I had an incredible conversation with a friend earlier today.

We were talking about ministry and I made the comment that, in my opinion, the most important ministry a church can do, is men's ministry. This belief stems from the biblical concept of headship, and the ongoing idea that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. My basic argument says that, if congregations equip men to do what God has called men to do, then you're not just doing men's ministry, but, through the trickle down effect, you're also doing women's ministry, family ministry, youth ministry, and children's ministry.

This prompted a side conversation on the whole sin issue and how, in Scripture, outside of Genesis 3, Eve is not the one who is identified as bringing sin into the world. Rather, Adam is given the blame for sin because he failed as a husband at the tree. This sets the stage for the discussion of the New Adam, Christ, who, at his tree (the cross), loved his bride (the Church) fully.

At this point, my friend commented, "And God knew that all this was going to happen from the foundation of the world and yet, he went through with it anyway." As she debated an answer to the why of that question, she suggested that it might be so we would choose God over ourselves. Personally, I don't think this is the right answer, instead, I offered this illustration.

J: When you had your daughter, you were trying to have a child, right?

F: Yes.

J: Before you had her, did you know that she would do things that would hurt you? That there would be times she would reject you? That she very well could not "choose" you but do her own thing?

F: Yes.

J: And yet you had her anyway ... not so that she would choose you and love you, but so that you could choose her and love her no matter what.

A number of years ago while doing youth ministry at Vineyard of Faith in Windsor, CA, I was looking at various options of places to go to continue my education. I didn't really want to go to Seminary at the time, so I was looking at a variety of places that had distance education programs that would help me in youth ministry. Given that I didn't get the nuances of theology and thought the school didn't matter as long as it was Christian, one of the places I considered going was the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

After reading this article from Christianity Today which seeks to answer, "How can I know I'm a Christian if I can't remember when I first responded to the gospel?" I'm really glad I didn't. Why? Here's the author's conclusion:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one's life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God's saving work in one's life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

Now, I think the guy nails it when he writes, "one can doubt the 'decision' was real, leading to numerous journeys down the aisle (just in case)." I've run into so many people who are in this camp. They've done the decision and then, days, weeks, or months later, found themselves doubting their faith and wondering if they really decided. So the decide again and then doubt again and then decide again. The whole time, they always find themselves wondering where they stand in relationship to God.

But, as for his final answer, that we know if we're save based upon the fruit in our lives, talk about setting people up to experience hell on earth! I mean, I have good days and bad day (we could even say moments in place of days). There are times my life looks really fruitful and times it doesn't. If I'm looking to the fruit, I'm going to be save now, damned in 5 minutes, and back to salvation an hour later. In other words, I'm just about as comforted as the person trusting a decision made for Jesus.

Now, I'm all in favor of doing good works, as long as we understand that the only good they do is to help out our neighbor, that even our non-Christian neighbor can figure out and do these same good works (and thus, based on the article, appear more Christian than many Christians), and that, before God, even our good works need to be justified. Of course, all this rules out the idea that we know we're good with God because of our works.

So, how do I answer the question? Yesterday, Christians around the world celebrated the Baptism of Jesus, an event where Jesus stepped into and bound himself to the human experience so that, in our baptisms, we could be bound to his divine experience. In other words, I point to baptism, not, as the author suggests, because it connects you to the church, but because in it, Jesus makes a promise to you and connects himself to you.

What's the beauty here? I never have to wonder about my salvation, because it's connected not to me, but to Jesus. I'm good with God because of Jesus promise, and knowing my status with God is secure, I'm now free to go and serve my neighbor and let the fruit grow as it will.

This past Thursday I was given an Good Neighbor award by Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods (CHUN) for my work in the area of public safety through Neighbors on the Hill (NOTH).

Now, for those of you who know me, you realize that the reason I'm so involved in my community is that I see it as essential to my vocation as a citizen ... in other words, it's part of how I live out my faith.

Most of you who read my blog also are most likely aware that I believe vocation is at the heart of how we need to do evangelism in a post-Christian world. The general idea is that, as we live out our faith, our lives will look different and people will be prompted by the Spirit to ask what it is that causes us to live our lives the way we do.

While, this approach works to an extent, it has its limitations. After all, I'm not the only one working to make my neighborhood safe ... I wasn't even the only one awarded for my work. In fact, we have atheists, Jews, agnostics and others who are a part of Neighbors on the Hill, and we're all working on making Capitol Hill a better, cleaner, and safer place for all of us to live.

So, what is the other key to Christian living in the New Testament that prompts people to ask what it is about us that's different? According to 1 Peter (and a number of other places), the answer is our Christian hope ... that certain confidence we have that Christ is going to return and, when He does, life will be so incredible that it will far outweigh any suffering we experience on this side of eternity.

May God give us all the hope we need when times are tough and allow that hope to be a wonderful witness to the work of Christ in our lives.

So, I just got back from the Edge Conference and, while I had a wonderful time and am finding myself refreshed, I have to say, I don't think "edge" is the right word to describe the conference or the group. Let me explain.

Each year as a part of the gathering, we have a chapter from a book that we read, discuss, question how it applies to our ministries, and then discuss some more. This year, it was a chapter from a missionary anthropology book on what we mean by the word "Christian" and how we categorize someone as such.

Basically the author of the book suggested that there are two sets of terms that we use to categorize everyone. One set of terms would be intrinsic or extrinsic. As the word intrinsic would imply, we look inward in our categorizing. For example, an apple is a semi-round, red or yellow fruit that comes from a certain kind of tree. Extrinsic categorization happens when we define something in relationship to some thing else, such as categorizing Anita as my wife or Robbie as my son. The other set of terms would be bound and fuzzy. Bound would basically mean everything is black and white (it is an apple or it isn't) while fizzy would mean that there's a gradient (the shift from day to night). So, this means we have four ways to categorize things: intrinsic-bound, intrinsic-fuzzy, extrinsic-bound, and extrinsic-fuzzy.

intrinsic-bound: When we categorize ministry this way, there are obvious traits and ways to measure someone's faith, be it the old school "they don't smoke, drink, chew, or go with those who do" or a newer version where it's all about music, clothing, and number of hours spent volunteering at church. Whatever the qualifiers, there are those who are clearly "in" and those who are clearly "out".

intrinsic-fuzzy: In this set-up, it's harder to tell who's "in" and who's "out". I see this happening in the liberal church where the goal is to be so unclear that anybody can fit "in" at some level.

extrinsic-bound: In this setup, there is still a clear "in" or "out" labeling, but it's all about a person's relationship with Christ. I think this is God's view of the Church. He knows who has faith and he knows who doesn't, but we can't see it.

extrinsic-fuzzy: This is where I'd say we live in our congregations. Being "in" or "out" doesn't have anything to do with our internal, rather, it's about our relationship with Christ (or better yet, Christ's relationship with us). However, from our view, we can't see that relationship in others so it's near impossible for us to know who is "in" and who is "out" (sure their are signs, but you can show all the signs and not have faith or have faith and not show any of the signs), rather, we're just left with including everybody and lifting up the name of Christ, proclaiming the Gospel, and allowing him to come into relationship with people.

So, according to all this, why isn't the Edge Gathering all that edgy? Well, the LCMS is, on the whole, an intrinsic-bound group of people. We love to measure stuff like dollars given, attendance, political views, dress, and all kinds of other characteristics of a person to determine whether they are "in" or "out". Now, the challenge to us this week at the conference was to move towards being more extrinsic in our thinking which would be away from the center of LCMS thought and therefore be edgy (or, in my opinion, be more rooted in Scripture and the Confessions understanding of Church and thus more theologically Lutheran).

However, after our study was done, discussion of developing cohort groups came up and the number one challenge is the inability to find mentor congregations, that is, church plants that have been around 5 years or more, have growing attendance, and a number of other intrinsic-bound qualifiers that makes them "in" as successful church plants. In other words, it's the same old, same old, just with a new set of intrinsic values, which makes it anything but edgy.

I love getting together with the guys at the Edge Conference. The stories shared are inspiring, the prayer time in small groups is a blessing, and the fun is refreshing, but, in the end, it's the same philosophy with a different set of values and, from where I see it, it's the philosophy and not the values that need to be changed.

As the saying goes, "The more things change the more things stay the same." Here's an article from Zenit, a Catholic website, on how to obtain new relics that are available from Pope John Paul II or, as an alternative, a special Pope card that includes an ecclesiastically sanctioned prayer you can pray to receive grace because of the deceased Pope's intercession on your behalf.

Here's the text of a prayer:

O Blessed Trinity

We thank You for having graced the Church with Pope John Paul II and for allowing the tenderness of your Fatherly care, the glory of the cross of Christ, and the splendor of the Holy Spirit, to shine through him.

Trusting fully in Your infinite mercy and in the maternal intercession of Mary, he has given us a living image of Jesus the Good Shepherd, and has shown us that holiness is the necessary measure of ordinary Christian life and is the way of achieving eternal communion with you.

Grant us, by his intercession, and according to Your will, the graces we implore, hoping that he will soon be numbered among your saints.

Amen.

So, what are the things that strike me as "most wrong" about this? First off, in the second section of the prayer, we have Christ not being enough because John Paul II also trusted fully "in the maternal intercession of Mary." Then, this is followed by discounting the work of Christ on our behalf by identifying a holy life as "the way of achieving eternal communion with you." Finally, the prayer closes with a request that John Paul II would intercede for us because, once again, apparently Christ isn't good enough.

Now, having spent time with Catholics I've picked up that, unlike Lutherans who have a collection of books that say, "Here's our doctrine.", Catholics don't really have a set doctrine outside of a church structure that starts with the Pope and works it's way down, but still, that's some mighty jacked up, anti-biblical teaching that is no different than what Luther dealt with in his day.