In 2008 the Evangelical Free Church of America adopted a newly revised Statement of Faith. You should give that a read. It's a solid confessional statement that works at connecting each statement to the gospel.

Greg Strand, the EFCA's Director of Biblical Theology and Credentialing, worked on Evangelical Convictions: A Theological Exposition of the Statement of Faith, a book that gives clarity to the theological convictions contained in that Statement, spelling out what is affirmed and what is denied (and what is not addressed). His exposition of the Statement is clear, while avoiding a lot of technical theological terms making the book accessible to as wide an audience as possible.

How do we relate in a helpful way with those who are (or are perceived to be) outside of orthodoxy? When you choose to interact with people with such views, there are certainly consequences to pay but, I propose, there can be benefits to reap in the right circumstances.

Bad examples exist where evangelical Christians have been used by those outside orthodoxy to legitimize their aberrant views. In addition, the scriptures warn us away from false teachers. Yet, I believe in interaction around the scriptures in a way that leads to helpful conversations and theological clarity when such people are considering (or engaging in) moves toward orthodoxy.

Probably the most prominent example in modern times has to be the Worldwide Church of God. They were once a non-Trinitarian, heretical cult (their term, not mine), and are now an evangelical denomination and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.

I've never met Texas pastor T.D. Jakes. Not long ago, we both spoke at the same event-- we served as the co-keynote speakers for the Evangelical Press Association meeting in his hometown of Dallas, but did not meet-- and that was about as close as my association has been. He is certainly well known and influential... and in the "evangelical press" again this week.

In evangelical circles, few issues have been as controversial lately as James MacDonald's invitation of T. D. Jakes to an event called The Elephant Room. Many people expressed great concern and, to quote Mark Driscoll, MacDonald "must have felt like a piñata on Cinco de Mayo."

During the simulcast that took place yesterday, Jakes was paired with Driscoll for a discussion about doctrine. Quickly the question that was on everyone's mind was brought into the conversation-- something called modalism or Sabellianism. (For more info on Sabellianism, visit Justin Holcomb's Know Your Heretics series at The Resurgence.)

Back in 1996 John Piper preached a message titled, Praying From The Fullness of The Word, in which he addresses the questions, "Why aren't my prayers being answered?" He says in part,

Today, I thought we would have an interesting and needed conversation about angry Calvinists. To be fair, this originally was going to be an interview for Joe Thorn's new book, but it turned into something more (though you should buy his new book!).

Joe Thorn is the founding pastor of Redeemer Fellowship, and the author of Note to Self: The Discipline of Preaching to Yourself. Joe is a friend who I first met while he was a student and I was his seminary professor. He and I had a friendly conversation about unfriendliness.

You see, I have some thoughts on angry Calvinists that include:

- Most Calvinists are gracious and kind people and are not angry.
- Calvinists have a bad reputation for being contentious.
- The contentious reputation has been earned by a vocal group of angry Calvinists.
- And, here is the thesis, most Calvinists are not angry, but because there are a disproportionate number of angry Calvinists, Calvinists have earned a reputation.

Now, you may not believe me, but maybe listen to John Piper answer, "Why are Calvinists so negative?"

So, I started a conversation with Joe on this very issue.

I was going to talk to you about Note to Self, but I thought it would be fun and helpful to touch on something else. Are you game?

For sure.

Great. First, tell us about the book, and where people can read more about it.

Note to Self is essentially a collection of meditations on Scripture that aims at proving a method and model for "preaching to ourselves." The foreword by Sam Storms is brilliant and is reason enough to pick up the book. He helps the reader to see how and why the Scripture must be the "functional authority" in the life of a Christian. In the Introduction I explain what it means to preach the Scripture, law and gospel, to ourselves. This sets up the reader to then walk through the 48 brief chapters (daily readings).

For more information you can check out a recent conversation I had with Mike Horton on The White Horse Inn, or read interviews I did with the Biblical Counseling Center, or The Gospel Coalition.

It's a great book. I enjoyed it a lot-- and I was glad to endorse it. The book is definitely coming from a Reformed perspective. It's no secret that you're a Calvinist, but you're not maniacal or mad about it. I like that. I seem to run into the cranky Calvinists. So, that leads to my question: why do you think some Calvinists are so angry?

I know what you're talking about, but honestly, I think it has nothing to do with their Calvinism, and everything to do with their faith. I don't mean the object of their faith-- Jesus. And, I don't mean "the faith once for all delivered to the saints," but their faith. Of course, it works this way in me as well. When I'm cranky, complaining, or whatever corruption is bubbling to the surface, it's not my confession or theology that is in error, but my heart. When I am proud or petty it's my heart that is out of alignment with my theology.

Sure, I agree with that. While it obviously isn't true of all Calvinists there is a disproportionate number of angry Calvinists compared to other groups. Do you see that?

Well, yes I see that. I think we all see it. The question for me is why are we seeing that, and what exactly are we seeing? Why are there more angry, loud and proud, combative Calvinists than other kinds of Christians? I think, and I could be wrong, but I think it's a combination of a few things.

One is that Cavinism, as a biblical and beautiful understanding of God, man, and redemption, is often very exciting to those newly acquainted with it. Many who have grown in the faith with very little theology and later discover Reformed theology are simply over-zealous. They are pumped about the truth and want everyone to see what they see. We call this the "cage stage." Some of us, and I was one of them, would benefit from being locked up in a cage for a few years until our heart can catch up with our head. More realistically, good discipleship helps with that.

Second, I think some who find their way into the Reformed faith are angry for having been denied a solid theological foundation in their past. They feel as if they've wasted years of their life, or the church has let them down. So, they're angry about that, sometimes even at their past self, and it just bleeds over into this new passion they have for doctrine. I get that, but it's unfortunate. Simple gratitude for growing theologically is a better response to cultivate.

Third, knowledge can and does "puff up" as Paul says. And while this is a shared problem with other systems of theology, it is certainly a reality among the Reformed. It's ironic though. The knowledge of God's sovereignty and grace, and of man's total depravity and absolute dependence on God for mercy, should produce love and passion characterized by humility and meekness. And that gets to what we are really seeing. When we Calvinists are ungracious, unnecessarily combative, proud, and arrogant, we are not being true Calvinists. We are posers.

That's why I think we need to bring the discussion back to the heart. Angry Calvinists exist when there is some kind of short-circuit between head and heart.

So, if it's a heart issue, a sin issue, how should we address it?

First, I think it would be fruitful for more correction to come from inside our own theological tribe. I'm not saying criticism is inappropriate if it isn't in-house. As the church we should be able to correct one another across denominational and doctrinal divides. But, we should be most critical of ourselves, and I think addressing our own problems from within our own group will generally prove more fruitful.

Second, when addressing the issue of "those angry Calvinists" we need to be careful and not make Calvinism the issue. It's not about Calvinism. The negativity, pride, and finger wagging is not about the Doctrines of Grace, but the heart. So, when we see such things coming from Calvinists we should seek to point out that this attitude is actually incompatible with Calvinism.

Third, I'd encourage people to simply model a better way. Whether you're a Calvinist or not, modeling loving patience over knee-jerk reaction, gracious discernment over assuming the worst about another's words, and gospel-founded brotherhood over needless separation, will wind up having greater influence in the Christian community than simply dropping bombs on each other.

Fourth, I'd encourage others to simply not engage the haters. There are blogs I simply do not read because it doesn't benefit me spiritually. Some people move me to examine myself, look to Jesus, and grow in grace. Others just provoke me to anger. Often times that anger is unrighteous, or even self-righteous. I can become the angry Calvinist doppelgänger to the angry Calvinist I take issue with. Really, the haters are not my problem, I am my own problem. So, I have learned to just stay away from certain places on the internet. I would encourage others to simply not engage people or personalities that aren't helpful.

But, someone might reply by saying, "There is a time to be angry. We should be provoked over some things." What would you say to that?

I would agree. There is a godly form of anger. Last week you went "nuclear" on evangelical feminine legalism on your blog.

I didn't go "nuclear," Joe. ;-)

O.K., but you were torqued over an issue that matters. Anger is sometimes very appropriate. We see that in the prophets and Apostles, and even in Jesus. But when dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ it's important to do more than "set the record straight," or prove one wrong and point to the truth. We need to do that, but we need to do it in a way that bears fruit, and Biblically that means doing such work carefully. Sometimes it does mean we need to drop bombs, but more often it means we need to sit down with a brother (literally, or figuratively) and reason with him.

And, look; some people don't need any encouragement to get "good and angry" at the right stuff, they have "getting angry" down cold. They need some counsel on being more gracious, humble, and gentle. We all do. At the very least, we all need to learn to be better teachers and physicians of the soul when it comes to correcting each other.

-----------------------------------------------

Joe will be answering questions at the blog today. If you are an angry Calvinist, feel free to tell him your "grave concerns" about his views. If you think there are a lot of angry Calvinists, it's O.K. to share that as well.

In 1998, John Piper preached a message, "Open My Eyes That I May See," based on Psalm 119:17-24. In that message he mentions seven kinds of prayer to "soak" our reading of Scripture.

Seven Kinds of Prayer to Soak our Bible Reading

But since our text is Psalm 119:18, "Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law," we should let this psalmist show us how he prays more generally about his reading of the Word of God. So let me close with a little tour of Psalm 119, and show you seven kinds of prayer with which you can soak your Bible reading this year.

We should pray . . .

1. That God would teach us his Word. Psalm 119:12b, "Teach me Your statutes." (See also verses 33, 64b, 66, 68b, 135). True learning of God's Word is only possible if God himself becomes the teacher in and through all other means of teaching.

Continue reading Seven Kinds of Prayer to Soak Our Bible Reading (John Piper).

George Müller (1805 - 1898), was a preacher of the gospel, an evangelist, and the Director of the Ashley Down orphanage in Bristol, England, and established 117 schools which offered Christian education to over 120,000 children, many of them being orphans. He is also known as a man of prayer. Below are some of his thoughts on the primary business of a Christian, prayer, and communion with God. Read it thoughtfully. I think it will be an encouragement to you. But it's also worth talking about. Leave your thoughts in the comments section.

We have been discussing MissionSHIFT: Mission Issues in the Third Millennium over the last two months (the articles are linked on Monday's post).

The book is a conversation, and such dialogues include affirmations and critiques. In the third section of the book, Ralph Winter presents some new and challenging views. Many of the respondents were concerned about those views, including my co-editor David Hesselgrave.

In that critique of Ralph Winter, David made a comment (which I did not catch and correct) indicating something that we have both learned was wrong.

We were first contacted and asked, "What can we do to make it right?" So, Beth Snodderly wrote an open letter (now published in several places) and David Hesselgrave wrote a response.

Last week, I asked for some insight into the name for a new gospel-centered, theologically-driven, mission-shaped curriculum I am helping develop here at LifeWay. (I will be General Editor and Trevin Wax is the Content Editor.)

The working title was originally Telios and we've recently been calling it GospelEPIC. Most of you didn't care for GospelEPIC, and you made a number of suggestions.

CJ Godfrey shared what the title "GospelEPIC" brought to his mind. See my words about "hating him" in the comments of this thread. ;-) But, based on the negative response, we immediately decided that this was a terrible mistake and went back to the drawing board.

We've narrowed the list down to four titles we think are strong possibilities. Keeping in mind the description of the curriculum , tell us which you prefer of these four:

1. TGM: Theology. Gospel. Mission. Just a simple acronym that points to the subtitle.

2. Immerse: Theology+Gospel+Mission. (We could use the word in a number of ways: "immersed in the gospel," "immersed in the grand narrative of Scripture," etc.)

3. Engage: Theology+Gospel+Mission. (We like the outward flow of "engage"-- primarily because our goal is that people will engage the truth of Scripture in a way that leads to engaging in God's mission.

4. Pursuit: Theology+Gospel+Mission. (We like the double meaning of pursuit, first that God has pursued us. Then, once we have been pursued, we pursue greater knowledge of Him, pursue gospel transformation, pursue others with the gospel, etc.)

What do you think? Which of these titles seems strongest to you? Do you have other suggestions?

Well, I must say that I am pleased. My MissionSHIFT discussion idea was just that-- a (crazy) idea. The first installment was posted yesterday and the comments contain dozens of responses of people thinking seriously about missiology.

Sometimes it seems that everyone wants to talk about missiology without actually engaging in missiology. It is easier to just say, "Well, that's not missional" rather than to understand the deeper thinking behind much of that conversation. I could not be more pleased with some of the interaction. I think it will bless and stretch you if you will wade into the conversation.

Below are some of the responses from yesterday. I will only excerpt them, so be sure to read each response in its entirety by following the links back to their own blogposts. Others were posted later, so I will add some later. And, I did not include all, just a few highlights. You can find all the links at the original post.

Some provided additional clarification around the definition of "mission." Michael Kennedy explained:

In my estimation, any definition of "mission" that is not biblically faithful and culturally applicable will be problematic. We should vigorously discuss our understanding of "mission" with great love and humility. This, however, should not be the main focus of our attention. We must put into practice that which we know to be true:

1. The idea of "mission" originated with God when he sent His Son to "give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

2. God "desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) and we are assured that people from "every tribe and language and people and nation" will be present in heaven (Revelation 5:9).

3. Followers of Christ have been entrusted with the message of the gospel (2 Timothy 1:14) and given the mission to make disciples wherever they go (Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:44-49, John 20:19-23, and Acts 1:4-8).

4. Even if we develop a definitive definition of "mission," followers of Christ must still apply Jesus' command to make disciples to their daily lives. I am not sure that we need more "head knowledge" as evangelicals as much as we need to put into practice what we already know to be true!

- Michael Kennedy

I was the junior partner when writing the book Spiritual Warfare and Missions with Jerry Rankin, but I was honored to partner with my friend on such a great topic.

The good folks at The Gospel Coalition just reviewed it on their site. Here are some excerpts:

Rankin and Stetzer identify that God's purpose is to be exalted among the nations. That is done as God's people, informed by God's Word, declare his glory. God's desire is that all the nations would rejoice and sing for joy in him. Spiritual warfare comes in as Satan seeks to oppose God's kingdom and deprive him of the glory due his name. Satan's desire is to keep lost people lost, and he does this through both external and internal means. If the body of Christ is to take the gospel to every man, woman, and child in every tongue, tribe, and nation, it must break through both lines.

...

In Spiritual Warfare and Missions, Rankin and Stetzer take the focus of spiritual warfare away from angels and demons and the mystical power encounter to placing it firmly upon the truth, beauty, and power of the gospel. They clearly and convincingly set out God's purpose in mission and how the adversary, Satan, strives against it. Biblically balanced between the demythological and the overtly paranormal, Rankin and Stetzer take a thoughtful look at the reality of Satan's activity in the world while giving their readers hope in the victory of Christ. Their focus on the internal hindrances of Satan directs readers to self-examination of faith and practice and will hopefully lead to a change in church methodology and personal lifestyle. May we all stop asking questions like, "What does God want for my life?" or "What does God want our church to do?" to properly frame the question in light of his mission: "What does God want?" Spiritual Warfare and Missions helps us get there.

You can read the entire review here.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to write the foreword for a book by R. T. Kendall entitled The Lord's Prayer. I was glad to write it, not only because R. T. is a friend of mine, but also because it is a great book. I went back and adapted it to share some of my thoughts on prayer here at the blog.

We live in a world where communication feels like a pandemic at times. Words, ideas, and even emotions move about with unstoppable velocity. The human race has honed the science and art of transporting our content to one another. But I fear that we are at the mercy of the mediums and are losing our own messages.

Continue reading Praying to Speak and Listen.

My friend Daniel Montgomery presents, "Gospel 101" in this brief video. I always appreciate Daniel's passion for clarity and balance. If you are interested in conversation around gospel definitions, you might want to visit an earlier dialogue here at the blog on "Gospel Definitions."

There is some really great discussion happening around the role of salvation in the missional conversation. Last week we began to look at the connection between missiology and soteriology and briefly talked about how salvation was viewed in missions history during the modern paradigm, beginning with the Enlightenment.

Here are some others who have weighed in on that question:

• Brother Maynard: Salvation in a Prologue to Missional Discussion (recap)


• Tiffany Smith: Examining how we think about...salvation and missions...


• David Fitch: Missional Soteriology: Does the Missional Vision Change How People are Saved?


• Jared Wilson: The Two-Fisted Gospel: A Manifesto for Kingdom Militancy


• Jonathan Dodson: What is the Gospel of the Missional Church?

Today, I would like to continue to look at the role of salvation in the missional conversation by revisiting one of the most influential and controversial figures in 20th century missions history (someone I have written about before in this series here and here) and talking about a major shift in the discussion in the 1970s. His ideas on salvation will become key...

J.C. Hoekendijk

With the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s, the Social Gospel's counteraction began with painting salvation, not just as transformation in individuals, but increasingly as the annihilation of distorted and prejudiced structures. This trend was evident until a new era of confidence was birthed in the 1960s, ushered in particularly via J.C. Hoekendijk.

In our previous installments of the "Mondays are for Missiology" series, we investigated the unique connections between the kingdom of God, eschatology, the church and mission (and all the interrelationships therein). As we've walked through this discussion I made the comment, "I see much missional historical naïveté." What exactly do I mean by that? Well, some of what I am hearing from some (not all) missional thinkers are the same words that other individuals said decades earlier-- and it subsequently led to theological ruin in the missio dei movement (something to which almost all, not just evangelicals, would agree).

So how do we not make those same mistakes again? I believe it helps by going back and looking at the roots of the missional movement and having a robust theological discussion that heightens our awareness of the issues at hand.

To that end, today I want to shift gears and begin to look at these missional issues through a more soteriological (the study of the doctrine of salvation) lens, covering the nature of salvation.

In September Brent Thomas, pastor of Church of the Cross in Peoria, AZ, took issue with a 9 Marks review of Jim Belcher's Book, Deep Church. Brent saw the review by Greg Gilbert as not only "snarky," but also unfair. In fact Gilbert's review actually received a response from Belcher himself on Trevin Wax's blog. There Belcher explained how Gilbert had somehow missed the point of his book. In his blog post Brent wondered if there was something of a growing rift within Reformed Evangelicalism related to the issue of the "missional church."

Just last week Brent's suspicions seem to have been confirmed through another 9 Marks publication by Jonathan Leeman. Leeman's article, "Is the God of the Missional Gospel Too Small" is troubling in that he argues missional thinkers place a heavy emphasis on social justice that moves the church away from a proper emphasis on the gospel. Brent explained,

If you're online and read blogs then you probably know Adrian Warnock. Adrian is a Christian writer, preacher and part of the Jubilee Church, London, UK leadership team for more than ten years. His new book, Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything, addresses the great hope of the Christian faith; that Jesus died-- and rose from the dead! Do we need another book written on the resurrection? Well, let's be honest. How many books have you read on this most central doctrine of our faith? Not only is this a book that needed to be written, it is a book you need to read. Check out the interview with Adrian below, and be sure to jump in engage him in the comments as he'll be hanging with us to talk through the issues.

Why did you decide to write about the resurrection?

Continue reading Adrian Warnock and The Resurrection.

As I mentioned and shared details on Saturday, I'm doing a conference tomorrow in Chicago. Whenever I come to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I do a one-day seminar for pastors as part of my class.

In this case, I will be focusing on "missional leadership." I recently taught on the subject in Oklahoma. Here is the video:

Missional Leadership from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.

You can get more information about this training at the One Day web page.

Here is the outline that I used in the video and I will be using tomorrow:

Missional Leadership

1) Reconsideration of Leadership

a) From superman to everyone
b) From church to kingdom
c) From me to we
d) From personal power to people empowerment

2) Rejection of Clergification

a) From three tiers to one mission
b) From "called to the ministry" to "called to ministry"
c) From "called to missions" to "sent on mission"
d) From exceptional to ordinary
e) From "priests" to a "priesthood of believers"

3) Renewed focus on mission

a) From "full service" to "simple mission"
b) From "pay, pray, and get out of the way" to "join God on His mission"
c) From decisionism to disciple making
d) From "mission statement" to "Jesus mission"
Luke 4
Luke 19:10

4) Realignment of priorities

a) God is a missionary God
b) I personally join Him on mission - modeling
c) I lead others to join Him on mission - leadership
d) I equip others - multiplication

I hope that is helpful. Be sure to watch the video to get the context.

Oh so many moons ago, I wrote a book with Elmer Towns called Perimeters of Light. In that book, we talked about how to choose your music. In light of my comments last week about, "Ending the Worship War Without a Truce," I thought you might find this helpful.

The ideas are a bit of me and a bit of Dr. Towns. Here is the excerpt:

We must test everything by the Word of God. All of us are responsible to interpret the Bible and apply it to our life but this is where disagreement comes because we interpret differently. Music is a form that is used to convey meaning. It may be the most challenging of all forms because it involves preference, emotions, vocalization, etc.

The following seven test statements each relate to biblical principles that we should apply to our music to determine if it is Christian. Examine these seven test statements to determine if the music you prefer is Christian.