american christianity ™

Truth in Advertising

Frank

In the aftermath of James MacDonald’s recent Elephant Room, the focus has been on T. D. Jakes and whether he affirmed the Trinity rejecting his Oneness background, about whether Mark Driscoll pushed him hard enough, and that no one challenged him on the Prosperity Gospel. There were other sessions, or “conversations” however that are worth following up on that had nothing to do with the latest Internet-driven evangelical celebrity fracas.
One in particular caught my eye. “With a Little Help From My Friends” The session is described as follows:

Is there a future for denominations? Will networks simply replace them, or will they reinvent themselves? What can denominations offer that networks of churches cannot? Describe the health of world missions and missionaries as you see them serving around the globe. Is the model of sending missionaries through a mission agency still effective? Or is church planting through healthy churches the way to go? Is there a lack of accountability plaguing most missionaries? How can that be changed? How does para-church help or hinder the local church in world missions?

Of course there hasn’t been any controversy over this topic, so other than some random quotes I picked up on Twitter, I haven’t heard anything more about it. And that’s a shame, because this is a very relevant topic for our churches today.

Attendance in traditional denominations has been on the steady decline for a number of years (decades in some cases). Church planting networks, like Acts 29, are all the rage as are missional networks like Verge. In the meantime, American Christianity (TM) continues to follow the trends of megachurches, where a church is known more by the books the pastor sells than the doctrine they actually teach.

But is this anything new? In the 60s/70s the fear was campus ministries and other parachurch organizations were going to replace denominational churches. The campus ministry movement didn’t replace denominations, but instead forced them to evolve.

I’m personally interested in this topic as my own church, sprung out of a traditional denomination transformed by the campus ministry movement, recently shed its denominational structure in place of a “co-op” where churches maintain their autonomy, but there is coordination with respect to conferences, publications, and world missions. Sounds a lot like a network, doesn’t it? But is that the right model?

When I first came across Acts 29 I was intrigued by what they were doing. But it took a lot of digging to find out anything specific about their doctrine. At best I found out it was started by Driscoll, which led me to Mars Hill to dig into what they believe. Yet another case of a megachurch being known more for its pastor than its doctrine.

Consider the standard online “statement of faith” pulled from a local church:

  • The Bible came into existence through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is God’s complete revelation to man. It is inerrant and has supreme authority in all matters of Faith and conduct.
  • There is one living and true God, eternally existing in three Persons, The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit. These three are identical in nature, equal in power and glory, have precisely the same attributes and perfections, yet execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of providence and redemption. Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Corinthians 12:14
  • God, the Father, is an infinite personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, justice, wisdom, power, and love. We believe that He hears and answers prayers and that He saves all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.
  • The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who became man without ceasing to be God. He accomplished our redemption through His death on the cross, and our redemption is made certain through His bodily resurrection from the dead.
  • The Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Holy Spirit indwells every Christian, seals them until the day of redemption, and is our present Helper, Teacher, and Guide.
  • Man was created in the image and likeness of God but through sin became alienated from God, acquired a sin nature, and came under the judicial sentence of death.
  • Salvation is the gift of God offered to man by grace and received by faith in Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. Genuine faith will manifest itself in works pleasing to God.

But does that tell you anything? Would it describe your church? Chances are, it would describe any traditional church. Yet it doesn’t tell me whether they are Charismatic or cessationist, follow Calvin or Zwingli, are Reformed or Restoration.

You’re probably asking what does that have to do with the question above regarding denominations and networks? Personally, I think denominations are stuck in traditions- doctrinally and culturally, and are destined to die unless major changes occur. But… at least you know what you’re going to get. When I drive by a First Baptist Church, I know what that is. When I drive by a church called Spring of Life Church, I have no earthly idea.

But is the only value in a denomination truth in advertising? What do you think?

Hate Religion but Love Jesus?

Frank

When I first saw this YouTube video via a link on Facebook, it was less than a day old and had a little over 100,000 views. As I write this, it has been viewed 6.5 million times. I guess he struck a chord.

His point isn’t anything new and falls in line with the current anti-organized religion trend that is sweeping through Christianity right now. It hits on some of the themes of Michael Spencer’s Mere Churchianity (of which I did a chapter-by-chapter discussion). The package is clean, hip, and resonating. But is he right?

Right after I saw it on Facebook, I wanted to “share” it to my friends too. But I wanted to see what this guy was all about first so I went to his YouTube channel. And his other videos just didn’t sit right with me.

So I’m curious what you, my readers, think of this video. Is he right? Do you agree?

Personally, I think God is anti-religion too. I think He makes that clear in the Old Testament prophets. But then the Word of God also tells us that “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) So I think it’s dangerous to offer up a blanket statement that “I reject religion” when the Bible tells us that there is a religion that God himself accepts.

An interesting comment on the YouTube page for this video: “Anyone else see the irony of people arguing whether he’s right about religion being different than Jesus and shouting at each other that the other opinion is wrong? I think his point has just been proven.”

So what do you think:do you hate religion, but love Jesus, or are you striving for the one True Religion that God finds faultless?

Flashback Friday: When is it OK to Walk Away?

Frank

***Originally posted a year ago while doing a group book discussion on Michael Spencer’s Mere Churchianity. It is my most spammed post (still today) so I figured I’d clean it up, update it some and repost. Plus it’s a good lead-in to some posts I’m hoping to get up next week.***

[A year ago] Pope Benedict XVI visited Great Britain for the first Papal visit in centuries and in the face of the ongoing child abuse scandal. Some demonstrators were so bold as to say that the Catholic Church “murdered” their souls. Despite this, they still identified themselves as Catholic: “I am a Catholic, but my faith is in God, not in those church officials who have covered this up,” one of the demonstrators said. Valid point, but why stay committed to that church?

At the same time, we have the audience Michael Spencer is writing to in Mere Churchianity; those who have left their churches and in some cases Christianity altogether because of abuse, hypocrisy, luke-warmness, and countless other reasons. Last week, I listed some specific examples. Each of these had valid reasons to leave, but I think just as importantly, each have a valid reason to return: the church is not Christ and Michael continues to hammer this point as we continue through his book. [Important distinction here. The big-c church is the Body of Christ. When we try and make it anything else- biggest, showiest, best-selling, most entertaining, most seeker-friendly, most missional, most… it is no longer Christ, but a group of like-minded people. It might as well be a fraternity.]

Let us consider these “sins” of the church: abuse, hypocrisy, luke-warmness. You could add neglecting its mission, being polluted by the world’s values or even other religions. If this sounds familiar and you find yourself shouting, “preach it brother!” recognize that this isn’t anything new. In fact, these are the same claims Jesus himself brought against the church in Revelation. In other words, the Church has been screwing up since it was founded. Not that that makes it ok. In fact, Jesus had some very harsh words to those churches. So today we continue to re-vector our programs, our polity, our preaching to make sure our eyes are “fix[ed] on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith.” (Hebrews 12:2)

[At the same time, we cannot practice Christianity by ourselves. We can focus on Jesus all we want, but if we don’t include others in our lives, we’re not really modeling Jesus’ life or instructions. The arguments that “my faith is personal, between me an God” or “I believe in Jesus, I don’t need a church for that” are bad theology.]
Keep in mind, there are 51 “one another” instructions (some are more strongly worded as commands) to the Church found in the New Testament. Many of these cannot be followed outside of an authentic church community. One specifically, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25) Yes, you could argue that you can still have an authentic Christian community and not call it “church”. But then I’d just turn around and call you a “house church”. I guess whatever form it takes, we need each other for encouragement, for sharpening, for instruction, and for worship.

And this still doesn’t address the countless numbers who have walked away from the Church for any and every reason.

Keeping in mind Jesus’ own words to forgive not seven times, but “seven times seventy” times (Matthew 18:22) and to leave any offering to the Lord and first “be reconciled to your brother” (Matthew 5:23-24) yet “It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2) Add to that Paul’s instructions to “submit to every authority” (Romans 13:1 and also Hebrews 13:17) and to “not put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way” (Romans 14:13, but really the whole chapter applies). And finally going back to Hebrews 10:25 above and the example of abused Catholics at the beginning of this post, [we see that the state of the Church is each of our own responsibility.

The onus is on us to live peacefully, to forgive, and to serve. Then, “as each part does its work” the Body of Christ is “built up in love” (Eph 4:16). This cannot happen if people walk away just because they don’t like the children’s Sunday School program, don’t like the style of preaching or worship music, or don’t get along with someone in particular.(To list extreme examples. To be fair, serious abuses of authority, tolerance of sin, and departures from the Word of God as the standard of belief are all valid reasons to walk away. The line isn’t the same for everyone, but if everyone put into practice the above scriptures- including those in leadership- then we shouldn’t have those problems.)]

Blurbs

Frank

Not enough time this morning for a full-blown post regrettably. But here are some other posts worth steering your attention towards.

Don’t forget about this week’s Blog Carnival, being hosted by my friend Peter Pollock. This week’s topic is “fences“. When I think fences, I think neighbors. And there’s no worse neighbor than the one who hides behind his fence and doesn’t interact with the rest of his neighborhood. That’s me. If you participate in the carnival and I haven’t commented on your post, that doesn’t mean I haven’t read it. I do most of my blog reading offline since I’m firewalled off from much in the blogosphere. I want to be a better neighbor, though. Just trying to figure out how in the schedule I have.

While I wrestle balancing career and ministry, needs of the day and passions for the future, a I related to a couple other bloggers recently. Johnathan Keck asks if we are destined to specific careers while Jay Cookingham considers a slight change of course to his writing passion.

This blog started off with more of a mix of politics in with our discussion of civil religion but I’ve drifted away from that lately. But both Carl Jones and Get Religion have write ups on the late Senator, Mark Hatfield, and how he bucked the trend of most Conservative Christians which made him hard to label.

Finally a post I should print out and frame because it hits on so much that I struggle over, Don Edelen has a terrific post on the visibly increasing divisions within American Christianity (TM). If you click on no other link above, I encourage you to click on this one.

All for now. Hopefully I can get more time to hash out some more thoughts later.

Ashamed

Frank

Y Cru, brute’?

Almost exactly one year ago, the Young Men’s Christian Association, aka the YMCA, changed its name to simply “the Y”. Of course, the Y has been common slang for some time. YMCA justified the change noting that no one knew what YMCA even stood for anymore as well as to fight the stereotype encouraged by the Village People’s song “YMCA”. And it could be argued that few associate the Y with any Christian Mission anyways.

History repeated itself when Campus Crusade for Christ changed its name to “Cru”, a nickname that has been common for some time, much like the Y. And just like the YMCA, Campus Crusade was fighting the negative connotations of “crusade” (hearkening more familiarity with the Christian versus Molsem wars centuries ago than Billy Graham’s Crusades (or Greg Laurie’s Harvest Crusade, for example)). I agree with the point that “Campus” over simplifies their mission. But to say they want to move away from “crusade” by just reducing it to short-hand? I don’t buy it.

Actually I didn’t buy this story at all. When I first heard it I went straight to Snopes. I mean, the change came almost exactly a year to the day after the YMCA name-change. And for me, not involved with “Cru” in any way shape or form, the full name was always shortened to just Campus Crusade. Now I don’t know what to call it.

They also mention that the name “Christ” gets in the way of their mission. I can see the argument that you don’t jump right into conversation with “I’m a Christian and I’m here to convert you. Here are the four spiritual laws so that you can receive Jesus as your own personal savior. Oh, by the way, my name is Frank.” But c’mon, you’re a CHRISTIAN EVANGELISM MINISTRY!!! Maybe your name should reflect it. If you want to be a hip night club, then admit it. If your name gives a specific first impression, maybe there’s a reason. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Blackwater changed its name to Xe to try and overcome bad press. My mom’s retirement home changed its name from Classic Residence to Vi to separate it from its parent company, Hyatt. So I’m convinced. Vi was bought out by Xe who operates youth rec centers by the name of Y and a ministry called Cru. It’s a conspiracy. Or a word scramble. CruYViXe. Oh I get it, “crucifix”. Campus Crusade is really a Catholic organization! That makes more sense than any reason they give.

“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26)

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.” (Matthew 15:18-21, emphasis added)

Flashback Friday: Origins

Frank

To make up for not being online hardly at all this week, I’m offering a two-for-one special: a Flashback to my very first post plus a little more about me.

Believe it or not, this blog started as a chain email. You know the kind: “the world is going to hell in a hand basket so forward to 100 people or you don’t love Jesus!” Honestly, I was tired of getting those. The straw that broke the camel’s back (or caused my inbox to exceed its limit) was one I had received a dozen times already about not praying at school being the reason our country is in the state it’s in.

I thought about that for a moment. Is the lack of prayer in schools the problem with our country, or is the problem the hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of so-called Christians who think their religious duty is limited to showing up on Sunday (when there’s not a game on or the kids don’t have a soccer tournament) and forwarding religiously-themed emails? I was amazed that I had received this very same email so many times from so many different people.

So I wrote my own, complete with “forward this or make baby Jesus cry!” I wrote about how is it that 85% of Americans call themselves Christians yet… divorce rate is greater than 50%, more people are in prison per-capita than any other industrialized nation, x-number of abortions a year (I should know that number off the top of my head, does that make me a bad Christian?), more children are born into homes with a single parent than are born to two-parent homes (recent stat, but seriously???), and on and on.

I was curious if I’d ever see that email forwarded back to me. Honestly I doubt anyone I sent it to forwarded it on. Too much fire and brimstone. But it got me thinking how the internet could be used as a ministry tool and how individuals were empowered to voice their message to the faceless crowd. I thought a lot too about what kind of message that should be. I had just started following a couple of blogs and saw the community created around the shared convictions and open discussion. Maybe there was something to this. So what’s the message?

I realized, looking around at the Christian-consumer landscape, that generally Christians have isolated themselves on social islands. They like what the Christian marketplace tells them to like (Fireproof!) and vote for who they are told to vote (Palin!). Now that’s a broad-brush and not really fair, but that’s how I felt at the time. Add to that the divisions between churches (I’m right, you’re wrong and going to hell for it!) creating other islands in this ocean of culture, and I choose to write about that. Current events. Politics. Even throw some Bible in there. Of course, it’s evolved since then, but here I am almost five years later still shaking my head at what I see out there (while thankfully spending more time concerned about what’s going on in here, plank in my eye and all).

Something else, since it keeps getting asked, here’s the story behind “fatha frank”. I was raised Catholic, for one, and was almost guilted into going into the priesthood. When I was baptized in a campus ministry, I was in grad school, making me one of the oldest students in that ministry (older than our campus minister, in fact). Between those two I got dubbed “Father Frank” by a few friends. When I set up my accounts and online identity, I wanted to keep the name, but I didn’t want strangers (since I was going to post openly to anyone on my blog) to think I was an actual priest, so I changed it. In fact, a friend and I came up with it at the wedding reception of another friend of ours. So blame him.

So now you know a little more about me, tell me something I don’t know about you.

And for entertainment purposes only, here is my very first post:

What the World Needs Now

Is another religion/politics blog, like I need a hole in my head! (sung to Cracker’s, “What the World Needs Now” [ed note: actually the song is called “Teen Angst”) So why me? Why this blog? And if you’re here because of a blog search, I’m sorry! There’s not much content yet, but I’m working on it.

A couple of years ago the world was introduced to a new term, “values voters,” a segment of the population that (gasp!) voted their conscience. It didn’t take long before this “new” segment of Americans became commercial, worldly, co-opted by special interests, and the new pop-culture buzzword. Since the ’04 election some ministers have become politicians, ministries have become special interests, and being a Christian became more about how you vote than how you live. Now we’re on the dawn of mid-terms, and both sides are fighting to capture the value vote.

So what makes me different? After all, aren’t I buying into the system by becoming yet another religious/political blog? That’s exactly why I’m doing this. To be different. While I’m not ashamed of this being political, I want the dialogue (or would a blog be more of a monologue?) to be more deep and broad than, “W sux!” or, “W rox!” I also want this to be more than just politics, but also how religion ties into pop-culture and what we can learn from what’s going on in the world.

The links to the right are a work in progress. So far “resources” are related to the topics I post about, while “blogs” are brothers in Christ whom I respect that post on their convictions and their life. You might notice some of the links look like they don’t belong (ACLU????). But I’ll talk about that next time. So please come back!

Putting Your Money Where Your Faith Is

Frank

A quick update to this post: Jim Tressel resigned over the weekend as the scandal at Ohio State seems to get deeper and deeper. As we learned from the Reggie Bush sanctions against USC (which were just upheld on appeal) the school will get hit while the coach gets off scott-free. Meanwhile, Cam Newton and his laptop were picked first in the NFL Draft, so he should make enough money to pay for his dad’s church to get up to code.

So in this cesspool of college athletics and religion I keep waiting for the next shoe to drop. Mark Richt, evangelical celebrity and University of Georgia football coach, just put his two-million dollar home up for sale. A home he bought just a couple of years ago. A sign of trouble ahead? To quote Lee Corso, not so fast my friend! (man, I can’t wait for college football season to start back up)

After rampant internet speculation of Richt being in danger of losing his job, Georgia being under investigation, or some other malfeasance, the coach came out and stated that he is selling his home because of a book. The coach was convicted by The Hole in Our Gospel by World Vision president, Richard Stearns, who writes that 40% of the world’s population lives on $2 or less a day and 15% live on $1 or less. Meanwhile those in the United States live on an average of $105 a day. In that backdrop, this coach who has made more than $25 million since joining UGA choose to sell his home.

It is exciting to see someone actually put their money (literally) where their faith is. Like Francis Chan, who also was convicted by Jesus’ example and downsized his home and eventually stepped out of his mega-pastorate, Mark Richt is catching criticism for valuing treasures in heaven more than things on earth. Yet I pray his example, and the examples from books like Stearns’, Chan’s, and David Platt’s motivate Christians in this country to re-examine our priorities and comfortability.

“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:33-34)

Legalism versus Obedience

Frank

As my small group concludes Crazy Love, I’m struck by the opposition this book gets. The most common theme I’ve seen is that it swings too far from the “Prosperity Gospel” towards a “Poverty Gospel” (watch the interview of Francis Chan by Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris to see this debate in action) and for some this translates into a “salvation by works” doctrine.

Of course that ruffles the feathers of many. “Saved by grace through faith alone” I believe is a security blanket held on to so tightly than anything approaching a “hedge” such as raising standards or expectations is avoided out of fear of legalism. But what is legalism anyway? Is it works? Why does Hebrews say we should encourage one another? (Good deeds) What are we saved for? (The works God has prepared for us) What is faith if absent of works? (dead as a doornail) So the fruits of the Spirit, evidenced by works isn’t legalism, it isn’t a poverty gospel, it isn’t preaching sanctification through personal sacrifice. At the same time, we’re reminded that such acts if unaccompanied by love are worthless.

In this book, and in his life to be perfectly honest (and I think this is why his views upset the status quo), Francis Chan simply puts his money where his faith is. And he’s not alone. Nor is he alone receiving such criticism.

David Platt just released the anticipated sequel to his bestseller, Radical, called Radical Together. I like the approach- the first book challenges what you are doing on faith personally, and he follows up with mobilizing churches to do the same. But he has to devote an entire chapter (short as it is) to deflect the criticism he received in the first installment.

And the criticism is coming from surprising corners of evangelical celebrity. Jared Wilson, author of Your Jesus is Too Safe (doesn’t that sound legalistic?), raises the above issues and cites similar concerns from Skye Jethani, author of The Divine Commodity and Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk. Now I’m not familiar with all of their writings, and I don’t know them personally, but just based on their public persona and the titles of their books/blogs, you’d think they’d be lockstep behind Chan and Platt. Like I said before comparing Crazy Love to Mere Churchianity, we all see the same problem and are moved to do something about it.

This debate exposes the tension between Justification as taught by Paul, and the Kingdom as taught by Jesus. For more on this, check out this article in Christianity Today. The conclusion is not to start with either Justification or Kingdom, but rather the Gospel of Jesus himself. I couldn’t agree more. After all, Paul instructed us to “follow [his] example as [he] follows the example of Christ” and that our “attitudes should be the same as Christ Jesus”, that Christ is the “chief cornerstone” on which we build our own personal convictions, and to “live as Christ and to die is gain”. (1 Corinthians 1:11, Philippians 2:5, Ephesians 2:19-22, Philippians 1:21)

So now the question becomes, is expecting a Christian (recall the definition has nothing to do with belief, but rather imitation) to live a Christ-like life legalistic? Through the lens of “saved by grace” it would appear so:

  • In the parable of the four soils, three seeds sprout yet only one is saved. How can we tell the difference? By the one baring fruit.
  • In the parable of the talents (or bags of gold in the new NIV, blech) the only servant condemned is the one who does nothing. Even the one who does a little is rewarded. Also the reward is proportional to the service.
  • At the same time, in the parable of the workers in the vineyard, all are rewarded the same regardless of how much work is done. Yet there is still a connection between work and reward.
  • In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus couldn’t make it clearer when he delineates “that which you do for the least of these…” (In fact one of the Crazy Love study guides I found online tried to explain away this passage as only applying to service towards believers at the tribulation)
  • And I want to remind us of the rich young ruler. He was holding on to something that would keep him from entering into the Kingdom. We all have something we’re holding on to. It doesn’t necessarily have to be money or possessions. Yet just like the wealthy, it is impossible to give it up. “But with God, all things are possible”

Going back to the definition of love from 1 Corinthians 13, legalism versus justification or works versus grace can be resolved simply by establishing the motivation. Obeying Jesus out of fear, guilt, obligation, pressure or people-pleasing is legalism. But obeying Jesus out of love is not.

Love. I think that shows up in Chan’s book somewhere.

Are We Spoiled?

Frank

Today marks the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible and boy have we come a long way. From YouVerision’s site:

In the 14–16th centuries, a controversial question had been dividing nations: should the common man be able to read God’s Word? It was so incendiary that some people were killed for their translation efforts.

The KJV was not the first translation of God’s Word into English, but it has been one of the most influential in making Scripture widely available to everyday people in their own language.

The KJV is revolutionary in its reach. It has endured as one of the most widely read books in human history.

Written during the era of Shakespeare, the KJV is praised for its beauty and poetry. Many phrases we use today originated in the KJV, like the salt of the earth, a drop in the bucket, eye to eye, and labour of love.

Are we spoiled today? I went to the local Christian bookstore the other day to look for a new Bible for my wife. She wanted a replacement for her favorite, of which its cover has come off, pages have fallen out, and is a general pain to carry around. She wanted something the same size and didn’t want one with helps or devotions. Sounds easy, right? But I walk in and see an entire wall filled with Bibles of every kind and color. Different translations, different devotionals, different helps; each marketed to a different segment. There are Bibles for firefighters, Bibles for pre-teen girls, Bibles for retirees, and I could go on and on. Of course I’m a sucker- I own at least a half-dozen Bibles with different emphasis to aid in my Bible study, but what about a good, plain old Bible? I couldn’t find one. Well I could, but it was only the extra thick, black bound, meant to put on a bookshelf and never opened version. There were ones like she was looking for, but then they had to gussy up the covers: flowers, camouflage, purple…

And don’t even get me started on translations!

I guess I find it funny that a few hundred years ago you could have been killed for having a contemporary translation of the Bible. In some parts of the world today you could still be killed for having a Bible, no matter the translation, publisher, or color of leather binding. Some friends of my sister can’t even name the country they’re in translating for Wycliffe. Yet in America today we have more Bibles than we know what to do with. In fact, we have so many we find ourselves debating semantics and political correctness rather than focusing on its message.

Fact is, few of us are risking our lives by owning a Bible. It is hardly the radical document that it is meant to be. Many own one but never open it. Many (like me) own more than one just because we can. We’ve come a long way.

I love the movie The Book of Eli simply because of its theme: what lengths would you go to to preserve the last known Bible? And I’ll be honest, I was tearing up at the end. The inspired Word of God is that beautiful, that powerful.

Do you take owning a Bible for granted?

For the Word of God is living and active… (Hebrews 4:12)