Thanks for all the good feedback in the comments section of yesterday’s post. I also got some email and some folks left comments on Facebook.

Today I’d like to begin digging a little deeper into some of the assumptions you came up with. And I want to preface this by reminding everyone that our assumptions may be either true or false. Or perhaps they were true at one time and are no longer true now as society continues to change. Regardless, we all have assumptions, even if we think we don’t.

For example, Terry Hanger wrote, “ass/u/me — guess that is why I do not assume anything.”

Here’s my response: Terry, that sounds good. It’s clever and all, but it’s not really true, is it? When you go to that big pink building on Sunday morning, you have certain expectations. You expect to sing some songs — you even expect to stand while singing some of them. You expect to hear a sermon. You expect someone will pray in public. Given your particular heritage, you expect to take communion every Sunday. These are all assumptions (or presuppositions) on your part, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with them. I just think we need to periodically question our assumptions, or at least remind ourselves that they do, in fact, exist.

Matt Dabbs brought up this assumption: “An invitation song is necessary for any worship service otherwise it is unscriptural.”

Matt, it seems to me there’s an assumption even deeper that led to this. The assumptions that drive “invitation songs” or “altar calls” are probably (1) that people should to be given the chance to make a commitment to Jesus and (2) a plenary session is the most effective time and place for this. Therefore, (3) if a community of people is serious about evangelism, they will always offer people the opportunity to respond to the gospel anytime they are gathered together.

Now, do you think those assumptions are true or false? Were they true at one point in time and are no longer true now as society has changed? How can we take the good part of those assumptions and apply them today?

I spent most of yesterday with all the strategic partner churches of North Point Community Church. One of the things Andy Stanley talked to us all about yesterday morning is the fact that we all have assumptions about church.

Sometimes our assumptions are true; sometimes they’re false. But the real problem is that we sometimes forget that not everyone shares our assumptions about church. These assumptions are so obvious to us that we can’t imagine how a person could not share them.

Here are some examples:

Everyone likes to stand in rows and sing.

Sunday morning is the best time to meet.

What are some other examples of assumptions church people have about church?

It’s hot and dry and dusty there in the summertime. It feels like someone’s following you around with a hair dryer blowing in your face all the time. The nearest Italian restaurant was more than an hour away from our house — if you don’t count Pizza Hut — which you shouldn’t.

It’s also flat. My standard joke is that Amarillo is so flat that on a clear day you can see the back of your own head. The golf course I played there was called “Hidden Hills”. And if by “hidden” one means “non-existent” then it was an aptly-named course.

There are some nice people. We made some friends there. There are also some of the meanest people I ever encountered. We got hate mail from church people.

It was the hardest time of our lives. It was some of the most profitable in terms of lessons learned. It almost made me leave church altogether. But it drove me closer to God than I ever was before.

And it solidified my marriage like nothing else ever has.

But, without a single doubt, the best thing about Amarillo, Texas is that seven years ago this morning we were given the gift from God that is Eliza Faith Turner.

Sometimes churches, in an attempt to maintain their holiness, withdraw from the world and become insulated from it — losing their ability to influence the world.

Other times churches, in an attempt to connect with the world, actually become assimilated into the world’s standards and values — running the risk of being contaminated by those false standards and values.

What are some ways you’ve seen churches swing too far in one direction or the other?

How can churches intentionally avoid the extremes?

Most of the time we use the phrase “two-faced” in a negative fashion. It means a person is one way when they’re with one group of people and another way when they’re with a different group of people. It can mean hypocritical or inconsistent.

And there are lots of people in lots of churches who fit that description.

But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I think there is a sense in which a healthy church must have two faces, two sides, two identities.

On the one hand, the church is supposed to be holy, made up of a holy people committed to living holy lives, called out from the world and set apart for a special purpose. It’s supposed to be special and peculiar and different. Outsiders could look at us and think, “Those folks are odd — just plain weird.”

On the other hand, the church is supposed to be worldly, constantly going throughout the world, rolling up its sleeves and getting involved in the pain and mess of others. It’s supposed to be made up of regular people with regular struggles. Outsiders could look at us and think, “They’re just like me — they have the same problems.”

This is what Bonhoeffer (I think) called “holy worldliness”.

But pendulums are tricky things, aren’t they? It’s nearly impossible to keep them from swinging wildly from side-to-side.

Which side of the pendulum do you think your church is right now? Is it more concentrated on being holy and set apart? Or is it more concerned with being connected to the world?

Follow Up Question: In your opinion, is one side of the pendulum better than the other?

Way back on May 1 I started this series on the building blocks of a Christian worldview. I’ve talked about this before. I’ve written about this before. But this time I wanted to look at it from a different perspective; I wanted to think about how Christian thinking is fundamentally different from other perspectives. And I wanted to think about it all in the context of how we as Christians can actively engage the culture around us.

So far we’ve talked about God and what he’s like — about what systematic theology calls “theology proper”. We said God isn’t just interested in “spiritual” or “religious” things; he’s interested in everything. We also said that God isn’t just interested in “spiritual” or “religious” people; he’s interested in everyone. Eventually, we got around to noticing that God is not just a God of mercy and compassion; he’s a God of justice as well.

Then we started talking about us — about humans — about “anthropology”. We noticed that you simply cannot talk about humans without dealing with both their inherent dignity (that whole thing about being made in the Image of God) and their undeniable depravity (that whole thing about how all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). We also said that humans aren’t just souls trapped inside bodies. Those bodies are important, too. And humans are incurably social beings, so the social networks which they create are important as well. As Christians attempt to serve their fellow human beings, we must reach out to them and work for their betterment in all three arenas: spiritually, physically and socially.

After that we talked about Jesus (”christology”), because — let’s face it — you can’t talk about a Christian worldview if you don’t talk about Jesus Christ. He’s sort of essential. Jesus left the most glorious and, no doubt, comfortable existence imaginable to come to earth where he endured physical fatigue, hunger and thirst, emotional distress, humiliation, alienation and utter rejection. Knowing fully what his Incarnation would bring, he willingly put himself in harm’s way to rescue lost and dying people.

Most recently, we’ve been talking about salvation — about “soteriology”. We said that because humans are more than souls, salvation has to be more than just getting into heaven when we die; it must have implications for the here and now as well. It’s not just a one-time event (we have been saved); it’s also a continuous process (we are being saved); and it’s an eventual destination (we will one day be saved). It involves our ability to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God, living our lives under God’s reign and rule (under the Lordship of Jesus) — even though that kingdom is not here in all its fullness yet but in ever-increasing measures.

So now let’s take this conversation where it must inevitably go: Let’s go to church!

Here’s your chance to sound off (within reason — let’s keep this civil please): What do you like about church? What do you dislike? If you were the Pope (or whatever your denominational or non-denominational equivalent might be) what would you change? What makes a church flourish? What makes a church die? What kind of church do you loathe? What kind of church do you long for?

This could be fun. Or this could be a big kvetching session. Try to save the really negative stuff for your therapist. Let’s try to be productive, okay?

So far, in our attempt to broaden our understanding of salvation, we’ve seen how salvation must not be separated from the kingdom of God. In other words, it’s got to be more than just getting into heaven when we die; it also must include experiencing abundant life in the here and now.

We’ve also seen that we must not settle for Jesus as Savior without also reckoning with Jesus as Lord. In fact, the two cannot be split from one another, because it is as Jesus is Lord that he is in a position to be Savior. Therefore, our salvation must include submitting ourselves to his leadership in every arena of life.

Finally, our salvation must not rest on faith alone (hear me out) but must also come to embody love as well.

Now, I know what some of you are saying. Evangelical Christians have for centuries declared that salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And in one sense, that is absolutely true. Our reconciliation to God is not accomplished through any good works on our part. It is only by God’s unmerited favor (by grace alone), by our simple trust alone (through faith alone) on the sole basis of Jesus’ sinless life, sacrificial death and victorious resurrection (in Christ alone).

This central tenet of the Christian faith must never be compromised in any way.

And yet….

True faith will never remain alone. That is, if our faith is authentic, it will inevitably manifest itself through our good deeds motivated solely by the love of God which we now carry within our hearts.

James says, “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17)

John says, “If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has not pity on them, how can the love of God be in you?” (1 John 3:17).

Paul says, “We are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

Even more plainly – and more to our point here – Paul also says, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:6b).

Saving faith and serving love must exist simultaneously. In fact, when one is absent, rest assured both are absent.

Now, our question today is this: If the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love, why do church discipleship programs focus almost exclusively on knowledge? What might it look like to have a discipleship program that trains people to love more expressively?

Bonus Question: Would knowledge still be an important part of such a discipleship program?

I’m spending a week in the mountains teaching at Redwood Christian Park. Folks have been meeting up here every summer since the late 1940s. In fact, I had breakfast this morning with a man who told me he became a Christian here in 1951. He’s only missed three or four years since then!

We truly live in amazing times. Here I sit at a campsite that’s more than half a century old, beneath a canopy of towering redwood trees that are probably ten times older than that.

And I have a wireless internet connection.

The sad thing is there are some folks here who seem to prefer living in their virtual world to exploring the actual world just a few steps away from them.

But commentary on that topic will have to wait for another time. Today I want to pick back up on this idea of expanding our concept of salvation. As I’ve said here (and thanks for all the comments), I believe salvation must begin to include more than just living in heaven when we die. We must reconnect salvation with the Kingdom of God – which isn’t here in its fullness yet but is constantly breaking through this old world and advancing already in the here and now.

But Frank Bellizzi (Hey, Frank, I’m up here with another Yalie – a Dr. Lawson Stone who teaches Old Testament at Asbury Seminary and is actually a distant relative of Barton W. Stone) brought up another interesting point: We must not separate Jesus the Savior from Jesus the Lord.

I’ve heard this consistently from people I respect – this notion that you can accept Jesus as your Savior and postpone surrendering to him as Lord. In fact, now that I think about it, I may have actually said as much myself from time to time.

But I’m rethinking that position.

God has raised Jesus up and exalted him to the highest place. God (the Father) has made Jesus (the Son) Lord. There’s no getting around that. It is from that position of Lordship that Jesus with executive authority and supreme power now bestows salvation to us. In other words, if Jesus isn’t Lord, he can’t be Savior.

So maybe saying “Jesus is Savior” and “Jesus is Lord” is really saying the same thing. Maybe the two could be used interchangeably.

And – this is the part where we get back on task with what we’ve been talking about here for the last few months – Jesus’ Lordship doesn’t just encompass the religious portion of our lives. Jesus is Lord of everything, the whole of our experience, public and private, domestic and vocational, church and civic, evangelism and social activism.

So, here’s my question for you: If Jesus is Lord of all, does he have an opinion on how you vote, why you vote and whether you vote or not? If so, what’s he telling you?

And (bonus question) do you automatically assume that since he’s told you something, he’s trying to tell everyone else the exact same thing?

The Kingdom of God is the reign and rule of God. It broke into this world in a new way through the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. It confronts, combats and overcomes evil, holistically spreading personal and communal well-being. It takes hold of God’s people, blessing them completely and demanding allegiance from them.

A local church is supposed to be a community of people who live as citizens of God’s kingdom, a model of what a group of people look like when they come together under the reign and rule of God, being rightly related to their Creator and rightly relating to one another for the good of the whole world. It should be a startling alternative to any other community available.

For now we eagerly await a time when this kingdom will be completely fulfilled even while we celebrate those places where it has come and is advancing. At that time in the future when the kingdom is fully consummated, our bodies, our society and our universe will all be renewed. Sin, pain, frustration, anxiety, disease and death will all be forever eradicated. Life characterized by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control will be our experience for the rest of eternity.

Salvation is a bigger and broader concept than we often communicate.

Why in the world do you think we so often reduce it to being let off the hook for our sins?

We had some great definitions of salvation in response to the last post. Thanks to those of you who were brave enough to play along! I don’t have a completely definitive definition, but these days I like John Stott’s statement:

“Salvation is a radical transformation in three phases, beginning at our conversion, continuing throughout our earthly life and brought to perfection when Christ comes.”

This fits well with the New Testament’s teaching that — in some mysterious way — we already are saved, we are currently being saved and one day we will eventually be saved.

One of the ways Christians have minimized and trivialized salvation is by separating it from the Kingdom of God. We’ve made it sound sometimes as if the two are different things entirely, but in the Bible it’s not so. In the Bible, Isaiah 52:7 for example, we read that those who declare the good news (i.e., gospel) of peace are also those “who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’”

In other words, wherever God reigns (kingdom), God also saves (salvation).

That this was the common understanding during Jesus’ teaching ministry is made obvious when Jesus told his friends, “How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God” and they responded by asking, “Who then can be saved?” (Mark 10:24-26).

They equated entering the kingdom with being saved.

But if salvation means entering into God’s Kingdom, well, that’s a much bigger and broader concept than we tend to discuss during the altar call on Easter Sunday.

So, if salvation means entering into the Kingdom of God, maybe we should talk about exactly what that is. Anyone want to take a shot at that?

What is the Kingdom of God?