Radical David Platt 722y6

Radical by David Platt May 25, 2010 Review by Kevin DeYoung

[Editor's Note: In the process of reviewing Radical, Kevin DeYoung reached out to the author David Platt. Platt has written a response, which we are happy to include below DeYoung's review.] David Platt. Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream. Multnomah 2010. 240 pages. Getting to the Root of Radical: A Review and Response I really like David Platt. We‘ve spoken at the same conferences a couple times and run in some overlapping circles. My personal interactions with him have always been encouraging. David, the pastor of The Church at Brook Hills (a four-thousand member congregation in Birmingham, Alabama), is humble, down to earth, funny, a devoted student of the Scriptures, and a gifted preacher. And if you‘ve heard him speak, you may have noticed that he is kind of ionate. I‘m glad David is one of the good guys because I expect the Lord will give him an increasingly large platform in the years ahead in his city, the Southern Baptist Convention, the broader evangelical world, and the global church that he loves so deeply. His first book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (which I read first and later decided to review when TGC Reviews asked me to) is not for the faint of heart. Radical is an all-out assault on cheap grace, easy-believism, consumer Christianity. Writing as a megachurch pastor leading a congregation in a leafy suburb of Birmingham, David its this is hard to reconcile with his present situation ―with the fact that my greatest example in ministry [Jesus Christ] was known for turning away thousands of people‖ (2). David hits hard, but never claims to have it all figured out. David‘s honesty and wide range of experiences (from teaching houses churches in China to fleeing Hurricane Katrina) make him an accessible and engaging author. Combining real-life examples from his congregation, his travels abroad, and his own personal wrestling, David has written a provocative book that will serve as a wake up call to many Christians who are ignorant of their own cultural captivity and indifferent to the needs of the poor and the plight of lost. There is much to like about Radical. I applaud David‘s call for serious discipleship. I love his bold words about counting the cost and pursuing something better and riskier than the ―good life.‖ I am grateful he never shies away from the hard edges of God‘s sovereignty and God‘s wrath. I especially appreciated Chapter Seven (―There is No Plan B‖) where David walks through the book of Romans and makes a strong case for why non-Christians must hear the gospel and put

conscious faith in Christ in order to be saved and why Christians must make it a priority to reach those who have never heard. Radical is a stirring book that will help many Christians. A Few Concerns But not everything here is helpful. Let me highlight a few concerns I have with the book and with the some elements of the larger ―get radical, get crazy Christianity‖ that is increasingly popular with younger evangelicals. I hesitate to mention these concerns because there is so much in the book I agree with and because David does provide caveats here and there to soften the blow of his rhetoric. But people tend to hear what we are most ionate about, and I‘m afraid the take-home message from Radical for many people may reinforce some common misconceptions about what it means to be sold-out for Jesus. Here are a few concerns in increasing order of importance. First, I think David‘s context sometimes leads him to overstate his conclusions. For example, David is very negative about church buildings, calling them ―temples,‖ ―empires,‖ and ―kingdoms‖ (118). I can‘t help but feel that David‘s own struggle with preaching ―in one of these giant buildings‖ has forced him to speak too sweepingly about the way most churches in America (which are small) approach their facilities (119). Second, we need a better understanding of poverty and wealth in the world. The Christian needs to be generous, but generous charity is not the answer to the world‘s most pressing problems of hunger, inadequate medical care, and grinding poverty. Wealth is created in places where the rule of law is upheld, property rights are secured, people are free to be entrepreneurs, and there is sufficient social capital to encourage risk-taking. We can and should do good with our giving. But we must not lead people to believe that most of human suffering would be alleviated if we simply gave more. Third, there is an implicit, underlying utilitarian ethic in many ―radical‖ streams of Christianity that makes faithfulness to Christ impossibly daunting. To his credit, Platt says we don‘t need to feel guilty for everything that is not an absolute necessity (127). But earlier we are made to feel bad for the money we spend on french fries (108). It is easy to stir people to action by relating how little everyone else has and how much we have in America, but we are not meant to have constant low-level guilt because we could be doing more. Paragraphs like this pack a punch, but on closer inspection are not as helpful as they seem: Meanwhile, the poor man is outside our gate. And he is hungry. In the time we gather for worship on a Sunday morning, almost a thousand children elsewhere die because they have no food. If it were our kids starving, they would all be gone by the time we said our closing prayer. We certainly wouldn‘t ignore our kids while we sang songs and entertained ourselves, but we are content with ignoring other parents‘ kids. Many of them are our spiritual brothers and sisters in the developing nations. They are suffering from malnutrition, deformed bodies and brains, and

preventable diseases. At most, we are throwing our scraps to them while we indulge in our pleasures here. Kind of like an extra chicken for the slaves at Christmas. (115) I know David believes in the necessity of corporate worship but I‘m not sure how our obligation to worship squares with this paragraph. Surely, we are not guilty for worshiping on Sundays just because the poor exist. Moreover, surely it is appropriate to hold to believe in some sort of moral proximity when it comes to the pressing needs of the world. We do have more responsibility for the boy drowning in our pool than for the boy starving on the other side of the world. The whole world wasn‘t rebuked for neglecting the man on the Jericho road, but the priest and Levite were (Luke 10:29-37). The needs of the church come before the needs of the world (Gal. 6:10) and the needs of our families take on a priority that other needs don‘t (1 Tim. 5:8). Along the same lines, as evangelicals rediscover a biblical concern for the poor we must be careful our applications are tied to careful exegesis. Some ages we quickly employ, like James 5 (see p. 109), are not just about the rich, but about the ungodly rich who acquire their wealth by cheating the poor. And other ages like the rich young ruler (Mark 10, Luke 18), which David uses extensively, must be seen in their larger context. The question ―Who then can be saved?‖—referring to the disappointed rich man in Luke 18—is answered in Luke 19 where Zacchaeus gives, not everything away, but half of his goods to the poor (v. 8). Others in Luke are well-regarded for simply ing the disciples ―out of their means‖ (8:3). The point of the rich young ruler is not to make us worried that having anything might be too much, but to help us see more clearly the models of lived out faith in wealthy people like Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50-56). Fourth, I worry that radical and crazy Christianity cannot be sustained. If the message of Jesus translates into ―Give more away‖ or ―Sacrifice for the gospel‖ or ―Get more radical‖ we will end up with burned out evangelicals. Even when Jesus said his hard saying (and he said a lot of them) it was not his basic stump speech. His message was repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). When Jesus challenged the crowds to count the cost or let the dead bury their dead it was to make clear that following him was not all about miracles and wonders, it was about giving him the preeminence. The emphasis was doxological first and foremost. Worship Christ. Believe in Christ. Walk with Christ. And therefore, before you follow Christ be prepared for opposition. I don‘t worry for David‘s theology, but I worry that some young Christians reading his book might walk away wondering if a life spent working as a loan officer, tithing to their church, praying for their kids, learning to love Christ more, and serving in the Sunday school could possibly be pleasing to God. We need to find a way to attack the American dream while still allowing for differing vocations and that sort of ordinary Christian life that can plod along for fifty years. I imagine David wants this same thing. I‘m just not sure this came through consistently in the book. Fifth and finally, we must do more to plant the plea for sacrificial living more solidly in the soil of gospel grace. Several times David talks about the love of Christ as our motivation for radical discipleship or the power of God and the means for radical discipleship. But I didn‘t sense the strong call to obedience was slowly marinated in God‘s lavish mercy. I wanted to see sanctification more clearly flowing out of justification.

Now I don‘t believe that every command we ever give must include a drawn explanation of the gospel. But in a book-length treatment of such an important topic I would have liked to have seen ―all we need to do in obedience to God‖ growing more manifestly out of ―all God‘s done for us.‖ At times the discipleship model came across as: ―Here‘s how we need to live. Here‘s how we are falling short. Here‘s how Christ can help us live the way we ought.‖ The gospel looks more like a means to obey the law, instead of resting in the gospel as respite from the law. Further, I wish there was more of an emphasis on what we do when we fall short of radical obedience. How do we get balm for our stricken consciences? Where do we find rest for our sinsick souls? Just as importantly, I would hope that as David speaks in risky ways in order to challenge us all to shake off nominal Christianity, he would also on occasion speak in such a risky way that he‘s charged with antinomianism (Rom. 6:1). On the whole, I think the motivation for obedience in Radical would have been more biblical and more balanced if it landed more squarely on the greatness of God‘s love for us as opposed to the nature of the world‘s great need and our great failures. Conclusion In conclusion, I should say that David and I have had a chance to talk about some of these matters over the phone. His demeanor could not have been any kinder. He listened humbly and pushed back graciously. I‘m happy to call David a friend and look forward to learning from him in the years ahead. To that end I‘ve invited him to respond to my review and suggest any areas he thinks I‘ve misread or any areas he might want to clarify. ******* David’s Platt’s Response I really like Kevin DeYoung. I am thankful to call him my friend, and I with a multitude of evangelicals who are increasingly grateful for the grace of God expressed in his keen mind, his sharp wit, his theological acumen, his gentle spirit, and his pastoral wisdom. For this reason, I was thankful to discover that he would be reviewing the book I recently wrote entitled Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream. I was thankful because I knew that even if I did not agree with everything Kevin might write, nonetheless his insight, analysis, and critique would serve readers well in avoiding any potential pitfalls they might encounter in processing or applying what I have written. On a more personal level, I was thankful because I know I have so much to learn as pastor, preacher, writer, and most importantly follower of Christ, and I need brothers like Kevin DeYoung to sharpen me in my own life and ministry. While Kevin was writing his review, we had an opportunity to discuss a variety of issues, and in turn he invited me to offer a response to some of the ideas he has articulated. Kevin is gracious to give me this opportunity, and I am grateful for it. In what follows, my goal is not to respond to every single sentence he has written, but instead to express some thoughts on what I believe are the most significant concerns in his review, and in turn to address what I believe are some of the most important issues for discussion among readers of Radical.

Gospel-Driven and Grace-Saturated Over and above everything else, I want to convey a shared concern with Kevin for gospel-driven, grace-saturated, God-glorifying obedience. The last thing I want to do is to leave people living with low-level guilt, constantly wondering, ―When am I going to be radical enough? What do I need to do, how do I need to give, or where do I need to go in order to do enough for God?‖ These are obviously unhealthy questions, for the gospel teaches us that Christ alone is able to do enough. He alone has been faithful enough, generous enough, comionate enough, etc. The gospel beckons our sin-sick souls to simple trust in Christ, the only One who is truly radical enough. In him, we no longer live from a position of guilt, but from a position of righteousness. All of this to say – comments in Radical like the assertion that over 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day (they struggle to find food, water, medical care, and shelter with the same amount we spend on french fries for lunch) or the reality that multitudes of our brothers and sisters around the world are suffering with malnourished bodies and deformed brains because they have no food or water are not intended to promote guilt-driven obedience. Instead, my goal is simply to help open our eyes to realities in the world that we would rather ignore and to call us to look at those realities through the eyes of the One who ―though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich‖ (2 Cor. 8:9; p. 113 in Radical). Worship With Our Eyes Wide Open Along similar lines, I certainly want to clarify any confusion regarding my comments about worshiping while approximately a thousand children in the world around us die of starvation or preventable disease. My goal is in no way to question the biblical warrant or practical need for us to gather together for worship. Instead, my goal is simply to call us to worship God in a way that opens our eyes to the needs of those who are hurting around us. Surely true worship of God compels tender mercy toward others (Is. 1:10-17; Am. 5:21-24; Mic. 6:6-8; Jas. 2:1-24). On a brief side note, and I don‘t believe this is a major point for discussion here, but in light of churches spending up to $115 million on buildings in our day, I do think we need to examine our use of resources in churches of all sizes when it comes to buildings. A Possible Point of Disagreement All this leads to a point that Kevin and I may differ on, at least to some degree. I would certainly agree that there is a level of moral proximity that governs our response to needs in the world. Without question, I am uniquely able before God for needs in my physical family as well as the faith family I lead called The Church at Brook Hills. At the same time, there is clear Scriptural precedent for also helping our brothers and sisters in other churches. One of the primary examples of giving we see in the New Testament is the offering among various churches for the church at Jerusalem. I have always loved Romans 15:26, where Paul references how the churches at Macedonia and Achaia made a contribution to the poor in Jerusalem, and the word for contribution there is koinonia. The fellowship fostered by this offering was a beautiful picture of one part of the body of Christ saying to another, ―We are with you. You are not alone in your need.‖ And it is here that I believe in our day we have missed the pattern of the New Testament church in a dangerous way. We as North American Christians have grown incredibly wealthy

compared to the body of Christ around the world. If all we do is provide for one another‘s needs here in the name of moral proximity, it seems that we are saying to our brothers and sisters, many of whom are literally starving, around the world, ―We are not with you. You are alone in your need.‖ Now I immediately want to offer a variety of qualifications. I am, again, not denying that we have a unique responsibility to care for in each of our local churches. I am not trying to oversimplify the complex problems (and complex solutions) associated with impoverished peoples in various countries and contexts, and I am not trying to put an unsustainable burden upon any person or church to care for every other needy church in the world. And my goal is not to cause us to feel guilty. Instead, my goal is to call us to look to Christ, as individuals and as local churches, and to ask him how we can best use the resources he has given to us to care for one another in our local churches and to provide for suffering saints in the global church. In the end, my prayer is that God would use sacrificial love for our needy brothers and sisters in other places to demonstrate the unity of the church and the generosity of Christ to a lost and watching world around us. One Final Thought That leads to one final thought regarding care for the poor. As Kevin noted, Scripture clearly teaches that the needs of the church come before the needs of the world (Gal. 6:10). But this obviously does not mean that we ignore the physical needs of those who are lost. While we do not have much explicit instruction in Scripture to care for the unbelieving poor, we do have the Great Commission. If we are going and making disciples of all people groups, and if the majority of people groups in the world are far poorer than we are, then we are certainly going to care for the poor while we proclaim the Gospel (i.e., if the person we are sharing the gospel with is dehydrated and/or starving, we will give them water or food). The question then becomes whether or not we are going to people groups like these, and if we are not, then maybe we need to create a moral proximity to them. Whether in the church or among the lost, I want to avoid an unhealthy localism that disregards our brothers and sisters around the world and is detrimental to the spread of the gospel in all nations. All of this leads back to where I believe Kevin and I wholeheartedly agree. He mentions that Jesus‘ ―stump speech‖ was, ―Repent and believe the Gospel,‖ and I could not agree more. In fact, I think even the hard sayings of Jesus that Kevin mentions and that I reference throughout Radical all come back to this essential message: repent and believe the gospel. Whether it was the rich young man, the three prospective followers in Luke 9, or the constant crowds who surrounded him, Jesus was calling them all to turn from themselves and to trust in his grace. Consequently, as Kevin has mentioned, the message of Christianity is not that we need to do more for God, but that we need to trust in what God has done for us. Like Kevin, I want more than anything for sacrificial living to be grounded ―solidly in the soil of gospel grace.‖ As a part of this grounding, though, I want people not only to believe in the gospel grace that was shown to us on the cross, which is the basis for righteous standing before God, but I also want people to believe in the gospel grace that is being given to us right now, which is the power for righteous living before God. I want to shepherd people away from only thinking, ―Look at all that Jesus

did for me at the cross; now let me try to live for him today.‖ I want people to realize that Jesus‘ work for us did not stop at the cross. He is working for us today, as well, and he has promised to work on our behalf in the future. That is why I try to use language intentionally and consistently throughout Radical to describe not just what Christ has done for us in the past (as if that weren‘t enough!), but what Christ is doing for us in the present, at every moment, to enable us to live in obedience to him. Oh, the wonder of it. Not only have we been saved by his grace at the cross (Chapter 2 in Radical), but he has given us his Spirit (Chapter 3 in Radical), and he now lives in us to empower radical, life-changing, world-impacting obedience for his name‘s sake in all nations (Chapters 4-9 in Radical). Summary In summary, I am deeply appreciative of Kevin‘s various cautions concerning ―radical and crazy Christianity.‖ The last thing I want to be a part of (or worse yet be promoting) is a stream of Christianity that thrives on guilt over gospel, prioritizes our work more than God‘s grace, or burns out evangelicals in unsustainable efforts to do more, give more, or sacrifice more. I certainly regret any ways I have contributed to this kind of thinking or way of living. My goal has simply been to call people to believe the gospel – the gospel that not only saves us from our sins, but also compels us to lay down our lives gladly for our own good and ultimately for God‘s glory in a world of urgent spiritual and physical need. This is the kind of ―radical and crazy‖ Christianity that has characterized servants who have gone before us like George Muller, John Paton, and Jim Elliot, and this is the kind of ―radical and crazy‖ Christianity that marks our persecuted brothers and sisters around the world who are not looking to ively sustain themselves, but who are living to ionately spend themselves for the gospel, no matter what the cost. I long to stand with them in a line of brothers and sisters from every vocation who are resting daily in the unfathomable grace of Christ while living radically for the immeasurable glory of Christ in every nation.

Radical Obedience: A Conversation with David Platt

Today, I’m happy to be ed by David Platt, pastor of The Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, AL, for a conversation about his latest book, Radical Together: Unleashing the People of God for the Purpose of God. I appreciated Radical Together for its emphasis on the church as the agent through which God extends His glory to the nations. As I read David’s book, I marked up the margins with questions that remained unresolved in my mind. Today, David graciously responds to some of my lingering questions about his bold proposal. I pray our conversation will edify and embolden you as you seek to fulfill the Great Commission. Trevin Wax: David, in Radical Together, you write: “If you and I want our lives to count for God’s purpose in the world, we need to begin with a commitment to God’s people in the church.” Why is it so vital that the church be at the forefront of our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission?

David Platt: The local church is God’s chosen, called, and ordained agent for the

accomplishment of the Great Commission. From the beginning of the book of Acts, we see God’s people, by God’s design, coming together in local churches that are devoted to God’s Word, to fellowship with one another, to worship, and to prayer (Acts 2:42). Through these local churches, the Lord began adding to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). Out of 114 times that we ekklesia in the New Testament, at least 90 of them refer to specific local gatherings of believers. Clearly, the New Testament precedent and pattern is the advancement of the gospel through followers of Christ who are ed together in local bodies. As a result, if we want to be a part of spreading the gospel to all peoples in global mission, biblically we need to begin with a commitment to God’s people in the local church. Trevin Wax: In your chapter on “The Misunderstood Gospel,” you make some clarifications regarding the motivation for our obedience. You write: Unleashing radical people into the world requires the gospel as our foundation and our motivation. David Platt: That’s right. I don’t want any follower of Christ to be overwhelmed by guilt, constantly wondering:  

“When I am going to be radical enough?” “What do I need to do, how do I need to give, or where do I need to go in order to do enough for God?”

These are extremely unhealthy questions, for the reality with which the gospel confronts us is that we’ll never be able to do enough. No matter what we do, even if we sell all of our possessions, give to the poor, and move to the most dangerous country in the world, we cannot do enough to be accepted before God or approved by God. The beauty of the gospel is that Christ alone is able to do enough. He alone is able to keep the law and commands of God, and He has done it. Indeed, He has been faithful enough, generous enough, comionate enough, etc. As a result, the starting point of the radical life is death to self, death to every attempt to do enough before God, and trust in Christ, the One who has lived the radical life on our behalf. Trevin Wax: How does this beauty of the gospel translate into the beauty of Christian obedience? David Platt: The beauty now is that when we trust in Christ to be our righteousness, we are now free to obey from a totally different position. In Christ, we have been declared “not guilty” before God. As a result, we no longer live from a position of guilt, but from a position of righteousness. And not only have we been declared righteous in Christ (as if this were not enough!), but He has given us His Spirit, and He lives in us to enable us at every single moment to live according to the commands which He has given us. As Christians, we now find ourselves free from guilt and driven by grace. Trevin Wax: Why is it important that grace, not guilt be what motivates us? David Platt: In addition to everything I’ve mentioned above, guilt is ultimately an unbearable burden and an unsustainable motivator. We may change our ways for a short time based on guilt, but real, true, radical life change will not happen until we trust in the gospel.

So my encouragement in Radical Together to anyone who struggles with a low-grade sense of guilt, wondering if they are ever doing enough, would be to realize that they can never do enough…and then to rejoice in the reality that Christ has done enough for them. Then, whenever they are confronted with sin or shortcomings, I would encourage them to trust in Christ, to rest in His righteousness, and to ask Him to produce the fruit of a radical gospel in their lives. This alone will sustain radical, life-changing, world-impacting obedience for the glory of God in all nations. Trevin Wax: You express concern about the “missional” movement, if by missional we mean merely focusing on our immediate context and not on reaching the unreached with the gospel. I think “missional” is a reaction against the older idea that “missions” is something that we pay other people (“missionaries”) to do over there. The missional movement is seeking to remind us that we

are all missionaries in our local context. It seems that you see a distinction between missional churches and Great Commission churches. Is that so? Why or why not? David Platt: “Missional” is quite a loaded, and often misunderstood, word in many conversations today. I certainly appreciate any effort to remind us that God intends us all to make disciples wherever we live, particularly in our local context. This is the command of God for each of us to follow, and so by God’s grace we need to wake up every day intentionally considering how we can most effectively make disciples where we work, where we play, and where we live. At the same time, the Great Commission is not just a command from Jesus to make disciples; it’s a command from Jesus to make disciples of all nations (literally, panta ta ethne, of all the people groups). This means that Jesus has commanded us to go beyond just the place where we live and the people we live among. He has commanded us to go to people groups all around the world who have little to no access to the gospel. This is at the heart of the Great Commission. So being “missional,” in the sense of the whole of the Great Commission, is never just about making disciples among people right around us. Being “missional” according to the Great Commission involves making disciples among people far away from us (geographically and/or ethnically). As a result, in Radical Together, I want to encourage those who would claim the banner of “missional” to be truly “missional.” Let’s continue to focus on making disciples among the people around us (let’s not detract from that focus!), and let’s focus on making disciples among peoples all around the world who presently have no access to the gospel. This is obedience to the Great Commission and the heart of what it means to be “missional.” Trevin Wax: Is it possible to so focus on the unreached people groups that we discount the good work being done by people in other parts of the world? I had this question about myself as I was reading the book. Were my five years in Romania not really Great-Commission work, since that country is partially evangelized? David Platt: For what it’s worth, I think your work in Romania (assuming you were making disciples there with a view toward seeing all nations reached with the gospel) was absolutely Great Commission work. For that matter, I trust that my work in Birmingham, AL (talk about reached!), is also Great Commission work as I shepherd a church to make disciples here with a view toward penetrating every people group on the planet with the gospel. We are constantly tempted to choose between either going to reached peoples or going to unreached peoples. But this need not be an “either/or” scenario. What if God has designed our work among reached peoples to be aimed toward the spread of the gospel among unreached peoples? The example I use in Radical Together involves how we as a church are focusing on ministry to various people in Birmingham (Brook Hills Bob) with a view toward the spread of the gospel among all peoples in the world (Brook Hills Baruti). We don’t want Birmingham or the nations for Christ; we want Birmingham and the nations for Christ. So is it possible to so focus on unreached peopled groups that we discount the good work being done by people in other parts of the world? I suppose. But not if we understand disciple-making as a “both/and” scenario instead of an “either/or scenario.” Jesus made disciples among a very small group of Jewish men in the first century in a way that has led to you and I becoming disciples in America in the twenty-first century. Let’s follow His lead and make disciples among reached places in a way that will lead to disciples being made in unreached places all around the world.

Trevin Wax: What is the value of short-term missions in fulfilling the Great Commission? David Platt: There are so many abuses when it comes to short-term mission trips, and oftentimes these abuses obscure the tremendous value of short-term missions. The goal of short-term mission is always long-term impact…on a variety of different levels. First, we want to be a part of long-term impact in other contexts in the world. Obviously, we are not going to be able to go into another setting and make disciples in a week or two. So our goal should always be to connect relationally with long-term disciple-making processes in other contexts. Whether it is missionaries who have moved into another country/context, or nationals living in another context/country, we want to connect with brothers and sisters who are carrying out longterm disciple-making in that country/context. They know what the best uses might be for a shortterm mission team, and there is great confidence in going to a place and serving alongside brothers and sisters like this, knowing that you are a part of ing a long-term disciple-making process in that country/context for the glory of Christ. But the long-term impact is not just about what happens in that country/context during that week or two on a short-term mission trip. We also want to promote a long-term impact in the people who are going on that short-term mission trip. This is a part of the disciple-making process in our own churches. In the church I pastor, short-term mission trips are a huge component of our long-term disciple-making processes. We want people that we are teaching and training in Christ to go into other contexts in the world, to see the glory of God in ways they may have never seen before, and to expand their understanding of the global purpose for which God has created them. So for anyone that is looking to go on a short-term mission trip, the goal is not just to focus on impacting another part of the world; the goal is to focus on impacting the people you take with you to another part of the world, so that when you come back to your own context, you and the people who traveled with you are that much more committed to obeying the Great Commission in the context of where you live every day. In addition, many people will come back from a short-term mission trip and decide to go into more mid-term or long-term missions. Almost all of the people who have gone out from our church to serve in another country/context for 6 months, a year or two, or a lifetime, started by going on a short-term mission trip. In all of these ways, short-term mission trips can be hugely valuable for ing disciple-making processes in other parts of the world as well as right where we live. Through short-term, mid-term, and long-term missions, we together with our brothers and sisters around the world as we work with all our hearts to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Trevin Wax: How does God-centered preaching lead to ion for evangelism? David Platt: The gospel begins and ends with God. He is the holy, just, and gracious Creator of the universe who has sent His Son, God in the flesh, to bear His wrath against sin on the cross and to show His power over sin in the resurrection so that everyone who believes in Christ will be reconciled to God forever. And this is the gospel that we proclaim in evangelism. So how do we best lead and shepherd God’s people to evangelize? By giving them a grand understanding of God. In preaching, we unfold the character of God: His holiness, His justice, His grace, and all of His other breath-taking attributes. As we magnify His Word, people behold His glory. And they believe, deep within their minds and their hearts, that God is great and greatly to be praised. In the process, this becomes the ultimate motivation for evangelism. The more the people I pastor see God’s worth, the more they want to make His worth known in the world.

So week after week after week, as I stand before them with God’s Word, I want to show them God’s worth. As they hear His Word and they see His worth, they will lay down their lives to make the good news of God’s grace and glory known to the people around them and people groups around the world. God-centered, gospel-saturated preaching is great fuel for Christ-honoring, world-embracing evangelism.

Kevin DeYoung on David Platt's "Radical" A few weeks ago, I reviewed a book by David Platt called Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream. I concluded that review this way: In America, we’ve settled for taking the gospel and the teachings of Jesus and spinning them into a formula for a good, middle-class life and a ticket to heaven. Jesus is worth so much more than that. When he says we should sell everything we own, we should hear that and examine if we really value him that much. Is he really better? Is he really worth your life? Radical has ignited a ion in me to want to answer those questions whole-heartedly in the affirmative. Kevin DeYoung, one of my favorite authors and a fantastic pastor, reviewed the book today over at The Gospel Coalition. After talking about how much he likes Platt and how much there is in the book he agreed with and appreciated, DeYoung stated this about the book: Radical is a stirring book that will help many Christians. But not everything here is helpful. Let me highlight a few concerns I have with the book and with the some elements of the larger “get radical, get crazy Christianity” that is increasingly popular with younger evangelicals. I hesitate to mention these concerns because there is so much in the book I agree with and because David does provide caveats here and there to soften the blow of his rhetoric. But people tend to hear what we are most ionate about, and I’m afraid the take-home message from Radical for many people may reinforce some common misconceptions about what it means to be sold-out for Jesus. DeYoung gave Platt space to respond to his concerns, and the exchange is well worth reading. This was my favorite part of Platt's response where he does a great job of balancing his call to radical Christian living with resting in the grace of God. The book isn't meant to produce legalism, but I can see how that would be a concern for young people reading it. Over and above everything else, I want to convey a shared concern with Kevin for gospel-driven, gracesaturated, God-glorifying obedience. The last thing I want to do is to leave people living with low-level guilt, constantly wondering, “When am I going to be radical enough? What do I need to do, how do I need to give, or where do I need to go in order to do enough for God?” These are obviously unhealthy questions, for the gospel teaches us that Christ alone is able to do enough. He alone has been faithful enough, generous enough, comionate enough, etc. The gospel beckons our sin-sick souls to simple trust in Christ, the only One who is truly radical enough. In him, we no longer live from a position of guilt, but from a position of righteousness. All of this to say – comments in Radical like the assertion that over 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day (they struggle to find food, water, medical care, and shelter with the same amount we spend on french fries for lunch) or the reality that multitudes of our brothers and sisters around the world are suffering with malnourished bodies and deformed brains because they have no food or water are not intended to promote guilt-driven obedience. Instead, my goal is simply to help open our eyes to realities in the world that we would rather ignore and to call us to look at those realities through the eyes of the One who “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9; p. 113 in Radical). You can read the whole review by DeYoung and Platt's response here. This is a great example of Christian interaction when disagreements happen. Great job by both men.

Radical by David Platt: One Year Later by marla on February 6, 2011

I‘ve noticed a spike in traffic to my book review of Radical, by David Platt. This makes me unbelievably happy, because it means that somewhere there are folks out there who are just discovering the journey to being a radical Christian, a Christian whose life is sold out for the kingdom. So for those of you I thought it would be interesting to look back on my year post-Radical (the book, not the concept!) and see whether or not the book actually did impact my life like I thought it would. Here were David Platt‘s goals for the one year challenge: I know it is kind of skipping ahead, but do you want to hear the one year challenge? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Pray for the entire world. Read through the entire Bible in one year. Sacrifice your money for a specific purpose. Spend your time in another context. Commit your life to multiplying community.

I looked at that list last year and quaked. I look at that list this year and quake. But not quite as much. So in the spirit of utter transparency, here‘s how my year went in light of the one year challenge. 1. Pray for the entire world. I’m tempted to say, “Yes, of course I did. Lord, heal the entire world.” But the kind of country by country praying that David Platt encourages fell by the wayside after about two weeks. Which, not coincidentally, is about the length of time most New Year’s

2.

3.

4.

5.

resolutions last. What did remain for me, however, was a focus of praying for the countries with which I came in . When a piece of news hit the broadcasts, I would go to the Operation World website to read about that country’s challenges and pray for them. A friend has left to travel the world fighting human trafficking, and every country she goes to also gets researched. So bottom line on challenge number 1? I’d give myself a solid B-. Read the Bible through in one year. This challenge alone has changed my life. I found a daily reading plan online that separates the Bible into genre types (wisdom literature, history, prophecy, gospels etc.). Every day you read a different type of genre. By following the plan for a year I have, indeed, read the Bible in a year and am onto my next year. Now there may be a few dropped days, but most of the time I made those up. The day you read the Psalms is usually pretty light, so I used it for makeup days. Part way through through the year I began reading with my journal open and my ears more open than ever before. Transformational. Now, this reading is the first thing I do when I flop into my soft chair at Starbucks. In a way, God, is my morning coffee date! Bottom line on this one? A+. Sacrifice your money for a specific purpose. Sacrifice? Yes, we’ve intentionally denied ourselves some of what we would have previously spent, and have chosen to use it for kingdom purposes. But after a year, I can’t call it sacrifice anymore. It’s an amazing privilege. We have not narrowed our giving to a specific purpose, though I notice “themes” in our giving choices. There have been some other really cool decisions in light of radical generosity in our lives, too, but I’m not going to discuss them here. Bottom line? An A, but I have a huge desire for extra credit! Spend your time in another context. Nope. Failed. Some of my family succeeded in this one, but not me. With this one exception: I did choose to get out of my contexts in my own culture around town at times. Still, not enough. This needs to be a goal for next year. The best I can say is that Radical opened my eyes to my ethnocentricity (big word!) and to the fact that I have NOT gotten out of my home context in a very long time. Maybe that’s progress, but I still give myself an F. Commit your life to multiplying community. Multiplying community IS my life. It’s what I love to do. Over the course of the year David and I have noticed that one of our strengths seems to be connecting people, whether it’s across church campuses, across the community, our across the country. I expect to see more of that in the years to come as we personally transition from one phase of life to another. Bottom line? Let’s say a B+.

So how is that? There‘s so much more that I would like to do, so many ways I let myself down this year. But many of those action points can be directly traced back to reading Radical. For one book (among so many that I read day in and day out!) to actually effect a change in my day to day habits is a stunning achievement. Even in the areas I‘ve not done as well as I might, there is an awareness of a still, small voice reminding me that there is more to life than my day to day concerns. Getting ready to read Radical? Go for it! Even the smallest changes you make in your Christian life will push you toward being a Radical. But there‘s a warning: you will never shop the same, eat the same, read the same, watch tv the same, or even travel the same. Be ready for the adventure!

1. Scott Walden May 20, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

Jamal I believe part of the issue may be the fact that many Christians feel the need to be told what to do from a ―leader‖. Call it sheep mentality, call it lack of maturity, call it lack of discipleship, call it whatever you want. Even though the woman in the letter didn‘t say it, and I could be wrong, but you could almost see that she needs someone to suggest what to do next. Even though she did what David Platt asked and still found it lacking, she then mentioned getting books by people like Viola and others not realizing that this has the potential to just be a phase two, or three, or twelve, of what she just went through if it is applied the same way. We live in a culture that raises up mega-pastors because they have an entertaining, or more provacative way of telling the sheep what to do and where to go. It almost becomes the Christian version of rock star / groupie in some instances. I fear that the ―organic church‖ movement is just that, a movement that will see crowds move in and move out once the next big thing comes along. The only difference is that it may be a little too foggy for many of those who usually jump on the bandwagon because there is no clear power point presentation telling people, ―OK, you are dissatisfied with the institutional church, here is what you do next…‖. There is no doubt that American Christianity lacks discipleship and there is even yet another renewed ―movement‖ towards that end…ugh! To that end all ―mature‖ believers need to look for others who they can share and model what it looks like to be a selffeeding, Holy Spirit led Christian. Let them in on a little secret that ages like John 15 teaches, you don‘t have to ―do‖ you just have to ―be‖. I am certainly not suggesting that the Body of Christ doesn‘t need people who pastor, shepherd, and lead. I‘m even not anti-institutional church, albeit many of the budgets and buildings are a stench to my nostrils. God has gifted the body uniquely and the body is not just made up of one part. We would all be better served by those gifted, if instead of aspiring to 10,000 member churches, radio, tv, and book ministries, they would aspire to making John 15, Romans 12:1-2, Psalm 1, Matt 6-8, etc., all real in the Christians life who is their family member, their neighbor, their co-worker, etc. It might mean they toil away in relative obscurity, but not to the One who instilled in them the gift to begin with. I suspect that the ―organic church movement‖ will be just that for many of those who enter thinking it will be a new way to ―do church‖, that herd however big or small will move on to the next David Platt, Rick Warren, Francis Chan, Andy Stanley, Frank Viola, or even Jamal Jivanjee. Sometimes because of, or in some cases, in spite of, God still leads those who seek Him to the narrow gate and down the narrow path. In the end Christ didn‘t tell us he would give us John Piper‘s and John MacArthur‘s in the mega-ministry sense, but he did promise something much better in John 14…

15 ―If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.‖ …for those who need to be told what to do, abide in His word, abide in His Spirit, abide in His Son. What is a Christian? A follower of Christ. What do Chritians do? They follow Christ. Keep doing your Jeremiah thing Jamal…may God get the glory. Blessings, Scott Walden

Francis Chan’s Talk From ion 2011, And The $64 Million Question! January 17, 2011 in Institutional Religion with 83 Comments There are several people who have influenced me throughout my journey in Christ. One person who has influenced me greatly from afar is Francis Chan. Let me give you one example. A few years ago, I attended a conference in which Francis was speaking to a large group of college students. During the talk, Francis asked a question and made a statement that set something in motion in my life. Francis asked this question: If he was born and raised on a deserted island with nothing but a Bible, had only read about the New Testament church yet had never seen a church, would he recognize his own institution he was leading as being remotely similar to what he read about in the New Testament? He came to the conclusion that he would not recognize his own church system as being even remotely similar to what he read about in the scriptures. Wow, what a jarring, bold, and honest statement! That realization set something in motion in my life that has continued to this day. As a result, I have asked myself this question…Why do I want to continue to propagate a church system that is so radically contrary to the example set in the scriptures? The answer for me was simple…I don‘t! Since that time, Francis has stepped down from the institution that he was leading in Simi Valley California. I commend him for that step of courage. Fresh off a trip to Asia in which he observed some persecuted underground churches, Francis spoke at ion 2011. ion 2011 was a Christian conference of about 22,000 college students held in Atlanta for a few days during the first week of January. During the conference, Francis gave some details about his interactions with some of these Asian church communities, many of which have suffered greatly. Francis shared with them what much of the American institutional church system is like, and how things work within that system. He explained how people institutions, or stop attending church meetings based on their liking of the speaker, the band, or based on what programs and services the institution had to offer. Their response was laughter. The more he told them, the more they laughed. He felt like he was a stand up comedian. They thought he was being funny and telling them jokes. Unfortunately, he was not joking with them. He was being serious. Although this might seem harsh, the American institutional church system comes across like a joke to much of the underground church in that part of the world. Don‘t get mad at me, Francis said it! I agree with Francis however, it‘s a joke.

I must say, however, that it is not enough to recognize the fact that the American institutional church system is a joke. So what? Does recognizing the fact that our system is a joke stop making it a joke? No way, I wish it did. It takes more than that. Many people who agree with what Francis is saying want to immediately know what should be done to fix the joke. In my opinion, without understanding ‗why‘ the joke exists, we are destined to keep perpetuating the joke. The only road out of the joke, however, requires asking a question that many people are not willing to ask. Asking this question will require courage, and asking this question is also where the crowd thins out. Some have asked this question and have paid dearly for it. What‘s the question you say? Here is the rarely asked question: “Why is the American Institutional Church system a joke?”

This is the $64 million question that many are not asking. Could we be afraid of the answers? This is a very deep question that should not be asked casually. I would like to say that it is unfair to the many good people trapped inside of the institutional church system to keep saying that the American church system is a joke without asking this all important question of ―Why‖. I do not agree with the assessment that all American institutional church are made up of people who are lukewarm in their faith who simply want to be entertained. I know many people who love the Lord, and who are doing the best they can inside the system. The problem is, without asking this all important question of ―Why‖, we are destined to keep perpetuating the same system that we agree is a joke. Why do we keep dropping millions of dollars propping up multi-million dollar religious buildings for the sake of putting large amounts of people in a room to watch what happens on a stage once a week? Why do only a select few people with special authority create specific programs for the rest of the people to ively engage in? How can we get angry at institutional church attenders for acting like consumers shopping for goods, services, and entertainment when we keep creating institutions that seem to be bent on offering goods, services, and entertainment? Are you aware of the time, money, and effort it takes to put on these amazing productions each week?

These are some good questions that need to be asked. These questions will also lead us to the existence of some ‗sacred cows‘. There are several ‗sacred cows‘ so to speak, which keep the institutional system alive. Although there are more sacred cows within the institution, I will mention two here that keep the institution propped up and alive. Until we have the courage to begin addressing these two ‗sacred cows‘, I‘m afraid that we will keep perpetuating the same system Francis talked about that we all agree is a joke. Sacred Cow #1: The unbiblical clergy & laity divide

This divide keeps the church ive and under the headship of man and not Christ. The clergy / laity divide is a clear violation of the values communicated in Matthew 23:8-12, and 1 Peter 2:5 just to name a few. (The unbiblical clergy & laity divide keeps the church operating as if there were a selective priesthood as was demonstrated in the Old Testament, not the priesthood of all believers that the New Testament describes. Sacred Cow #2: An Old Testament temple mentality. Although Jesus clearly said that He was the true temple (house of God), much confusion remains today about what the house of God is. While almost all Christians agree with this in theory, it is obvious that most people still have an Old Testament concept of the temple and identify the church with the physical location where the church meets. Most casual conversation with Christians about the church will reveal this deeply held misunderstanding. Since we are the very body of Christ on the earth; and Christ Himself is the very temple of God, we (collectively as people ed together not individually) are the very household of God (See 1 Pet. 2:5). Obviously, there is much more that could be and needs to be said about these two sacred cows of the institution. If we do not adequately address these sacred cows, the joke will continue. Don‘t get me wrong, I applaud Francis‘ heart and message at ion 2011. I‘m sure that most of the people at ion 2011 wholeheartedly agreed with his assessment, shook their heads, and said ―Amen‖. I also know that the majority of those 22,000 people left ion 2011 and went back to (some are even building) the same type of institutions that Francis described to the Asian church in which they thought he was telling a joke! Good intentions and recognition of problems are not enough. We must begin to question the very structure of the system that makes the joke possible. Blessings to you, Jamal Jivanjee