I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality.  And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.”  We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing.  It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism.  Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing.  In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church. 

You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing.  The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers.  The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged.  The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together.  So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance?  Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in?  Could it be for convenients sake?  Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism?  Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor?  Could it be ignorance of the Bible?  Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there?  To accepted by the “cool group?”  What do you think?

Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion.  Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it.  Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.  Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins.  Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church.  So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing?  Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance? 

Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth.  Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person.  Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in.  Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus.  How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek?  I think a lot would be missed.  We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.

So, who should get baptised?  Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith.  Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34.  How should they be baptised?  By immersion.  Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse.  So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion.  What should baptism be about?  It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord.  Who should baptise?  The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Great Commission was given to the Church.  Matthew 18:20.  The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day.  The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them.  They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going.  The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance.  The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head. 

So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter.  Who is doing the baptising does matter.  It says a lot about a person’s beliefs.  I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation.  If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus.  If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost.  If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion.  And, these are not true baptisms.  Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved.  They most certainly could be saved.  But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism.  They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way. 

Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist.  lol.  I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise.  Puulease.  Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism.  If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism.  So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments.  I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky.  But, I do believe that baptism is important.  And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons.  And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.

The first recommendation presents a call for all Southern Baptist to rally around a new vision statement.  It should be a vision to fulfill the Great Commission and we should have it clearly defined.  The statement includes the word “Missional” which seems to be a buzz word among the younger pastors.  We now have it in a vision statement even though there is no clearl definition of the word.  The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF)has been using this term for years.  According to this blog they have been using “missional” to express a holistic ministry.  For the CBF one would read the term “missional” to express a “social gospel” ministry. Our GCRTF has presented the statement; “As a convention of churches, our Missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”

A couple of observations: first, as I stated above, there needs to be a clear definition of “Missional” before we can adopt this statement.  Some years in the past I rode with Dr. Ed Stetzer from his hotel to the conference site where he was about to make a presentation.  I asked him about this word as Dr. Stetzer is the one credited with the introduction of this word in the vernacular of Southern Baptist.  He told me that Evangelicals were now using the word to mean most anything.  Second, this vision statement could be used by any evangelical denomination. The Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, even the the non-Christian sect, the Mormons could adopt the vision statement without clearly defining the terms.  I believe there needs to be some definitions clearly communicated in the report coming in May and the statement would sit well using the word “baptizing” in some portion.  The Great Commission Resurgence without “baptize” is really, not completing the Great Commission.

The second recommendation is a one where my good friend Dr. Bart Barber and I have a slight disagreement.  Dr. Barber offers a great analysis of this report and I encourage our readers to read both Part 1 and Part 2. This recommendation presents that the NAMB should be “reinvented and released”. This means a wholesale reinvention of this entity.  While we would all say there need to be some changes in the NAMB, I am not sure we can say that the Disaster Relief section is not performing its tasks.  The report calls for the NAMB to be divided into seven regions for the purpose of church planting.  I am all for church planting.  As a matter of fact I am currently working with a group in our area trying to target Muslims in a church plant.  If we divide the NAMB into these seven regional departments, then will that not create a competitive edge between NAMB, the local State Convention, the local association, and the local church in trying to plant a church?  This report calls for the cooperative agreements to be dissolved in a four year period. But, wasn’t the cooperative agreements put in place to avoid duplication of work?  I see a glaring problem with this call.  Do the state conventions not have to agree to release these missionaries to the NAMB?  Of course some may say if they do not release them, then the state conventions can assume the cost.

Dr. Barber has clearly pointed out that we should not make decisions based on perceived future problems.  I agree that we should not look to the future with the fear of a train wreck coming.  However, the Bible does encourage us in Luke 14:28 to count the cost before we engage in something.  Dr. Barber and I are good friends and we just disagree.  He will encourage everyone to vote for this report and I would like to present that I encourage a vote for this recommendation with a few amendments if the GCRTF brings back this report without any changes.  What would those changes be?  First, remove the “reinventing” language.  That gives the impression that NAMB is broken and is not working.  That is not the case.  Are there areas that NAMB can do better?  Certainly!  If the GCRTF is serious about “releasing” then make this recommendation to the NAMB trustees about dividing the Church Planting division into seven areas.  Release the new NAMB President to come in and move this plan forward.

Also, the cooperative agreements should be worked out better for state conventions that are dependent on the NAMB for their existence.  We should not forsake the very states and territories we are trying to help in order for some mega-church pastor to brag about a church he has planted in a major city.  We need to do better when it comes to planting churches. For example, when a church decides to financially partner with NAMB to plant a church in a city the funds will be considered Great Commission Giving.  Fine, I can live with that.  However, for the convention to term that “cooperative effort” then the church in partnership with NAMB should choose and appoint the staff of the plant.  The staff should not be already chosen by the church and then look to NAMB to release $250,000.00 to the project.

The third recommendation seems to be a formula for a summer convention meeting that will be hotter than any June day in Houston.  The recommendation makes it available for the IMB to cross over into the US to target people groups that originated in areas outside of our borders.  While this recommendation appears inoculate on the surface when it is unpacked there remains much that can cause problems.

For example, what happens when a church decides to target, let us say,  a Korean and a Brazilian people group?  With the way Church Planting is today we have various forms of people group targeting going on.  The state convention I serve increased their Church Planting funding from $2.4 million to $4 million. Within the boundaries of North Carolina our state convention is targeting Korean and Brazilian people groups.  My state convention targets a Korean and Brazilian people group and uses a small group that completes the basic church planting course to do so.  My local association is using funds we give from our church to target  this same community of Korean and Brazilian people groups.  The NAMB targets, under the regional set-up, the same Korean and Brazilian people group using a church planting team from whatever regional seminary they may partner with.  The IMB targets the same two people groups in this area using a church planting team from one of the seminaries.  Do you see how this church planting ball bounces?  We have the local church planting churches, we have the local association planting churches, we have the state convention planting churches we have NAMB planting churches and we have the IMB planting churches. I just do not see this recommendation coming to fruition without some cooperative agreement included.

The fourth recommendation, it appears, releases funds by dropping in the laps of the state conventions the Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education.  It seems the GCRTF believes that the CP funds that is used in the Executive Committee to promote the CP should be the responsibility of the state conventions.  Thus, this recommendation frees up funds in the Executive Committee.  However, it is the next recommendation that makes this recommendation so dangerous.

Certainly we can come to some agreement between the state conventions and the Executive Committee about the promotional cost of the CP.  Would it not make sense that working together and sharing the cost of this promotion would mean a less expensive venture on everyone concerned?  However, to avoid duplication I can see the wisdom of this recommendation.  Of course the GCRTF  seems to believe these funds, released from the Executive Committee, will place the  Missionaries needed to target the international people groups in the US.  I believe we will find out that there needs to be more funds to fulfill this objective.

The fifth recommendation brings about, what I would believe, is the most historic change—the naming of funds that has been accepted through the years as designated giving.  This name change of the designated gifts to “Great Commission Giving” brings about more questions than the answers given.

First, will there be a promotion of a special offering or a giving plan known as “Great Commission Giving”?  What entity will be responsible for such a promotion?  Second, what are the implications of this “Great Commission Giving” on the CP giving?  Will a church have to choose between giving funds to the CP and the “Great Commission Giving” fund? Third, Could this not leave the state convention competing with the entities of the SBC for funds?  It seems that churches could be placed in the position of bypassing the state conventions giving their funds to “Great Commission Giving”.  If the research this writer cites is correct, then the churches would follow the lead of the elected president by giving less than 5% to the CP and a much larger amount to Great Commission Giving and basically break the Cooperative Program.  It would be tacitly observed to be cooperative giving, but is it?  This appears to be the beginning of a problem that will not be realized until a decade from now.  It is called a societal giving platform that within the next decade will probably result in a diminished CP giving.  This result will then be left to the church to decide with a probable “giving plan” that will pale in comparison to the Baptist General Convention of Texas’ giving plan.

The sixth recommendation, calls for IMB funding to go from 50 to 51 percent.  This one percent would come from the Executive Committee’s portion of the Cooperative Program pie.  These funds will shore up the increase on the IMB, but will it be sufficient?  Dr. Rankin is already reporting the trustees are reducing the missionary force to 5000.  If this recommendation passes, then one question begs to be answered.  Will the increase of missionaries in the US be part of the 5000 count?  It seems that approximately $2 million will not be sufficient for the identified international groups in the US.  Would it not be better for the IMB to do a study of what it would cost and report to the convention this amount?  Then we could adjust the increase based on sound analysis.

As I come to a conclusion I want to look to the future.  I am not against the GCRTF report.  I look forward to this report coming to the convention floor.  This report is one that is needed and I believe we can work out the differences.  Do I see any of my differences as a hill worth dying over?  No, I will state my differences and express as best I can my reasoning.  The report is a good report and it has many hours of prayer and analysis under girding the work and presentation.  We are Southern Baptist and that is how we are able to disagree and still be agreeable.  We will study the report, go to Orlando, state our differences, vote our conscience, then go to Shoney’s and have a Hot Fudge Cake.  Then we will spend time at Disney World and come home ready to implement the items we decide has validity to our local church in order to see a Great Commission Resurgence become a reality

SWBTS Chapel Message 2-25-2010–Dr Johnny Hunt

In keeping with the desire expressed by Dr. Caner in the following excerpt from his statement,

This constant stream of criticism, blogging and berating is not acceptable between believers. I am as guilty as anyone else in instigating such things over the years, but these personal attacks are too much.
I shall not participate in this anymore.

We will not be opening commenting on this post.

STATEMENT RELEASED ON 25 FEBRUARY 2010:

Recently a concerted effort has been made by a small group of professing believers, joined with a particular Muslim that posts videos, questioning my conversion, and the conversion of my brothers. And, what saddens my heart immensely is, this small band of professing Christians have now cited the Muslim’s videos as reason to attack my testimony as well. Indeed, the Muslims have used clips that attempt to show that through two decades of ministry and hundreds of sermons there exist discrepancies in my testimony. In all honesty, I probably could have saved them a lot of time and trouble. The truth is, I would be surprised if no discrepancies were discovered, given the hundreds of messages I have given during all that time!

Nonetheless, while normally it is wise to ignore these types of attacks, the Muslim’s videos- now surprisingly being cited by professing Christians- have sadly produced such ardor that I feel the need to speak to the issue. This has been done repeatedly to Muslim converts, but in this instance, I bear some responsibility to clarify.

MY TESTIMONY:

I was born in Sweden, with a Turkish father and our mother who was a Turkish citizen.

I was born and raised a Sunni Muslim, just like my brothers.

I was led to Christ at the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, just like my brothers.

MISSTATEMENTS:

Now, on to the other issues:

Every minister has made pulpit mistakes. Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people.

I have never intentionally misled anyone. I am sure I have made many mistakes in the pulpit in the past 20-plus years, and I am sure I will make some in the future. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.

DEBATES:

A second question raised concerns debates. One gentleman believes it is misleading to call my interaction with people from other faiths and world religions “debates.” Since his definition of debate is limited to moderated, formal debates, that is his prerogative. He can call them whatever he wishes. My podcasts are readily available online through this website. If he finds them less than satisfying or helpful, then he does not have to listen to them. I do not offer them for his approval or his attention. Please feel free to look elsewhere. God has been gracious to call many Christians to practice evangelism and apologetics in a variety of ways.

The truth is, several evangelical apologists employ the “formal” debate template and are very effective in their presentations. Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig come to mind. Nevertheless, I will continue to do exactly as I have done. In fact, in order to attempt a measure of peace, I am more than happy to call my engagements “interviews,” or even “dialogues.” Since this is historically my method of choice, I shall continue to offer these podcasts here, for the edification of those who care to listen.

However, I would caution all evangelicals that no single method meets consensus. Nor is there only one exclusively biblical model. Certainly there is much good to be found in formal debates, and I also believe that there is enough room for all types of interaction. In fact I believe there is great value to be found in all forms, including conversational and informal methods.

Finally, there is a legitimate complaint which I must address, namely, referencing a Muslim scholar that I have never met. Listening to the audio, I honestly have no idea who I was referencing, but it certainly could not have been the man I referenced. For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again. This applies to any time when I wrongly used names. I shall be more careful.

OTHER ACCUSATIONS:

As for the countless other volleys aimed at discrediting the work I do, I am unsure how to respond. If my pronunciation of Arabic phrases is not correct, then I apologize. The language of my lineage is Turkish, not Arabic. Even Arabic dialects differ regionally, such as Jordanian and Egyptian. Indeed, 80% of the Muslim world does not speak Arabic, so I doubt  anyone will be fully satisfied at this juncture. I must add, however, the misguided attempt by Muslim apologists to discredit converts to Christianity is not limited to me; in fact it seems to be standard operating procedure. I do not believe I can do anything to stop these attacks. All I can do is continue to teach as I have for years, and continue to serve the Lord with the best I can give.

A FINAL WORD ABOUT THIS CURRENT SITUATION:

Criticism is many times helpful. In this particular instance, it has enabled me to correct the careless mistakes I addressed above. Nonetheless, I want to be clear about this current situation. This constant stream of criticism, blogging and berating is not acceptable between believers. I am as guilty as anyone else in instigating such things over the years, but these personal attacks are too much.

I shall not participate in this anymore.

This is absolutely of no interest to me.

So, may the Lord judge between us.

To all who are reading this, I want you to know– I am a clear example of a person who is constantly in need of God’s grace. Because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for the world, that includes all of us. He died to forgive my sin, and resurrected to give me life. He did the same for you. When I repented of my sin, and put my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, He gave me new life. He can do the same for you. We  are all sinners, and in need of forgiveness. If you will trust Jesus Christ and turn from your sin, you can find forgiveness and freedom from all the guilt that is upon you. Jesus loves you.

-Ergun Caner

Contrast that with 2010.  We Southern Baptists are headed to an annual meeting which is touted as monumental for the future of our convention of churches and we have not one man who has been officially nominated nor expressed interest in leading our convention into this momentous future.  This is curious to me.  Maybe 2008 was an anomaly in our history and it is too early this time.  Two-thousand eight was the first time I had paid much attention to the ‘lead up’ to a convention meeting so I have no basis of comparison.  I, however, do not think it is too early.  I would like to start hearing more about those whom we would consider for our next leader.  That being said, I have no one in mind.  I have no agenda or candidate to push or support at this time.  As we start seeing officially declared candidates, I will certainly decide on the one whom I am comfortable in supporting.

I do pray we are not waiting on the GCR Task Force to declare for us a candidate.  I pray we are not waiting for our current president to declare his advocacy of his ’successor.’  Neither of these were tasked with such responsibility by the messengers of the churches of our convention.  We should not be waiting for any ‘powers that be’ to name the only viable candidates.  That was what I so thoroughly enjoyed about 2008.  The vast number and wide variety of candidates made for great interviews in which significant issues impacting the life of our convention were discussed leading up to the annual meeting.  We could use those discussions in this day as well.

Am I trying to drum-up this discussion? Absolutely!  SO, where are the candidates? Who will step forward?  Whom would you like to see lead our convention?

Sola Gratia!

Listen to the podcast by using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can improve the podcast, and we’d also appreciate a review or a rating on our iTunes page. Thanks for listening.

GCR Progress Report from GCR on Vimeo.

When you are saved out of a Muslim culture and religion it is more difficult than it is for someone like me.  The only danger I ever had to concern myself with was the laughs and jeers of my drinking buddies.  To one that is saved out of a Muslim culture and religion their lives are placed in jeopardy.

I want to publicly state my admiration to Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner for their public ministry.  It would be easy for them to attain their degrees and sit in some ivory tower and espouse the various debates of the reason Christianity is the truth. Do they retreat to such an isolated position?  No, they do not.  They do the opposite.

Dr. Ergun Caner states all of the time that he will debate anyone, anytime.  He is very articulate in expressing the truth of the Gospel and this has cost him much in regards to his personal family habits.  I remember being with him one time when he received an emergency call of a death threat to him and his family.  He immediately retreated from us to make certain that his family had the security protection that was needed at that moment.  There were some scheduling changes needed as he had to depart early.  It has also cost him in personal attacks.

The personal attacks range from the truth of their lives before Christ to the academic degrees they hold.  See here, here, and here.  You may wonder how anyone could call into question these issues.   They drink the kool-aide pouring from the poisoned vine of the above links, this Facebook page, and the following videos.

This is one of ten videos placed on YouTube by Muslims trying to harm Dr. Ergun Caner and present him as being untruthful.  The problem is, some will view these videos and then use them as truth.  Thus, those that use these videos as their “gotcha” moments accept the lies of Muslims to argue against a Brother in Christ. You may think that no person who calls themselves a Follower of Christ would side with a Muslim to degrade and berate a Brother in Christ.  I did also until I viewed the following video.

Please note that any believer that calls into question the truth of the Drs. Caner background and degrees use the research of Muslims (those who have a reason for perverting the truth) for their documentation.  Allow me to close this post by expressing my heart about this matter.  Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner have the academic credentials to be in the positions they hold.  Not only do they have the credentials, they are published authors from reputable publishers.  They also stand publicly expressing their scriptural convictions of truth.  Many do not like it when truth is revealed.  Those that do not celebrate truth will try to use everything they can to silence those speaking truth.  Then you have those that are jealous and envious of  the Drs. Caner.  Those envious and jealous will use the lies for a “gotcha” moment in order to accomplish the same ends–silence the truth.

I appreciate both Dr. Ergun and Emir Caner and I know they have accepted this nonsense as the cost of following Christ.  I thank God for them and I pray God’s continued blessing on their ministry. May God protect my Brothers from those unbelievers that are doing all they can to bring then harm.  May God grant salvation to those unbelievers that are striving to find truth.  May God bring conviction to the Brothers and Sisters that are accepting the lies of the ungodly in order to satisfy a jealous and envious heart.

One of the honors that I have serving at SBC Today is the occasional book review that comes my way.  It not only allows me to increase my library free of charge, but it also challenges me as I filter the thoughts of others.  Some books become boring and monotonous after the introduction and do nothing to challenge your thinking.  Others hold your attention but are not logically presented and because of their illogical movement presents a challenge to the reader to remember what the writer is trying to communicate.  Holy Subversion by Trevin Wax is one book that not only challenges the reader but it also reads very logically.

When beginning a book I always attack the project in the following manner; Table of Contents, publisher information, endorsements, forward, and either last chapter, or concluding thoughts.  Trevin Wax does not disappoint me in my reading schedule.  He provides a clear Forward and an outstanding summary of his purpose in the Afterward.  He says in the Afterward: “The main thrust of this book has been a call to reclaiming the subversive nature of Christian discipleship.”(p.149)  It was that statement that invigorated my discipleship juices and gave me the idea of using this book in my current one-on-one discipleship class.  I am currently meeting once a week with a brother in a mentoring type of relationship.  I decided to work through this book with him.  Because of using this book in this relationship, I have decided not to do a one time book review but an ongoing chapter-by-chapter review.  Thus, begins part one of an eight part series reviewing Holy Subversion.

The forward does not disappoint as Dr. Ed Stetzer presents his wordsmith qualities to set you up to read the book.  Dr. Stetzer does, this writer believes, get carried away trying to present statistics about today’s Christians.  He uses a Barna research, his own research, and Dr. Brad Waggoner’s research all within three paragraphs. (p.13-14)  It makes the reader say: ‘ok enough of the research stats already’.  It appears, to this reviewer, in Dr. Stetzer’s desire to bring us to the point of the book, he forgets he is doing a forward for Trevin Wax.  But, he eventually brings the reader to the book’s objective and directs one’s attention to Wax’s purpose of expressing and living out Jesus is Lord.

As the author begins the first chapter much groundwork is presented.  This reviewer likes the way the author clearly presents his thesis.  Wax  clearly states his thesis in a question; “…how can we as communities of faith live in a way that subverts the “Caesars” that rule people around us…and seek to rule us too?” (p.26)  The author moves on to identify, what he describes in the Afterward as “a handful of rivals to Christ’s Lordship”. (p.149)

Some areas of disagreement I have with the author may seem to be minor for some but for others it may be an issue.  Personally these areas would not present an issue for this reviewer, it just helps to keep in perspective the bias of the author.  First, the reader is given a clue to the writer’s soteriological bend in the very beginning of the first chapter.  Wax, in expressing how the early church lived out “true Christianity” as being “not merely life-changing” but “world-changing” (emphasis Wax) seems to reveal a reformed soteriology.  He says; “The gospel message was less about inviting Jesus into their hearts and more about people being invited into the kingdom community that represents God’s heart for the world”. (p.24) The statement give the appearance that the early church invited people into the church and not a personal relationship with Christ.  I believe the author would have been wise to avoid this comparison.  It is as if the author downplays the importance of a personal entrance into the Kingdom in favor of a communal entrance.  One other area of disagreement hinges around the importance of communities of faith living passionately for Christ.  Do not mis-read this reviewer, as he is not saying he disagrees with living passionately for Christ in a community of faith.  However, Wax says; “So, how can we as communities of faith live in a way that subverts the “Caesars” that rule people around us…and seek to rule us too”? (p.26)  The disagreement that this reviewer has is that God calls us to live passionately for him privately and then corporately.  By focusing on how we corporately live passionately Wax seems to be directing our focus on the wrong objective.  If our main focus is a passionate love of Jesus in our private arena then that spills over into our corporate community of faith.

The areas of agreement I have with this first chapter are too numerous to mention. I would, however, like to call attention to a few.  First, Wax clearly defines what he means by “subversion” through giving the reader various definitions and then claiming the one he uses for the book.  His definition for the book is “pushing something back down into its proper place”. (p.26) He presents that these areas of our life are not bad, in and of themselves, but need to be pushed back down under the control of Jesus.  Second, Wax clearly lists the areas of our life that become Caesars.  He lists the Caesar of self, success, money, leisure, sex, and power as being those that most commonly battle for complete control over our lives.  Third, Wax teases the reader as he lists these various Caesars.  He briefly describes each Caesar and leaves the reader aware that each one will become more detailed in the chapters to come.

One Caesar this reviewer especially appreciates him presenting is the Caesar of sex.  With this Caesar, Wax presents three ways Christian communities can subvert this idol. (p.30-31)  First, for singles there should be a commitment to “a life of chastity (a life of purity) not  merely abstinence.” Second, the community must celebrate “sex within marriage” which translates into a covenant marriage.  Third, Wax encourages Christian communities to stop separating sex from procreation.  When this reviewer first read that statement it was a little daunting, but as one reads Wax’s next sentence one sees his point.  He says; “We will foster a church culture that celebrates large families and sees children as a gift from God.”  How many times does one hear Christians in the church joke about the couple that has four to six children?  Large families have become the abnormal standard now and small families are the ones celebrated.  This reviewer has not read Wax’s completely developed chapter on the Caesar of Sex, but one does look forward to a fully developed theology of child bearing in that chapter.  If there isn’t one this reader will be greatly disappointed.

Just the Forward and Chapter 1 have been covered in this review.  If this is any indication of how the rest of the book is packaged then this will be an enjoyable read.  However, the readability of the book is not the only purpose of this reviewers interest.  This reviewer will also review the chapters to come on each chapter’s ability to develop the disciple.  Looking forward to the journey.

Listen to the podcast by using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can improve the podcast, and we’d also appreciate a review or a rating on our iTunes page. Thanks for listening.

Links to some of the items discussed:

• A Reply to Tom Nettles’ Review of William A. Dembski’s The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
• Les Puryear’s original “storehouse tithing” post