Okay. So as it turns out, Tim Keller's a pretty stand up cat. He actually emailed me to explain better what he means by his vision and how that vision works itself out. And really, I appreciated what he had to say.

This, combined with comments, emails, and real-life discussions with real-life people have led me to revisit and recant recent ruminations regarding worship-service evangelism and churches targeting a demographic. So with that:

The Worship Serviceand Its Evangelistic Function:
Yes. I definitely see that the preaching of the word is the means to salvation and since the preaching of the word occurs (or ought to occur) in its purest form in the context of our Sunday morning gathering, that must be the best way to evangelize the lost. And yet I had presimed (especially from passages such as 1 Corinthians 14) that this evangelistic reality was merely councidental to the preaching of the word.

I see now that I was wrong in this respect.

I see now that the best means to evangelize one's neighbor is to demonstrate the light of Christ in one's life, thereby intriguing the neighbor to wonder at the source of this joy, love, compassion, charity, and hope, and so culminate the effort in drawing the unbelieving neighbor to hear the word preached (thereby bringing them into proximity to the ordained means to salvation).

And with that, I'd like to address how I best see the church's implentation of this concept. I think this is important simply because of the hyper-active, user-friendly church culture in which I, at the least, live. Quite frankly, I son't believe the church needs to alter the delivery of its message nor does it need to couch the gospel in a hip and accessible user-experience (big caveat time!) IF it is doing the job properly in the first place.

Mr. Keller maintains that Manhatten churches were not adequately meeting the needs of the indigenous population. I'll his word on this and I think he's likely correct here—he understandably maintains that these existing congregations have difficulty attracting actual Manhattenites to their fold due to the pastors' inabilities to communicate effectively with a people they don't understand. I will, however, offer an alternative solution to the problem. My personal view is that at issue is not necessarily these pastors' ability to communicate adequately with the culture in which their congregations meet but, rather, these pastors' abilitiy to preach the word in the best possible manner.

They are certainly few and far between, but I've found the best preaching (and most widely accessible) is not that which seeks to "bridge the gap" between millennia-past situations and the life and culture of modern man by drawing up the past in modern terms, but the best preaching is that which seeks to draw modern man into the past, not through snazzy stories or examples fromdaily living, but by simply explaining the biblical text as it comes. And by always, always, always revealing Christ. For where else is the believer from any culture to find that solid ground between himself and his young, urban, profeesional brother and poor, immigrant sister—where else but in Christ? If these pastors are revealing Christ to their congregations, then all demographic distinctions (language barriers aside) should fall away. If the believing congregant evangelizes his neighbor and brings her to church for the penultimate evangelism and it is Christ that is revealed, then no barrier of age, race, society, sex, or national origin will stand in the way of her returning if she believes (excepting she harbours a sinful prejudice—which ought to be dealt with).

Therefore while I see church planting as essential in unchurched areas, I do not think church-planting is the best solution in localities that already host churches (though that do not seem to cater to a desired demographic). The problem therefore, as I see it, has one best-case solution. Pastors need to be trained to disregard their penchant for "making the text relevant," for the church and those visiting do not need the text to be made relevant. This is a waste of their time. The text is relevant. It is when pastor's depart from the text to draw out the flavour of the text through illustrations and pithy sayings and miles of alliteration that those who hear become distracted and begin to notice how the pastor's illustrations do not resmeble his own life experience. This is when they begin to feel a degree of alienation in their church.

When the pastor begins using illustrations from Bob Dylan songs, he's lost the majority of the twenty-somethings in his congregation. When the pastor makes allusion to Tom Green, he's ignored anyone over thirty-five. When he shares an anecdote from a Britney Spears album, he's lost pretty much anyone without a fourteen-year-old daughter. Heck, when he speaks of John Knox, Martin Luther, Augustine, Origin, or Clarence Larkin, he's prohibited anyone unfamiliar with the intricacies of their theological positions and bents from taking full benefit of his sermon.

No, far better to preach Christ without pretense. Churches that do that minister to all who speak their language—no matter the numerous niches in which their congregants might otherwise find themselves.

Niche-Marketing the Gospel
Despite the fact that I am quite sure that Mr. Keller is proceeded in his congregation's vision with the best of possible intentions, I still disagree with the vision conceptually. I can see how from nearly every aspect and perspective, it seems a sensible business model. If church was about Coke or Mitsubishi or Marvel Comics or the music of Havalina Rail Co., I would applaud his efforts and insight into the human frame. But it's not. Though it was certainly inflammatory to describe such a vision as treasonous against the gospel (or however I phrased it... something about villany or something), I really do think that such technique is negligent of the power and breadth and unifying dynamic of the gospel of Christ. As alluded to above, I think that if properly proclaimed, the gospel does not need to be aimed at any specific group or niche.

I think that niche-marketing will temporarily solve the problem of unreached peoples within a locality, but I do worry that such tactics will cause greater harm in the long run. I think it's an honest worry. I fear that this kind of thinking, which is becoming ever more prevalent, while showing greater profit in the beginning will, in the end, cause still further striations through the visible church. Already, the disunification of the body of Christ causes me to fret to almost no end. Even denominationalism chaps my hide and I wonder at the necessity of the Reformation and of even the schism of East and West in like A.D. 12-or-whatever-hundred-it-was. Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, non-denominational. Why are we apart? And even in the Reformed church: PCA, OPC, URC, CRC, CRE, ETC, ETC. I worry that visions like that of Mr. Keller, while well-intended, will only further increase lack of unity in the visible church.

Alright, so that last bit was kinda rambling but if you were actually employed and didn't sit around reading blogs all day, you would be tired like I am and you would be more understanding to a poor The Dane such as myself.

Because I want to post something for all you cats but have yet to prepare my revision of thought on the churches-as-evangelistic-tools issue, I thought I'd post that kind of happy wonder that everyone expects when they visit. So then, here is an addition to the ever popular Solutions to Future WTC Disasters genre of posts!

Playing with those SuperMag toys gave us a brillant idea. What if buildings simply brushed away from oncoming planes, only to immediately return to a state of pleasant uprightness! Fantastic, you say? Unbelievable, you say? Impossible, you say? Not so you doubters! Allow this short video presentation (aided by my lovely assistant, Brandon) to convince you of the idea's feasibility!

Another problem with Mr. Keller's vision for church at which he serves (and really, with the whole concept behind Mission to North America) that had somehow slipped my mind is a problem endemic to much of the modern iteration of the protestant church. Reading Mr. Keller's response to the church-planting debate over at PCAnews.com, I was reminded of the flaw in thinking that perpetrates the symptoms I mentioned in the lower two church-related posts. Keller states the problem plainly (though he doesn't see it as a problem):

"It is a simple fact that new congregations in general will always reach unchurched and non-Christian people more effectively than longer-established churches in general. The Presbyterian doctrine of the church makes it easier to embrace the idea that the newer churches will usually be the main evangelistic channels for a city or Presbytery. In any city or Presbytery it will be the newer churches that will be the main evangelistic channels bringing people in. Church planting is the single most strategic way to be sure to expand the kingdom."

*sigh* This is what we've come to.

Okay, howsabout a little definitional work. What is the church: the whole body of believers in Christ. What is a church (as in the kind that can be planted): a local/physical manifestation of that larger body that meets on Sundays (and other times) for the fellowship of the saints. What is the fellowship of the saints: a mutual celebration of kingdom glory between the earth-bound members of the church and their God in a church (the kind you plant). What is evangelism: the proclamation of the good news of Christ's redemption to the unrenerate.

So question: what part does evangelism play in the fellowship of the saints?

Here's where we break out the rocket-science and defy all onlookers with the technical/philosophical answer: None. Duh. You'd have to be snacking to imagine that the church needs to be evangelized. Well then, why do we hear honest men of God speaking of church (the kind that you plant) in evangelistic terms such as "reaching the unchurched" and "expanding the kingdom"? It's simple really. And obviously, easy to do. These honest men of God have forgotten the purpose of church in their drive to have a church driven by purpose. The gathering of the saints has great and glorious purpose that is more and more neglected in order to Jabez the kingdom of God

By our gathering, we glorify God, we offer our praises, we take the holy meal, we hear the proclamation of the gospel by which we receive an abundance of grace, and we edify the body.

Church is not for Christians too. Church is for Christians. Period. Can you imagine a non-Christian accomplishing any of those purposes for which the gathering of the saints is meant? Me neither. Further, can you imagine Paul (who universally addresses his epistles - the ones meant to be read before the gathered saints - to the gathered saints) ending Ephesians with, "Oh yeah, and you unbelievers who are with us today, if what I wrote about just now stirs your heart, you may wish to come up to the front after the service where you'll be met by elders who are happy to pray with you to receive Christ." Me neither.

So what then is the place of evangelism? Am I saying that the church should not engage in the Great Commission? I am not saying that in the least. Shame on you - you oughtta know me better than that by now. It is the church's responsibility to evangelize its community, not the responsibility of churches. Did you catch that? Each and every member of the church is responsible for the expansion of the kingdom. Evangelism should never have been a duty usurped by churches (the kind you plant or meet at on Sunday) because it is the individual responsibility of the church wholly. We are to take the gospel to the unbeliever, not bring the unbeliever to church (though an unbeliever can certainly become a believer by sitting in a church, the kind that you plant). Church doesn't need to be marketed because the church already wants to gather together in praise of their king. It's only the unbelievers who don't wish to take part in kingdom fellowship; so, that is why we go out from our fellowship, convert their souls, and then they come freely to enjoy our kingdom fellowship.

Mr. Keller says that the presbyterian doctrine of the church implies that newly-formed churches are to be the primary form of evangelism. If that's true, why didn't anyone tell me before I joined up? had I known, I likely would've found another place to hang my hat. Keller also says that church-planting is the "single most strategic way to be sure to expand the kingdom." Too bad God didn't know that when he came up with that whole going-out-and-preaching-the-gospel thing.

Bah. And people wonder why The Dane's always so moody.

Good golly gosh! In two weeks, this site will be five years old. It really doesn't feel like I've been at this for that long. I mean five years is a long time. That's like 5o,ooo years in fruit fly years.

A local church called Canyon Hills Church in Mission Viejo, California has really taken Tim Keller's apporach to heart. Here is their flyer:

They have decided to niche-market to a group even less likely to be found in church than young, urban professionals: people in bikinis. Knowing how difficult it is for nubile, young beauties clad in swimming togs to be comfortable in a stuffy, traditional church setting, Canyon Hills Church in Mission Viejo, California has developed a new vision to seek to meet this underappreciated group's needs. In fact, Canyon Hills Church's newest series on friendship is certain to be a draw for bikini-wearing ladies who, as we all know, have difficulty making friends. As an added bonus, Canyon Hills Church in Mission Viejo, California caters to another "cast off" segment of society - those men (single or otherwise) who want to be sandwiched between two nearly naked young ladies while worshipping God (these are those of a "best of both worlds" mindset). So let's hear it for Canyon Hills Church in Mission Viejo, California! They do the Lord's work.

Having heard something-or-nother about Redeemer PCA's Tim Keller, I had my curiosity piqued enough to explore him for myself. After hearing his statement of vision for his New York congregation, I am no longer interested in exploring further. Here is a clip of the presentation that so offended my sensibilities (and yes, that's Tim Keller speaking):

Clip

His vision is to seek English-speaking, urban professionals. For a couple reasons, this sickens me, really pisses me off. I spoke yesterday of gospel betrayal and though the language sounds extreme, I believe that is what this kind of niche marketing of the gospel is.

The gospel is no respecter of persons. In the church neither are we to regard Jew or Gentile, slave or free, Barbarian or Scythian, nor are we to market God's truth to one group. Social rankings, ethnicities, cultural distinctions, political affiliations. These things mean nothing to the the true gospel.

To niche-market the gospel is to betray the scope of the gospel, betray the equinimity of the gospel, betray even the power of the gospel. Shame on Tim Keller. Shame on him for following in the shameful footprints of Rick Warren.

Don't market the gospel. Preach it. His sheep will hear his voice.

Realizing that I haven't posted anything in too long and also that I don't have time to post, I'll give you a preview of a coming attraction! Whoopidee-doo, I know. So COMING SOON, I will talk about how Tim Keller's "vision" for Redeemer PCA in NYC is villainous and a betrayal of the gospel.

Now if that wasn't inflammatory... well, i'm sure eventually I'll say something that is.

So I thought about writing a September 11th post in honour of those who died, but honestly, bigger things weigh my mind today, so better luck next year. Peace out.

Inspired by Skubalon Pie, I purchased a set of Plastwood's SuperMag "magnetic genius" toys. Kinda like Legos. But with magnets.

Anyway, these things are SuperCool^tm. Besides all kinds of innovative geometric shapes and junk, one of the cactus coolest things to do is make spinning stuff. Here's a brief movie of one such created device. It's filmed at my desk at work (you gots to be careful not to build these things too close to your computer *nervous grin*). The cool thing, too, is that when the spinning item runs out of steam, the magnetic force keeps it moving for a while until it stops. Then the magnets make it spin the other direction and so forth. Oh yeah, click on the image below to watch the movie (it's 1.36 MB).

Some friends recently got married to the chagrin of their parents, their siblings, their friends, and their multiple sets of marriage counselors. This got me to thinking about marriage once more. Marriage and the function of marriage counselors (both ideally and currently). Coincidentally on Labour Day, Johnny T. started asking me about my thoughts on youthful marriages. This furthered my thoughts on the matter, so let's share some of these:

• Youth and Marriage
Johnny T. suggested that youth should not be an adequate hindrance to a couple desiring marriage. Surprising him, I readily agreed. He went further, making the case that there is nothing wrong with a young couple living with family until such time as they can adequately support themselves apart from the family and he would be happy to have his daughter and husband live with him until they learn the ropes of real life (though he admits that his wife has yet to see the strength of his view yet). I thought for a couple beats and then answered that though I had never really considered the idea, it held plenty of merit to me; after all, financial "stability" is not a biblical reason to give marriage pause—just an American one. And more, America only looks down upon a couple who lives with the in-laws at the start because of its arrogant individualist ideology (an emphasis which, I might add, has caused a grave harm against the body of Christ by promoting individual worship over and above corporate worship).

So then, let me propose for consideration that a believing teenage couple who desires to get married should be allowed to marry (and marry with blessings) even if they don't have the wherewithal to "support a family."

1) Such a couple is following the biblical path to marriage over the cultural path, for Scripture dictates that if they burn with passion, they ought to marry—it is only society and its etiquette that declares them mistaken. And far be it from me to dissuade a couple from following the clear statement of Scripture.

2) Financial stability is a myth born of an arrogant and overwealthy society. There are families who exist, and exist happily, on wages equivalent and even less than the minimum wage. Of course the young couple might not be able to afford luxuries like television, steaks, computers, cars, et cetera, but really, what's the point of a luxury if we expect as a necessity to everyday living. Having a car is nice, but I'm living proof that it is not necessary to a happy life. I'm also proof that television is unnecessary. Computers too. Living by oneself is a luxury too. I suppose it's nice to want one's friends and children to have luxuries—but how dare someone quash a marriage on the basis that the couple might not have those luxuries! How dare they?

3) How is a thirty-year-old man better suited to loving his wife as Christ loved the church than an eighteen-year-old? Both are faulty and are flawless displays of just how inadequate a man is for the task of loving his wife. That is one of the beauties of the marriage of believers: God will work between the two who are one and mold them further toward the image of his Son. Is not his grace sufficient for all things? Are not the circumstances of suffering used to make more beautiful the children of the Consuming Fire, refining them and eliminating the dross? How little faith do we display when we doubt the blessing of Christian marriage because circumstances are not ideal in our petty, finite minds!

4) It is because our goals for life and our priorities for "success" have been skewed by the world in which we are strangers that the age or the personalities or the circumstance of believers plays a part in our happiness for, in our blessing of, a Christian marriage. Were we not so greedy, not so materialistic, not so concerned with the wealth of nations, we might be focused on what matters. On Christ. On the heavenly places. On the kingdom of God. On the power of the Gospel in the lives of believers. And on the mutual strength and edification that God plans to work in the lives of two believers.

• Premarital Counseling: As It Is
This brings us to the believing couple who was married recently against all advice. Initially, I thought to myself, "Man, it's too bad that they aren't listening to their counselors. The stubborn sos-and-sos." This was because I was being influenced by the non-believing culture in which we as believers sojourn. I repented and saw things afresh in the light of the Gospel.

The chief error of Christian premarital counseling is that it seeks to prove whether two believers should get married when they have already demonstrated biblical warrant for marriage by wanting marriage. Once a believer asks, "will you marry me?" and receives the answer, "I will," it is not the task of the counselor to dissuade the couple. As I've written in the past, the only biblical demands placed upon believers in the light of prospective marriage are twofold: do not be yoked to an unbeliever and if you feel passionately, get married. Therefore, there is no biblical merit to dissuading a couple who chooses to marry and thereby chooses to quench potential illicit passion.

I've spoken at some length in the past on the problems associated with mandatory and pastoral premarital counseling (in a post that the elders at Westminster OPC loved beyond words), so I don't feel the need to rail so much right now on the subject. But I will say that premarital counseling as a judicial function to determine the potential future health of a marriage is a wrongheaded thing. If both members of the couple are at liberty to marry (that is they are single and free from ex-spousal entanglement as explicated by Paul in Corinthians), there is only one biblical reason to prevent the marriage: if one of the couple is unbelieving. It doesn't matter if they are weak Christians, materialistic Christians, selfish Christians, spiteful Christians, or crass Christians. If they both believe, then they have met the biblical requirement and God will work to their sanctification and glorification through their marriage.

• Premarital Counseling: As It Should Be
Really, the counselors of an engaged couple should see themselves as one thing, and that alone. They are advisors, who through their advice, edify the couple by pointing them to the answer to every problem they will soon face together. They make no judgments. They do not advise the couple to hold off marriage for a while. They do not doubt the marital bond between the couple. They simply point the couple to Christ. They point the couple to the power of the Gospel, the power of the word, the power of grace to build a sanctifying work within their lives. They point to the importance of prayer. Really, they point to the identity of the couple as they stand in Christ, reminding the couple of whose kingdom they belong and of the power, endurance, and goodness of that kingdom—and having done that, they trust that even the reminder will work grace in the couple's life together.

• Additional Thoughts
There is one couple I know who were planning on marrying three months ago. Instead, they now plan to wait four years while they complete their respective educations. I believe this is a mistake. It is positioning the good of the earthly realm above and beyond the good of the heavenly. Paul advises them to marry—for they clearly have the passion he describes—and yet Paul is ignored. His advice (for the benefit of the couple and their mutual enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom) has been set aside in order that the couple might pursue the demands of society. I'm saddened and embarrassed for the decision. Occasionally I'll agree with their decision, but that is only when I'm once more not focused upon what matters.

It's funny how many looks a completely average girl can garner if she'll just dress nice. I was on the corner of a major intersection awaiting a soon-coming chariot of public transit and sharing the sidewalk with me was a 20-year-old-or-so girl. Completely unextraordinary. Completely normal. Completely average. She was the kind of girl you might be happy to have as a girlfriend or wife, but you wouldn't go see the new Tomb Raider because she was its star. She was the kind of girl who has beauty, but only once you know her and love her. Like I said, average.

Anyway, she was also dressed pretty sharp (long skirt and short jacket - to turn Cake on its head) having just come from a long day at the office.

In any case, I began watching the reaction of men from their cars as they drove by. The stop is situated such that those making a left turn from the perpendicular street have a moment's glance directly at any awaiting said public chariot. However, if they wish it, an effort may turn that moment from a moment and into a full three seconds. By turning one's head to the left, he can keep his eye on the stop as he drives by. And this is just what men were doing. So far as they could tell, I was standing next to Diana Rigg.

So I counted and 40% of all male drivers making lefthand turns turned their heads to stare at the girl next to me. And more! About 60% of those who did turn to look extended their look past the 90° point so that they were looking over their shoulder, not through the right-front window but through the backseat's right window. So desperate was their desire to behold true beauty that I'm certain that at least half of these men were convinced that they had seen a vision of beauty beyond anything they might ever see again.

True, I took a certain glee in my witness of such a bald-faced psychological deception.