1. Silent Night? All is calm?

It's a beautiful song heard every year at this time. If you've never sung the song, you've probably found yourself humming the melody: "Silent night, holy night; all is calm, all is bright ..."

Emphasizing the solemnity of the moment of Christ's birth, this Christmas hymn is beloved by many. The lyrics also stress the apparent normality of a moment that would literally change God's universe forever. Both ideas are worthy of our reflection.

But there is another side to this historical event, a side we might call "Chaotic Night, Bloody Night."

Just as our daily Christian experience masks a war raging behind the scenes (cf. Eph. 6:12), so this Holy Night did also. All was not "silent" that night, and things were hardly "calm." Satan was seething, prompting Herod to kill babies left and right to prevent the dreaded birth of the Serpent-Crusher (Gen. 3:15; Matt. 2:16; Rev. 12:1-4). There was war in heaven that night (Rev. 12:7) -- it was anything but "silent" and "calm"!

I know what some of you are thinking. Why must I write these Christmas pieces every year that challenge our favorite songs and traditions, right? I'm glad you asked.

It is vital that we see past the sterilized anglo "baby Jesus" that lay in those expertly crafted cribs in our manger scenes. The animals look professionally groomed, the hay is clean, and everything is so serene. In this way, the birth of the Savior is rendered harmless and as sickly sweet as a candy cane. Christmas becomes, even for Christians, a sentimental time.

Only it wasn't. That first Christmas was a time of war. There was nothing sentimental about it! Mary's labor pains rocked heaven and earth, as God initiated the greatest Miracle in world history. A Divine Veto whereby all of the sin and death that came through the first Adam would be taken care of by the Last Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). And it would all be done IN ONE DAY (Zech. 3:9)! Divine Love satisfying Divine Justice, God in flesh dying for God in heaven -- and it began at Bethlehem as God "provided Himself a lamb" (cf. Gen. 22:8; John 1:29).

God became weak. God became poor. God became man (1 Cor. 1:25; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil'p. 2:5-8). Imagine it! This is foolishness to the world! God in fragile flesh, connected to Mary by an umbilical cord as He entered our world! "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16, NKJV)!

The powers of darkness closed in on that dingy, dirty delivery room, leaving a trail of massacred infants as they went. But Michael and the angels of God met them at the door. "The LORD of Hosts has sworn, saying, 'Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand ...'" (Isa. 14:24). If God is against you, who in all creation can be for you??? God was against Satan as Mary began to experience the curse, bringing forth the One who would be a Curse for us (Gen. 3:16; Gal. 3:13). It wasn't pretty, I'm sure.

When all was said and done, Satan was forced to bow to God's sovereign purpose. He would have his chance 30 years later, in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-3). But not that first Christmas. The Child named Jesus was born according to Divine schedule (Gal. 4:4). The Child named Jesus would grow in wisdom and stature, in favor with both God and man (Luke 2:52). The Man named Jesus would willingly die for us (John 10:15-18).

In a very real way, every Christmas is just like that first Christmas. Every Christmas is a battle. Christ has already come, but Satan has shifted gears. Today the powers of darkness are busy making sure that the "baby Jesus" is just "tender and mild" enough to provoke sighs -- how cute He is, how sentimental.

As long as people can be kept from seeing the cross looming over the manger scene, Satan has nothing to fear from Christmas. As long as the angelic announcement of "peace on earth and good will toward men" (Luke 2:14) is seen as fulfilled in mistletoe, hugs, and gift exchanges -- all is well with our enemy. One would think that the angelic promise was invented by Hallmark, and many read it like it's a United Nations slogan.

How tragically sad! The promised "peace on earth" would come at a price, as "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). The announcement of "good will toward men" meant bad will toward Christ, as He "became sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). Christmas is all about sin and death, and what it took to fix it. But that doesn't make for good Christmas cards, does it?

Brothers and sisters, I challenge you to soak your cozy white Christmas in the shed blood of Christ. The war for the hearts and minds of your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers -- it began at Bethlehem and it rages right now (2 Cor. 4:3-4). Tell them the Story! Let them know that Satan screamed and heaven laughed as God humbled Himself, laying in a feed trough and having His bones formed by Mary's milk. And all for one purpose -- that their nights might be both silent and calm, as they hope in Him (Eph. 2:14 -- cf. 2 Tim. 1:7; Heb. 2:14-15).

This is the miracle of Christmas -- everything else is just fluff.

2. "Church Growth" -- Not All Bad! (2 of 2)

Last issue, I pointed to some issues within the Church Growth Movement that are areas for concern. A couple of friends argued against some of my comments based on pragmatic concerns ("But their church is HUGE!"), but most of you were very receptive. However, lest some of you run to the other extreme and paint this movement as all bad, I offer the following observations on the positive aspects of the Church Growth Movement.

First, it is certainly true that the Gospel should be communicated within a context conducive to the audience. This is what I think was meant by the very careless church-growther who stated in print that "the audience, and not the message, is sovereign." This statement has been used as a club to beat the Church Growth Movement, but I think that it represents a careless statement that is too easily misunderstood.

What was actually meant, I believe, was simply that the audience we are attempting to communicate with should be addressed within a context that they understand. This, of course, represents the most basic of communication skills. Jesus addressed the Sadducees and the Samaritan woman within the context of the books of Moses, as those were the only books of scripture accepted by them. Likewise, we find Paul not quoting any scripture at all when he addresses the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), but rather the writings of their own philosophers! This latter example is highly significant, as it forces us to face the fact that the truths of scripture can be presented without directly referencing scripture and that there are evangelistic situations which call for just such an approach.

Further, while Jesus being the answer to "felt needs" is not the substance of the Gospel -- nevertheless, secondary needs are an issue that must often be addressed prior to (or in conjunction with) evangelism. Consider, for instance, that Jesus met the physical needs of the 5,000 in conjunction with their spiritual needs (Matt. 14:13-21). The healing of illnesses by both Jesus and the Apostles often preceded the Gospel. As long as counseling, charity and the like are distinguished from the Gospel itself -- we are on safe ground. Just so long as "felt needs" are treated as symptomatic of the Great Unfelt Need (= that we are sinners in need of a Savior), the message remains untainted.

Second, we should be tolerant of those who differ with us on non-essential issues. Interdenominational cooperation is a great thing and can enhance the spreading of the Gospel. And there is certainly nothing wrong with taking note of how others are doing things. What we must guard against is an extreme pragmatism that glosses over false teaching. If a false teacher has several thousand members, what does this mean? It means that several thousand people are being horribly misled to the dishonor of our Lord and His Word -- it is this reality that should cause weeping, not recognition for "church growth."

Third, we should be accommodating to unbelievers in our segment of society. In his discourse on speaking in tongues, Paul asks the question: "if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there comes in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (1 Cor. 14:23). Paul was concerned to some extent what kind of perception unbelievers would get in church. This is simply good sense.

This does not mean that we should seek to make the church an "unbeliever magnet" -- that is decidedly unbiblical. Believers are to be equipped in the church to reach out (cf. Eph. 4:12). But it does mean that we should conduct our services aware of the fact that unbelievers will be coming and should be welcomed -- not needlessly offended. The key word is "needlessly," as the Gospel contains built-in offenses. While these must be retained, we must be careful to distinguish these essential elements from offensive tradition. Francis Schaeffer's "form and freedom" model is an excellent paradigm for this task (see book review last issue).

Fourth, there is nothing wrong with developing a plan for growth, if by "growth" you mean the salvation and discipleship of the lost. This is precisely what the early Church did in Acts. Paul's missionary journeys were not just about preaching the Gospel, but also organization, follow up, correction, and reproduction (e.g., Acts 15:41; 16:40).

If an understanding of Apostolic doctrine, Bible study, believing prayer, spiritual gifts/body life, and ministry (cf. Acts 2:42-47) are sufficiently integrated into the mission of the local church -- an organized plan to make reproducing disciples can be very beneficial. The rule would be the Apostolic above the pragmatic.

Fifth, revision/discarding of man-made traditions should be made if they are serving as barriers between the lost and the Gospel. For instance, there is a great amount of wisdom in the move of many churches to dispense with the traditional "offering time," including the passing of an offering plate. This is an evangelical tradition that has been much abused in the past and tends to be misinterpreted (unfortunately, sometimes correctly interpreted!) by visitors to a local church.

Similar traditions may include choir robes (or even the choir itself), formal dress codes, worship service times, not utilizing multimedia, and so forth. These are all things that we may feel free to change if it will help us to place the message of the Gospel in a more familiar context. In my opinion, such things as "offering plates" and "altar calls" needed to go anyway -- they represent an unbiblical (and often harmful) methodology.

Does doing away with such traditions make unbelievers feel more "comfortable"? Yes. Is this comfort a bad thing? Of course not, but one would think it was, the way some critics talk! My goodness, if every vestige of comfort is wrong then let's lock the church doors, preach as long as we want, and turn the heat up to 90 degrees! Of course we should not preach a "positive" "gospel" designed to comfort the conscience, but this does not mean that we must make every effort to make the unbeliever miserable!

One church growther who receives criticism, even from those within his own denomination, is Rick Warren. Warren is the senior pastor of Saddleback Community Church (California) and the author of The Purpose Driven Church. While I do see Warren making some leaps in his interpretation of scripture from time to time, I nevertheless find most of the heated criticisms about his methodology unwarranted. I have read Warren's book and find much of it very helpful. Much of what he does is extrabiblical, but not unbiblical. There is a difference -- it is Schaeffer's distinction between "form" and "freedom" (which, in turn, hearkens back to Luther's concept of adiaphora -- things not forbidden in scripture may be utilized).

I want to pause here to point out that the size of Warren's church is not a critirea in my evaluation. Many today think the fundamental question is, "Is it growing?" But I would argue that we must ask, "On what basis is it growing?" All that can initially be said about a fat church is that it is being stuffed with something, but what that something is must be evaluated separately. That being said, I see very little to be concerned about in Warren's book (no, I've never actually been to his church).

If, by the concept of "growth," we are counting mature, reproducing disciples of Jesus and not an enormous pile of netted -- but uncleaned and stinking -- "fish," I think we are thinking God's thoughts after Him. It is when we slip into counting how many people we can manipulate into praying a prayer, signing a card and/or getting wet in the baptistry that I think we derail from God's purpose for the Church. "Growth" must be proportionate in both depth (spirituality) and width (numerical) -- the two must go together.

Is there danger in the Church Growth Movement? Of course! Just as there always is in movements throughout Church history. There is always an upside and a downside.

One of my biggest problems with church growthers and anti-church growthers is that they both often seem to think in "either/or" categories. It's either good theology or growth despite theology. It's either "loving unbelievers in the door" or going out and giving apologetic answers for our faith. And on it goes ...

Instead, why can't it be "both/and"? Why do we allow the world, the flesh and the devil to trick us into such false dichotomies? These are not choices that we as Christians need to be making! If we do, we will end up either with mega-churches full of tares and weak, ignorant believers or little tiny churches with all the right beliefs and no impact on the world. Now, look at that "either/or" for a second! Which is better? Answer: neither one -- the powers of darkness have rolled a seven either way.

If the parameters of God's glory, God's purpose, and God's Word are maintained -- there is no reason why church growth methodology cannot be utilized effectively for the Kingdom. And there is no reason why we can't work in God's field to grow these kinds of churches. The key to the whole thing is to refuse to have our thinking confined to labeled boxes -- the "church growth" box, the "fundamentalist" box, the "charismatic" box, etc. Let's take what's good from these paradigms and get on with it. Paul laid down this immutable principle:

"Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thes. 5:21).

In pointing out both negative and positive aspects of the Church Growth Movement, that is really all I am saying.

3. Quotation Worth Consideration

Keith Drury is a Wesleyan-Arminian brother who has written some articles concerning the dangers of a man-centered "seeker-sensitive" mentality divorced from the counter-balancing God-centered "Calvinist" outlook. In one of these articles, Drury writes the following:

We Arminians tend to put too much emphasis on man and his decisions, and not enough on God and the gospel. Sometimes we are tempted to act as if God is helpless without us and our work. We lean toward pragmatism and are constantly looking for 'what works best' as if methodology were more important than the message. Since we believe that all men can be saved, we tend to assume that if they aren't saved, we have not packaged the invitation (or the message) right. We especially love management, leadership, programs, marketing, and research data. We tend to focus more on the 'potential convert' than on the eternal gospel. Arminianism easily leans toward a NIKE mentality — 'Just do it.' We are somewhat less inclined to pray in order to move God to 'do it.' And, as has always been true, Arminianism can be taken to the extreme of humanism. Calvinists have a sovereign God and an inactive man. Humanists have a sovereign man and an inactive God. Arminians lean toward the humanist end of this continuum and thus are always in danger of becoming humanists.

NOTE: To get the full context of what Drury is saying, please see the source article. An additional article by Drury provides even more insight into his warnings.

Many of my fellow Calvinists have sought to utterly annihilate anything even slightly resembling "church growth" methodology. This is an unfortunate extreme that I attempt to correct in item #1 above. I consider the two linked articles by Drury to be a voice of counter-balance to that I have offered. It is comforting to know that such balanced warnings are being voiced on both sides of the theological fence.

4. Merry Christmas!

"Twas much that man was made like God before, But that God should be made like man, much more." - John Donne.

"... for it is good to be children sometimes, and never better than at Christmas, when its mighty Founder was a child himself." - Charles Dickens.