Mike Riccardi | TMS Chapel | A Warning Against Spiritual Pride

How to Live in a World Falling Apart | Part 7 - Seven Steps to Revival |...

The Prayer of Desperation | Part 6 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

Witchcraft in Disguise | Part 5 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

Grace vs Law | Part 4 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

Self-Humbling | Part 3 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

What It Means to Love God | Part 2 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

The Goal Is Love | Part 1 - Seven Steps to Revival | Sermon

Where is the God of Justice? - Mike Riccardi

The Sinfulness of Sin - Mike Riccardi

The Truth About Sanctification - Mike Riccardi

The Sovereignty of God Over the Atonement | Mike Riccardi

Jesus as Lord in Acts and in the Gospel Message

By Darrell L. Bock

[Darrell L. Bock, Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Nothing is more precious to evangelicals than the gospel, the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. The coming of the Savior to redeem men from sin and to offer eternal life through faith is the message that all Christians are commissioned to take to the world. Yet within evangelicalism there is a dispute about how to present the confession that represents the saving response to this gospel message.[1]

One side of the debate argues that Jesus must be confessed only as Savior, and not as Lord (i.e., Master of one’s life). The gospel involves faith in Jesus’ redeeming work as the God-Man. To add a confession of lordship to the gospel is to run the risk of destroying the grace focus of the gospel, for how much lordship is enough to qualify as saving faith? According to this view the term “Lord” refers to Jesus’ divinity. This side can be called the Jesus-is-Savior view.[2]

The second side in this debate argues that Jesus is to be confessed as Lord (Master) as well as Savior. The gospel involves a call to repentance as well as to faith. To confess the lordship of Jesus is not a mere confession of deity; rather it is a confession of total submission to the personal Lord, a commitment to obey in every area of life. In this view, to offer Jesus as Savior only is “easy believism.” One does not choose to make Jesus Lord, He is Lord of all. If He is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all. To leave saving faith to anything less than a confession of Jesus as Lord ignores the discipleship teaching of the Scriptures and forgets that the basic definition of “Lord” is “master,” “ruder,” or “owner.” This view can be called the Jesus-is-Lord view.[3]

A key point of contention in this debate is the term “Lord.” It is clear that the two views define this term differently. Does it refer to a confession of deity only (the Jesus-is-Savior view)? Or does it refer to a confession of submission of one’s life (the Jesus-is-Lord view)? Appeal on both sides is made to Romans 10:9–13. But the problem with this text is that the passage provides no clear definition of Paul’s understanding of the term “Lord.” Rather, Paul seems to assume that all know what it means from its use in the context of preaching the gospel message, a context that is the background of the Romans passage. Thus this passage is not the key to solving this debate.

How can one determine how the term “Lord” is used and which side is right in this debate? It is helpful to give careful consideration to the term “Lord” in the book that reveals the apostolic message of the early church, the Book of Acts. Too little attention has been paid to the use of the title “Lord” in the context of apostolic preaching. Consequently the definition of the term has been assumed from general usage. The task is to examine the term “Lord,” κύριος, in its salvation contexts in Acts (i.e., where it is related to faith, to conversion, or to the offer of the gospel) to determine what the audience hearing the term would have understood by it. When someone in the Book of Acts confessed Jesus as Lord, what was confessed about Him? Having determined the answer to this question, this article will consider how the answer helps the church deal with the modern debate over the gospel message.

Jesus as Lord in Acts

This section surveys passages in which Jesus was believed in as Lord for salvation. The question it asks of each passage is, What did the believing audience understand about Jesus the Lord? Though some passages will yield more results than others, the survey will show that more than deity is present in the term, but something less than a total personal submission is in view.

Acts 2:21,32-39

This passage is one of the most important in Acts. It sets forth the first postresurrection preaching about Jesus. Acts 2:21 shows that salvation was the subject at hand; the promise of salvation was held out for those who responded to the message. Included in this salvation is the gift of the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and the promise of God (vv. 38–39). Jesus is the Dispenser of the Spirit (vv. 17, 33).

What is the nature of the Lord who was offered to the audience in this chapter ? (Note how the response called for in v. 38 is preceded by the confession in v. 36 that God made Jesus κύριον…καὶ Χριστόν.) Acts 2:32–36 gives the answer. Jesus is the One whom God raised to His right hand to pour out the gift of the Spirit that the audience saw displayed in the believers (vv. 32–33). Reference to Psalm 110 shows that these events are part of the promise of the Old Testament (Acts 2:34–35). Jesus’ ascension to God’s right hand and Jesus’ pouring out of the Spirit manifest the authority of Jesus as “Co-regent” who now dispenses the gift of salvation and is the One who mediates God’s salvation. The term κύριον in verse 36 looks back to the previous use of κυρίου in verse 21. The repetition of the term serves to underscore the point that the κύριος who is confessed is Jesus. The exalted position of Jesus is why baptism is to be in His name (v. 38). “Lord” in verse 36 serves to identify Jesus with God. For in the Septuagint’s rendering of the Hebrew, κύριος referred to יְהוָה God (in Joel 2:32, as cited in Acts 2:21). In Acts 2, this divine title is applied to Jesus, who is the Lord (cf. v. 34 with v. 36). He is the One who is exalted and sits at God’s right hand mediating the gifts and promise of God.

Thus the Lord Jesus confessed in Acts 2 is the divine Mediator of the gifts of salvation. He is the One on whom men must call to be saved. He is the Lord over salvation as He performs that mediatorial duty at God’s right hand. As Acts 4:12 puts it, there is no other name on which men may call for salvation, for He is the Authority over salvation.

Acts 5:14

This verse summarizes the growth of the church composed of “those who believed in the Lord.” Πιστεύοντες τῷ κυρίῳ serves as a summary for conversion and stresses that the One confessed was Jesus the Lord. But the verse does not specify the content of such faith in any detail.

Acts 9:42

This verse is similar to Acts 5:14. The summary was the same in Samaritan regions as it was in Judea. This fact is important to note because some dispensationalists try to distinguish between the gospel as it was given to Jews and the gospel as it was given to non-Jewish groups. This verse does not sustain that distinction.

Acts 10:34-43

This passage presents Peter’s first message to Gentiles. Cornelius addressed God as Lord (v. 33; cf. vv. 2–4, 22). Peter declared that God shows no partiality, that He accepts all who fear Him (vv. 34–35). He then declared that peace comes through Jesus Christ, the One who is Lord of all (v. 36). What is the nature of Jesus’ lordship? Because of His lordship, He had a ministry of power as He healed all who were oppressed by the devil (v. 38). As Lord, He was the object of a testimony that declared Him to be the Judge of the living and the dead (v. 42). He is the One of whom all the prophets testified that forgiveness of sins is found in His name (v. 43). Again lordship describes the authority that Jesus has as the Bearer of salvation authority that involves work in the past (exorcising demons), present (granting forgiveness of sins), and future (serving as Judge). Lest it be doubted that lordship was a point of confession in this message, Peter later (11:17) compared the confession of the Gentiles in Acts 10 to the original confession of believers at Pentecost, a confession of the Lord Jesus Christ. Πιστεύσασιν ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον (“believing in the Lord”) looks much like the summary of Acts 5:14 and 9:42. Faith in the Lord knows no racial distinctions.[4]

Acts 11:20-21

Acts 11:20–21 stresses that some believers preached the Lord Jesus to the Greeks. The response to the preaching of the gospel was positive, with many turning to believe in the Lord. The combination of faith (ὁ πιστεύσας) and of turning (ἐπέστρεψεν) is another common way to express salvation in Acts.[5] The content of this faith in the Lord is not stated here.

Acts 15:11

Acts 15:11 compares Gentile salvation to Jewish salvation as the two were debated at the Jerusalem Council. The two are treated as the same, with the point being made that through the grace of the Lord Jesus, salvation is offered to all men. “Lord” is the title of the Agent of grace who bestows salvation (the preposition διά means “through”). Here the picture of the Lord is like that in Acts 2.

This agreement is not surprising, since Pentecost is the point of comparison. The Lord is the Dispenser of salvation.

Acts 16:30-31

This passage is a popular one in gospel presentations, and rightly so. It depicts briefly the salvation offered in Jesus. The account stresses the power of the Lord Jesus to deliver His own children, as the rescue of Paul and Silas from prison through the earthquake makes clear. The passage does not explicitly mention Jesus’ work on the cross.

Possibly the jailer had heard the message previously in some form; but the passage gives no indication of such a previous contact, unless the hymns Paul and Silas were singing contained such elements in them (v. 25). The sheer demonstration of power on behalf of God’s own is what led the Philippian jailer to ask what he must do to be saved. The reply to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ would have meant to him that Jesus is the One with power to protect and save His own. To come to Jesus is to come to the One with the power and authority to save.

Acts 18:8

Crispus, a synagogue leader, had heard Paul’s message that Jesus is the Christ (v. 5). Crispus believed in the Lord, as other Corinthians also believed. Again, the specifics of lordship faith are lacking; but the repeated presence of a reference to Jesus as Lord as a summary of a salvation confession is significant.

Acts 20:21

This passage, also a summary verse, is brief and clear. Paul preached to Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Here repentance and faith are placed side by side, as are Jews and Gentiles. Paul presented Jesus as the One with authority over salvation (Acts 13:23, 38–39 [to Jews]; 17:31 [to Gentiles]).

Summary

The passages presented in this article link together a saving response to the gospel message in Acts and the confession of Jesus as Lord. The confession of Jesus as Lord appears in several summary verses (Acts 5:14; 9:42; 11:20–21; 15:11; 18:8; 20:21). The confession reflects the faith of audiences that are both Jewish and Gentile. Luke described conversion in terms of responding to the Lord Jesus Christ. But the key question is, When a person came to faith in Jesus as Lord, what did he believe about Jesus?

In Acts 2, 10, and 16 —passages that present the most material about salvation in the Book of Acts—what one confessed was that Jesus was the Lord in that He was the divine Mediator of salvation with the total capacity and authority to forgive sins and judge men. He is the Lord over salvation to whom men come to find salvation because they have turned away from themselves or their own merit to the ascended Lord. He is the divine Dispenser of salvation.

Interestingly the same emphasis is recorded in Romans 10:9–13. Verses 9, 12, and 13 refer to a confession of Jesus as the Lord of all, that is, of Jew and Gentile, and also describe Him as the One who bestows His riches on all who call on Him! Jesus as Lord is the divine Dispenser of salvation. He is the One with authority to save. Other New Testament passages show that this presentation of Jesus as Lord over salvation was shared by other New Testament writers, who saw in this lordship relationship not only a part of one’s confession of saving faith but also a part of the perspective of one’s daily walk with God (John 20:28; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; James 1:1; 2:1; 1 Pet 3:15; 2 Pet 3:18; Jude 4, 21, 25; Rev 19:16). The believer is saved by and walks by faith in the Lord.

Acts and the Gospel Today

What does this study mean for the gospel as it is preached today? How is the debate to be resolved? This study suggests a corrective to both sides of the debate, while affirming something that each has insisted on. Against the Jesus-is-Savior view, these passages in Acts argue that one need not fear presenting Jesus as Lord, provided one is clear about the definition of the term as the One with authority over salvation. Jesus as the divine Dispenser of salvation is the point of biblical lordship. Many who hold the Jesus-is-Savior view do present a high, authoritative view of Jesus in their gospel presentation, but they make it a part of their description of Jesus as only the Savior. This study shows that biblically one can feel comfortable both in placing such an authoritative emphasis in the gospel message and in referring to Jesus as Lord when one presents the gospel with this emphasis.

The power and authority of the One to whom the sinner is to come by faith is an emphasis that evangelistic preaching can surely use. In putting one’s whole salvation hope in the Lord Jesus, one begins a journey, a walk of faith that is to be conducted with His leading, guiding, and tender hand. Salvation and the walk that goes with it are in the hand of One with the power and authority to dispense all the riches of His grace. As Lord, He is also the Judge of the living and the dead, so that any man who seeks salvation must come to terms with the Lord Jesus in order to be saved. The grace and authority of Jesus over salvation are central to any gospel message about His person and work.

With the Jesus-is-Savior view, the emphasis of the gospel message is rightly seen as residing in Jesus alone, with the focus fixed exclusively on Him and His person. Some forms of lordship teaching, with their emphasis on the hearer’s state, seem to miss this crucial point. If one presents the gospel with a clear description of the Person who saves, a saving faith commitment will represent a turning to and a reliance solely on the work of God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

The corrective to the Jesus-is-Lord view is to let the Lord Jesus protect the one who sincerely comes to Him in faith, rather than trying to “psychologize” faith so much that the focal point of the answer, the power and provision of the Lord Jesus Christ, becomes blurred. Such blurring occur’s when attention is drawn away from the Lord to an excessive concern with one’s personal state. When the exclusive nature of the gracious provision of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ alone is made clear, what else must one know or do in order to enter into that faith than to turn to Him? When the greatness of the Deliverer and the deliverance He bestows is made clear; why should anyone wish to take lightly such a great Lord and Savior and such a great salvation? That is not to suggest that believers do not fail in their walk with their Lord; but such failures by believers should not become a time of soul-searching about whether one’s original commitment was real, something that the classic definition of lordship salvation would seem to require. Rather, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in whom one places faith should become the basis for a restoration of the walk with Him after an honest confession of one’s lapse into sin.

Proponents of the Jesus-is-Lord view have rightly stressed that the gospel message is to include a resounding note about the lordship of Jesus. But the symphony to be played is Jesus’ cosmic authority and capacity to save, the authority of the One who lavishly bestows His grace on those who trust Him.

The following example demonstrates the application of this theological discussion to current attempts to make the gospel message clear and to present it biblically. A question that invariably arises is, Can a person trust Christ if he is not willing to give up a particular sin? The answer depends on what is meant by the question. If the question means that under no circumstances will an individual give up his sin, one can seriously doubt that the person understands the nature of God, the greatness of His grace, the severity of sin, or his need to come to Christ to have sins forgiven and to enter into a relationship with God. In other words one can wonder if such a person is genuinely coming to Jesus as Lord Almighty, the Dispenser of divine salvation and forgiveness. If there is a sin that a person thinks does not need forgiving, how can that person say he is coming to Christ for the forgiveness of sins?

On the other hand if by this question a person means that he is afraid about his own ability to give up the sin and wonders, “Will God accept me if I cannot give assurance I will forsake the sin?” then one can assume that the individual is most likely coming to Jesus as Lord. (Of course in either view only God knows the heart of individuals.) A person with this anxious attitude should be urged to trust Christ and then receive encouragement about the aid God’s Spirit can give him. He needs gentle and supportive exhortation that calls him to live the kind of life that expresses gratitude to God for His gracious forgiveness. The point is that to trust Christ as Savior and Lord biblically is to come to Him with the recognition that He meets the need of dealing with man’s position before God, including one’s sin problem. To come to God for salvation is to let Him deal with one’s sin through Christ.[6]

All Christians are to proclaim the gospel to all people and to teach them to walk in obedience to God’s Word. Believers therefore should seek to take to the world the message of the glorious salvation available through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Dispenser of salvation and the One with authority to deliver from sin all who trust in Him.

Notes

1. See the differing responses of John Stott and Everett R. Harrison to the question, Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? in Eternity, September 1959, pp. 14-18,36, 48. The article entitled “Must Christ Be Savior to Be Lord?” reveals that Stott’s answer to the question is yes, while Harrison replies in the negative.
2. This position has often been held by dispensational writers (e.g., Lewis S. Chafer, Salvation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1917], pp. 42-53; Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 169-81; and G. Michael Cocoris, Lordship Salvation-Is It Biblical? [Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1983]). The last title serves to show the seriousness with which this question is addressed by this view. Ryrie argues in even stronger terms that the essence of the gospel is ultimately at stake; he cites Galatians 1:6–9 (p. 170).
3. This view is often presented by Reformed writers (e.g., James I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1961], pp. 71-73, 88–89; John Murray, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955], pp. 95-116; K. L. Gentry, “The Great Option: A Study of the Lordship Controversy,” Baptist Reformation Review 5 [1975]: 49-79).
4. The next verse, Acts 11:18, speaks of “repentance to life” being granted to Gentiles. The word “repentance” summarizes Cornelius’s conversion in Acts. “Repentance” can be a summary term for conversion, stressing that a change of orientation has taken place when one believes. Faith stresses what the object of belief is. Faith is directed toward a Person, namely, Jesus. Repentance stresses what belief involves in that it is a change of mind or of orientation from oneself and his own works to a reliance on Jesus to save him. The repentant man of faith recognizes that, as the hymnwriter puts it, his “hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness” and that he is to “wholly lean on Jesus’ name.” Μετανοέω (“to repent”) is used in Acts 2:38 and 3:19 to call Jewish audiences to come to Jesus, and it is used in the same way in Acts 17:30 and 26:20 to describe the call to or response of Gentiles. Μετάνοια (“repentance”) is the summary term of the Great Commission in Luke 24:47. It is also used in salvation contexts in Acts 5:31 (to Jews); 11:18 (of Cornelius); 20:21 (of Jews and Gentiles who believe on the Lord Jesus); and 26:20 (in Paul’s message to Jews and Gentiles).
5. Acts 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18; 26:20; and 28:27. The point of this variety of description is exactly that: there are many ways to talk about being converted and many ways to present the call to come to Jesus, though of course faith in Christ is the only way of salvation. They all serve to stress that one comes to Jesus in order to be saved. To trust in Him, to believe in Him, to repent, to turn to Him—these descriptions present in one light or another the faith that saves, that is, a reliance on the Lord Jesus for salvation from sin.
6. This writer is grateful to his colleague R. Larry Moyer for raising and initially presenting this illustration.

The Table Briefing: Christians Engaging The Spirit World

By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook

[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

Introduction

Marten: One day I was working with a client of mine . . . and she had come in with a pain in her side. So I said, “Why don’t you just close your eyes and let your mind’s eye go down to that area of your body?” And so she sat there with her eyes closed, and I said, “Go down there and look and tell me what you see.” So she said, “Oh, it’s really dark. It’s really dark.” See, I’m expecting some association with the memory or something like that. So I said, “Well, keep looking.” She said, “Oh, it’s really, really black.” I said, “Okay.” So she sits there quietly for a while, and I’m sitting there quietly for a while. All of a sudden with her eyes closed, she says, “She’s mine.”

Film and literature have always been fascinated with the possibility of more in this world than meets the eye—the lure of something or someone just beyond our five senses. More recently, podcasts like Lore and Unexplained have revived chronicling real-life accounts of sinister and mysterious occurrences that leave more questions than answers. All of this might evoke curiosity and even entertain us until we find ourselves in the middle of it in real life, such as this story shared by one of our Table guests, Linda Marten (retired Professor of Counseling Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary). We have hosted several podcasts where the spiritual dimension of our world was either at the forefront or came about because of its very real cultural implications. There are many believers all over the globe regularly thinking through how Christians should conduct themselves amid this wider dimension in God’s creation. A distillation of these fascinating conversations has surfaced four key things followers of Christ should keep in mind when relating to the supernatural.

Recognize It As Real

In a discussion on spiritual warfare, Michael Pocock (retired Professor of World Missions and Intercultural Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) pointed out that one’s experiences with supernatural realities often depends on one’s culture:

Pocock: In some cultures where there’s an open belief in the spirit world, Satan appears in one way, but in the intellectually advanced—if you want to call it that—he shows himself in a different way, much more of a wizard of intelligence, so to speak. . . . People have problems. They have difficulties. They have challenges, but they don’t even think about, “Could this be from Satan?” or “Could this be demonic?”

The very existence of such a dimension in the world may still meet skepticism in the recesses of a modern (or even postmodern) mind, yet evidence abounds. Christians must recognize this reality. The evil one works best in the shadows. Most clearly throughout our discussions, proof can be seen in Scripture, in the majority world, and in the life of each believer. To suggest there are no such things as spiritual beings when they are there and working incognito leaves a problematic spiritual opening that needs to be closed. Evil forces work best when they are not seen or recognized.

The presence of a supernatural world is demonstrated in Scripture, and those seeking to take its revelation seriously must recognize the very real stakes at play among spiritual beings. It introduces us to God himself, his servants, and Satan’s forces that oppose him. There is much in Scripture to be mined concerning this part of God’s creation. For instance, John Walton (Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Wheaton College) unpacked some of the Old Testament’s attestation to the supernatural “good guys”:

Cook: What about angels? What do we see? What are some key passages, key areas, where it seems like angels are in play?

Walton: In the Old Testament, my opinion is that we should take the word fairly strictly, that is that it refers to messengers. That’s what the Hebrew term refers to. That’s the role that they play. That’s the role that they consistently play in the Old Testament, and even when we pick up the Greek word of angelos, it has that same kind of sense at its core, but things develop, and eventually it becomes the case, as often so in Christian thinking, that any. . . . supramundane, nonhuman entity would be described as an angel, and that mixes things up a little bit.

In the Old Testament, I don’t think they would’ve thought of the cherubim or the seraphim as angels. They wouldn’t think of the divine council members as angels. They’re the sons of God. They’re not angels, yet even by the Septuagint they’re translating sons of God as angels. And so angels takes on a growing definition, at least that’s how I’ve seen it as time goes on. So in Christian theology, we’re used to using that category, angels, to talk about all the supramundane entities who are good guys.

But that only happens over time. In the Old Testament, it’s certainly not that broad. We should not, in my mind, talk about the seraphim or cherubim as angels. They have other roles. They’re not messengers. Don’t ask that cherub to go deliver a message.

While the Western church may quietly doubt or forget about this active dimension of God’s creation, many of God’s image bearers all across the world are daily seeking to attempt control or influence over spiritual forces. Those less prone to modern sensibilities have no doubt of the existence of such forces that shape the cultures around them. Kenneth Nehrbass (Assistant Professor at California Baptist University) gave some vivid illustrations of these practices:

Nehrbass: The island we lived on is called Tanna. John Paton, famous missionary mid-nineteeth century, came there and was run off the island. He had told people, “Don’t do magic,” basically. “Don’t worship your stones.” And these were magical stones. They thought, “Here’s a person who’s trying to ruin our life.” He was saying, “Don’t let your gardens grow. Don’t have healthy kids. Don’t let it rain.” He was telling them to get rid of the thing that made life possible. . . . But where we were, we had told them we’re here to learn your culture. We want to live with you, and so we actually had people knocking on our door in the morning to wake us up and say, “Hey, you got to come see this dance we’re doing. We’re going to make it rain.” As a matter of fact, one time they said, “We’re going to make the sun shine. We want to borrow your truck, and so don’t look at the wood and don’t touch the wood because it’s holy, but just back your truck up to the tree, and we’ll chop it down and cut it up in small pieces and put it in your truck, and you bring it back.” That’s a good example of syncretism. You’ve got a modern-day truck driving them, and you’ve got the missionary driving the wood up into the village that you’re gonna use to do some ritual to make the sun shine. A special someone who calls himself a descendant of the sun takes a certain sun stone, puts it in a basket, cooks it over this wood that they’ve cut down in a secret hut, and makes the sun shine.

An additional catch in the mind of any believer minimizing the presence and significance of the spiritual world should be our own espoused belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Michael Burer (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) pointed out that it is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers that Paul pointed to as one of the validations for the truth of the gospel (Gal 1–2). His indwelling is not an afterthought of a change in divine legal standing but rather ground zero and “exhibit A” of a real transformation that has occurred when one repents and follows the way of Christ.

Do Not Stir The Murky Waters

Apart from its very real presence, there is little clarity given to Christians concerning the supernatural aspects of the world. Scripture paints a vague picture, which is understandably plagued by a variety of interpretations. Yet this lack of clarity may undergird another biblical reality. Apart from the Holy Spirit, Scripture seems to encourage God’s people to avoid engaging spiritual beings. Deuteronomy 18 warns believers to stay away from occult practices. Samuel, who is present in spirit after Saul calls him through a medium in 1 Samuel 28, chides Saul for disturbing him. The sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11–20 demonstrate that though the spirit world is real, it is not to be engaged lightly. In discussing this caution, Scott Horrell (Senior Professor Emeritus of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) introduced Acts 16:16–34 as a passage to guide thinking through how to conduct ourselves:

Cook: Is it only with caution that we should approach the supernatural, as believers?

Horrell: As believers, we have a Holy Spirit within us. And not many of us have the gift of discernment probably, but all of us should be discerning. We have the Holy Spirit within us. We have the word of God to guide us. And so by the word of God and listening, [we are] trusting step by step that our Lord protects us from all kinds of stuff. And a lot of things we just don’t know. Where’s this coming from? Is this of God? It is paranormal. Lord, keep me on track.

You don’t see the apostle Paul or any of the apostles going around as Ghostbusters. I mean, they’re not going into spirit centers and casting out everyone. Those problems usually came to them, and then they dealt with it. I think of Philippi, where Paul is preaching and Silas is with him. And Acts says that day after day, this girl who was a medium kept walking after them and saying, “These men are the men of God and they’re telling you how to be saved.” How does it get any better than that? That’s advertisement you can’t pay for.

But after, it says, many days, Paul became frustrated with that, turned around, and cast out the demon, and literally all hell broke loose on him and Silas. Of course, they were beaten, put in prison, and all the rest. But he didn’t go after it. In fact, he ignored it for a while. And maybe that’s good for us to do typically too.

Unless the spirit world comes to you, it is a good general practice to avoid interaction with it apart from regular communion with the Lord. There are many believers, however, who do have such encounters. What should be our interaction in those settings?

Honor The Voices Of The Majority World Christians

We have already highlighted that many throughout the world regularly engage in and attempt to impact the supernatural dimension of reality. Christian brothers and sisters in those contexts—as the temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit—have gained immense discernment and wisdom as they have gone about living out their faith where the division between natural and supernatural is whisper thin. Kenneth Nehrbass noted the risk of syncretism for these Christian communities, but it would be the height of arrogance to categorically dismiss their observations and experience with spiritual beings because of this pitfall. As a former missionary in Brazil, Scott Horrell had to learn how to live alongside and minister to those openly and actively pursuing the spirit world:

Horrell: Going down to Brazil, as we were in church planting . . . there were in front of our house, once in a while, what would be called obitus, that is, a dish with candles and a sacrificed chicken or other offerings, right in front of our house, which is a sign that they’re throwing a curse on you. And of course, at that point I had little girls who were afraid of the dark. And so you become more acutely aware of direct attacks on you as a Christian worker.

Well, we moved to Sao Paulo. I began teaching at a couple of schools, and one of the first things that struck me was a student who had grown up in a spiritist’s home. They were grooming him to be a spiritist leader when he asked his leader—“father of saints,” as they call him. The Father Saint said in all his teaching, “Stay away from evangelicals. You don’t have any power over them.” And it’s like, what? Well, why is that? So, he was one of my students, and I delighted to evangelize spiritists.

We also spoke with believers in Haiti who daily address the world of voodoo, as shared by Duckens St. Phart (Professor of Spiritual Formation at STEP Seminary):

Cook: Those you might end up speaking to about voodoo, encouraging them to live out the truth of the gospel and live in the power of Christ rather than in these other spirits, what do you say to them? What is the way that the church in Haiti and you as leaders there, especially Dukens, you who are training leaders, address this? How do you combat that practically, theologically? What do you say?

St. Phart: A point is to emphasize what does it mean to be in a relationship with God? Sometimes, I use the picture of adoption to explain that. I am adopted into the family of God. Let’s say that I am, or I was part of your family, and now Christ adopts me. I emphasize the fact that you have some rules for your family. And Christ has some rules for his family.

Given that, I am changing my master right now. The new master requires me to live according to the rules of his household. This is what we need to do as believers. We cannot live just like the other people. We cannot continue on practicing voodoo things. Because now we don’t belong to the same master. We belong to another master. That’s the way I try to explain it in order that people may let me know that okay, now, I don’t belong to the voodoo. It’s not my identity.

My identity is in Christ. I am adopted by God, and I need to live the life of God right now. This is one way that I explain it.

Cook: From what you have described with regard to voodoo, it’s this idea that you have to give to and try to convince the spirits. So the gospel here represents, to a degree, a measure of rest. Like you said, Dukens, because we are in his household, we act this way, but we don’t have to act this way so that we can be in his household. That’s beautiful.

Without negating the active global presence of the spirit world, perhaps Western believers would do well to quiet many of their own thoughts and teachings on this wider dimension of reality and place themselves under the instruction of those who daily represent Christ in these contexts. There is much to learn.

Find Rest In Your Rightful Place

Just as God’s people are not to excessively pursue interactions with the supernatural world and the spiritual beings there, we are also not to excessively fear them. Christians have been made children of God, heirs with Christ, and home to the Holy Spirit. Our belief in God as Creator gives us confidence that he is over all his creation and in control amidst his free creation. There is nothing to fear. We are in the (natural and supernatural) world, but God has overcome the world. With this in mind, Scott Horrell described the power available to Christ’s followers as they confront spiritual darkness:

Horrell: In the name of Christ, often we are singing hymns or quoting scriptures that are speaking of Christ’s absolute authority and victory over Satan through the cross, but then [we are] commanding the spirit to leave. And sometimes there’s more than one spirit. And sometimes they will, as Mike was saying, sink back into the person. I remember in a case I was involved in, the person would reemerge asking, “Why are you doing this? Why am I here? I want to go home.” And then you command the spirit again to speak—sometimes multiple spirits—and it’s right back there. But then commanding that spirit, in the authority of Christ, to leave and never come back. It is amazing what happens. Some spirits stay hidden. They don’t want to come out. That people really are delivered is just astonishing. . . . As one put it, “Nothing will increase your faith like casting out a demon.”

As we allow the Trinitarian God to guide any active engagement with other spiritual entities, we may proceed with confidence and faith in his protection and care.

The interwoven nature of this topic in so many of our podcasts demonstrates a relevance for each believer and a need to recognize the presence of such dynamics in the world. Those, like Linda Marten in the opening story, who find themselves in darker places—at that veil between the natural and supernatural world (despite their own attempts to steer clear of it)—should be sure to learn from other Christians who regularly find themselves in similar places. Proceeding from that posture of caution and wisdom, they should feel empowered by the Holy Spirit to confront what they encounter with a confident, “No. In the name of Christ, she is his.”

The Table Briefing: Government And The Believer

By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook

[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

In this age of rabid politics, it is difficult to remember that the phenomenon of government is actually a means by which God providentially guides and cares for his creation. Government can be (and is supposed to be) a very good thing. Reality, unfortunately, has taught us that in our fallen world it can become a very bad thing. Wyatt Graham contrasts those with societal oversight as having the potential to be “God’s ministers” or “God’s monsters.”[1] At the Hendricks Center, we spent time discussing these potentials for government with Patrick Schreiner, who digs deep into the Bible and historical backgrounds to surface practical implications. We also had the privilege of sitting down with those serving in the checks and balances of the American government. We spoke with Greg Adams, a civil servant, and Kelly Shackelford, a lawyer, who both spend time thinking through religious liberty. Within these conversations, we have consistently seen three exercises for relating to any government in a godly and biblical manner. Believers must develop both a skill and strength in all three.

The Exercise Of Submission

As part of God’s eternal law, he established an order in creation. Government is a part of that order. Perhaps one of the most well-known passages supporting this idea is Romans 13:1: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (ESV). As a general rule, followers of Christ should submit to governmental authorities as an act of worship and faith in God. As part of their conversation on Christian engagement in public spaces, Patrick Schreiner, author of Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World, and Associate Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Darrell Bock discuss passages involving God’s instruction on law and politics.

Schreiner: I’m not a political theology person. I’m not a political theorist. I didn’t do political science in my BA. But I have studied the biblical text, and I think the biblical text has a lot more to say about our political engagement than most people realize. Typically, when I read books on political theology, they’ll talk about three texts—Genesis 9, Mark 12, and Romans 13—paying taxes to Caesar, Paul’s statement about submitting to the human governments, and then Genesis 9, a natural theology text. And I just think there’s a lot more in the Scriptures in terms of engaging with politics and how we’re to think through politics than those three texts. I don’t deny that those texts are important, but I think there’s a lot more there. It stems from my studies of the Scriptures and then also our current cultural moment and where Christians are in terms of our political conversations.

Bock: We share a lot of the same concerns and a lot of the same background. . . . I really like the way you’re walking into this to say there are more than three texts that involve how we engage with government. I like to remind people, particularly when they park on Romans 13, that I need to ask a second question, and that is What do you do with the prophets and all that the prophets have to say about the way in which we relate corporately to one another and the responsibility of governments and . . . the challenge that the prophets give to the ethics of what is going on in society at large? Those kinds of questions . . . seem like a pretty large swath of Scripture in comparison to just Romans 13.

This isn’t so much directly related to your book, but I’m curious how you answer the question. How do you think we got here? In other words, how do you think we got to the place where our thinking about corporate structures and the way they work, and the way we think about politics, the way we think about being a citizen—those questions—got separated from the issues of discipleship?

Schreiner: There are so many things that need to be said there. I’d say a few different things just to begin. . . . I exist within evangelicalism. I know that’s a debated term whether it’s a political term, social term, or theological term, but if we could just use it more broadly. I grew up in evangelicalism. And one of the pros of the evangelical movement is it’s very much about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And I totally believe that, and I think there’s a lot of good to that. What we miss sometimes, when we overemphasize that, is that the gospel’s a fully public message as well. And so I think one of the reasons we’ve gotten here is that people have basically put religion in the private sphere, and they don’t think it’s a public thing. They think, Well, I have religion over here; I have my belief in Jesus; I have a relationship with him; but maybe politics is a different thing. That’s one area that we can step into.

The opposite area that I identify is partisanship. So we could put it in the terms of we either privatize our faith or we make it partisan. What that means is that we combine our Christian faith with one political party. Then we think, Oh, they are advocates for the kingdom of God. So it seems like we’re falling off on two different sides here. Either we make it private or we make it partisan. And I especially look at the New Testament. The gospel message is fully political. I don’t mean partisan; I mean it’s fully political in that Jesus announced he’s the king of the kingdom. That’s a political message. And I think there is a lot of evidence within the Scriptures themselves that the terms we think of as religious terms—whether gospel (euangelion), faith (pistis), kingdom (basileia), church (ekklesia)—those are all political terms.

And as you know, in the first century, there’s no division between religion and politics. I’m not saying I don’t agree with separation of church and state in some sense, but I do think we need to return to the Scriptures and recognize that Jesus didn’t come and say, “I’m just your spiritual guru who’s going to talk about your heart.” He was forming a new society—a new society under the thumb of Rome. And so that is going to cause some challenges, and Rome’s going to look at him a little sideways and say, “What’s going on here?” Now, what’s shocking as you know, and we could get into this more, is that they all declare him innocent when he comes before the court.

I use this paradigm of Jesus, Paul, and our future. The message is subversive, but it’s also submissive at the same time. It’s subversive in that it’s forming a new reality—a new polis, a new city, where we get the word “politics” from. But at the very same time, the way that it’s subversive is by being submissive (Rom 13), and that’s not all we could say. You mentioned the prophets earlier. I like to use the line that Revelation 13 and Romans 13 are both in our Bible, and Revelation 13 seems to say the human governments stem in some sense from the dragon. Now, how we interpret Revelation 13, we can get into that. But I do think there’s this line in the Bible that the dark spiritual forces are using governing forces to spread chaos, while at the same time, Paul can say they’re God’s servants to spread order and peace. . . . That’s a paradox that we live in. . . . We have to come to the Scriptures and recognize both the subversive nature of Christianity and the submissive nature—and they both actually come together.

The first part of the paradox of government as presented in Scripture is recognizing the political nature of our faith and the expectation that such a faith will present itself in public spaces (including government). Our faith cannot be private. Nor can it be fully partisan. We must live it out and submit to whatever authorities God has placed over us. In doing this, we are subversively working to create beachheads for the full kingdom of God when it is unveiled, as well as opportunities for faith.

The Exercise Of Wisdom

The second exercise that develops the muscles of Christian discipleship is the utilization of wisdom in matters relating to civil law, which is warped and twisted by sin. This is the other half of the paradox referenced by Schreiner. As much as we see submission to government in Romans 13, we also see the fallenness in governing authorities in Revelation 13. The prophets give us examples of what it looks like to speak out against governments that do not honor the Lord. They even require actions by citizens. In light of these examples, there are times when it might be right for a believer to practice lawful resistance. An example of resistance in the American governmental system is the ability of citizens to push back on laws as they are made and being made. Kelly Shackelford, President and Chief Executive Officer of First Liberty Institute, has spent his life pushing back on the American government when it seems an individual’s religious liberty and conscience might be threatened. Darrell and Kelly discuss what an exercise of wisdom and judgment might look like in this kind of situation.

Bock: You’ve been involved in religious liberty for some time. Now, let’s talk a little bit about where the concept of religious liberty comes from, because when we look at the Constitution, of course, we’re dealing with the Bill of Rights. And I’m going to keep this real basic for people, because some people understand this and some people don’t. So, which amendment of the Bill of Rights are we dealing with here when we talk about religious liberty?

Shackelford: Both of the clauses—the first two clauses—in the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The purpose of those was the fullest and most vibrant free exercise of religion without the government establishing for us some sort of denomination or religion which therefore would take away from our full, free exercise. So the idea is: the founders wanted there to be freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. And the first two clauses of the first amendment are dedicated to protecting that very freedom—the first freedom—the freedom of religion.

Bock: And that was a unique kind of move in forming a government at the time at which it was done, wasn’t it?

Shackelford: Absolutely. And the founders wrote about it—they called it the first freedom. . . . A lot of times I’ll talk about religious freedom to audiences that maybe are not religious people. And so the natural question that comes is Should I care about this? And the answer is yes. The founders wrote on this. And the concept is: it’s the first liberty because, if you don’t have it, you won’t have any liberty. Ultimately, when you talk about freedom of religion, really it’s about the right of a person to their conscience. And if the government can violate that—and it could be your belief in not believing in God—once you’ve crossed that threshold, it’s all gone. I think a good way for people to understand it is: when totalitarianism comes in, the one thing that totalitarianism can never allow is citizens who have an allegiance to one higher than the government. So, when totalitarianism comes in, you’re going to see religious freedom as the first attack, because they’re going to say, “Wait, your allegiance is not to the government.” And you will see these types of fights. . . . And when I speak, I have a lot of people from other countries who’ve come to the United States, and they say, “I’m not religious. You don’t know how true this is. When you lose religious freedom, you lose all your freedom.” And I think that’s what the founders understood.

Bock: Michael Novak wrote a book called On Two Wings, which is a very good treatment of the influence of the Enlightenment and the influence of religious commitment in our founding. And those were the two wings. And it’s an interesting combination, because most people think the Enlightenment and religious belief work against one another.

Shackelford: Right.

Bock: But in this particular case they worked alongside one another. He makes a big point, for example, of how you have Thomas Jefferson, who isn’t exactly the most orthodox religious figure in the history of the country, and John Adams, who helped to form this government, put together this combination of rights and privileges that allow us, on the one hand, to have a government that we’re committed to, and on the other hand, to keep our freedom of conscience. So it’s a very, very foundational and important area. It was unique at the time. It was designed to protect—I think we have to be honest about this—a reaction that the founding fathers had to being under a king and having a state church. So it was a protection against the bad side of religion, if I can say it that way, that had led to many religious conflicts, bloody religious conflicts, in Europe in its history.

Shakelford’s work demonstrates that, at times, it is entirely legitimate for a believer, while submitting to the laws of the land, to exercise wisdom and judgment concerning those laws that are made. While not always present, there are sometimes opportunities within a given system, such as the American government, where certain measures of resistance against laws or enforced personal actions are warranted. Determining those instances, however, requires immense skill in applying wisdom to any given situation.

The Exercise Of Engagement

Finally, a believer must be able to develop the skill of engagement amid this tension between submission and subversion. Engagement is the territory of the discussions before a given “side” must be chosen. What might be some key actions to take as a Christian seeking to engage? Schreiner and Darrell discuss the conviction of following Jeremiah 29—believers should work for the good of the city in which they find themselves, particularly if exiled. This involves meaningful contribution in all areas of society, including involvement in government for the common good. Government should also be considered a place to serve and minister for the cause of Christ (and not just because it provides evangelism opportunities). Darrell and Greg Adams, who was the Chief Operating Officer for the State of Tennessee, 2013–2019, discuss his role in government as a calling.

Bock: Would you say that the experience that you had [in IBM leadership] would be the equivalent of receiving a call? Like a pastor would say, “I’m called to ministry,” [you would say,] “I was called to serve God in the business space, in the government space.”

Adams: I would say that. And it was just good for me to have this struggle with the sacred and the secular, to force me, and God bringing people in my life to think through that. And then just to see the natural fruit . . . to see how God would bring needy people into my life, and just give me the opportunity to be a part of his work.

Bock: So what I’m hearing you say is if you’ll just let the door be open and be sensitive to what’s going on around you, life serves the opportunity to serve.

Adams: Oh, and the move to government was another one where, I mean, it was hard for Jeannine and me to really pray through this, because we’d say, “Wait a second. Gosh, we’ve been all around the world.” It’s hard packing up ten times, and we’re back in Atlanta, her hometown, and I think she feels like, Ha, God. We did this.

Bock: Finally. [Laughter]

Adams: But as we kept praying and talking about it, and saying, “Gosh, wait a second. Here’s someone that we know is a committed believer and is genuine and real, and he’s saying, ‘Hey, will you come help us? I think we can make a difference.’ ‘‘” And so we said, “Is God not leading us here?” Because we’re the first every night to watch the news and go, “What are these knuckleheads in Washington, or Nashville, or you know—” And then we said, “Wait. Here’s a chance for us.”

Bock: Right. It’s not an easy job. The one thing you learn working with civil servants is the intense pressures that they’re under in what they’re trying to do. And sometimes they start out well-intentioned, and then it just gets hard.

Adams: Well, I had two cell phones, and one stayed on all the time. So I was the first call into the governor’s office. Because you know, we have tornadoes and floods and stabbings in prisons, and we have to take children out of homes—

Bock: And they don’t sign up when they show up.

Adams: No one got killed at IBM in my job selling computer hardware and software and services. All of a sudden I’m in an environment where we’re talking about people’s lives. And again, seeing God working and that in the marketplace God’s economy is so different. I was just such an individual growing up, thinking that “big is better.” And like, I gotta be doing something that five hundred people are coming to Christ, versus maybe just one life that I’m touching, according to what God has called me to do.

Meaningful contribution to “the city” does not solely include government service. It can also mean calling on governmental entities to be good stewards of God’s call on them. Schreiner adds,

Schreiner: Christians uniquely can call nations and states to account for not fulfilling their God-ordained means and goals to what they’re supposed to do. We can critique states in that way because we know who has given them their authority and what they’re called to do. Actually, in one sense, I don’t think that’s a distinctly Christian move. I think other people can do that who are non-Christian. They can say, “You’re not providing order and justice,” as well. But Christians know that authority has been given to the state by God himself. He is their ultimate authority, and they’re here for a short time.

Finally, the exercise of engagement also relies on an accurate understanding of the Christian’s eschatological hope. This is found in the full coming of the kingdom of God and his dwelling with humankind (Rev 20–21). However much we are able to do for “the city,” we must simultaneously recognize that our hope is not in human governors or the governments we work to form. Our hope is in the Lord and anticipates the time of full consummation when we are able to live unhindered under the only righteous king. Concerning this hope Darrell points out,

Bock: [There are] two other corollaries that I think are important, one of which we’ve mentioned, which is in the end God will establish justice. The proper recompense for actions will take place. People who make bad decisions will face the consequences of those decisions apart from the relief that the gospel does give. That’s one element of it. I think the other element is reminding ourselves that Jesus spent the entire second half of his discipleship program with the twelve and with the disciples saying, “You follow me. The world’s going to push back. You shouldn’t expect to be treated well.”

In fact, 1 Peter 3 and the very famous passage where it says we’re supposed to be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within us begins by saying, “Do good.” The next thing is, “But if you should be slandered for doing good you are blessed.” When you think about the way in which discipleship is counterculture, it is also in one sense counterpolitical in the worldly sense of that term, and so we should expect pushback. I mean, we can try to portray ourselves as the victims but there’s another sense in which we go, I shouldn’t be surprised that I’m a victim here because of the pushback that Jesus said I would get for following him.

While we should expect this pushback and recognize the reality that full justice will only be established in the coming kingdom, this should in no way short-circuit our “workout regimen” in order to relate well to governing authorities. Believers must develop submission, wisdom, and engagement muscles. Without them, we miss out on an incredible opportunity to partner with the provision of the Lord and speak into the administration of his creation.

Notes

1. Wyatt Graham, “How Should Christians Think about Unjust Governments,” Wyatt Graham: Faith, Books, Culture (blog), April 17, 2018.

Table Briefing: The Ministry Of Filmmaking

By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook

[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

It may surprise you that sitting down in a velveted chair with a tub of popcorn could be a spiritual exercise. It may be an even bigger surprise to consider that the movie itself might be the fruit of a spiritual exercise on the part of the filmmakers. Film and Christian theology may seem a strange couple, but they actually have much in common. They both observe our world, identifying and teasing out themes they encounter. They are both eminently concerned with the internal state of the audience. They both seek to share a story and elicit a response. Both film and theology strive to communicate in intentional ways. Both attempt to shepherd hearts. Serious films and documentaries (also created in formats known as “shorts” because they can be as short as ten minutes) discuss life and its issues. Film reflects on the human condition. Through film we can see the world wrestle with life. What happens when film and theology come together?

Film As Ministry

The Hendricks Center’s The Table podcast explored various dimensions of the film-theology relationship through theological reviews of current and classic movies and in-depth conversations with Christian filmmakers. Some filmmakers have committed themselves to a ministry of creating Christian movies, such as Alex Kendrick, who has written and directed multiple movies, including Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, Courageous, and War Room. Others have felt the call to engage broader topics, delving into spiritual truths as they explore the wider culture. The Center has partnered with John Priddy and Windrider Institute to do just that. Windrider, a “leadership forum, international short film showcase, producer, and content and resource provider,” inspires people to create. An official partner with the Sundance Film Festival, they seek to catalyze cultural reflection through the medium of film. Priddy says that, “wind riders [were] who we endeavor to be—folks that were trying to pay attention to where God’s Spirit was moving in the creative process through these stories. That’s the origination of Windrider—that we would be those folks that would ride God’s wind.”

Darrell Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, associate professor of Bible and theology at Moody Bible Institute, learned much about the Holy Spirit’s movement through the creative process inherent in us as human beings. They talked with Alex Kendrick and John Priddy, as well as Claude Alexander, a thoughtful film advocate and pastor of over thirty years at The Park Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Film can do a lot for people in the church. People in the church can also do a lot for film. Kendrick’s personal story of getting into the industry shows what the Lord can do with an open and creative heart.

Del Rosario: What would you say, Alex, to a Christian who is wanting to get into filmmaking? They feel God’s called them to do this. What pieces of advice would you give them?

Kendrick: I’ve had this conversation hundreds of times with people. A young person will come up to me and say, “I want to make movies one day.” And so, because movies can tend to be a very ego-driven thing, I always ask, “Why do you want to make movies?” And if their answer is, “I want to be a star. I want to go to Hollywood. I want to make movies” . . . then it’s better that you don’t. It should not be an ego-driven thing. It should be like anything else. I’m a storyteller because I think God wired me that way. You want to use that avenue to draw people closer to him.

I found an article by George Barna where he had done a national survey. He basically said that movies, television, and the internet were the three most influential factors in our culture. I took that to our pastor and asked him if I could make a feature film for the community of Albany, Georgia. He said, “Do you know how to make feature films?” And I did not. So he said, “If you pray the money in, I’ll support you if God’s in it.” So I started praying, and the Lord began prompting people to come give me the funds needed. So $20,000 was given. I had written a movie called Flywheel—this was about lordship. We made that movie with just volunteers out of our church. Very low budget, $20,000. It was really, really hard to make, but it made a big splash in the community, and ended up selling more DVDs than I could count. There are some funny little moments that happened in that journey. . . . It was the first step in God saying, “I’ve called you to this, and I’ll be with you if you honor me.”

God calls some to tell stories that matter and make people think; this is a different but important kind of ministry. As a tool of that ministerial trade, Priddy suggests that eliciting these deeper biblical and theological reflections on spiritual truths inherent in our culture via film requires a different kind of hermeneutic. He states, we must “reverse the hermeneutical flow, which is instead of starting with our tradition and Scripture and working out to film or a story, we start with a story in and of itself and then bring it back, reverse it if you will, and bring it back to our context, back to our traditions, back to our Scriptures.” Christian filmmakers offer the entire industry the opportunity to reflect on deep truths that will ideally point them to the maker of those truths or at minimum heighten their appreciation for the depth of God’s creation. Priddy goes on to suggest that independent filmmakers, writers, or directors function as “poets and sages in many ways, prophets in some ways.” They give voice to those deeper themes in a compelling manner that makes it difficult for people to ignore.

The Power In A Fourth Wall

The fourth wall, that invisible barrier that keeps characters and stories in a world apart from our own, is a powerful instrument for communication. Throughout our conversations with these film-makers, we encountered three different strengths offered by the fourth wall. First, it guards against polarization. Priddy and Bock discussed this phenomenon in connection with a film from a recent Sundance Festival.

Bock: Okay. So, let me talk about three different pieces. The one that you have currently on your website is called For the Love of Neighbor. . . . My understanding is it’s about three different people in the public service sphere, politicians, and for different levels, local and national. Tell me more about that, For the Love of Neighbor. Right now, when I think of politics, that’s not the first phrase that often jumps into my mind. So let’s talk about why you saw that piece as valuable.

Priddy: At Windrider we try to stay out of electoral politics in general because once electoral politics enter into the conversation, there is no conversation. So we’ve been really disciplined over the years to try to stay out of electoral politics. But For the Love of Neighbor was a film that was commissioned by the American Enterprise Institute and their Faith & Public Life division, which is taking some of the very brightest, young, Christian leaders in universities across the country and basically doing a level of teaching and interaction [with] those that feel called to serve in the public realm.

So For the Love of Neighbor—the filmmaker’s a tremendous filmmaker. His name is Ryan Patch, close friend of Windrider. In fact, there’s another film in our library called Regulation, a narrative film that he did. It’s fantastic, so I commend that to you. But For the Love of Neighbor was a way that a filmmaker could tell a story about three different people who come at public service in three different ways.

They did a great job of not coming at it in a politicized way that says it’s either Republican or Democrat. It led with the idea of the value of public service, the high calling of public service, and the reason why young people who are bent that way now need to be encouraged, not discouraged, from going into that space, because if you spend your time around the political environment and you’re watching any of the news channels, or even social media, you would be dissuaded from [entering public service]. So this tells the story of three different people serving in three very different ways in the political spectrum, in the public service spectrum. I think it’s well done. And I think we need it. It feels like a tonic or a healing balm for why public service is important.

Bock: I’m attached to an organization here that’s primarily local, called Christians in Public Service, in which the attempt is to minister alongside public servants and people who step into that role. [They] are under incredible pressures from constituents in terms of both the kinds of decisions they face, the expectations that are had of them—the way in which, at least in many political environments today, you have to be constantly raising a lot of money in order to run. They’re under terrific pressure.

So we’ve tried to come alongside them, almost like a chaplaincy, with people who’ve done public service before. It’s completely nonpartisan and [we are] just trying to serve them as Christians alongside. I think it’s an aspect of public service that, again, most people—it’s like the filmmaking—aren’t even aware of what . . . that can mean for them and the pressure that they’re under. So I was actually intrigued to see this, and I’m looking forward to watching it as a good example.

Polarization is diminished when you are able to put yourself in the other side’s shoes. You are pulled into their world, and you are no longer looking through your own eyes but through a completely different lens. This, the second strength of the fourth wall, broadens our perspective.

Priddy: [Films] take us to places we haven’t been. They introduce us to people we haven’t met. And they bring the human component into our world, and empathy is unleashed. And so, we’re able to have conversations around very important subjects, subjects that the people of faith are already having conversations around. But they sort of remove the barrier of polarity. We’re not sitting on this side or that side of a political or theological conversation. We’re looking at the story as a standalone piece of art. Then we interact with it directly. In the same way, it’s true for short films, because most [if not] all short films are independent films. They bring to us that unique, independent voice that allows us to interact.

Standing in a new place that is less polarized because of a developed sense of compassion provides fertile ground for self-reflection. This is the third strength of the fourth wall. It opens you up to helpful critique.

Alexander: We watched films and then began to look at what they’re saying. What are they saying about what it means to be alive, to be human? Every film is raising a question or providing a view in terms of what it means to live, how one transcends, et cetera.

Not only does the fourth wall open us up to new thoughts and voices, but at times it speaks with a prophetic voice.

Alexander: [Films] function the same way parables function, and that is, a story is told that draws you in. Almost disarmingly so. It confronts you with an issue, and you begin to make decisions or judgments.

To open that fourth wall is a privilege and responsibility. Believers in the industry can reduce the tribalism rife in our society in a fresh, persuasive manner by sharing various perspectives and challenging us to address the logs in our own eyes. Film not only provides a powerful ministry platform but also serves as a potential partner alongside the church.

Film Engagement In The Church

How might the church intentionally work alongside Christian filmmakers and the film industry in general? For those who find themselves in movie theater seats, it is important to sit there thoughtfully. Two skills in this area surfaced as Bock and Alexander spoke.

Bock: I sometimes find myself wondering how people in the church engage with media, particularly the medium of films. Some of this has [the potential] to have us think about the way we live through the eyes of someone else who’s helping us see. What advice would you give to people as they think about what they take in?

Alexander: Well, first, films provide an opportunity for either a window to be given through which we’re able to look outwardly or a mirror to be held before us in which we are able to look introspectively. And good films do both. Good films provide both a window through which one is able to see as well as a mirror from which one is able to see oneself. Secondly, being able to identify, “What is the tension that this film is creating within me?” There is a tension that a film always has within itself, that it will either bring to resolution or leave unresolved. Within the course of that, we are drawn into it and certain tensions are created within us. . . . With the movie When You Finish Saving the World, one of the points of tension that it created within me was seeing what was driving both the mother and the son—how they were the same, but they were . . . not recognizing it in each other until the very, very end. And how often is that the case between parent and child? [I’m] able to interrogate the tension that the film is causing within me as I’m watching it either be resolved or not as a film.

Christian viewers need to develop the ability to identify a film’s presented perspective and how that perspective affects self-understanding. While likely an uncomfortable process, it is important to sit in that discomfort and engage our curiosity surrounding that felt tension. That process will likely surface the transformational gem.

After becoming a thoughtful viewer, one must become an invested one. The church must recognize art’s power within our society and make it a value rather than a luxury. Priddy and Bock discussed the importance of the church financially supporting artists.

Priddy: It is very difficult to be an artist because it’s difficult to earn a living as an artist. It’s difficult to be understood as an artist. That’s why I recommend Makoto Fujimura’s book Art and Faith to your audience. I would say it’s important for those that don’t consider themselves “artists” in the truest sense of the word—painters, sculptors, craftsmen, artisans of any kind. The church needs to surround those folks and to help provide them resources, buying their art. Be an art buyer.

I love to buy art from local artists. I like to think about a place in my house where a piece of art is needed and then go find that from a local artist. So I think in many ways the challenge of the arts is our lack of appreciation, understanding of the artist, and the need that we have. We work really closely with the International Arts Movement, and we hear that over and over again from artists across the board. [They want] just to be recognized and seen and come alongside as a valuable part of our communities.

We have a little video with Makoto [in which] he said artists are like honeybees—they pollinate. And so we need artists. . . . I’ve spent a bit of time on [this question] because it’s near and dear to my heart. That’s how I got involved originally is by coming alongside artists and being in the room with them as they’re trying to present and sell their art, standing with them arm-to-arm. I think it’s an important thing, and there are a lot of gaps in our communities around that.

Bock: Yeah. When the culture is only filled with art coming from somewhere else without asking some of the questions that the kinds of artists you are highlighting [are asking], then the challenge even becomes greater. So we need artists who can speak into the space—“speak” in quotes. I mean tell stories in that space, and in some cases just visualizing that space in a way that causes people to reflect.

In addition to this call for patronage of art created within a community, Del Rosario and Kendrick identified the posture the church should have toward the role of the filmmaker. Instead of seeing them as pursuing a lucrative business or out to make a name for themselves, Kendrick exhorted the church to pray for and support those in the arts.

Del Rosario: How can pastors come alongside Christians who are involved in the arts—who are actors, who are filmmakers—and be a better support and encouragement?

Kendrick: They should treat them like they treat a missionary: to pray over them regularly, to send them into an area of the world that desperately needs Jesus, and to love and support them. It may be—if someone is called into the arts, but they recognize they’re called to do it for God’s glory—that they get the same level of support from their church or ministry that a missionary would because we can use the screen and the television and the Internet to present the gospel just like someone going to a foreign country. . . . If their heart is right and they can do it for God’s glory, then we should support them. You rarely see a missionary that’s haughty and egotistical going to another country. Right? Well, people in the arts should be the same way. You should be humble and honor the Lord. . . . Check out [our books and movies], and if you agree with what we’re doing, then let your people know about them and use them as ministry tools. There are people that will come see a movie that may not come in the door on Sunday morning to hear a sermon. So use them as ministry tools. We’re grateful for those pastors that bring groups on opening weekend to our films, because when our distributor sees that the films are working, then they give them even more theaters and more support, and that means more people see the ministry of it.

Conclusion

While an odd coupling at first glance, theology and film really can go hand in hand. Like Christian theology, filmmaking’s artistry offers a powerful platform for a compelling message. Whether explicitly Christian or creatively subdued, the message engages kingdom values. The work of those behind the script and the camera can minister to the body of Christ and all society. The church ought to intentionally support the arts, engage thoughtfully, and enjoy the show.

The Table Briefing: Giftedness

By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook

[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

“What should I do with my life?” is a question many young adults struggle to answer. Perhaps more haunting, older people often find themselves asking, “What should I have done with my life?” or “How do I use the time I have left?” Bill Hendricks, the Hendricks Center’s Executive Director for Christian Leadership, has long engaged these life questions as an author and vocational practitioner. He is one among many who utilize the System for Identifying Motivated Abilities, which attempts to capitalize on a particular phenomenon of success and satisfaction occurring at the unique intersection of an individual’s motivations and abilities. Springboarding off that system, Bill has developed a more accessible approach that he simply calls “giftedness discovery.” The Center regularly offers workshops that help individuals identify their personal giftedness, but it has also engaged the topic from a variety of perspectives on The Table podcast. This is one of the transformative processes the Center has developed to help people in their pursuit of leadership and flourishing. Here are some conversations that show what this involves.

Spiritual Gifts And Giftedness

Many people ask if this “giftedness” is another way of discussing spiritual gifts or attempt to clarify a distinction. Here, Darrell Bock and Bill Hendricks address that relationship:

Bock: Our topic is giftedness, and most people will think that might mean we’re going to talk about spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians. My guess is that’s sort of right and sort of not right. Sort us out.

Hendricks: Let’s just start with the fact that whatever gifts we have are always from God, and I personally wince when I hear people talk about spiritual gifts and natural gifts because that somehow creates a hierarchy in people’s minds. At the end of the day, I think we’re talking about all the same stuff. God has endowed human beings with actual abilities and strengths and motivations to accomplish things that he wants done. Every single person in the world has their own unique form of giftedness. But it would be fair to say that when we talk about giftedness we may be in a broader array of categories than people tend to think about when they think about the topic of spiritual gifts and the Bible.

Bock: Correct.

Hendricks: In the New Testament passages we have lists of gifts, and none of these lists are identical, which should be our first clue that the lists are not exhaustive—they’re suggestive. It’s as if Paul’s saying we have a lot of kinds of people in this church. We have some teachers, we have some leaders, we have some administrators, we have some givers, and then there’s this catch-all for everybody else. Then we have just a lot of people that love to help. You still have to look inside an individual person to figure out how did they go about exercising the gift of administration. So when I use the term giftedness, I’m using it in a somewhat technical way, and I guess the simple definition that I’d give is that giftedness is a set of unique core strengths and natural motivations that you instinctively use to do things that you find satisfying and productive. It’s not just about what you can do, it’s about what you’re born to do, and what you frankly love to do.

Giftedness As A Luxury?

Another common question surrounding giftedness arises from a concern that the concept is only applicable in affluent or free environments where people have a measure of financial or political ability to determine their vocation and life direction. What good would such an exercise be for a person who has always had to work a subsistence farm to feed her family?

Bock: Let me go to another question that strikes me as we talk, and that is it’s all nice and good to be able to walk into an office and ask someone to help me find my giftedness. But that seems to be aimed at a certain kind of person and a certain kind of society that has a certain kind of freedom and opportunity to do something. What about the average guy out there and particularly the people who don’t live in a world as full of choice as some societies have?

Hendricks: I get asked that question a lot. I think it’s basically the question, “Bill, is giftedness just a luxury?” And my answer is, “It’s not a luxury; it’s a reality.” In other words, this is built into the nature of what it means to be a human being. The giftedness is there regardless of whether the environment favors its expression or not. So take the rice farmer in North Korea. That person has had no education probably, they’re working a fairly menial job, they may be starving; they still have a giftedness. It’s in there; nobody’s bothered to check out what it is. But what’s fascinating is that giftedness is irrepressible. You can’t keep it down.

It’s like in a swimming pool with a bunch of Ping-Pong balls; you can try to keep them underwater, but sooner or later they’re going to pop up, and giftedness is like that. Even in oppressive situations giftedness will out itself, and so I think about tribes out in the jungle or nomadic groups in the desert. Over time people start to realize this person’s exceptionally good at farming; their crops always seem to yield more. Meanwhile, this person over here is great at telling stories, and this lady over here is fantastic at cooking. This person here seems to have a knack for helping you process the questions you’re asking and is just wise. So people will slowly, but surely, figure out what some of people’s gifts are.

Now, having said that, I’d also point out that in our Declaration of Independence, the founders said that there are three inalienable rights, which means they’re rights given by the creator. You can’t just do away with them, and they are obviously life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What they meant by the pursuit of happiness was to do life, to pursue life in the paths that you felt God was leading you to. It’s inherent in order to pursue that you have freedom, and you will notice around the world throughout history where people have been given freedom to educate and then to exercise their gifts, you have flourishing. Where those freedoms are not present, you tend to end up with automatons and people that in many ways are becoming less human.

Bock: Yeah, a less humane environment really.

Hendricks: Absolutely. So not to get political about it, but I very much believe that wherever we can in this world, we ought to be praying for and we ought to be working for people’s freedom. I guess one other factor on this, Darrell, is that until about seventy-five years ago there really wasn’t a need in the world to figure out people’s giftedness. Because prior to that, virtually all the work of the world was done on farms and factories, and in those economies one strong back is as good as another. You can just plug and play people. But with the rise of knowledge work, you now discover that everybody adds value differently. Knowledge work is great because it accesses more of our personhood, and it gives more expression or possibilities for expression of that giftedness.

Now, we’re still, as I say, only seventy-five years into what amounts to a grand experiment. We still don’t know very much about how to educate knowledge workers, how to position them for effectiveness, how to organize them and manage them, how to incentivize them. We’ve just had endless experiments trying to figure this out as we go, and I think we’re making a little bit of progress. But it’s still very early in that transition—that the nature of work fundamentally changed back there. The locus of work moved from the land to the mind, and that effects the giftedness piece.

Bock: Another way to articulate this (I’m interested to hear your reaction to this) is to say you had your core agriculture and survival skills—the core things of life that people used to do—what we would perhaps refer to today technically as manufacturing kinds of jobs and that kind of thing. Now you have whole other areas; you said knowledge work. But I’m immediately left also with the whole group of services that people provide that aren’t manufacturing. They aren’t knowledge work, but they’re service work.

That’s different; there’s the whole realm, and certainly this has become big in our time, the whole realm of entertainment that is where a lot of people reside and where the arts tend to get expressed for example. Arts aren’t technically speaking manufacturing, they’re not services in one sense, and so part of what I think you’re suggesting is that when you move from a basic subsistence level of life with—where you either are growing things or designing things, manufacturing things . . . all these other characteristics and possibilities . . . open up the field for how giftedness can express itself.

Hendricks: Absolutely, and this all goes back to Genesis 1. God wants the world to flourish. The world on its own just gives us natural resources. Humans have to do something to transform those resources into something valuable. But it’s a big world, and every day we start to see just how much more God has built into the potential of this world to make it flourish.

Discovering An Individual’s Giftedness

This “set of unique core strengths and natural motivations” that makes up each person’s individual giftedness may not seem readily apparent. Yet Hendricks suggests it is much closer than it may seem. There is no need for inventories, a system of numbers, or personal retreats. Each person’s giftedness lies directly in their own life story.

Bock: So tell us a little bit about what the search for giftedness might involve. Let’s assume—put on your imaginary hat—I have walked in, and I’m twenty-five; so we’ve gone into the time machine, and I say to you, “I have no idea what I want to do with my life.” What happens from that moment? How do you help the person find themselves?

Hendricks: We have to start by creating this owner’s manual as I like to call it. If you’re going to work on a sophisticated piece of machinery like a car or a computer, you’d consult the owner’s manual first to find out what this machine is designed to do. What does it do best? What does it take to get it to do that? What are the pieces of equipment it needs around it to be most effective? Of course, there are also warning labels; whatever you do, don’t do this with this piece of equipment. That’s essentially what we create for a person, and the process is interesting. It’s not a test or a personality inventory; it’s an interview. It’s a little bit akin to a coach looking at game film from an athlete’s performance in a sport and looking at the different exercises that he’s doing in these different clips.

If the coach knows what they’re doing, they start to see little idiosyncrasies about how this person does whatever they do. In our case we go back in your life, and we ask you to come up with activities that you’ve done that you’ve enjoyed doing and done well. Remember, enjoyment is the tell-tale sign that your giftedness is involved, and these are often very simple and mundane things, like “I learned to ride a bike,” or “my brother and I built a treehouse in the backyard when I was seven,” or “I took a history exam in eighth grade and I just really got into it.”

Bock: Now that’s a strange person.

Hendricks: [Laughter] It takes all kinds to make a world.

Bock: That’s exactly right.

Hendricks: I get the person then to tell me how did you go about doing this? Give me all the rich detail, and it’s that detail that provides a lot of data to analyze. You discover that there’s actually all these dots that connect among the stories, and they form a pattern of behavior that this person comes back to again and again and again. That pattern’s very predictive in terms of career success and satisfaction. So armed with that owner’s manual, I’m in a position to say if this is what you’re wired to do, if this is what you’re born to do where out in the wide world of work are they paying people to do what you instinctively and naturally do, and frankly you’re going to do anyway. Why not get paid to do that if possible? That begins to suggest options that they can go and begin to explore.

Implications For The Church

While this process may be helpful for someone needing life or career coaching, it also has distinct implications for a Christian community’s health and service. Every group of people is a coalescence of a variety of different gifts (and dark sides to those gifts). Recognizing the phenomenon of giftedness at play allows communities to value individuals more deeply and enlightens them regarding the group’s interpersonal dynamics. Giftedness can also prove invaluable in parenting and the health of the home. Those parents who take note of their children’s motivations and abilities are better able to guide them through the difficult journey of determining their vocation as well as to avoid the pitfall of potentially shaming the child for the very thing they were gifted by God to do.

Beyond community health, giftedness also equips the church for more effective service. People become familiar with the certain abilities with which their specific community is equipped, and service becomes more effective because they can focus on their area of strengths and satisfaction rather than on “what is supposed to be done.” Even more, the community comes to see each person as the gift. They are better able to label work done outside the four walls of the church as true Christian service, for they recognize that God has gifted people in many ways, and they can celebrate the righ-teous ways their community members exercise those gifts. Finally, the area of giftedness discovery is itself a distinct field of need in which Christians could position themselves to harvest.

Hendricks: This whole issue of calling and giftedness is a tremendous opportunity for outreach. I say that because most people in the workplace are not in jobs that fit them, and we have all the statistics on this from Gallup, who since 2000 have been keeping track of what they call “employee engagement,” which means the extent to which somebody enjoys their job and feels an emotional connection to their job. The most recent statistics for 2012 were that 30 percent of people feel engaged in their work, but that means 70 percent don’t feel engaged. Fifty-two percent are what they called “unengaged,” which means, yeah, they go to work, but it’s just a job. Their heart’s not in it.

Bock: They’re earning money to do something else.

Hendricks: Yeah, but then 18 percent are what they call “actively disengaged,” which means they’re mad about it. They hate their job, and they actually undermine and sabotage the work that the engaged workers are doing. Now if that’s the case, it means that a lot of people who are already in churches and are already believers are probably in jobs that don’t fit them. It means that a lot of their friends and neighbors and coworkers are in that same boat. It’s never dawned on them that there’s some truth from Scripture that speaks into use of a person, why you’re here, what you should be doing for work and with your life. And we have this tremendous opportunity to speak into a known and felt need on behalf of people, because if you’re in a bad job fit, like you’re hating life, you may not even know that that’s the source of your stress or that it is the source of your conflict when you come home because you bring this distaste about your job into your family. It poisons your relationships, and you’re giving your kids a negative view of work as they watch you slug through every day. This is a tremendous opportunity for the church.

For Bill, the spiritually-gifted phenomenon of giftedness—being each person’s unique set of motivations and abilities—has great potential to change how believers view their own purpose and identity as well as provide wisdom for interacting with their children, their fellow congregation members, and their coworkers. If that is the case, an individual’s giftedness discovery is not simply a luxury. It can transform self-perception and communal health, regardless of choice in one’s job, and provides a unique (and opportune) contribution to our society.

The Table Briefing: Blended Families

By Darrell L. Bock and Kymberli M. Cook

[Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor in New Testament Studies and Executive Director for Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Kymberli M. Cook is Assistant Director of the Hendricks Center and a PhD student in theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

Stepfamilies have a bad reputation. They have had it for a long time. Many fairy tales chronicle children’s struggles under a stepparent’s selfish demands. Stories like Cheaper by the Dozen demonstrate the sometimes comedic, sometimes heartbreaking reality of kids having to learn to live with other kids and other parents. It is rarely anyone’s ideal situation and is often presented as a home life outside what it means to be “normal.” Ron Deal, director for Family Life Blended, has spent much of his career challenging that narrative and equipping blended families to live godly lives. The Hendricks Center has hosted Ron several times to talk through the realities of a societal majority of “non-traditional” families and practical implications for the Church.

Leave It To Beaver Is In The 8%

The definition of what constitutes a “normal” family in society and particularly in the body of Christ needs reorientation. Historically, society viewed a typical family as consisting of one man married to one woman living with their biological children—oftentimes with the man as the sole breadwinner. At a recent cultural engagement chapel at Dallas Theological Seminary, Ron pointed out this understanding accounts for less than 8% of the current families in the United States. In an earlier podcast, he attempted to normalize a more “nontraditional” home life, “We estimate in our ministry that easily one third of all weddings in the US today, at least a third, are giving birth to a blended family. It could be as high as 40%.” He and Darrell Bock, executive director of cultural engagement at the Hendricks Center, tackled this reality that the Church seems to bypass.

Deal: Fifteen percent of first marriages in today’s culture form blended families. If you’ve got one little pathway into blended family living and that’s all you can imagine, then you are missing a large percentage of the people in your church. I still have pastors go, “I’m not sure how many divorced-remarried couples we have.” Well, how many widowed remarried couples do you have? How many first marriage blended families? You’ve got to widen your lens. This is 40% of families raising children.

Bock: Right. That’s the statistic that gets me. 40%. There are almost as many first families in the way we traditionally think about it as the amount of blended families that we have surrounding us.

Deal: Let me just broaden it a little bit. If we think of nontraditional families as blended families, single parent families, and single adults, that group of people, those three categories are larger than first married traditional families in the United States. Nontraditional is the new traditional. If you’re preaching and all you can imagine when you say the word marriage is a traditional couple, if you’re preaching and talking about relationships and all you think of is married people, not single people, if all you can imagine in parenting is a two-person couple raising their kids versus a bioparent, stepparent raising kids with a coparent in the other home versus a single parent raising [children]. . . . You are not talking to the people in your community.

The blended family structure Ron presents includes those who remarried after divorce or the death of a spouse or a marriage involving at least one spouse with children born prior to wedlock (40% of all births in America currently). The key marker is the coming together of families that involve children that are not biological for at least one spouse. This type of homelife represents an enormous portion of the current family structures in the United States.

Deal: There’s 100 million people in the United States with a step relationship.

Bock: That’s what, 33 percent?

Deal: It is a third of Americans. . . . They have a stepsibling, or they have a stepchild. 100 million, okay. That does not count the people that are grandmas or grandpas who have a son who’s just married a woman with two kids and he became a stepdad and grandma’s trying to figure out how to help her son. Right, she just wants to bless them and wonders, How do I do that? It doesn’t count those people. So real fast, this is a lot of people we’re talking about. This is not a niche ministry.

Bock: No, this is a whole section of your church.

Deal: From a household standpoint, the stats are these. Forty percent of families, that is if there’s a couple who’s married with children in the house, full-time or part-time, forty percent of them are blended families.

The next question people ask me is what percentage of people in the church are blended families. And the answer is we don’t know. Nobody’s ever done the math, done the science to find out. I can tell you that I think, conservatively, my guess is about a third. It depends on what kind of church you’re in, what part of the US you’re in. But it’s pretty safe to say 20 to 30, 35 percent.

I had a conversation with somebody just the other day, a church in a metro Denver, middle-class suburb, and they did the math in their church, and 47 percent of their families are stepfamilies.

Implications For The Church

These societal realities present a need for local churches to reconsider how they serve blended families that are widely present in their communities. First and foremost, churches should take intentional steps to understand this family structure. There are unique layers of complexity in the life of a stepfamily. Ron and Darrell present the sheer number of relationships as one example.

Deal: Let’s draw your genogram. Here’s what your family’s going to look like. If you were to ask the couple, all right, you got two kids. He’s got one. So what’s your family going to look like? Oh, well, it’s going to be the five of us. Yeah. There’s the math, there’s three kids, two adults, the five of us. And then you say, okay, let’s just start filling in some other spaces and all of a sudden, well, there’s a former spouse over here and grandparents who want to continue to be a part of the kid’s life.

And then we have maybe another former spouse over here who’s deceased, let’s say, but still lives on in the heart and mind and soul of everybody, because that person’s always your parent your whole life. And so they’re kind of the ghost parent, if you will. And so that’s a dynamic at play, and we have grandparents over there. You start drawing it. When you get three generations done, all of a sudden people are going, it’s not the five of us. It’s three households, or it’s two households. And it’s this many adults parenting these three kids and this many sets of grandparents trying to influence these kids. Darrell, I interviewed for the Family Life Blended Podcast, my podcast, not too long ago, I interviewed a couple and the day they got married, there were twenty-two grandparents connected to their children.

I can’t even begin to tell you how they got that many, but that just goes to show you how complex it can become. . . . And then you just point to one of the children and say, now tell me what you think it’s like to be this person between these relationships and this relationship and this triangle over here and moving between homes. And what’s the climate like [in a different home] versus the climate that you want to create in your home? And all of a sudden parents go, “This is a lot. And I need to think more deeply and more carefully and compassionately about what my child is experiencing and will experience as a result of our wedding.” This is not a guilt trip. . . . What we’re trying to do is help them see it from another person’s point of view and begin to anticipate what it means to them.

One ministry for local churches, Ron shares, is the unique need to simply recognize these realities as a part of how they build their communities.

Deal: If I can be candid, we haven’t handled it [this reality in the Church]. We have marginalized and ignored stepfamilies, for the most part. Not because we wanted to or because we’re mean. I spent twenty-five years of my life in local church context; I get how hard ministry is in a day in and day out basis. It’s not that we’re trying to ignore anyone. It’s just we’re busy. And honestly, I think for a lot of ministry leaders they just never thought about it and they didn’t realize that there’s something unique or different here.

Yet even if the unique situation is identified, the pain present has often not been handled well. Some situations do present the clear presence of sin in the family’s past. This must be handled with a delicate balance between grace and truth.

Deal: Darrell, maybe this is the place where we pause and talk about the elephant in the room because I think, as ministry leaders, that elephant is, “Well, I feel a little weird if I somehow talk to nontraditional families as if they are okay to be in our fold, that somehow I’m saying it’s okay. Sin in the past brought them to this place, decisions they or somebody else made, and we’re blessing sin somehow.” I really get that and I really appreciate the mindfulness that leaders have. We never want to be perceived as going soft on sin. The cross is far too important for us to go soft on that, but mercy is never wrong.

I just sometimes wish we would stop talking about only one side of the coin. Yes, an invalid divorce is a sin, and yet, on the other side, we are called to mercy, not just a little mercy but to love mercy. According to Malachi, we are to love mercy, love kindness, because this is who God is. You look at the example of Jesus over and over and the people that he dealt with, “Why does he sit with tax collectors and sinners? Why does he sit with divorced people and remarriages?” Because he loves mercy. We’re called to that. I think we’ve got to find our way to teach truth and be the church that loves people wherever they are, however they come.

Bock: That’s a great observation. That’s a challenge in a variety of kinds of relationships that we see in the Church, how to deal with who we are and lift up the standards and commitments of holiness that the Church is supposed to uphold on the one hand, but then how do we live as people who actually understand that everyone who’s in the church is a forgiven person.

Deal: That’s exactly right.

Bock: My problem might not be your problem, but we’ve all got problems.

Deal: Amen. Amen. We’re all sinners in need of a hospital.

Whether sin is present or not, all the instances of blended families represent profound pain. This loss must be recognized by the Christian community and handled thoughtfully if truly helpful ministry is to take place.

Deal: Because of the shame issue that a lot of blended families deal with, I found—I’ve been doing this, wow, I’ve been working specifically with stepfamilies for over 20 years. They’re the hardest people to get in the room. If you offer a class, a workshop, or a conference, they don’t show up in droves because they’re not sure they want to go there and be that vulnerable and transparent with their story.

Bock: It opens up all kinds of pain.

Deal: It just does. It does. It really does. And so understandably, they’re tough to get in the room. But once you get them there, they bond faster than anything you’ve ever seen. They’ve finally found somebody who has a similar story to them and they can be honest about it and open about it. And together, we’re figuring this out with God’s grace, and we’re feeling rooted in our church and supported by our church. And it is fun to watch.

The teaching in churches should reflect the widespread presence of blended families, demonstrating sensitivity to areas of pain and offering carefully considered points of application. This approach presents a message that better reaches those families and offers an example for the whole community. The church leadership has an opportunity to categorize this type of family structure in a healthy manner. They can help their local congregation appreciate the complexity blended families face and create a more welcoming environment.

Bock: A lot of times when you preach on a Sunday and you’re preaching a message, you talk about the family and family dynamics and that kind of thing. But I’m going to propose something here that I think often goes on that walks into this area, and that is I think we tend to do it in a Leave It to Beaver mode.

And what I mean by that—I’m sorry for the young people that didn’t get that illustration—the point is here’s the Cleaver family and you’ve got the one family with the two boys, and it’s the ideal family picture. And we preach out of that mode or we talk about relationships in the context of the single marriage. And as you’ve already pointed out, maybe a third of my audience isn’t even there.

Deal: Right.

Bock: They’re somewhere else. They’re in a different reality. And the more I consistently preach only out of that one lens and I never go to the other place, the more dislocated a significant portion of my audience feels.

Deal: Now, let’s talk about a tension that exists in this. Because we’re the people who preach the ideal. And we should.

Bock: Right, right.

Deal: I am a number-one believer that we’ve got to teach God’s blueprints for the family better, stronger, louder, harder than we ever have in the past because we are moving further and further away from it.

Bock: The pressures are all pulling you in different directions.

Deal: Within the secular society, and even within our church family. So we have to do that. And we have to then live with that tension of saying—and yet, if this isn’t you . . . you know, that’s really the redemptive—I mean isn’t this what it’s all about?

Bock: Well, the fact is that we preach in a fallen world. And the gospel operates in a fallen world. Grace manifests itself in a fallen world.

Deal: Nobody would be in the church if there wasn’t sin. Everybody there is imperfect.

Bock: That’s right. So in the midst of teaching the ideal, it seems to me it’s incumbent now and again to have a sidebar that communicates that I know that this hasn’t been the experience of everyone, and some of you find yourself in this place. Now, what’s the best way to operate biblically if this is where you find yourself?

And you’re off and running. And in the process, we’re back to the things we talked about earlier. Not only have I connected with a portion of the audience that up to this point I haven’t been connecting to, I’m perhaps making them feel a little less marginalized in the process, but I’m also educating my entire community about the kind of community they’re living in.

Finally, ministry leaders must seek to connect with the individuals in blended families by directly acknowledging their situation. The family’s unique needs must guide pastoral care rather than expecting those in blended homes to naturally contextualize their own applications. This need is deeply felt in the areas of premarital counseling and discipleship, but Ron suggested children’s ministry as a place where the need for this is particularly acute.

Deal: Imagine somebody in her situation having a children’s pastor come alongside her.

Bock: Who knew the dynamics.

Deal: And say to her something to the effect of, “This is hard. It’s not supposed to feel good. And it makes all the sense in the world to me why it’s so hard for you to like your stepmother because you miss your mom.” Wow, just think about that. Connecting it and putting words on it.

Bock: She was searching for what it was.

Deal: But if somebody gave words to it and said, “I think this is what it is,” and then they went so far as to say, “You know what, you don’t have to embrace your stepmother like you did your mother. There is only Mom in your life and there is a certain, special space in your heart that is only reserved for your mom. And your stepmom will never even try to go into that place, and you don’t have to put her there. She is another adult who cares for you, just like your teachers at school, just like a youth pastor.”

Just imagine somebody who is able to step into that space, put words on her experience, help her get some perspective and then give her permission to not have to like her stepmother and do away with Mom.

Darrell pointed out this level of ministerial engagement may seem like a lot of work. Indeed, it will likely require ministry leaders and theologians to put themselves in an uncomfortable position of addressing their own familial pain or an unfamiliar home structure. It will require sermon sidebars. Premarital curriculum will need to be adapted. There will be difficult conversations about extramarital sex. Youth leaders will need to learn the children’s complicated genogram. Discipleship will need to include massive amounts of relational wisdom. Yet for one third of the Church, it seems like a worthwhile investment.