Antipas Harris introduces the Norfolk Police Department Clergy Patrol.

Watch the story that was featured on national television. Norfolk pastors and the Norfolk Police Department discussed the Clergy Patrol on the 700 Club (CBN), Monday morning, Feb 12, at 9am EST.

Learn how pastors and clergy work together to engage Norfolk, Virginia residents.

Dexter Low attended Fuller Theological Seminary and was mentored by the late Dr. C. Peter Wagner (page xi). He is an apostolic leader who founded the Latter Rain Church of Malaysia. In this, his first book, he writes about how to transform communities, cities, and nations. He not only sets forth plans or principles he also provides facts and figures about what has already been done to bring about transformation in various places. Low says, “God’s mandate is to restore all people and all nations to their original intent by fulfilling the Great Commission” (page xix).

The author maintains that in order to truly transform a city or nation the seven spheres of influence have to be impacted. These spheres are: Family, Religion, Government, Media, Education, Business, and Arts and Entertainment (page 44). The list of the seven spheres of influence was put together by Loren Cunningham of Youth With A Mission (YWAM) and Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, who each independently identified these same seven spheres of influence (page 44). Low believes that transformation is not just a theory but that it can be a reality (page xxi). He says two elements that are vital to transformation are “persevering leadership” and alignments with other people who have the same mindset (page xxi). Working together is not always easy but Low says “We must not allow past wounds and disagreements to get in the way of progress” (page 8). Society as a whole must be impacted. The author reminds us that “God wants to bring down heaven on earth” (page 15). Jesus told us to pray that God’s will would be done on earth as it is done in heaven (Matthew 6:10). Low illustrates the reality of transformation by providing examples from a number of different places in the world including Malaysia, Guatemala, and the Philippines (pages 2-9).

In order to bring about the transformation of a nation, Low says there must be a change in the church’s thinking. He identifies seven areas of thinking that must change in order for transformation to take place. The following is his list: Mind-set of the Separation between Church and State, The Stained Glass Mind-Set vs. the Market Place Mind-Set, Mind-Set of Withdrawal vs. Engaging, Escapism Mind-Set vs. Kingdom Mind-Set, Poverty Mind-Set vs. Prosperity Mind-Set, Local Church Mind-Set vs. Kingdom Mind-Set, Negative Mind-Set vs. Positive Mind-Set (page 21). He addresses these various mindsets in the remainder of chapter three. There is a reason why these changes must take place. Low says (specifically with reference to the Stained Glass Mind-Set vs. the Marketplace Mind-Set), “When we think that we can only minister within the church, we will never make any impact or change in our communities” (page 27).

Gordon Smith’s book deals with a central piece of Pentecostal life: conversion. Thoughtfully read, it can deepen understanding and expectations of conversion, which in turn have evangelistic and pastoral implications. On the other hand, it will challenge much that is taken as unquestioned fact regarding conversion. Because of this challenge, some may bypass it altogether. But it would be better to read it and take away as much as presently possible.

The occasion of writing is Smith’s observation that nineteenth century revivalism has set our understanding and language of conversion. It is assumed that conversion is entirely a point action, that the focus of conversion is religious activity, and that the goal of conversion is life in heaven. The problem is that Bible teachers have much more to say on the subject. The concept of conversion has a history that is largely ignored, and that other streams of Christianity have been dealing with this subject for a much longer time. Beyond this, evangelicalism as a whole is undergoing changes. No longer can an Anglo-American perspective be considered the norm. Evangelicalism is a world-wide phenomenon with the majority consisting of Pentecostals and the pentecostalized.

Gordon T. Smith is the president of Ambrose University College and Seminary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

The language of conversion is important. Many evangelicals feel alienated from their churches when their genuine experience does not match the patterns of conversion either preached or broadly assumed. Additionally, if language about conversion does not reflect how people actually come to Christ, evangelism methods will be skewed. Though nineteenth century revivalism rightly emphasized the necessity, possibility and current invitation of conversion, it never addressed some major difficulties. Conversion and salvation are made out to be synonymous when in fact, they are not. Salvation becomes something that “happened” when a commitment was made. As true as that is, NT language of salvation “happening” and “will happen” must receive equal weight. Salvation is the work of God; conversion is the human response to God’s initiative. Again, conversion is seen as simple and without struggle. Without implying that there is a minimum threshold of difficulty, conversion counts the cost and leads one to become a “disciple,” one that actually is in the game. Revivalist inspired language leaves us with the notion that one gets converted (saved), and then we must make every effort to get him or her “discipled.” We have gone from a necessary noun to a hopeful verb. Furthermore, the place of children of believers is left ambiguous. Do they need conversion? Does a child’s conversion look like that of an adult? If a child is converted at age five, is there any place for further conversion at, say, sixteen after profound personal development? For Pentecostals especially, how is the NT connection between conversion, baptism and the gift of the Spirit fostered?

Prior to revivalism, there was the evangelicalism represented by Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Though of differing theological commitments, both shared an engagement with the beginning and progress of the life of God in the soul. They understood the integration of the affections, the intellect and the will in both conversion and salvation. They understood the place of both process and crisis as the grace of God was encountered. Knowing that mere talk of conversion was cheap, they looked for change in a person’s life. It was a different era. Unlike his predecessors, Edwards found a way to bring the gospel invitation into a person’s grasp. And unlike his successors, Wesley was no revivalist in the later sense of the term. This leads to Smith’s reminder, needing broad proclamation, that how conversion is understood has a long history, and that there are others who have experience with conversion, long preceding our own, from which we might learn.

The shocking parable of the Good Samaritan provides an example of how the church can be an agent of transformation. In this story from Luke 10, a despised minority person demonstrates God’s love and shows today’s Christians the essence of authentic social transformation.

Image: Romary / Wikimedia Commons.

The story of the Good Samaritan is one of the best-known and best-loved of Jesus’ parables. For many it has become the story of the archetypal good guy who unselfishly helps a stricken stranger. What is more, he does so at great personal expense and inconvenience and without the prospect of getting anything in return. To be sure the above portrayal is there, but the story is much more than that. In fact, beneath the story is a paradigm of how God wants those in His kingdom to affect their world.

A Lawyer’s Bold Question

The Lawyer’s Astute Answer, But Hidden Motive vv. 27-29

Without hesitation (I imagine), the lawyer quotes two verses that summarize the heart of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ [Deut. 6:5]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” [Lev. 19:17]. His answer actually distills Israel’s covenantal responsibility to two all-encompassing principles of the Torah, i.e., to love God supremely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus can hardly find fault with this answer. After all, on another occasion, the Pharisees asked Jesus to identify the greatest commandment in the Law, and he answered with the same two scriptures adding, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (See Matt. 22: 37-40). Consequently, Jesus affirms the correctness of his answer and says, “Do this and you will live.”⁴ Nevertheless, the answer raises the fundamental dilemma for a Jew. Under the Law, the covenant responsibility of loving God is inseparable from loving ones neighbor as oneself. Jewish teachers tended to identify “neighbor” with “fellow countryman” (i.e., Israelite).⁵ However, the broader context of Moses’ instruction was given to all the congregation of Israel (Lev. 19:2) and dealt with how they were to conduct themselves as a “holy” people. This included how they were to treat the “stranger” (v. 10) in the land. The lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” is really asking, “To whom do I owe that covenantal love Moses spoke about?”

The power of personal faith in Christ changing people and society around them. A study in Luke 19:1-10 by James D. Hernando.

Zacchaeus by Niels Larsen Stevns / Wikimedia Commons.

The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most intriguing in Luke’s gospel—a literary masterpiece filled with vivid imagery, drama, and biting irony. It is the story of the conversion of an arch villain in Jewish society who has a transforming encounter with the Lord. But it also offers marvelous insight into how the church transforms society one converted sinner at a time.

Enter the Villain

Luke quickly opens his story by introducing the main character in the briefest fashion. However, English readers seldom catch the innuendo of the Greek syntax. “There was a man called by name Zacchaeus.” Luke is undoubtedly calling attention to the man’s name, which is derived from the Hebrew root¹ meaning “pure” or “acquitted one.” The irony leaps out from Luke’s pen with the ensuing words, “and he was a chief tax collector.” Tax collectors (Gk. telonai) were locals hired by cities and towns to collect taxes for the Romans. Zacchaeus was a “chief” tax collector (Gk. architelones), which meant he probably had supervision over a region and number of tax collectors. Luke’s words “and he was rich” would certainly not go unnoticed by Jews in Jesus’ day. The privilege of collecting taxes was offered at a steep price and those who held that job set tax rates that often exceeded by far any quotas demanded by Rome. While tax-collectors had no authority to confiscate funds or property, they held great leverage over the people as they could exact severe penalties by reporting tax delinquency to the Romans. This they often did whether the charge were true or not.² And so here Luke presents an arch villain who is ironically named. He was anything but someone of pure or blameless character; he was, in fact, the exact opposite of his name. Keep in mind also that “tax-collectors” were notorious for their corruption and the mere mention of their profession aligned them with “sinners.” (See Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:15f; Luke 5:30).

The Action of Zacchaeus