It Takes A Church...

Big C, Little c, and Barna’s Metaphorical C(c)hurch.

This is a long post, but I want to begin to respond to a few of the biblical issues that are raised in George Barna’s book, Revolution in regards to his understanding of the church.  Indeed, for Barna, “capital C” Church, that mystical communion of all believers as the body of Christ is the point of the New Testament and never the pedestrian “small c” church of people who gather, worship, commit their lives, minister and live together.  The first, though “invisible” is what matters.  The local church is optional at best. 

I will offer my own understanding of the difference and juxtaposition of Big C and little
C(c)hurch, but first I want to examine Barna’s own words:

“…when the word church appears in the Bible, it refers to people who are called out from society to be the full expression of Jesus Christ on earth.  That reminds me of what being a revolutionary is all about: rejecting the norm and paying the cost to stand apart from the crowd to honor God.
“In fact, when the Bible admonishes us to gather together it does not imply that that should be a church service of congregational event [Cites Hebrews 10:25].  Such interaction could be in a worship service or at Starbucks….”
“In fact, there is no verse in Scripture that links the concepts of worshipping God and a ‘church meeting.’  The Bible does not tell us that worship must happen in a church sanctuary and therefore must be associated with a local church.  It simply tells us that we must worship God regularly and purely, in spirit and truth…
“…the Bible never describes ‘church’ the way we have configured it. The Bible goes to great lengths to teach us principles for living and theology for understanding.  However it provides very little guidance in terms of methods and structures we must use to make those principles and insights prevail in our lives.  It seems that God doesn’t really care how we honor and serve Him as long as he is number one in our lives and our practices are consistent with his parameters.  If a local church facilitates that kind of life then, it is good.  And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of the congregation-based faith, then that, too is good.
“True Revolutionaries agree that being isolated from other believers—i.e. the Church (note the capital C)—is unbiblical.  However, while they may not be integrated into a formal church congregation, they are not isolated from the Church.  They may not belong to a specific collection of saints that engages in routines and customs at particular location and under the leadership of a specific individual or group.  However, neither are they spiritual untouchables who have no connection to the global Church.  Every Revolutionary I have interviewed described a network of Christians to whom he or she relates regularly and a portfolio of spiritual activities which he or she engages on a regular basis.”(p. 113-114)

Let me state at the outset that I intend to show that this is woefully deficient ecclesiology that is both dangerous to Christians and an inadequate exegesis of the Scriptures.  (Again, Barna’s not entirely to blame here, most of us have been taught this kind of ecclesiology over the years.  Indeed, I was, too.)

As I have said before, I’m a product of the success of mid-20th century evangelicalism that rightly restored and reignited the popular idea that God wants to not only save us from hell, but more than that, passionately desires to have “a personal relationship” with us. Unfortunately, what I (and most of us) heard in those kinds of messages is that we can have a personal and private relationship with Christ.  And I wanted that.  Not church, but Jesus.  Shortly after I committed my life to following Christ, I bought a T-shirt that said “JC and me.”  It was my not-so subtle way of sharing my faith and it described my new found belief perfectly.  This wasn’t my parents’ religion, this wasn’t about tradition or ritual, it was just about “JC and me.” A sentiment that always sounds good until you start reading the Bible.

What is the earliest result of the very first Christian sermon?  Peter preached the gospel and Acts 2:41-42 says “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”  Not much “just JC and me” there.  The earliest believers trust the good news about Jesus and join—through baptism—the fellowship of people who also trust this message. 

Notice also that the first “spiritual disciplines” were all communal ones.  They did not race home, have a personal quiet time and give up smoking, but instead, “devoted themselves” to “the apostles teaching” (shared beliefs), fellowship (shared relationships), breaking of bread (shared meals) and the prayers (shared spiritual life)” all expressed in a communal life together—in a specific group of people.  Being a Christian did not mean committing to some “principles”, a “network of relationships” and a “portfolio” of practices that each deemed would personally help them to make God “number one in their life.” 

Instead the passage goes on to demonstrate just how quickly and how completely the personal conversion experience reoriented a new convert’s whole communal life—with a specific group of people.

43 Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.

It’s really difficult to find anywhere in the Bible where, someone just “accepts Jesus” and then goes merrily on their way, seeking to live for God by themselves in whatever manner they see fit.  It just doesn’t happen.  Yet that is what so many of us do and what Barna is endorsing.  We think that salvation consists of intellectual assent to the right statements and a desire to clean up one’s act.  Well meaning Christians relegate the church to “support” and “assistance” for the individual journey of following Christ.  Personally, it took nearly a decade of being a committed Christian before I realized how inextricable to Christian faith is the Community of Christian people. 

Consider a couple of other things:

• What we could call a “non-churched Christian” today was considered in the first century to be a person “turned over to Satan”. (1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:18. Admittedly this was a matter of church discipline that removed the believer from the fellowship, but the point is still the same.  In the first century, to be outside of fellowship was considered a qite serious and even dangerous affair--vastly different than today.)
• 1 Peter 2:10 equates receiving God’s mercy with being part of the people of God (again, not just some mystical metaphor, but being part of the community of God’s people to whom they joined their lives) and NOT being part of the people of God with NOT receiving God’s mercy.
• The discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t address questions about how to be the “Capital C” body of Christ, but instead how Paul instructs a specific group of people how to celebrate the sacrament meal without alienating anyone or leaving anyone behind.  He doesn’t tell the Corinthians, “If the way they are doing this meal isn’t helping your personal walk with Christ, eat at home or find some other supper (In fact, he says just the opposite!)
• Lastly for now, the biggest issue of the New Testament is the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in one Church.  That was not a metaphorical question, but practical, applicable and experienced in specific communities. 
  
  While Revolutionaries today “may not belong to a specific collection of saints that engages in routines and customs at particular location and under the leadership of a specific individual or group,”  the most revolutionary thing about the first Christians is that they—both Jew and Gentile—did.

Trinity, Community and Church

I will begin an examinations of George Barna's biblical assertions in my next post, but I wanted to re-post something I put up on January 25, 2005 about the church and Christian Community as "background" for those who may be new to my blog.

Since God is a Trinity, the essence of God is loving relationship, best understood as Communion.  Therefore, the essence of humanity, as God’s creation, is also relationship.

This can be very difficult for us modern Westerners to grasp.   In cultures where identity is tied to family relationships, trinitarian relationship and identity is more easily understood and accepted.  But we have been so steeped in individualism that we forget that even the Lone Ranger had Tonto.  We naturally believe that the very essence of humanity is the individual will.  Truly understanding who God is, is absolutely necessary to understanding who we are and who we are meant to become. 

Another reason for this blog is that I want to tap into our current cultural hunger for community and demonstrate how Christian Community (which I will generally refer to with a capital “C”) is the only truly life-transforming environment.  (Indeed, while absolutely no substitute for genuine, local, personal community, I think that the blogosphere-if kept in perspective—offers us an opportunity to nurture conversation and connections across the miles and philosophical spectrum.) 

But first, let’s define what I mean by Community.  Our cultural is currently undergoing a period of nostalgia for the day in which neighbors and families were stable, knew each other well, and cared for each other through the ups and downs of life.  Many social commentators are trying to restore the ideal of civic community into American public life, and I deeply understand and applaud the efforts.  But Christian Community is not just about neighborliness (though certainly the gospel demands that we “love our neighbors”) nor is it just about proximity (though without proximity Community is impossible).  It’s not just being friends or living in the same housing development.  It’s about sharing more than a cup of sugar and the lawn mower, but core values and a vision for living.   

What this means is the church in its essence is not an organization, even a helpful, divinely mandated one.  Contrary to what many of us have been taught, the church is not just a means of grace; and the church is not just here to help you in your individual journey of faith. 

I remember sitting in evangelistic meetings as a young Christian hearing several well-meaning preachers, (including, later, myself, I must admit) saying, “All you have to do to be saved is to accept Jesus into your heart.  There is no church to join. There’s nothing to do.  You can have a relationship with Jesus right here tonight all by yourself.”  Usually the preacher would suggest that a good Bible teaching church would be helpful to the new believer (like vitamins help a diet), but what was most important was a “personal relationship by asking Jesus into your heart.” 

Over time I have come to realize that Paul would never have preached that message.  Instead, all of the early church preached, “Believe and be baptized.”  (Baptism always meant joining a particular gathering of believers.) Have faith in Christ and join with the people of Christ.  Know the God who is Community and become part of it yourself.

Further, Christian Community is not just a shared experience.  It’s not people who sit together in pews or a movie theater or a football stadium (even if they are the audience for a Christian event!). It’s not polite conversation at a potluck or a great weekend together at a Christian camp.  Christian Community is an ontologically irreducible organism.  It is a living reality that is imbued with the Spirit of God.  And most dramatically, it is the very life of the Triune God drawing people into a covenantal relationship with God and each other.  It is God’s own being on earth lived in and through believers for the single end-result of seeing each person become like Jesus Christ.   

So that the Community together is a witness for Christ. 

Next Post: Barna's Metaphorical Church

Where Three Wesleyans and One Reformed Guy Agree...

I have promised my own critique of George Barna's exegesis in Revolution, and will get to two salient points soon.  In the meantime, I commend you to read this letter from three Indiana Wesleyan University professors. 

HT: Keith Drury, ala "Church-less Christianity is like sex-less marriage—it can only last one generation" and one of my students, Bumble.

Mechanisms, Means of Grace and Missing the Point.

In his book, Revolution, George Barna holds up the fictional example of two Christians who meet each week at the “Church of the Green” opting for golf and good conversation over church participation. Not simply reporting the obvious, Barna, declares instead that “the local church is one mechanism that can be instrumental in bringing us closer to Him and helping us be more like Him” (p. 36), charging Revolutionaries to ask themselves, “Does the mechanism provide a way of advancing my faith?” (emphasis mine)

For Mr. Barna, the local church is no more spiritually significant than taking a walk by a lake. Indeed in one section, he clearly implies that often the walk is better than attending a worship service. Which--to be honest--is an accurate statement of many of our personal experiences. 

But for Barna, those personal experiences are really all that matter to the true revolutionary. (Mr. Barna makes his assertions based on some biblical arguments that I will begin to address in the next post.)

But while I believe that Mr. Barna is terribly mistaken in his understanding of the local church, it is not entirely his fault.  In many ways, Mr. Barna’s approach to the church is rooted in what Emil Brunner called, “The Misunderstanding of the Church” in his book by that title written over a half century ago. 

Brunner writes that regrettably the Reformers categorized the church as a “means of grace,”  with the unintended result of making the church on par with every other way that God sovereignly and savingly reaches into our lives.  And soon it was easy to think of the church as only a means to an end (albeit a vaunted means) and that end is God communicating his grace to each person.

I believe that unwittingly we have seen the same idea in evangelicalism when an evangelist like Billy Graham leads someone to a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and then exhorts people that the first thing to do is to find a Bible believing church that can help you “grow in your new relationship.”

In other words, the church is not necessary, but it is at least potentially helpful.  On this score at least, George Barna is in good company.  And frankly, he could even count the ultimate hip Christian, Bono, amongst his “revolutionaries.” 

But Barna goes down a path that would make our ancestors blanch.  While the Reformers and the evangelicals of the past would challenge churches to live up to their calling as a means of grace (even if in Brunner’s and my opinion that is still too lowly a calling), Barna starts with the negative.  He assumes that the local church is at best “abiblical” (p. 37) and that the purpose of Jesus teachings is to make us all disciples who are able to be spiritually “self-governing” (p. 70) and even suggests that at best, real revolutionaries will only drop by churches now and then (p. 138). 

For the Reformers, addressing the collectivism of the Catholic Church of the day, considering the church a “means of grace” was a way of containing the power of the hierarchy and reasserting the authority of the Word.  They never would have considered that people would eventually take that to mean that the church was optional.  (All of the Reformers followed Cyprian that “You can’t have God as your Father if you don’t have the Church as your mother.”  And they meant actual churches, not just some mystical “Church Universal” because everyone could affirm that—but more on that next post.) 

Brunner reasserts that the church, the specific fellowship of believers to which you and I are to be baptized into, nurtured at the Lord’s Supper, worship amongst, hear the proclamation of the word, and grow in grace and faithfulness is nothing more or nothing less than a replication of the fellowship of the Triune God on earth. 

The fellowship of Christians is just as much an end in itself as is their fellowship with Christ. This quite unique meeting of the horizontal and the vertical is the consequence and the type of that communion which the father has with the Son “before the world was;” (John 17:5, 24) in the supernatural life of the Christian communion is completed the revelation of the Triune God...the very being of God is agape--that love which the Son brings to mankind from the Father, and it is just this love which is the essence of the fellowship of those who belong to the Ecclesia. (p. 12-13)

While I personally would love to always be considered in the same "camp" as Bono, I believe that that we would all be better off listening more to Brunner:  “(The) togetherness of Christians is...not secondary or contingent: it is integral to their life just as is their abiding in Christ.” (p. 12, emphasis mine)

Next Post: Big C, Little c, C(c)hurch.

A Not-So-New-Nor-Radical-Revolution

For over 15 years now, anything Barna writes is something I have looked forward to reading and using in my ministry.  Barna is cited in my dissertation and my first book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God transforms lives.  In fact, a significant part of my self-identity as a pastor was formed after reading his book, Turnaround Churches.

But in his newest “quick read”, Barna has crossed a divide and now challenges the very people he once equipped.  Introducing his fellow “Revolutionaries”, he writes:

The United States is home to an increasing number of Revolutionaries.  These people are devout followers of Jesus Christ who are serious about their faith, who are constantly worshipping and interacting with God, and whose lives are centered on their belief in Christ.  Some of them are aligned with a congregational church, but many of them are not.  The key to understanding Revolutionaries is not what church they attend, or even if they attend.  Instead it’s their complete dedication to being thoroughly Christian by viewing every moment of life through a spiritual lens and making every decision in light of biblical principles.  These are individuals who are determined to glorify God every day through every thought, word and deed in their lives.  (p. 8)

Frankly I love the imagery painted in this passage.  In fact, I yearn to know more and more of these kinds of people.  And it is very close (not exactly, but close) to what I would desire for how I would want the people of my church to be known. 

Now, a charge from Barna to Revolutionaries:

To survive and thrive in the midst of the spiritual battle in which you live, seek a faith context and experience that will enhance your capacity to be Christlike.  This mission demands single-minded commitment and a disregard for the criticisms of those who lack the same dedication to the cause of Christ.  You answer to only one Commander in Chief, and only you will give an explanation for your choices.  Do whatever you have to do to prove that you fear God, you love Him and you serve Him—yes, that you live only for Him. (p. 27)

Again, I am drawn toward this kind of language.  It is the kind of challenge that I would have loved as a young Christian who wanted to be radical for Christ.  But as I said in my last post, today I recognize that both the description above and the charge, while articulate, well intentioned and even inspiring, when properly understood in the way Barna intends it, is not a revolution but a retreat. 

Mr. Barna is endorsing a form of discipleship that is disconnected from the Biblical history of God’s redemptive dealings with his people and is endorsing a form individualistic Christianity where every individual answers only to his or her own personal assessment of what they need spiritually. (This is a great irony to me, because nothing has been more adept of demonstrating how deceived most Christian’s are about their own spiritual development, than Mr. Barna's polls)

And if I am reading this correctly, after years of challenging the church to change and be better equipped to face a changing world, Mr. Barna has thrown in the towel and told people to simply use whatever means they consider helpful to their personal and individualistic pursuit of the Christian life.  Indeed as the church is now only consider vital if an individual deems that it will "enhance (his or her) capacity for Christlikeness."

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I think this book is the product of a keen mind and a deep yearning.  George Barna is very good at listening to people with a finely tuned ear for both the resonant notes of true belief and the hollow clank of a faith-façade.  When it comes to describing the state of the church and the desperate need for renewal for the Church to continue to be “Jesus for the whole world” (to use N.T. Wright’s phrase) I have no reason to doubt him (p. 30-36).  His description of the seven passions of revolutionaries (p. 22-24) is a fine encapsulation of what true discipleship should look like in any age.  And his summary point is worth writing on a post-it note and putting on a bathroom mirror to serve as a reminder to every Christian every morning:

The hallmarks of the Church that Jesus died for are clear, based on Scripture: your profession of faith in Christ must be supported by a lifestyle that provides irrefutable evidence of your complete devotion to Jesus.  (p. 25)

But Mr. Barna’s means for encouraging this type of faith to come about is to succumb to a trend that is neither new or revolutionary. To make the local church just one of many options in our personal spiritual walk is not radical, at all.  In fact it is not all that new.  Mr. Barna himself noted the trend in a study in 1993 that I cited in my book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian.  George Gallup and Jim Castelli wrote of the “Believers vs. Belongers” gap in their study of American church life in 1989.   Indeed, according to researchers like Barna and Wade Clark Roof disconnecting church from faith was a hallmark of the BABY BOOMERs, the parents of this younger generation of Revolutionaries that Mr. Barna holds up as the harbingers of change. 

Now, as I look back at Mr. Barna’s own research and his regular newsletter that comes in my email inbox, I can understand the discouragement that he must feel.  Indeed it is one that I share with him and have sought to face head on because of research like his. But to his endorse ment and encouragement of discipleship that is disconnected to the local church, is to indulge the deep individualistic bias that is truly the enduring spirit of our age, to abandon the biblical notion of fellowship into the most tentative and fragile connections with people “who seem to be on the same wavelength” (p. 89) and to trust each individual to whatever they deem best.

In the following posts I will address Mr. Barna’s distinction of the Church vs. church, his understanding of fellowship and community and his assertion that the local church as found today is at best “abiblical”. 

But let’s at least begin by acknowledging that whatever is happening today in the world, has been happening for at least half a generation and probably a lot longer.  All that’s changed is one man is now giving up  on equipping the church to face the challenge of our age. 

Indulging individualism is not that revolutionary to me.

Revolution or Retreat?

I am a church guy. 

Twenty years of pastoral ministry, two books and a Ph. D. on the subject and I still have trouble recognizing myself as such, but it is true.  I remember being a young youthworker running Campus Life clubs for Youth for Christ and talking passionately about the difference between “religion” and “relationship”, about the need to be a disciple of Jesus and that there is “no church to join, no institution to support, nothing to do but believe and follow Jesus.”  If you had told me 25 years ago that I was going to be the pastor of a church I would have laughed.  I figured it was far more likely that I would end up a flamenco dancer.  Youth evangelist? Sure.  Missionary?  Ok.  Urban social worker, leader of a parachurch organization or movement or radical group?  Possibly. 

As a young Christian, I was weaned on ideas like living on the “cutting edge” of the faith, the “frontlines” of mission, about being a “pioneer” and not a “settler”.  I really considered myself as part of the “radical” maybe even “revolutionary” fringe of followers who lived out our faith and didn’t just “go to church.” 

To me, back then, church was boring, status quo and conservative.  So what happened to me?  How did I become “The Reverend Doctor”, rightly ordained and installed as a pastor in a mainline denomination?  Is it just that I settled or was there something more, something of God’s own spirit that led me see that now that the church, the local church, the often dysfunctional, frequently disappointing, and regularly dull gathering of people in every town and community is in fact the “cutting edge,” the “front lines” and indeed, in the words of Bill Hybels, “the hope of the world.” 

Indeed, that is why I started this blog a little over a year ago: to offer my voice, theological training and pastoral experience so that the Church universal would be strengthened through strengthening the local church. 

And as this New Year dawned, I took some time to do some thinking and prepared a series based on conversations with two vehemently unchurched people who spoke long and loud about how the church is irrelevant, hypocritical and all the rest.  That will have to wait a bit.  Just when I thought that the church needed to answer the challenge of the world, I found myself facing a most unexpected salvo from a brother in Christ whose work I have long admired.

George Barna has recently released a new book called Revolution, in which he declares that there are 20 million Christians out there who are “reshaping Christianity” and “rocking the nation”.  Barna’s intention in the book is to go from pollster, surveyor and equipper of church leaders to advocate for this “new breed” of Christians who are part of an “under-the-radar but seminal renaissance of faith that will remake the religious contours of this country over the coming quarter century” (p. 15). 

Who are these Revolutionaries?  They are people who are deeply committed to Christ, who are “confidently returning to a first-century lifestyle” and are those who see the local church as nothing more than one of many potential “mechanisms” that “can be instrumental in bringing us closer to (Jesus) and helping us be more like him.”  In other words, in Barna’s revolution, the local church is no more important than one of his books. 

Over the next few posts I will give Barna’s arguments the attention they deserve.  I believe he has thrown down a gauntlet that deserves to be taken up and that his challenges require biblically rooted responses.  I do not question his faith, his sincerity or his skills as a researcher, I have never met George Barna, but maybe through the power of the internet I will. So, here is my introduction.

Mr. Barna, Thank you for you work over the years.  I for one, am a better pastor and leader because of your writings.  I am grateful for your passion, your conviction and this challenge.  But, Mr. Barna, this is not a revolution, it is a retreat.  You and I share the same passion for the spiritual battle that rages around us.  And in your descriptions of the state of the church and faith in our culture, I have great confidence. 

But, in your prescriptions, Mr. Barna, you are wrong.

P.S. For some other reviews and thoughts see Jollyblogger, a recent article in CT, DJChuang offers even more links all worth as well including a quote from a blog that is so good, I wish I had said it.

MLK and What the Church is Supposed to Be

  The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Martin Luther King Jr.(1929 - 1968) , Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 1963

My Wish is Granted

Back at GodBlogCon, Hugh Hewitt asked John Mark Reynolds, Mark D. Roberts and I who we wished would blog.  I immediately answered "I wish Rob Asghar would re-start his blog." When offering my rationale, I mentioned that Rob's voice is a rare one in most evangelical circles.  He was born and raised literally all over the world, he is Pakistani by heritage and an adult convert to Christianity.  Now a Presbyterian elder, Rob, (he's given name is Saquib), is both intelligent and insightful.  He is also really funny.

Today I got my wish.  Rob is blogging again.

A long time speech writer on the staff at USC, Rob has been an editor and ghostwriter for some luminaries and even a kind of "literary personal trainer" for one particular pastor who struggled with making his dissertation more accessible and relevant to church leaders (ahem.)

But, and maybe this is the biggest reason we need Rob's voice. In the words of Mark Roberts that day: "He's also a Democrat!" 

Following the advice of Hugh Hewitt who said that when pastors start preaching politics we are conducting "amateur hour", I usually stay away from clear partisan political discussion.  But believing that the furthering of the Kingdom of heaven requires political involvement at many levels often leaves me feeling like I am dog-paddling in the deep end. 

So, I turn to tutors to help me learn and grow. In many ways, my own political and philosophical underpinnings are most helped by Hugh Hewitt on one hand and Rob Asghar on the other.   While both of the men are Christians (Presbyterian elders), they often offer perspectives that differ from each widely.   They both talk about the seismic shifts in our culture since 9/11, but both of them have been shaped by their life experiences.  Every family gathering, Rob sits down with devout Muslims who are as angry at terrorism as any blue-state republican.  But they also grieve current US Foreign policy and fear the backlash. 

Rob will often push me to consider how co-opted Christianity has become by conservative politics and why the rough-and-tumble tone of so much political talk-radio speak has now become commonplace even for Christians. 

My next wish is for some genuine dialogue--Christian dialogue--about the things of the kingdom and the responsibilities of people who are devout followers of Jesus regarding politics and and social change.  I wish for Rob Asghar and Hugh Hewitt to get to know each other and talk face to face and exchange good, respectful, perspectives that will enhance all of us and help each of them to help their common "side" become more faithful to our Kingdom commission. 

So, will my second wish come true? 

P.S.  Since I am celebrating Rob's return, I also want to celebrate another friend (and Rob blog nemesis) who has just started a blog.  Dave Grecu is decidedly more in the Hugh camp (if that is fair to say) but Rob and Dave are good friends and able conversationalists.  I encourage you to check out Dave's blog also.

A Great, Great Gift

Recently in reading through my "regular" blogs I was surprised to stumble across Mark D. Roberts new website, The Daily Psalm.  This devotional site is truly a gift.  EVERY SINGLE DAY Mark offers a Psalm to read, some devotional thoughts and a prayer for the day.  It's really good. 

As anything Mark offers would be.  In this series of posts he gives some background, including his experience being one of the primary writers of The Worship Bible.  In addition Mark has written an excellent book on "praying the Psalms" called No Holds Barred (a book that is worthy of a far more lengthy and positive review than I have managed to give it thus far.)  Once again, Mark demonstrates why he is the preeminent pastor-blogger.

The Daily Psalm is so good, that I am going to be emailing this post to every single person in my church today to tell them about it.  I truly believe that more and more people will pray more, and pray more biblically, if they learn to use God's prayer book.  Mark Roberts has made the Psalms accessible and genuinely helpful in tutoring us in learning to pray. 

I know that I am going to be reading it most every day.

(Full disclosure: Mark Roberts is one of my very best friends.  I am letting you all know this because a) I am proud to be Mark's friend, and b) I don't want anyone to think that I am promoting Mark's website with any unspoken motive.  You'll notice that I said from the outset that I "stumbled across" Mark's new site.  He didn't ask me to promote it at all.  In fact, he didn't even tell me he was doing it. Which, is not surprising if you know Mark.  He just quietly and unassumingly goes about doing what he does with genuine excellence and humility. If you ask me how Mark can generate so much incredible material, all I can say is that he is smarter than most of us and that he really loves research and writing.  Mark thinks of blogging as his hobby.  Rarely does a hobby do so much good for so many.  Thanks Mark.  What a gift.)

For my quiet beauty for saying yes

With just one word you brought laughter and depth,
joy and calm into the storm that was my soul.

With one word you made my life rich and real,
What was broken now nurtured, strong and whole.

With one word beauty entered the grayness
Abundance, the barrenness of my heart

With just one word, a banquet of living,
A feast of grace, days now pieces of art

With just one word so many years ago…
Thank you, bless you, for saying yes to me. 

Happy Anniversary, Beth
I love you.