Externally-Motivated (EM) Christianity sees the Kingdom of God existing in systems and institutions “erected by God” or by Christians faithful to God. The essence of what it means to be a Christian dwells in hallowed monolithic icons, largely existing outside the believer. We see the expression of EM Christianity whenever we encounter Christian groups and individuals seeking to preserve or defend some aspect of the truth they see encapsulated in a system, institution, or organization.

Internally-Motivated Christianity, in sharp contrast, invests little time and energy in externalities. Its hope is not in systems and institutions because it understands that those succumb to entropic forces. To the IM Christian, the Kingdom of God cannot rest on externalities prone to decay.

He’s got me thinking… again. It all seems so clear, and what he’s saying seems to meld with other things I’ve been harping on of late. It seems to match up with different things God’s put in front of me.

At the same time, I’ve seen his description of “Internally-Motivated Christianity” used by people who would otherwise solidly fall into what Dan would consider the “EM Christianity” camp. Those sorts of folks simply use explanations like “the Kingdom of God cannot rest on externalities prone to decay” to bolster their own pet projects that are supposedly “really” worth their time and energy… but are just more institutions and organizations with varying degrees of a “Christian” veneer.

For instance: Jesus said, “on this rock I will build my [ekklesia], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, ESV). Here Jesus is speaking from a universal, eternal perspective, saying that Satan won’t win his war against the Church because the Church is being built on the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (v.16). However, time and again I’ve heard pastors claim that Jesus is saying something more like, “the gates of hell shall not get in the way of our particular congregation at this particular moment in history.” In other words, they take Jesus’ declaration that Satan will never win the war and warp it into a claim that Satan will never get a good shot in edgewise. (Tell that to the house churches in China.)

So with that disclaimer having been said, I heartily recommend Dan’s post and suggest you read it, think over it, and join the discussions in his comments section!

I’ve got this “Best Blogs You Haven’t Read” category where I recommend other blogs to you, but maybe it’s time to turn the tables on myself! So you tell me who’s missing from my Technorati favorites and why I should add ‘em. (Bonus points if you aren’t recommending your own site!) Spread the word, too: I want to hear from as many folks as I can on this one!

Rodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians that stood in stark (no pun intended) contrast to the pluralistic pagan culture of Rome. Let’s prayferfully think through these values and match them to the witness of our own churches. Do we see the city existing for us or do we see our church and our lives existing for the city? (David Fairchild, 10 Marks of the Early Church)

This is an interesting post! What I want to know is this: which of the 10 values listed in the post are exemplified in your local church… and why aren’t the others? (HT: JollyBlogger.)

I believe when we encounter the Lord in this way we should do the following:

• Confess any known sin.
• Ask the Spirit to search our hearts for hidden sin.
• Confess hidden sin when He reveals it.
• Praise Him for revealing sin in our lives.
• Praise Him for who He is.
• Ask Him to prepare us for what we might receive from Him.
• Ask Him to fill us with Himself, His gifts, and His direction.
• Thank Him for meeting those needs.
• Ask Him to transform our lives so that we are better able to serve him, so we leave the church with a greater revelation of Him to share with the community of faith and those still outside the flock.
• Thank Him and praise Him again.

I think if we take these ten steps in the presence of the Lord, He’ll bless us so much more than if we simply bask in Him then leave unchanged after the encounter.

(Source: “When the Spirit Falls,” Cerulean Sanctum)

…and now Scott Morgan:

Like my laptop, the issue is my internal compatibility with Him. Periodically, I need to run some diagnostic questions to check and see if there’s any interference. I ask questions like these…

• What are my motives right now?
• Have I confessed known sin in my life?
• Am I operating out of fear?
• What am I thinking about? Is it true and right and good?
• Am I trusting God in this situation?
• Am I obeying what I know God wants me to do?

This is what King David was dealing with when he prayed, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23-24, NIV).

Thankfully, our prayer connection can be reestablished when we draw near to God.

(Source: “Connectivity Troubles,” Scott’s Bible Blog)

And they both used unordered lists. That’s the creepiest thing about it.

The House of Degenhart » You May Be Right…

When ill-behaved children lose an argument, they say “SO WHAT!” or “Oh yeah? Well you’ve got a big nose!” Grown-ups say, “You may be right, but in the grand scheme of things your solution would represent a misallocaiton of resources.” Christian grown-ups say, “Yeah, but what’s really important is telling people about Jesus.” You know Jesus – he’s apparently the guy that doesn’t really care about the truth very much, or how people live their lives, so long as people sing happy clappy songs about him and don’t judge each other.

Pyromaniacs: How to deal with posts you don’t like—and the flip side

I’ve noticed a pan-internetal phenomenon you’ll all recognize. It’s how different people deal differently with posts, articles, essays they don’t like. (Now, I suppose I have to add “and pictures.“)

You can not like a post for many reasons, reasons which will vary in part due to the post’s content, and in part due to where you are, spiritually, intellectually, temperamentally, and time-wise (schedualically?).

Maybe the post in question is really stupid. Maybe it’s palpably wrong. Maybe it’s wrong and stupid.

JOLLYBLOGGER: Fathers do not exasperate your children

“Do not be harsh with your children but be gentle.” So this writer does not exhort fathers to exercise their authority. Instead, he presupposes that authority and then sets the bounds for its use. He also presupposes that children are not just property over whom the father has legal rights. They are owed dignity as human beings in their own right.

Challies Dot Com: The Tyranny of Quiet Time

Johnson wrote about something I had only recently realized myself. “That half hour every morning of Scriptural study and prayer is not actually commanded in the Bible.” Imagine that. He goes on to say, “As a theologian, I can remind us that to bind the conscience where Scripture leaves freedom is a very, very serious crime. It’s legalism rearing its ugly little head again. We’ve become legalistic about a legalistic command. This is serious.” We have somehow allowed our quiet time, in its length, depth or consistency, to become the measure of our relationship with God. But “your relationship with God—or, as I prefer to say, God’s relationship with you—is your whole life: your job, your family, your sleep, your play, your relationships, your driving, your everything. The real irony here is that we’ve become accustomed to pigeonholing our entire relationship with God into a brief devotional exercise that is not even commanded in the Bible.” So what, then, does Scripture command? It commands that the Word of God be constantly upon our hearts. We are to pray, to read the Scripture and to meditate upon it, but we are to do so from a joyful desire, and not mere performance-based duty. We are to do so throughout our whole lives, and not merely for a few minutes each morning. Like Johnson, I came to realize that the “goal isn’t that we pray and read the Bible less, but that we do so more–and with a free and needy heart.”

So do not allow quiet time to become performance. View it as a chance to grow in grace. Begin with an expression of your dependency upon God’s grace, and end with an affirmation of His grace. Acknowledge that you have no right to approach God directly, but can approach Him only through the work of His Son. Focus on the gospel as the message of grace that both saves and sustains. And allow quiet time to become a gift of worship you present to God, and a gift of grace you receive from Him.

Adrian used the phrase “if you break one Commandment, you break them all”. Apparently God has a zero tolerance policy where sin is concerned. One strike and you’re out. It is the proverbial “no win” situation. Except, that is, if you accept Christ, then it becomes a no lose situation.

To me this sounds like the proverbial “gift horse”, the one that you shouldn’t look in the mouth. Yet I can’t help but look it in the mouth, because of that other proverb about gifts: “If something seems too good to be true, it probably is”. I would say that this guilt-free promise of salvation is the quintessential “too good to be true” idea. Yet who am I to pooh-pooh such an offer. This isn’t a TV ad, it is supposedly coming from God himself. What do I have to lose, right?

[snip]

But if I were to argue against Adrian’s position above, derived from Romans 8, that only a turn to Christ in the spirit will bring salvation, from a Biblical standpoint, I would invoke Matthew 31-46:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

If good works held no influence on salvation, then this passage makes no sense. Clearly Jesus is telling his followers here to look for him “in the flesh”, not in the spirit. Those of his followers who looked to him but not to the opportunities to help their fellow man, even if it means taking their eyes off of him, will not be saved. Jesus is not making a distinction between the spirit and the flesh, but is saying that the two are one.

Well met! I like how you think, Mister Duck!

As to the “break one, break ‘em all” bit, that comes straight out of the Epistle of James, chapter 2:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.”

And while we Christians love to play Scriptural soundbites, doing so usually requires ignoring the context (ironically, Adrian just posted something along these lines). In this particular passage, James is saying that it does no good to say you’re righteous because you follow your “pet commandments” if you’re ignoring the parts of the Law you don’t think are worth your time and effort. (In this particular case, James’ audience thought they were pretty tight with God because they were obeying Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” — only problem was, they only did that if their neighbor was filthy-stinkin’ rich.)

James isn’t saying that the same degree of eternal punishment awaits the serial shoplifter and the serial rapist. He’s saying that neither one can claim to be a Law-abiding citizen, and neither one respects the Lawgiver.

And that, perhaps, ties into your frustration with the “get-out-of-Hell-free card” mindset. People who have been saved from God’s wrath and set free from the power of sin will at times still sin; the difference is that they love the Lawgiver, and the Lawgiver Himself has established an unbreakable covenant that He will purify them of all unlawfullness — not just as a matter of propitiation (transferring their guilt to Jesus Christ), but He will really and truly conform them into Righteous people.

But the question must be asked, “is righteousness primarily adherence to an external code, or your motive(s) for adhering to that code?” A person can begrudgingly obey when there’s no conceivable alternative (much like your postmortem dangling-over-the-pit-of-Hell illustration), but that doesn’t mean they find any beauty or delight in who or what they’re obeying. The Scriptures draw a distinction between the two, and call one “righteousness” and the other “legalism.” The external Law is good, but ineffective on its own. Only when our hearts are rewired to obey the Law because of our love for the Lawgiver will we be considered righteous by Jesus’, James’ and Paul’s standard.

• Throwing Mark Driscoll Under the Bus (JollyBlogger)
• Driscoll-gate – Scandal or Witch Hunt? (Adrian Warnock)
• Bruised Reeds, Smoldering Wicks (Dan Edelen)

All three are thoughtful, grace-filled approaches to the issue.

Personally, I don’t really go for the cussing, but I think there’s far more serious issues being glossed over in the Church, and I really don’t see anything wrong with Driscoll’s (quoted) advice. I think that was probably far more helpful to the guy than any soft-spoken (read: girly) response could have been. I mean, there’s gentleness… and then there’s being a pansy. I think we need to treat men like men, and sometimes that means sounding “harsh.”

New Attitude is back, and they’re blogging live from the conference! I think that’s just cool. (HT: Adrian Warnock.) It looks like a pretty nice conference; I guess I’ll have to get the session CDs once they’re made available.

In addition to the official blog, Carolyn McCulley, Jenn Romanski and Brent Thomas are liveblogging the event.

However, in a shocking turn of events, it was revealed to attendees that C.J. Mahaney stepped down as senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD in order to prepare for his starring role in next season’s new sci-fi series, Stargate: T4G. Mahaney will reprise his role as Jean Luc Picard, a 24th century starship captain sent 300 years in the past to lead a 21st century ragtag special ops crew into the Delta Quadrant to prevent the rise of an alien race known as the Borg. (And if you don’t believe me, ask Agnax, whose post I discovered while typing this!)

1. If you’re not talking about Jesus, you’re wrong.
2. If you define a sin in such a way that it can’t possibly apply to you, you’re wrong.
3. If your doctrine leads you to cut yourself off from everyone but like 9 others, you’re wrong.
4. If your theology excuses you from doing something God commanded, you’re wrong.
5. If you believe in a way that allows you to inflict or ignore others’ suffering, you’re wrong.
6. If you’re talking about how thankful you are that you’re better than those jerks, you’re wrong.
7. If your case relies entirely on citation of authority, you’re wrong.
8. If you can’t defend your belief without lying about what it is, you’re wrong.
9. If you say you believe something and qualify the hell out of it, you’re wrong.
10. If your version of the Gospel isn’t actually good news, you’re wrong.

(HT: iMonk.)

But can they really be called Puritans? Yes, they eschew certain pleasures; yes, they want others to do so as well… but the article is clearly playing off of the modern Puritanical stereotype, rather than what the Puritans really were.

In fact, just yesterday I passed along to David Gerstein a page about John Winthrop, which summarizes the “Puritan Distinctives” this way:

The Puritans’ devotion manifested itself in three important ways.

First, they believed that man should be in the world but not of the world. The believer’s true home is not on earth but in heaven, so he must be careful not to lose his heart to the all the things that this world has to offer–pleasures, material wealth, achievement, human love, and so on. On the other hand, the goodness of the things that God created should not be denied. There is nothing wrong with enjoying good food, music, love for your spouse, sports or recreation–as long as you don’t become frivolous and crowd God out your heart.

Second, they believed that man has a duty to use to the fullest extent all of the talents and abilities that God has given him. They were strong supporters of education. They worked hard in their professions and became doctors, lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and statesmen. They didn’t believe in doing anything halfheartedly. If something was worth doing, then the man should do it with his best effort for the glory of God.

The third conviction that made the Puritans unique was their belief that God’s covenant promises in the Old Testament did not just apply to ancient Israel, but to every society and every generation. These promises are well summarized in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If any nation observed God’s laws and commands, God would give protection, prosperity, and the spiritual blessings of knowing him and living as his people. On the other hand, if a people rejected God’s decrees and turned to idolatry and sin, God would eventually reject them. The Puritans of seventeenth-century England were greatly concerned about the future of their nation; they saw the corruption of government and church officials, growing immorality, materialism, and lack of concern for the poor as signs that their nation would either have to repent or experience the cleansing fire of God’s wrath.

Why do the Puritans have such a bad reputation in modern times? [...] I believe the fundamental reason why the twentieth century looks down on the Puritans is that the secular mind cannot understand the satisfaction and joy that comes from serving God wholeheartedly. [...] Much of the modern criticism of Puritans stems from the American appetite for over-indulgence. It also stems from the fact that to those who have no hope in heaven, this world is all there is.

First and foremost, being a Puritan is about the supremacy of God. God is the “chief end,” the “be all and end all” of life. Thus, a Puritan will pass on things like getting drunk, sleeping around, cheating on his tax return, etc., because he knows those actions to be at odds with living a life dedicated to savoring and trumpeting the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ. No other motive leads to Puritanism.

I have some good news, though: there is a new generation of Puritans rising up. You won’t find them slashing SUV tires, though. You’ll find them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.

That’s my darling wife right there. I tell ya, it’s stuff like this that I find so endearing. How could I not love a woman who’s an endless source of quotable quotes?

Mormons take missions very seriously and most dedicate at least two full years of their life serving in the mission field. If the 1 billion Christians in the world did like wise, each person would only need to share the Gospel with 5 people.

What an amazing point! I never thought of it that way…

…and Congratulations to Joshua and Tammy (and friends) on their entrance into the world of blogging!

That was a few years ago, and I’ve lost touch with most of the gang. So the other day, I started Googling them, and here’s my “reunion list” so far:

• Aaron Greene: [Blogger]
• Rebecca Greene: Waynesburg FCA
  | [Xanga]
• Kim Kelley: [Xanga]
• Audrey Morgan: [Xanga]
• Jen Rhodes: [Xanga]
• Holly-Beth Smith: [Xanga]
• Josh Stratton: Littlestown Chapel
• Nick Upchurch: [Geocities] | [Livejournal] | [Flickr]

If anyone can add to the list, please do!