place for our sin on the cross
Rising from the grave to conquer Satan, sin and death
Giving new life to all who by grace
turn to Him in repentance and faith
Calling them to a life empowered by His Spirit
To accomplish the mission of His kingdom
To the glory of His name
- Campus Pastor Cohort

The gospel is the power of God for salvation of everyone who believes. Through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection God overcomes sin, sin's consequences, Satan, and death and subjects all things under his feet. And, in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, God is reconciling the world to himself.
- Biblical Living, Family and Community Group Cohort

God redeems fallen mankind through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which regenerates individuals through the Holy Spirit and renews all of His creation as He establishes His Kingdom.
- Church Planting Cohort

The Gospel is the truth that Jesus Christ, God the Son sent from the God the Father, empowered by God the Spirit, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the atonement of sinners, and rose from the dead triumphing over satan, sin, and death in accordance with the Scriptures.
- Acts 29 Church Planting Cohort

One of the key issues is this question: Is the gospel only God-Man-Christ-Response or does it include elements of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration. I think it is interesting how the worship leaders cohort differed from the Acts 29 church planting cohort (and, I should add, there was a "minority report" from the Acts 29 church planting cohort that wanted to include a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration focus).

In class, I shared this article, on the difference between the gospel and the effects of the gospel, with the class. D.A. Carson and I discussed it recently while I was teaching at Trinity and I like it. Carson explains:

If the gospel is the (good) news about what God has done in Christ Jesus, there is ample place for including under "the gospel" the ways in which the kingdom has dawned and is coming, for tying this kingdom to Jesus' death and resurrection, for demonstrating that the purpose of what God has done is to reconcile sinners to himself and finally to bring under one head a renovated and transformed new heaven and new earth, for talking about God's gift of the Holy Spirit, consequent upon Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high, and above all for focusing attention on what Paul (and others--though the language I'm using here reflects Paul) sees as the matter "of first importance": Christ crucified. All of this is what God has done; it is what we proclaim; it is the news, the great news, the good news.

For another view, see Scott McKnight in Christianity Today's Out of Ur blog. Also, Matt Chandler makes a case for including both God-Man-Christ-Response and Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration in his SBTS chapel message (including mentioning some helpful warnings about how we speak of others "tribes" in the church).

Below is the definition I am using. I am still tweaking and revising it (but trying NOT to make it longer). If Packer can define the gospel as, "God saves sinners," I figure we should be able to do it in a paragraph!

Anyway, here is what I am using today:

The gospel is the good news that God, who is more holy than we can imagine, looked upon with compassion, people, who are more sinful than we would possibly admit, and sent Jesus into history to establish His Kingdom and reconcile people and the world to himself. Jesus, whose love is more extravagant than we can measure, came to sacrificially die for us so that, by His death and resurrection, we might gain through His grace what the Bible defines as new and eternal life.

I chose not to include the response to the gospel ("repentance by grace through faith alone," for example), but just tried to focus on what the gospel actually is. I edit it regularly as I try to grasp and preach the gospel to myself.

What are your thoughts? Feel free to share your own definitions or interact with the ones listed here. Then, I will learn and edit mine!

"Kids these days."

The Barna Group has released a new study that explores the how different generations of American adults view and use the Bible. And guess what - it turns out perspectives are different!

Barna groups those surveyed into four generations, broken down as follows: the Mosaic generation refers to adults who are currently ages 18 to 25; Busters are those ages 26 to 44; Boomers are 45 to 63; and Elders are 64-plus.

Not everything is wildly different between these generations. In fact "a majority of each of the four generations believes that the Bible is a sacred or holy book." Shocking. Ok, not really. But another commonality is that "millions within each of the generations report reading the pages of Scripture in the last week." That is more interesting to me.

Similar proportions of the generations embrace the most conservative and most liberal views. For instance, the "highest" view of the Bible - that it is "the actual word of God and should be taken literally, word for word" - is embraced by one-quarter of Mosaics (27%), Busters (27%), and Boomers (23%), and one-third of Elders (34%). The extreme view on the other end - that the Bible is not inspired by God - is embraced by proportions that are also statistically close to one another, including Mosaics (25%), Busters (19%), Boomers (22%), and Elders (22%).

Of course there are significant differences between the generations and their perspectives on Scripture. The Barna Group summarizes that the younger generations show the following changes in thought as it relates to the Bible:

Less Sacred - While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

Less Accurate - Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

More Universalism - Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

Skepticism of Origins - Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

Less Engagement - While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off - the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

Bible Appetite - Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders.

Go and read the report at Barna.com, and then head back here to talk about it. What does this shift in perception mean for the church? On the one hand we want to affirm that "the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God," but what will our part be in showing the younger generations, particularly the unchurched, the nature, value and use of Scripture? What is your church doing to help younger generations develop a healthy, biblical view of Scripture?

I have never been that guy who geeks out over Bible study software. I've always been old school. You know, I'd go with the hardcopy, printed editions of study helps and commentaries. These large, multi-volume works have taken up shelf space in my study/office for at least 20 years. And come on, who doesn't like shelves lined with books? It's a great aesthetic for a study.

Needless to say, heading out to study for my sermon at a coffee shop or a park was next to impossible. Well, unless I stuffed my bag so full of books that the zipper began to pray.

The Logos Scholar's Library: Gold has changed the way I study, where I study and the results of my studying. I am consistently impressed with it and thought I would share my review here at the blog.

Yesterday, I found out that 218 churches got our small group study kit, "Compelled by Love: A Journey to Missional Living" in one week. That's pretty exciting and intimidating-- in one week, 281 churches started using our resources to help their people live missional lives. We are glad to hear that churches are studying missional living and honored they would use our resource.

Go to lifeway.com/compelled to see the kit. The webpage has a promo trailer and you can watch the first session to get a feel for the study. Go here to see the work book and download a preview of the first chapter.

This week, the pastor search committee of my church announced that they have a candidate. Assuming that goes ahead, I will be finishing up as "interim Teaching Pastor" there in early August. It is a great church and I will miss delivering my messages there. But, I am, after all, an "interim" and eventually that comes to an end.

Here are some pics of the church from a recent blog post (see that post here).

So, that leaves me one message before the new pastor comes "in view of a call."

I should probably explain what "in view of a call" means. It is a common expression in low church evangelical circles where churches vote on the man who may serve as their pastor. For some of you, this will make you a little nervous. You want some elders to make that appointment-- after all, they know better.

Well, let me explain how it works in low church evangelicalism.

First, before the church really starts looking for a pastor they establish a Pastor Search Committee. (At this church it is called a "Pastor Selection Committee," a term that makes it a little confusing since they don't actually "select" but rather "nominate.") The Pastor Search Committee is elected by the church and does the hard work of finding a pastoral candidate whose gifts and personality will best serve the body.

Second, the PSC starts working by consulting other leaders and pastors, listening to on-line messages, listening to the church family through surveys and listening sessions, visiting churches, and contacting potential pastors. In a church like ours (with about 8000 members) that takes a while. For example, the PSC had over 50 listening sessions with church members.

Third, the PSC prays a lot and seeks to discern whom to ask to be considered. Once they are in agreement they approach that person.

Fourth, that person, after much prayer and examining the church, eventually agrees to be nominated by the PSC to the church (which happened this week).

Fifth, If the church votes "yes," the pastor then comes "in view of a call." In other words, they come to preach with the intent ("in view of") being called as the pastor.

But, for you non-congregationalists out there (who need Bibles, grin), the church actually votes to call the pastor. After the vote (which usually has to be 75%) the candidate is then informed of the results and agrees to come (or not). Then, the nominee is no longer a nominee and informs his church that he is leaving to pastor another church.

Then, the interim packs up his books and gets out of the way. ;-)

That will leave me with three or four messages after he accepts that call but before he comes and starts as pastor. I need time to pack up those books, after all. ;-)

So, my question for you is this: what should I preach on for this Sunday and then for the next several? Any suggestions? I can work through a text or share a series of texts, but I am very open to suggestions and believe that in many counselors there is wisdom.

First, what should I speak on NEXT week, July 5-- the week before he comes in view of a call. (I am out on July 12th and my friend and co-author Philip Nation is speaking that day.)

Second, what should I preach on after (and assuming) the church calls and he accepts on July 19th. The congregation votes that evening and, assuming the vote is positive, he is then to start his transition and i will bring several more messages. So, what can I preach on pointing to the new pastor.

Jump into the comments and share your thoughts.

I recently had the opportunity to engage the public concerning exclusive truth claims at USA Today. Is there Only One Way? was the topic - one that I obviously am passionate about, and one that many who attend church appear to be confused about. You can read the introduction here, and I am reproducing the article here on my blog. If you want to follow the conversation that followed in nearly 100 comments be sure to go directly to the USA Today site.

Is There Only One Way?

Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a survey regarding the beliefs of Christians and their views on entrance to eternal life (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/reports_2). The first article released by Pew included these findings:

"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)."

I wrote about this issue on my own blog (www.edstetzer.com) in "Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?" as a response to an earlier Pew Research project (http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/06/are-evangelicals-really-univer.html).

Our team at LifeWay Research (and many others) felt the definition of "religion" might lead, for instance, some Pentecostals to say that Lutherans can find eternal life through their "religion." In other words, some would hear "religion" and think "denomination." (Pew, as a professional organization, always releases the questions they ask and such analysis and questions are normal in our field.)

So I (and it appears many others) contacted the good people at the Pew Forum to share my concerns. They were gracious to listen to my concerns and subsequently re-asked the questions in a follow-up survey with a more closely worded query. In their most recent study (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380), I believe they have asked better questions and brought the issue into a sharper focus.

In their new study, Pew research states that 65% of all self-identified Christians believe eternal life can be obtained through a non-Christian belief system. Furthermore, they found that 80% of that group can "cite an example of at least one non-Christian religion that can lead to salvation."

In summary:

Pew Study 1: In the first study, Pew posed the statement, "My religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life, OR Many religions can lead to eternal life," asking respondents to agree with one or the other (or neither), to which 57% of members of evangelical churches agreed with the latter. (from the full report: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)

Pew Study 2: In the follow-up study, Pew still used the word "religions" in its survey questions, but followed-up with clarifying questions for respondents who indicated that many religions can lead to eternal life. They write, "All respondents who say 'many religions' were asked whether Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism can lead to eternal life . . . In total, therefore, each respondent had the opportunity to name up to four non-Christian faiths." They then found that 80% of self-identified Christians who agreed that many religions can lead to eternal life actually cited at least one non-Christian religion that leads to salvation.

The refinement between the two studies is helpful. With the clarifications and follow-ups added to the "many religions" language of the survey, we can be more certain that Christian respondents were not comparing apples to a different brand of apples, so to speak. By actually citing non-Christian religions that they believe can lead to salvation, Pew has done well to remove the concern that "religions" could be misconstrued by Christians as including other Christian denominations.

Theologians call people with such views universalists or pluralists.

Universalism is a term with a wide meaning, so let me define it as the belief that there are multiple means, ways, and methods to gaining an eternal reward or salvation from the divine being after death. (Some argue a difference between universalism and pluralism, but they overlap in many ways and most news stories used the term "universalism.")

Only one group from the Pew research fell into a majority view when it came to the issue that eternal life can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ--white evangelicals at 64%. All other groupings and evangelicals as a whole were shown to believe that actions are necessary to obtain eternal life.

The Pew article said, "The poll also finds that roughly one-third of Americans (30%) believe that whether one achieves eternal life is determined by what a person believes, with nearly as many (29%) saying eternal life depends on one's actions."

Looking at this (and other) data tells us a few things: Americans are very universalistic, self-identified Christians are mostly universalistic, evangelicals are somewhat universalistic. (Those who report evangelical beliefs are slightly universalistic and I will address that later.)

To further the discussion, let's talk about the core issues of exclusivity of beliefs and how that affects culture, religion, and human interaction.

How do you view those who hold such exclusive beliefs? Why do you think that people increasingly seem to hold universalistic and pluralistic beliefs?

Let's make it personal, as well: Many faiths believe there is only one way to God, heaven, righteousness, etc. If you are a person of faith, does your faith teach that? If so, why does it matter?

So far we're getting a lot of positive feedback from our most recent book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and The Churches That Reach Them. We're grateful that so many ministry leaders from so many different places are finding it to be a helpful resource.

I've talked about my friend and co-author, Jason Hayes, in some past posts related to the book or to "Threads," LifeWay's Young Adult initiative. Jason is a smart guy with a passion for connecting this generation to God and the church. Despite his serious influence in this movement, you'll see below that he's also got a sense of humor and that he knows how to do a blog tour well (with no input from his victims, it appears).

I was going to beat on him like a low hanging pinata on Cinco de Mayo but he used the word "missional" so it was OK. ;-)

Watch the video and then check out Blemished.

I must confess that I find many things perplexing in the Christian life-- why does God not always heal?, why are there so many without Christ?, and many other questions. But one question has been really troubling me lately: why do Christians lie about each other so much?

I first noticed this several years ago. I found that speakers came where I served and misquoted and mischaracterized those they did not like (in this case and at that time, it was primarily contemporary churches). So, rather than criticize or challenge (which I think is fine) they build their case up with falsehood, or as the 9th commandment puts it, they "bear false witness," or as I will put it, they lie.

John Wesley said bearing false witness is "speaking falsely in any matter" including "lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbour," or to speak "unjustly against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his reputation." Of course it's not always that men are out to ruin another's reputation, but they care nothing of ruining another's reputation in the pursuit of making their point.

This malady seems to be everywhere, but it is surprising to me how common it is among the most conservative of Christians-- those who speak often of their belief in the authority of Bible. People like me. We are quick to defend the authority of God's word, but are not always as quick to apply what it say about lying to our own words.

It struck me most forcefully when I saw one well-known polemic pastor bear false witness against some friends of mine, be confronted on it, admit he was wrong, and then not publicly address, retract, or apologize for what he said. My guess is, even if he had corrected himself publicly few would have noticed, and fewer would have thought it a big deal. The truth is that "all is fair" in some wars.

We often give one another a pass when someone bears false witness because they were being passionate for truth; or at least for a truth that they believe is being attacked. John Calvin said, "slander is often praised under the pretext of zeal and conscientiousness. Hence it happens that this vice insinuates itself even among the saints, creeping in under the name of virtue."

And, to my own shame, I think I began to notice it more when I saw the lying directed at churches like mine. It is funny how I did not care as much about all the 9th commandment issues until some of those 9th commandment issues were directed at me. That shows my own carnality. And, it left me wondering how many times I had carelessly provided a false witness before I was sensitive to it.

The benefit of experiencing some of these false allegations is it sensitized me-- and convicted me that I had not been careful in my own speech.

But it's important to note that if we are going to take the 9th commandment seriously we have to do more than not lie-- we must tell the truth, and even defend those who are being lied about. So, occasionally, I have defended the victims of false witness. In some quarters of my denomination and other conservative evangelical expressions, those lied about are often church planters and contemporary or emerging church pastors. (One of the reasons so many contemporary pastors have left my denomination is that they were tired of being misrepresented and caricatured from the platform of the denomination they supported-- something I believe is changing.)

Even people with whom we have differences need to be spoken of truthfully. Although I am not where Bill Hybels is on some issues, this past summer I wrote about the need to be truthful about Willowcreek and their Reveal study in my monthly Outreach Magazine column and here at the blog.

The same goes for people as diverse as Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren, and Jeremiah Wright. Regardless of how much we disagree and how passionate we feel, in all cases, people should be spoken of truthfully, even when we are disagreeing with them.

We cannot not let a passion for the truth make it OK to not speak truthfully. God is never honored when we defend His truth by speaking falsely.

Because God does not lie and is always trustworthy we value the truth. As followers of Jesus, who called himself "the truth," we must be a people of truth. This demands that we not bear false witness, but speak honestly and plainly of ourselves and others.

"But how?"

That's a good question. Living missionally is a biblical and exciting theory, but it doesn't matter if we can't answer the practical question concerning how to actually do it. There are a lot of answers to that question, and we examine some of them in Session 5 of Sent. In that session, we take a look at Paul's example of cultural engagement when he walked into Athens, the pre-eminent city of learning and philosophy in his day. Rather than avoiding the Athenian culture, Paul actually found a way to use it as a bridge to walk his hearers to the gospel.

We can put ourselves in a position to talk about the gospel through an understanding of culture. Paul didn't ask the people to come to him; he went where they were. He listened. He examined. He learned. Then he spoke. We can do the same thing.

It's called cultural engagement. But not in the surface-level, doing-what's-hip-so-people-will-like-us variety that we sometimes see played out. It's being relevant in the look-at-what's-happening-at-the-core-of-who-people-are-variety. It's loving people as they are but then showing them a better way.

In Athens the culture of the day was one of debate. That may not necessarily be the best mode of conversation in your circles. But maybe a helpful approach is to look deeper at the themes of films as a way of entering into talks about what seems to be driving or motivating humanity today--and then having conversations about a new way of life. Maybe it's time to read books of substance so that you might have conversations of substance. Maybe you need to go to the places where real people live real (and sometimes messy) lives and have honest conversations. Regardless of the method, it's about meeting people where they are and then giving them the choice to go further.

Wander through your own Athens. Look at the cultural idols. Let this burden your mind and spark your imagination. Let godly passion drive you to say "Give me Athens or I die." Then confidently share the gospel with those who may see its uncluttered message, trust its validity, and receive its Savior--Jesus Christ. You don't have to make the gospel, God, or the Bible relevant. They're already relevant. But we need to find relevant means to communicate that eternal truth.

You can find more information about Sent here.

What do you think of when you hear the word "world?" What's your response, or reaction? A cursory reading of the New Testament can make it seem like John can't even make up his mind on the subject of "the world." In John 3:16 he wrote: "For God so loved the world..." But then in 1 John 2 he wrote: "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in Him."

In Session 4 of Sent, we discuss the difference between the people of the world and the fallen system of ideas that work in rebellion to God. In that sense, we are to both love and hate (Prov. 8:13) the world. Part of what that means is living in the world but not being of the world. But many Christians have responded in fear to being of the world, so much so that they've completely isolated themselves from anything in the world. That's not how we are supposed to live and it denies the missional nature of the church. We point it out like this in Sent:

The Bible specifically tells us to live with 'worldly' people. That's exactly what Jesus always got in trouble for--hanging out with drunkards, sinners, prostitutes (you know, the 'bad' ones). Paul emphasized the same point to the church at Corinth. The church had become confused based on some things the apostle had taught earlier. In response, the church began to disassociate with the world around them. But Paul wanted them to understand the solution to their problems--and they had lots of them--was not withdrawal from the world:

I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--by no means referring to this world's immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But not I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).

Two things become clear from Paul's words. First, he has absolutely no intention to separate Christians from non-Christians. The concept was laughable to him because it would negate the whole reason Christians live in the world. The second thing is that there is an incredibly high standard for someone who claims the name of Christ. If such a person forgets where his or her loyalty lies and adopts the manners and customs of another country, then Paul says not to give them the privilege of 'dual citizenship.' They have to choose.

The church today is still missing the mark on both of these implications, though. To begin with, our lives as Christ-followers often look no different from the system of the world. Too often, the divorce rate is the same in the church and outside. There's the same addiction to pornography. There's the same greed and materialism. There's the same focus on ourselves and our comfort.

On the other hand, we may not participate in the world's systems, but instead insulate ourselves in a self-made Christian bubble, a life constructed so that we we live out our days without ever even bumping into someone who doesn't believe or live as we do.

As the sent church of God we must love the people in the world with the love of Christ expressed in words and deeds, while hating the broken and sinful systems of the world that war against the Kingdom of God. It turns out John wasn't confused at all, but the church often times is.

Find out more about Sent here.