Be My Witnesses

3 Tips to Help Visitors Feel Welcome

2009-09-02T14:18:00.002-04:00

At my church, we will be having an open house service in a couple weeks in which we have specifically invited everyone our church has touched this year. We expect several guest families to come and potentially many more than that. With the open house in mind, I thought I’d offer a few tips I’m sharing with my congregation to make our guests feel welcome. Really, these ideas are useful on any Sunday and so I’m presenting them here on the blog:

1. Arrive on time or early. While this is especially true for greeters, nursery workers, and Sunday school teachers, it’s a good habit for all of us. Visitors are most often on time. Coming to church as a visitor is awkward already. It becomes even more awkward to walk into an empty church or be directed to an empty classroom. More than one visitor has done a “drive-by” at a church and never came in the door because there were too few cars in the parking lot. Arriving on time communicates that you value what is taking place and that others should value it too.

2. Everyone is a greeter. Yes, most churches assign greeters each week to hand out bulletins, welcome packets, and give general directions. Still, after an initial greeting, many visitors feel awkwardly alone and out of place. All church members should see themselves as greeters too and be aware of those visitors among them. So introduce yourself, show guests where to go, ask if they got a welcome packet, invite them to attend class with you or sit with your family, introduce them to other church members, include them in your conversations. Don’t just say “hello.” Go the extra mile to make guests feel like they could be a part of your church.

3. Observe the “three minute rule.”[1] Most visitors leave within three minutes of the close of the service while church members linger for ten to fifteen minutes. Make a special effort to use the first three minutes after the service to engage a visitor. Let them know how glad you are that they came. Try to get to know them a little better. If you have after church lunch plans with other church members, or are having a small group or other gathering that week, invite them to come along.

These are just a few ideas to help you be more effective in making your guests feel welcome. Help visitors see a real opportunity to be one of you and not an outsider. I’m glad to be part of a church with outstanding fellowship. We’re working hard to make it an open and expanding fellowship!

Blessings,

Todd

[1]I got the idea for the “3-minute rule” from Ed Stetzer.

Questions for a Denomination in Decline

2009-08-20T12:56:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, I took the time to listen to a live video stream of Dr. R. Albert Mohler speaking on the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Today, that speech is available to watch online. You can find the address at http://www.conventionalthinking.org/

Toward the end of the address, Dr. Mohler asked a list of questions that Southern Baptists must answer as we look to the future. I find them valuable for discussion on both the national level, but also for state conventions, associations, and even the local church. I offer them here (slightly reworded for this post) for you to consider. If you can take the time, I recommend listening to the entire address.

Here are questions SOuthern Baptists must ask as we move forward and must be answered if we hope to continue to be a people who make an impact for His kingdom:

Will we be missiological or bureaucratic?
Is our identity theological or tribal?
Is the basis of our work together convictional or confused?
Is our logic going to be more sectarian or more secular?
Will we become younger or dead?
Will we be more diverse or more diminished?
Will we be more missional or more methodological?
Will we be more strategic or more anemic?
Will we be more bold or more boring?
Will we be happy or bitter?
Are we willing to risk keeping the structural and institutional issues open as we stand on our convictional and theological foundation?

I, for one, am glad that Dr. Mohler is a part of the GCR Task force. I hope that Southern Baptists will consider these issues and that local churches, associations, conventions, and the denomination as a whole will choose to make whatever changes are necessary to engage the present world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
Todd

A Chance to Demonstrate the Priority of Missions

2009-07-31T08:27:00.005-04:00

How important is the Great Commission? Important enough that Jesus gave it as his final command. This central command of the New Testament is a corporate command. While the command has implications and application to individuals, it is given to the church as a body. Each of the four gospels and the book of Acts contains a commissioning statement, the most famous of which is in Matthew’s gospel:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt 28:18-20

How important is the Great Commission to my local church? Important enough that it is at the heart of our mission statement: “Harvest Baptist Fellowship exists to glorify God and make His Son known throughout the world to this generation.” Important enough to be the climax of our church’s core values: “At Harvest Baptist Fellowship, we value a commitment to the . We will express this commitment through …the training of believers in personal evangelism and Christian discipleship, as well as through the sending, equipping and financing of missions efforts locally, regionally, and internationally.”

How important is my church’s commitment to the Great Commission now? Important enough to take a special offering for international missions at the end of this month. Earlier in the year, our International Mission Board reported a massive shortfall in missions giving. Due to the recent economic climate, churches had given less to the cooperative program, resulting in less money for international missions. In addition, the annual Lottie Moon offering for international missions fell a whopping $30,000,000 short of its goal. As a result of this budget crisis, the trustees of our mission board were faced with tough decisions including cuts in personnel and a reduction of new missionary appointments to some of the most unreached areas of the world.

When my co-pastor Chris and I heard this news, our hearts sank. We knew that our church needed to take action. In our quarterly business meeting, our church voted to amend our 2009 budget to shift some of our money to missions. At the same time, we came up with the idea of “Christmas in July” – Harvest would take up a special summer Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for missions to further help make up the shortfall. Little did we know that hundreds of other churches had the same idea. The proposal has been now made that SBC churches have a “Christmas in August” offering for international missions. Thus, at the end of August, we at Harvest will have another opportunity to show that the Great Commission is indeed a core value of our church and the heart of our mission. On Sunday, August 30, Harvest will answer the call and join hundreds of fellow Baptist churches in this special opportunity to give.

Whether you are a member of my church or not, pray for this offering. Ask God how he wants you to participate in this special opportunity to support the Lord’s work. Give sacrificially. If you are not a Southern Baptist, I encourage you to prayerfully consider a special gift in August to the missions sending agency of your choice – chances are, they are having similar financial difficulty. Besides, bad economy or not, giving to missions is always in season. I pray that Southern Baptists and other Great Commission Christians will rise to the occasion and meet this financial challenge.

To God be the glory!

Blessings,
Todd

Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor's Conference

2009-07-01T16:01:00.001-04:00

Returning from the SBC Annual Meeting, Pastor Chris and I (with Jeremy) came home with several “take-aways” from the pastor’s conference. Two sermons were particularly striking and left us challenged and coming back to important questions about life and ministry.

The first sermon was by Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in Simi Valley, CA. I really tracked with him in this sermon and found that I have been asking similar questions as he has measured his life and ministry against what he sees in the New Testament. In the take-away point of the sermon, Chan asked, “Do I really want to know the will of God? . . . what would God do with me right now if he had complete control of me?” In thinking through his question myself, and having wrestled with the text of Philippians in our present sermon series at Harvest, I found myself asking further questions: How would I spend my money if God really had complete control of my checkbook? How would I spend my time if God really had complete control of my schedule and calendar? How would I use my possessions for God’s glory if God really had complete control of my resources? What things would I have to give up if I were really willing to give it all for the sake of the gospel?

While still pondering the questions raised by Chan’s sermon, another compelling message was brought from Hebrews 13 by David Platt, pastor of Brook Hills Church in Birmingham Alabama. The main question for his sermon was “Are we going to live in our religion or die in our devotion?” or, put another way “Will we retreat from the mission of God or will we give everything for the sake of his mission?” His was perhaps the most compelling sermon I have heard at any pastor’s conference. In the sermon, Platt exalted the glory of Christ and the importance of living to make Him known. The question before us was not did we believe in the mission of Christ or even were we willing to commit to it. Platt placed before us two options: retreat or risk it all!

These two sermons are ones I’m still chewing on. The implications, if seriously considered, are staggering. I’m still thinking and praying through what this means for my life and for our church, but I am willing to take up the challenge. I want to know and do God’s will. I want to risk it all for the glory of Christ! Think and pray through these challenges with me and let us do all to fulfill our mission to glorify God and make His Son known throughout the world to this generation.

A quick word on Tuesday at the SBC

2009-06-24T07:28:00.003-04:00

No real time to blog while here, but let me say how what a victory yesterday was.
Despite several discouraging motions and one address that was less than unifying, the overall tenor of the Convention has been one of optimism, unity around the gospel, and a willingness to work together and make needed changes in order to see a Great Commission Resurgence among Southern Baptists.

The SBC voted to appoint a Great Commission Task force. That may mean nothing to many readers that are not up on, or even concerned about, SBC politics. Let me say this. Yesterday was a a major victory for cooperation, for unity around the gospel, for unity among older and younger evangelicals, and for the Great Commission. The results have been immediately obvious. There are more young pastors at the annual meeting than I have ever seen. Messengers who differ on many tertiary issues are unifying around the gospel. Most of all, I am seeing an optimism from my peers that I have not seen nor even expected for many years.

The future looks bright in the SBC!

Take-aways from the Pastor's Conference

2009-06-23T07:33:00.002-04:00

As always, I leave the pastor's conference with a few points to ponder and on which I will be reflecting when I return home.

Here are a few of the salient points I gleaned from the Pastor's conference:

Ed Stetzer – God has already made us ONE, we just have to live it out.

Francis Chan – Do I really want to know the will of God? What would God do with me right now if he had complete control of me?

David Platt – Will we retreat from the mission of God or will we give everything for the sake of the gospel?

Johnny Hunt – Is it possible that Southern Baptists have lost the capacity to believe the miraculous? (esp. in terms of fulfilling the Great Commission)

Mark Dever – We need to recover the corporate nature of the church – we must worship God ourselves, but not by ourselves.

On the Great Commission Resurgence document -- Four axioms that seal the deal for me

2009-06-22T07:30:00.001-04:00

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention will be voting on whether or not to adopt the Great Commission Resurgence statement as the official position of the SBC. While most of the brouhaha has been over axiom nine, I believe the entire document is important. All ten axioms address issues that are pertinent to our Convention and which affect the spread of the gospel by those who cooperate as Southern Baptists. I look first to my own life and ministry and in voting for the GCR, commit with my fellow Baptists in all ten of these areas. Among the ten, however, four axioms seal the deal for me.

Axiom #2 – A commitment to gospel centeredness. I think too often the church has lost the centrality of the gospel message to all we do. To often we have made traditionalism on the one hand or innovation on the other become the focal point. At the same time we have focused our message on pet doctrines, felt needs, cultural woes without making the gospel the center-point of all. It is the gospel that changes lives and must return to the center of our lives and ministries if we are to have an impact for the kingdom of God.

Axiom #5 – A commitment to a healthy confessional center. At the heart of this axiom, is a commitment to end the bickering about tertiary issues and get about the business of partnering for the gospel. The most obvious of these disputes is on the issue of Calvinism and the fighting that has seemed unending between those who affirm the “doctrines of grace” and those who oppose Calvinism. Already, we have seen growth in this area leading up to this Convention. As a pastor of a church in which half its members are reformed and half or not, I have already experienced the ability of believers to unite around the gospel and its proclamation while remaining in cordial disagreement about this tertiary issue.

Calvinsim is not the only issue at stake, however. While the debate will continue about what issues are secondary and which are tertiary (see Mohler’s theological triage paradigm), affirming the GCR document will show a commitment to work together even while we sort out these issues. That goes for me, for example, in the case of being strongly against the IMB personnel policies while continuing to be an avid supporter of the IMB and Lottie Moon. More could be said about this, but axiom 5 is a move in the right direction toward cooperation.

Axiom#8 -- A Commitment to a Methodological Diversity that is Biblically Informed. To me, this one should be a no-brainer, but for all our talk of methodological diversity, we are too often in the practice of questioning and criticizing the practices of others on non-biblical grounds. We ought to focus, instead, on our own particular context and the continuing process of developing new biblical and contextual methods for reaching the nations. I am in agreement with Ed Stetzer who recently quipped, “Southern Baptists will be on record affirming methodological diversity … If only we would will listen to that call...”

Axiom #9 -- A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. Much has been written on this issue, so I won’t belabor the point, but I support Axiom #9. There has been much debate on whether this belongs in a Great Commission document, and I for one believe it does. Southern Baptist Great Commission work is based on cooperation and that cooperation is based on our Convention Structure. We should be in a continual evaluation of our structure to be efficient and effective stewards of God’s resources. We should not be afraid to restructure, remove bureaucracy where it exists, and yes, even downsize our state conventions to move to 50/50 split of CP funds.

Well, I have to be off. Preaching Conference starts in an hour and I haven’t yet finished my coffee. If you are attending the SBC, please be informed about this document and then support it when it comes time for a vote. If you are not attending, please pray for the SBC and its messengers as we together decide on this and other important issues.

Blessings,
Todd

p.s. For further reading, among the many commentaries and opinions available on the Webb, Nathan Finn has offered an excellent series of blog posts on the document.

Thoughts about SBC "Good old boys"

2009-06-17T01:11:00.003-04:00

Today, I had a conversation with a good friend about Convention politics and his perception of a good ol’ boy’s network. Here is a brief synopsis of my opinion on the matter:

The commonly referred to “good ol’ boys network” is largely a myth. In my opinion, such a perceived network is usually nothing more than godly men and women who, through experience and relationship, have learned to trust one another and know one-another’s character. If you are not involved, no such relationship, knowledge, trust and confidence occurs. Even if you are involved, considering the vast number of participating Baptists, you may not be asked to serve as a trustee or officer of one of our entities. If you are not involved, you can be assured that you won’t be. In the process of selecting leaders, occasionally, nepotism may occur. Granted, effort should be made to include a wider group of people. Sure, there are sometimes cases when politics get a bit dirty and responses are less than Christian. Still, I submit that such cases are not the norm and are in fact rare. Most often, rather, men and women are selected because of prior knowledge of that person’s life, work, and character.

Think about it for a moment. If you were asked to serve on the nominating committee of your state or the SBC and submit names for consideration, how would you go about it? Would you sit down with a list of names you don’t know, of people who have been uninvolved, and begin calling around to learn about them? Or, would names naturally come to mind of men and women with whom you have prior experience, whose character you know, whose doctrine you trust, and whom you think would do a good job? If the latter, why should you object if others in such a position do the same?

Just a few thoughts.

Blessings,
Todd

Multiple Bible Translations -- part 2: The difficulty of defaulting to a single modern translation

2009-04-22T09:28:00.005-04:00

Addressing problem 1: The impossibility for many churches to “default” to a single modern translation.

In my first post, I provided a list of potential problems associated with multiple translations. In this post, I will expand on the first of these “problems.” The listing of this first issue as a problem is perhaps misleading. First, it is not “impossible” to default to a single translation. Many churches have indeed done so, and without fanfare. For many churches, however, defaulting to a single translation is difficult because it demands us to make certain choices are do a lot of extra work. So, having only one translation is not impossible, but for many congregations, such a move can only be done with great difficulty, by significantly narrowing the choice of programs and materials, or by opting for a translation that is not the one preferred. Here are some of the options for those churches who desire to be a single-translation church:

• Choose denominational curriculum and materials. Usually, denominational materials are available in a consistent translation. The problem here is that the translation is either outdated (e.g. NKJV or NIV) or is not the one you want (e.g. while the HCSB is a fine translation, some churches might not prefer it over, say, the NLT or ESV). Also, one is limited to those programs and materials provided by their denomination.

• Provide the single, preferred, translation along side the one in the curriculum via handouts, powerpoint, etc. While such provision is certainly an option, it is also time-consuming and may be costly. I am not aware of any churches that do this, though I provide it as a possibility – at least hypothetically.

• Write your own curriculum and materials. Many churches have opted to develop their own resources for Sunday school, discipleship, evangelism, and other materials. While there are advantages and disadvantages beyond the Bible translation issue, such an approach does allow a church to achieve consistency in Bible translation if that is their desire.

So, to say that it is impossible to be a single modern translation church is not really accurate. Defaulting to a single translation is indeed an option for many churches and can be done with varying degrees of difficulty and accommodation depending on the values and resources of the church.

Another reason this first issue may not be a “problem” is that even if it is possible for a church to default to a single translation, such a practice may not be the best practice anyway. The single-translation problem is only a problem if having a single translation is a desired value of the church.

In many languages, only one translation is available. English speakers, however, have benefited from the availability of numerous Bible translations. Admittedly, the number of translations strikes me a bit as over-kill and is, in part, economically motivated. Granted, also, not all translations are created equal and there is some discernment required in selecting which Bible translations to use. Still, there are more than a few Bible translations that are conservative and trustworthy renderings of the biblical text into our language.

The question concerning limiting Bible use to a single translation is whether or not any one translation can fulfill all the functions of an adequate translation. Ultimately, the question becomes one of readability versus word for word correspondence or, to use translation parlance, between literal and dynamic equivalent translations.

If the Bible, as God’s word is to be useful for “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness,” is there any single translation that accomplishes all of those purposes? Because there are many available translations that are trustworthy, perhaps it is better to enjoy the benefits of multiple translations and work around the problems. Most church members are not proficient in the biblical languages. Church members come in a variety of reading levels, and functional vocabularies. Given these realities, many churches will see the value in the prudent use of multiple translations, accompanied by education concerning how and why they are different. The use of multiple translations, both literal and dynamically equivalent, may in fact ultimately yield a better understanding and obedience to God’s word among God’s people – and isn’t that a primary goal of translation?

Multiple Bible Translations – part 1: A Blessing and a Curse

2009-04-04T10:03:00.006-04:00

In today’s Christian market, at least in the English world, we have the benefit of a number of solidly conservative translations available. Modern translations with which I am personally comfortable and recommend include the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NKJV and yes, even the TNIV. These translations fall on varying degrees of the dynamic equivalence / literal scale, but all are trustworthy and accurate renderings of the biblical text. The variety and number of translations holds many benefits for the modern English reader:

• The Bible is accessible to many reading levels and to readers who have little or no Bible background.
• Students of the Bible can compare texts to aid in comprehension
• Students can identify difficult passages without a knowledge of the original language
• Fewer instances of false doctrines and/or misunderstandings occur that are based on a the use of a particular English word
• Believers can find a Bible they can read, understand, and put into practice.
• Different translations are available for different purposes
• The availability of “competing” translations ensures that each of the Bible publishers and translation committees put out the highest quality product.

There are many benefits and I have not addressed them all here. For the most part, I am pleased to live in an era where the Bible is so readily available and accessible to all.

Along with these benefits, however, come a number of problems for the pastor and church planter in terms of practical ministry. This is especially true today, because no translation has emerged as the dominant translation for evangelical believers. Thirty years ago, we basically used either the King James or NIV. Even ten years ago, I defaulted to the NIV because “that’s the version un-churched people can buy at Wal-mart.” Today, however, the multiplicity of translations – even those available outside Christian bookstores – is remarkable … and problematic.

Here are a few issues that result:

1. The impossibility for many churches to “default” to a single modern translation.
In my church, for example, we do AWANA. The curriculum is available in NKJV or NIV. The kids memorize scripture in one of these two translations. Our Sunday School literature, however, is only available in HCSB. I preach from the ESV. I prefer the NLT or TNIV for new believers or those who are new to the Bible. Plus, my preferred outreach testament (Here’s hope) is only available in NKJV, NIV, or HCSB. Preferred gospel tracts are also available in only certain translations. All this makes it impossible to choose one single translation as the main translation used in our church.

2. The difficulty of choosing a translation for evangelism. What Bible do we recommend and/or give to a new believer? What Bible do we use for outreach? In my case, I prefer Bibles on the dynamic equivalent end of the spectrum for use with evangelism or new believers. Choosing such a translation would be no problem, except that the translations that are most accessible to the beginning Bible reader are NOT the translations that are available in the curriculums and resources that we use. We end up again with no consistent translation or new believers must read a more difficult translation.

3. The problem of consistency in Bible memorization. Since there is no “standard”, what translation do we use for Bible translation – especially with our kids? Because there is no standard, people may differ with each other or, worse, may themselves memorize from multiple translations. For those who cherish consistency, that is a problem. The problem is more prominent when you consider that in many churches the children’s curriculums, most of which have Bible memory components, don’t match in terms of translation (e.g. AWANA vs. Lifeway).

4. An inability to “follow along” in the preaching. This problem is particularly applicable to me as a preacher because I am often asked, “what Bible do you preach from?” Translation: “I want to buy an expensive leather Bible and I want it to be what you use in the sermons so I can follow along in my Bible – oh and don’t go changing your mind after I shell out all that money.” Ok, so that’s a little exaggerated, but you get the point. Many Christians in evangelical churches have been trained to bring their Bible to church and to open it during the sermon. Translations are different enough in word choice and order of phrases that following along is near impossible unless you have the same translation as the preacher.

5. Confusion when choosing a translation. Most church members have little or no conception of translation theory and the reason why certain translations do what they do. As a result, they don’t know how to choose a translation. Often, believers want to know what I think is the best translation. Some assume that the translation I use in the pulpit is what I think they should buy, but are confused when that is not the one we use elsewhere.

6. A lack of trust in the words of Scripture. Some Christians find the multiplicity of Bible translations (much like the multiplicity of Christian denominations) disconcerting. Because so many translations are available, some Christians lack guidance and confidence that the Bible in their hands is trustworthy. The problem is compounded by those that are privy to the in house and online controversies surrounding some translations – not to mention the KJV only crowd.

All of these and more are common problems associated with the availability and use of multiple Bible translations. You have probably experienced many or all of them. All in all, however, I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Churches should embrace the blessings of modern evangelical scholarship in English translations despite the issues that arise because of the multiplicity of such translations. Someday, one modern version may emerge as the dominant one for use by evangelical Christians and churches as the NIV did in the previous generation. In the mean time, pastors and churches will have to be creative and purposeful in addressing the problems that come with the variety. I have some ideas for that, but you’ll have to wait for the next post. :)

Blessings,
Todd

An "Experiencing God" Moment

2009-03-24T21:55:00.005-04:00

Nothing profound or particularly poignant in this post, just a brief testimony of a door God is opening for our church and which we are looking forward to going through. Here is a brief bullet point synopsis:

• A door for ministry in our church, one that had been open and was a primary outreach ministry, closed. We tried to reopen it, and prayed for it to reopen, but it remained closed.
• I began praying for new ways for our church to minister to our community.
• My fellow pastor, a few leaders, and our prayer team began to pray for an opportunity for ministry.
• The past ministry door transformed to a different but still significant ministry. In the mean time, God was working on another door…
• A local, large multi-housing complex sent a letter to its tenants asking if there was any interest in organizing an Easter egg hunt and possibly gathering for an early service on Easter morning.
• The newsletter found its way to me.
• I approached the apartment manager about his letter and offered the assistance of our church. I gave him two weeks to think about it and said I would contact him to discuss the idea further.
• Our church prayed corporately for two weeks about the opportunity.
• We made a more specific plan for the event and for ongoing ministry in the MH complex.
• We sought the best way and time to pitch the idea to the manager.
• Before I could call him, he called me.
• He asked if we were still wanting to do ministry in his apartment community.
• I met with him and pitched our plan for Easter weekend and ongoing ministry after that.
• He is excited about having our church hold this event/service and prepare for ongoing ministry to his 1200+ tenants.
• Turns out, though the complex is owned by a secular corporation, the manager and two of his staff are born again Christians and want to see their complex reached for Jesus Christ.
• We are planning for Easter weekend and looking forward to how God will work through us for His kingdom.

I share all this as a testimony of a current “Experiencing God” moment. God is still at work. Our church is beginning to see people saved and lives being changed. I’m thankful to be able to join Him in His work. May we be faithful to His call.

Now your turn...
SHARE YOUR TESTIMONY -- What's God doing where you are?

What kind of pastor will I be?

2009-03-23T19:12:00.001-04:00

In my ministry, I have come across two kinds of pastors.
I must choose which kind I want to be.

Will I be…

. . . a pastor who is an encouragement to those around them or a pastor who sucks the life out of others by my negative attitude?

. . . a pastor who see challenges as an opportunity for God to work or one who approaches challenges with a “can’t do” attitude?

. . . a pastor who talks about what God is doing in the lives of people or a pastor who complains about the difficult people?

. . . a pastor who loves people and invests in others or a pastor who sees people for how they can benefit me and my agenda?

. . . a pastor who is constantly critical of other ministers and ministries or a pastor who praises other ministers and ministries and comes alongside those who need support?

. . . a pastor who casts a vision and asks the congregations to give to it or a pastor who has no vision and complains about the church not having any money?

. . . a pastor who sees things as they can be or one who sees things as they’ll never be?

. . . a pastor who appreciates and seeks to carry on the legacy of those who have gone before or a pastor who is cynical of the older generation of leaders?

. . . a pastor who values fellow believers even when I disagree on secondary and tertiary issues or one who demonizes others with whom I disagree?

. . . a pastor who constantly talks about myself and my plans or a pastor who takes an interest in others?

. . . a pastor who embraces theological, philosophical, and methodological discussions from an “iron sharpens iron” point of view or one who debates others in an adversarial manner and seeks to win arguments at any cost?

. . . a pastor who prays for others or one who gossips about others?

. . . a pastor who spreads the gospel wherever I go or one who preaches, teaches, and talks about evangelism but never actually shares his faith with anyone?

. . . a pastor who walks by faith or one who walks by sight?

. . . a pastor who is desperately dependent on God or one who ministers in his own strength?

. . . a pastor for whom prayer is vital to my life and ministry or for whom prayer is an afterthought or a begrudging duty?

. . . a pastor with a vital and growing relationship with the Lord or one whose spiritual life is dull and lifeless?

. . . a pastor who puts ideas into action or one who posts lists on a blog and then forgets about them?

. . . a pastor who seeks first the kingdom of God or one who seeks first the kingdom of Todd?

One more post about The Shack: with "something else" to consider

2009-03-17T08:52:00.006-04:00

Well, The Shack has really been a hot topic of late. I first came across the book when a reading group from our church chose the book as their current read. This small group of women are reading with a critical eye and with a bent toward apologetics. I became troubled, however, as I looked beyond this group of Bereans (Acts 17:11) to the wider popularity and response to the book in Baptist life and the evangelical community at large.

I am troubled by the number of people, even people with a good deal of influence, that have no problem with the fact that the book undermines key tenets of the faith including the nature of God, the trinity, salvation, and the exclusivity of Christ. I won’t take the time to point out all the specific problems with the book here. Multiple reviews have done that already and can be found by a quick google search. As troubling as the book and its positive reception among many evangelicals is, however, I am equally troubled by something else.

Before I get to the “something else,” let me offer a brief rebuttal of four common arguments in defense of The Shack. After that, I’ll get to the “something else” which is not being discussed to any great length and is, perhaps, the crux of the issue for us who are evangelicals. A fair warning – this is a long post. If you’re already convinced about The Shack, or if there is any danger of losing you along the way, please skip ahead to the “something else.” I have marked it with a line of asterisks in the text. In fact, go ahead and skip to that now. If you still have nothing better to do, you can come back and read the rebuttal section later.

Here are my four rebuttal points:

1. “The Shack is a work of fiction.” – So what? Fiction has always presented a particular worldview, often for the purpose of promoting that worldview. Fiction, historically, has been a means by which the author can indirectly teach his or her opinion or message under the guise of a genre that is defended as innocuous. So The Shack is fiction. So is Animal Farm, 1984, A Brave New World, Anna Karenina, and everything Karen Kingsbury has ever written. Each of those works has a worldview agenda, even though they are works of fiction. Why should The Shack get a free pass just because of its genre?

2. “The Shack is no different than the Left Behind series or the Chronicles of Narnia.” Leaving behind the fact that these two examples are different forms of fiction writing, in terms of their promotion of a worldview, The Shack is absolutely different. The Left Behind series, for instance, indeed does promote or at least fall in line with a particular theological viewpoint. The issues at stake there, however, are not “first order” issues. Rather, the point of dispute is eschatology. An area, at least in my denomination, in which there is a great degree of freedom to disagree. A similar argument could be made concerning the Narnia books. In The Shack, the issues at stake are not peripheral or denominational, they cut to the core of the Christian faith. Much of the dialogue promotes a worldview that is not inline with historic orthodox Christianity. In that sense, it is completely different than the other popular Christian works with which it is often compared.

3. “We should trust Christians to use discernment. Warning people about a book is a form of legalism.” I have put two issues into one here. First, it is not legalism to expose the contents of the book, warn people of its dangers, encourage people not to read or if they do to do so with a heavy dose of discernment. Rather, it is an act of Christian love and part of the duty of true Christian fellowship. Legalism would say “you’re sinning if you read this book.” I do think it is unwise for many to read this book. I am not, however, laying down a legalistic requirement that Christians not read it. Further, warning people about The Shack is not a matter of trust. On the one hand, I would expect Christians to warn other Christians of dangers of all kinds. More importantly for me, as a pastor, it is my duty to warn my people of danger. The Bible clearly requires pastors to “guard the flock” (Acts 20:28) and correct and protect the church from false teaching. The Shack, whatever its intent, contains false teaching. For that reason, Christians and conscientious pastors should warn others of such.

4. “The Shack has helped me understand the problem of evil.” On its surface, this is the hardest for me to answer. The reason it is hard for me is that, I have always been a “chew up the meat, spit out the bones” kind of guy. It is always been my practice to learn from others with whom I disagree, even on essential issues. That practice is not without its exception, however. When I learn from others whose worldview is different than mine, I do not do so as my primary means of discovering an issue. That is, if I am studying the problem of evil, for example, I do not go first to a liberal theologian to find an answer. After studying the Scripture, I first look to find solid orthodox and evangelical teaching on the issue. Then, after I am thoroughly grounded, I look to others outside my context to see if there is any additional insight or questions that remain unanswered. All with a heavy dose of discernment. What does that have to do with The Shack? Many Christians are treating the book as a new “first source” on the problem of evil. Thus, they read or recommend the book and take in with it all of its false teaching merely because, presumably, the book does a good job on the problem of evil. Perhaps the book does have some helpful elements. But as one parishioner asked, if I may be crude for just a moment, “How much dog poop would have to be in the recipe before you wouldn’t eat one of my brownies?” There are better and more theologically sound books, fiction and non-fiction, that do a good job addressing the problem of evil without having to resort to a book with questionable theology on primary issues.

***************
There is something else to discuss. One important question remains – a question which those who are adamantly opposed to the book must address:
WHY IS THIS BOOK SO POPULAR?!?!?

Self-published books don’t soar to the top of best-seller lists for no reason. Obviously, there is something in this book that appeals to a large audience, both evangelical and otherwise. What is it, and why is it important for the church?

The answer may be profound. And, admittedly, I may not be right – although I think I am. The answer may even hold a wider key to many of the issues we have been discussing in the evangelical blogosphere including the decline of the SBC, the plateau in baptisms, the trend against denominationalism, and the growing bias against traditional evangelicalism. I think the answer does indeed have application for reclaiming unchurched Christians and reaching non-believers with the gospel. So, why is the book so popular?...

The Shack offers people what the church, by and large, does not – hope for and acceptance of messed up people.

Mack is a messed up person. He has real hurts. He has experienced real pain. He does not act and think the way a Christian ought to act and think. In fact, he questions and even blames God for what has happened to him. People relate to Mack. They relate to the pain and hurt and struggle and questions Mack has. And they find from Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu the kind of understanding and acceptance that is, for whatever reason, missing in the church.

Our church members are made up of mostly “respectable” people. Most churches where I live are made up of people who have been Christians and faithful followers for a long time. We have, at least in our experience, much in common with the older brother in the parable of the lost son. While we might not have his attitude, we can honestly say “these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command” (Luke 15:29, ESV). Many have never struggled with the “big” sins, or have managed to keep our struggles a secret. As a byproduct of our faithful lifelong commitment to Christ, however, we have little understanding of people who have problems and often don’t know how to respond.

Like Simon the Pharisee, we are disconcerted and often privately critical of persons who struggle with sin. We don’t get how a person can be a Christian and have depression or other emotional issues. We have no sympathy for men who battle lust and addiction to pornography, persons recovering from drug and alcohol dependence, singles who struggle with sexual abstinence, people contemplating suicide, divorce, or abortion, persons who continually make poor life choices, or persons who just have not reached our level of spiritual maturity. Even when our attitude is right, we don’t often offer people real help. Our spiritual arsenal is a list of proof texts, ought statements, and abstract moralisms. We have no real practical solutions or action steps. We do not offer ongoing emotional support and walking alongside struggling persons as a friend and brother. Our approach to sin is “don’t do it.”

Similarly, The Shack, for all its faults, communicates with people where they are. It allows Mack to be where he is in his struggle and does not condemn him for asking the big questions nor does it leave him without any direction. Our churches, however, often offer little in the way of real answers, real comfort, or ongoing care for hurting people. We are at a loss for how to deal with people who question God after the loss of loved one, people with chronic pain or conditions that are ongoing, widows and widowers who struggle with loneliness, single parents who struggle financially just to get by, persons struggling from the pain of divorce, adult victims of sexual abuse, the list goes on and on. We know instinctively that the Bible has answers for hurting, messed up people, but we struggle moving from the abstract to the concrete. Even when we have the right answers, somehow we are not communicating those answers effectively, nor approaching people with the kind of love and care that we ought to. When we are approached with real problems, our church answers can often be trite, shallow, cliché, insider language. We either grow impatient when people’s problems are not quickly resolved or we just forget that our brother or sister is hurting.

Because we tend to be program-driven rather than families of genuine koinonia, people become cogs in the machine that is church growth. People with problems, struggles, and issues don’t fit the machine. We don’t know what to do with them. They leave the church or are never reached because of sheer neglect.

We think that we are a friendly, open, and inviting community – and in our hearts, I believe we are. The perception from those on the outside, however, is that the church is a place where you can go if you have it all together or if you can hide the fact that you don’t. The lost world views us as bigots, homophobes, mysoginists, and, well, jerks. A growing number of unchurched Christians view the church as unforgiving, unaccepting, irrelevant and unhelpful for those who are dealing with deep and complex issues. We forget that we are messed up people too and are in desperate need of Jesus Christ.

I am not offering this as some kind of cynical prophet who wants to rail against the traditional church. I am part of the “traditional” church. This essay is in many ways a reflection of my own shortcomings as a Christian and minister. I offer this essay as a man who sees a disconnect in our churches and in my own ministry between the truths of the gospel we proclaim and the application of those truths to real lives. I see a disconnect between the biblical idea of koinonia and the practical outworking of relationships in the church and my own life. I desire to see the church be what it was meant to be and offer real hope for real lives.

All this means, then, that the response to The Shack needs to be two-sided. Not only must we warn of its dangers, we must seek to communicate truth in a clear and compelling way and come along side hurting messed up people. It is time for pastors, myself included, to really do the hard work of contextualization and quit using the same empty rhetoric with which we are familiar but which holds little significance for many of our hearers. Its time to reach out to people with genuine love and compassion and the investment that real relationship requires. Its time for us to see people the way God sees them. Its time to move beyond mere surface acquaintances with people who have it all together and join one another as fellow ministers of Christ on the journey that is the Christian life, with no brother or sister left behind.

I am not done thinking and writing on the issue of doctrinal fidelity or true missional Christianity and biblical koinonia. Neither will I be content to leave this issue to words on a blog rather than an earnest outworking of these concepts in my own life and ministry. In my mind, this balance is the issue of our time. We must fight for doctrinal and biblical fidelity, but we must also work hard to be bring the gospel to real people where they are and truly to grow together as followers of Jesus Christ. If there is a future for the evangelical church, we must get this right.

Highlights from our State Convention

2008-10-06T14:27:00.002-04:00

A few blessings from the annual meeting of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana:

This past weekend, the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana celebrated its 50th anniversary during its annual convention meeting. I enjoy going to the pastor’s conference and convention and always come away challenged and blessed. This year was no exception. I found this year particularly gratifying in terms of Great Commission ministries (the ongoing theme of this blog). Here are three highlights, from my perspective.

1. The speakers this year were especially helpful in focusing us on the importance of kingdom work, staying focused on our mission, and ministering in the Lord’s power and for His glory. The messages were, for the most part, thoroughly biblical and provided both admonishing and encouraging words to those who serve in ministry. You may not think this to be unique to a gathering of this type. Let me say, however, that I heard from men who are not just talking heads, but who live out the message that they preach and who spoke forthrightly about ministry rather than repeat the same old tired clichés about evangelism. It’s difficult to describe, but this year’s pastor’s conference and convention sermons was particularly uplifting to me.

2. For the first time, the State Convention gave out a “Church Planter of the Year Award.” Church planters have one of the most challenging roles among ministers of the gospel and are often under-appreciated for their hard work and commitment. Also, as a State Convention, we have found church planting in general to be a difficult task and have, in many respects, seen more failures than successes. This year, our state honored one of our own church planters, Phil Thorne who planted River’s Edge Fellowship Church in Bedford, Indiana. I’m looking forward to the next issue of the Indiana Baptist for the story about what God is doing at River’s Edge. More importantly, I hope the giving of this award will be an encouragement to the church planters in our state and will remind churches of the importance of church planting as a tool for reaching the lost. Congratulations Pastor Thorne!

3. I personally got excited about the state budget. Several years ago I made and, because of a misunderstanding, withdrew a motion for the executive committee of our state to formulate a plan to begin increasing the percentage of Cooperative Program (CP) giving we send on to the SBC. I recognized later that my motion was an exercise in “zeal without knowledge.” Our executive director, Dr. Steve Davis, graciously observed the spirit behind my motion and let me know that such a plan was already in the works. The executive committee had decided to adopt a policy in which each year that our giving increased to exceed our budget, the apportionment forwarded to the Convention would increase by 1%. Over the past several years, the executive committee has followed through on this plan. This year, we have once again seen an increase in CP giving in our state and also seen the giving exceed our budget needs. As a result, by recommendation of the executive committee, the SCBI has once again voted to approve a budget which reflects a 1% increase in the allotment to the SBC. If I am doing the math correctly, that means that we are now forwarding about 31.6% to the CP, where a few years ago we were only giving about 28%. Thank you churches, thank you executive committee, and Praise the Lord!

Well, there are many other reasons to rejoice over what is happening in Indiana. These are just the highlights that are fresh in my mind. I am thankful that God has allowed me to stay and serve in Indiana. I look forward to what God is going to do in and through our churches in the coming years.

Blessings,
Todd

Evangelism Bullet Points -- Reminding myself

2008-09-25T09:40:00.005-04:00

Last year about this time, my then pastor asked me to teach a course on personal evangelism. Given the time frame and my creative bent, I put together my own course sessions, hoping to give a sufficient overview of the practice of personal evangelism -- at least for the context in which I was ministering. Of course, my end result was nowhere even close to worthy of publication, but I was, nevertheless, well received and happy with the end result.

After the course, my pastor (himself in a different course) asked my if I could summarize what I had taught in one page. I came across the one page summary this week as I was thinking about my own need to lead my present church by teaching and example in personal evangelism. The following is the "bullet point" summary of the course I taught. Not all the points apply in every situation, but I found it a good reminder for my own practice of personal evangelism. Perhaps you may find it helpful as well:

How to be a Witness for Jesus Christ

1. Have a vital, personal relationship with Jesus Christ – Matt 5:13-15.

2. Begin to see with “spiritual eyes” – John 4:35; 2 Cor 5:16.

3. Identify persons who need Christ within your circles of influence: immediate family, relatives, close friends, neighbors/co-workers, acquaintances.

4. Ask God to show you 7-10 people on whom you will focus your prayers and evangelistic efforts for the next 6 months.

5. Pray . . .
• for those who need Christ – 2 Tim 2:1-4.
• for opportunity – 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3.
• for clarity in our witness – Col 4:4-6.
• for boldness – Eph 6:19-20.
• for fellow believers – 2 Cor 1:11; Col 4:3; 2 Thes 3:1.
• for more workers – Matt 9:38; Luke 10:2.

6. Invest in others – build relationships with un-churched people.

7. Remove any human barriers to the gospel – language, cultural, intellectual, personal offense, etc. Leave only the barrier of the gospel itself. – 1 Cor 1:20-25; 2:1-5; 9:19-23

8. Invite others to church, Sunday school, church event, or outing with other Christians -- John 1:40-42; 45-46; 4:29.

9. Include the Lord in your conversation – Col 4:5-6.

10. Ask good questions – Luke 10:25-28; Matt 22:41-46; Mark 8:27-30.

11. Share personal testimonies of what God has done/is doing in your life – Mark 5:19; Isa 12:4.

12. Share your salvation testimony – How you become a Christian – Acts 22:1-21; 26:4-29; Psalm 66:16.

13. Share a gospel tract (best to read with them and explain as you go) or follow the “Romans Road” (i.e., Rom 1:16; 2:4; 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9-10, 13).

14. Use the Scripture – 1 Cor 15: 3-4; Isa 55:11; Luke 24:45-46.

15. Ask for a response. – Mk 1:15; Acts 2:38; 20:21

16. Trust that God will be faithful in drawing people to Himself and grow His church. – John 6:37; 12:32; Acts 2:47; 1 Cor 3:6

One more post on Baptism and the IMB (posted primarily so I don't hijack my brother's blog comment stream).

2008-09-19T17:13:00.005-04:00

On the issue of Baptism and eternal security, I submit once again that a baptism should not be disqualified because of a lack of belief in the doctrine of eternal security (or because of what they believe about Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or any number of other doctrines). Thomas White, in a White Paper for the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the following summary statement on the validity of baptism: “The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid” (White 2006, 10). In most cases, for a person baptized by immersion in an Arminian church, the answer to all four questions is “YES.”

A person who disagrees with my statement can show me all kinds of beliefs from the AG or any other Arminian denomination that are in error and I would agree with them. I am a Baptist, afterall, because I believe Baptist doctrine. The fact that other doctrines are in error still does not change the fact that their view of water baptism is identical to ours. When I was baptized, I could have readily affirmed the BFM statement on Baptism, as could almost any Arminian who practices believer's baptism. Yet, some want to argue that one's entire doctrine must be correct for baptism to be valid. If you believe that, then it's time for YOU to be re-baptized :)

If baptism is a picture of salvation, then only two doctrines must be correct for their baptism to be valid: (1) They must have a correct view of salvation. Few would suggest that Arminians teach a false gospel (for those who do, I have addressed that issue here). (2) They must have a proper view of baptism. (Note to Baptist Theologue, I have already demonstrated that such is the case, but you seem unwilling to accept their stated view.) Let me be clear. My view on Baptism is no different now than it was when I wrongly denied eternal security. I will not submit to rebaptism nor require anyone else to do so merely because some other pastor, denominational leader, or trustee claims I or my former church did not believe what we in fact DO believe.

Further, while I do not expect all Baptists to agree with me on this, although they should because it is the biblical position :), I DO expect the Convention to support my right and my church’s right to differ on this view and to send missionaries through the mission board that we fund. If the belief that a denial of eternal security negates baptism is one that is important enough to disallow missionary service, it is important enough to put in the BFM, and important enough to disassociate my church.

Some have related the IMB trustees’ response to the differing views on baptism to its response to differing views of divorce. Namely, that the IMB does not allow divorcees to serve as full time missionaries. I do not know enough about the history or rationale of the divorce policy or any possible actions at the Convention level related to it to offer informed commentary on it at this point. However, I could envision a scenerio in which divorced persons are denied service on the pragmatic grounds much like they deny service of persons with high a Body Mass Index or certain medical concerns. If the trustees have based that decision on doctrinal grounds, however, and if the Convention has not spoken to the issue elsewhere, then I suppose I would add the divorce policy to the list of IMB personnel policies that should be reversed. Indeed, the Convention acknowledges there is no consensus on the issue. They also list a number of other doctrinal issues on which Baptists have not taken a stand. I do not think it is proper for the mission board trustees to make policy decisions on any of such issues, regardless of any perceived consensus among Southern Baptists. Doctrinal issues must be decided at the Convention level, not by trustees.

Back to the BFM… I think it is certainly demonstrable, that the BFM has intentionally left out certain tertiary doctrines (on tertiary doctrines see Mohler, “Theological Triage”). The BFM statement on election, for example, is intentionally worded to allow for varying opinions including Calvinism. The statement on end times is intentionally worded to allow for various views on the millennium and tribulation, etc. While Baptist polity allows for the IMB trustees to set their own policies, one should not support the Trustees if they were to set a personnel policy that disallowed Calvinists or Dispensationalists or people who preached from the NIV from serving with the Board? Incidently, the same poll that demonstrated a majority view on Baptism, showed a majority are concerned about the rise of Calvinism. Should Calvinist missionary candidates be worried that they may be the next target of IMB personnel policies? Let’s hope not. The poll shows that one fourth of SBC pastors do not practice the rebaptism of Arminians – a view allowed by the BFM. The IMB should not be making doctrinal policies at all, except those that are consistent with the BFM2000 – the consensus document of our Convention and the basis for Southern Baptist cooperation.

Blessings,

Todd

Upholding the Right of the Minorty View -- The Impact of the Lifeway Study on the IMB Policies

2008-09-17T07:06:00.006-04:00

Well, the folks at SBCToday have already started using the new Lifeway study to support the IMB baptism policy. I have posted a response on their blog and am re-posting my thoughts on my own blog as well. In response to Tim Rogers, and anyone else who supports the IMB policy, I would argue three things here in response to the Lifeway study as it relates to the IMB policy:

One, I would argue that the 74% figure (i.e. those who would re-baptize someone previously baptized in a church that did not affirm eternal security) shows that the majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both (see my previous posts on this). On what basis, other than Baptist tradition, do we require rebaptism? If baptism means what we say that it means in the Baptist Faith and Message, then there is no grounds to rebaptize a born-again believer who has been immersed after conversion to Christ.

Two, 26% is a significant enough minority to demonstrate that the IMB personnel guidelines are a excessive. The guidelines go well beyond the BFM2000. Our statement of faith allows for this minority view. To restrict missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 1/4 of our SBC churches. That is no small minority. Thus, the personnel policy concerning baptism should be reversed.

Finally, the fact that a majority hold a particular doctrinal opinion, does not mean that those who hold that position wish to restrict missionary service to only those who agree with them. Lifeway studies have shown that 90% of SBC pastors are not Calvinist and 63% are “concerned” with the rise of Calvinism in the Convention. If one reasons that the Baptism policy is appropriate because it reflects the majority opinion, the IMB should hurry up and add Calvinists to the list of faithful Southern Baptists who cannot serve on the mission field.

Contrary to the folks at SBC Today, the new Lifeway study shows not that the IMB policy should be upheld, but rather that it should be reversed.

Blessings,

Todd

Believer's Baptism by Immersion -- I thought we believed this

2008-09-16T11:40:00.004-04:00

I find the new Baptism survey staggering. If I am reading the survey correctly, a full 87 percent of Baptist pastors hold a faulty or deficient view of baptism. What we say that we believe in the BFM2000 is not what we practice in reality.

Some pastors it appears, view Baptism too narrowly. According to the study, 74% of our pastors would re-baptize someone because their church does not believe in eternal security. Among them, a full 16% would rebaptize someone from another Southern Baptist church!

This reflects, in many cases, a misunderstanding and unbiblical view of Baptism. First, Baptism is not biblically related to eternal security.[1] Persons are not baptized because they believe in correct Baptist doctrine or because they have a sound understanding of soteriology. Rather, they are baptized because they have repented of their sins and placed their faith in Jesus Christ. A person who has, after conversion to Christ, been immersed “symbolizing [their] faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus”[2] have indeed been scripturally baptized. There is no call to re-baptize someone because they have come to a more biblical understanding of the security of the believer. Granted, some have argued that a person who does not believe in eternal security has a deficient faith and is trusting in a “works” salvation (thus the need to be rebaptized). This view, however, demonstrates a misunderstanding of Arminianism and its rejection of eternal security. I have argued against this misunderstanding elsewhere [3] and am, frankly, disappointed at the willful ignorance of pastors on this issue. I am not surprised, however, because similar false doctrinal assertions are made against our 5-point Calvinist brothers because they misunderstand and distort the Calvinist view (which, incidently, seems evident from the other part of the Lifeway study). In any case, the idea that Baptism is tied to eternal security rather than on conversion shows either a misunderstanding of baptism or a misunderstanding of Arminianism, or both.

Second, Baptism, while an ordinance of the local church, is not confined in its application to the particular local church in which the Baptism was performed. While baptism is indeed a “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership,”[4] baptism is not an ordinance that is to be repeated in each local church. There is no evidence in the New Testament of a Christian being re-baptized at all, let alone for joining a new local assembly.[5] While it was a small percentage, a significant number of SBC pastors would require rebaptism of persons coming from a church of like faith and practice – even another SBC church. This view, again, demonstrates a faulty view of baptism.

While these first two groups have understood baptism too narrowly, it seems another group has understood the ordinance too broadly. The study also reported that 13 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism of someone baptized in a church that believed in baptismal regeneration, 3 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism of someone not baptized by immersion, and 1 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism. Thankfully, these are minority positions. I should not have to argue to my Baptist readers that scriptural baptism is (1) believer’s baptism, (2) by immersion, and (3) symbolic rather than salvific. I thought this was a Baptist distinctive.

Again, I find this a significant problem in our application of Baptist theology. A small percentage seem to be accepting ANY baptism as valid. A larger percentage view only baptism performed by Baptists is valid. Only 26%, it seems, embrace the thoroughly biblical view that baptism is the symbolic immersion of a believer. Some accept a baptism whether or not is was symbolic. Others accept a baptism whether or not it was by immersion. Many reject the baptism of a believer, merely because that believer was not a Baptist. All of these are a distortion of baptism as pictured in the New Testament. Whether understood too broadly or too narrowly, who knew that the denomination that is most readily identified with their view baptism would by and large not fully embrace biblical believer’s baptism.

[1] Tom Ascol makes this point in his 2006 blog post.

[2] BFM2000, section VII, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”

[3]For an Arminian perspective of this issue see the Assembly of God position paper on eternal security here.

[4] BFM2000, section VII, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”

[5] Appeal to the rebaptism of the Ephesian believers in Acts 19 is not an example of the kind of rebaptism we are talking of here. Their initial baptism was not a Christian baptism at all because they had not been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” Acts 19:5 (NASB). Rather, in terms of Christian baptism, they were being baptized for the first time.

More thoughts on the IMB restructuring

2008-09-12T17:06:00.003-04:00

In my last post, I focused on the change that is still needed at the IMB. However, I do not want in my dissatisfaction with the personnel policies -- which is a MAJOR issue in my opinion -- to ignore the very positive change this restructuring represents.

This new change at the IMB is positive for two reasons, both of which have been addressed well by other bloggers. I will offer a brief comment, then refer you to these two blog posts.

From a missiological perspective, the new structure simply makes sense. The policy both frees missionaries to use the methods and strategies that most effectively win the people whom they are trying to reach and completes the shift in focus from a regional to a cultural one. For a more detailed response from a missiological perspective, see the recent blog post from missiolgist, David Sills.

From a SBC politics standpoint, the change seems to indicate a willingness to hear from and support the administration at the IMB including its president, Jerry Rankin. Also, the wording of the core values, on its surface, gives a glimmer of hope that the pendulum may be swinging back to a more cooperative conservatism. In my opinion, the sure sign that this change is a reality and not just words will be the reversal of the personnel policies (but you can read my other post for that). The now somewhat infamous Wade Burleson, the point man of the IMB trustee controversy, has posted his positive take on the recent trustee meeting. While I think that Pastor Burleson has not always chosen his words wisely in the past, his current post is well worth reading.

In anycase, my assessment of the recent change is this:

New Mission, Vision, Core Values --> GOOD!!!
New Strategies that stem from them --> GOOD!!!
New attitude of cooperation --> Promising
Reversal of the personnel policies --> still waiting...but hopeful

Blessings,
Todd

Report from the Latest IMB Trustee Meeting -- I love what you're doing, but still have a bad taste in my mouth that won't go away

2008-09-11T11:43:00.000-04:00

Dr. Hershael York has provided a report of the happenings at the recent IMB trustee meeting. I am pleased with the result of that meeting in a renewed Vision, Mission, and Core Values that will guide the IMB in the coming years. In my opinion, they are well crafted and are exactly the direction needed. They reflect an emphasis on conservative evangelical/Baptist doctrine, a commitment to inerrancy, the exclusivity of the gospel, contextualization, church planting, and mission partnership.

Likewise, I am pleased with the proposals that proceed from this mission and values. Without going into detail, I believe they reflect a needed refocusing and address many of the issues that have been in discussion among those who are concerned with both biblical fidelity, sound missiology, and cooperation with other evangelicals.

I am not pleased, however, with the trustees continued support of the personnel policies (which I infer by the continued inaction on the part of the trustees to reverse these policies) that have been a center point of controversy in the Convention for over two years. It seems that the trustees have decided to ignore the issue and hope that everyone will just forget about it. Well, I have not forgotten.

Reading over the newly stated Core Values, I am struck by the dissonance between core value #5 and the personnel policies. The value as stated is as follows:

We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ.

If this is really a core value, why then do we deny mission service to called men and women of God who are conservative, Bible-believing, and affirm the 2000 BF&M?!?!? The church to which I have recently been called as pastor was recognized by the IMB for being in the Top 2% of per capita giving to Lottie Moon (I cannot take credit for this). As their new pastor, I will continue to lead the church in sacrificial giving to IMB missions and partnering with IMB missionaries to take the gospel to the nations. Though we are a mission-minded, mission-giving, mission-going church, neither of our two pastors are eligible to serve with the IMB under the current policies. Both of us were baptized as believers, by immersion, in churches which did not affirm eternal security. The policies reflect an errant view of Baptism and what it means to be a New Testament church. Further, they narrow doctrinal parameters in a way that is inconsistent with the spirit of the 2000 BF&M, which I wholeheartedly endorse and for which I cast my ballot in Orlando.

My question is this: How can the trustees claim that they “serve churches to facilitate their involvement” when they deny involvement of those who are faithful Southern Baptists?

Read This!

2008-06-24T07:31:00.001-04:00

If you are a young Southern Baptist, I encourage you to read this.

Toward a Great Commission Resurgence

2008-06-15T07:53:00.003-04:00

Many years ago, while I was still a child and long before I was a Southern Baptist, conservative Baptist leaders began what would come to be known as the “Conservative Resurgence.” I was a late comer to this resurgence, attending my second Convention in Orlando to cast my ballot for the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message. I am grateful for those leaders who led our denomination back to a firm belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Over the past year, and many times at this year's Convention, leaders have been calling on the need now for a “Great Commission Resurgence.” For this resurgence to occur, however, there will have to be a different strategy. Put simply, the Conservative Resurgence occurred because the Convention elected conservative presidents who in turn appointed Conservative committees who nominated Conservative trustees. Over time, as political battles were won on the Convention floor, and with the 2000 BFM as a capstone, the Conservative Resurgence came to pass. If a Great Commission Resurgence is to occur, however, it will not be won by politics alone. We cannot vote our way to such a resurgence.

Such a resurgence will require two things. First, a GC Resurgence will require us to cooperate with each other to accomplish the larger tasks of world evangelization. To a certain extent, there is still a need for action at the Convention level. The needed action, however, is not in electing men passionate about evangelism and missions. I believe we consistently have done that in recent years. Rather, we need to return to a cooperation among the variety of conservative Baptist expressions for the common goal of Great Commission work, or, as David Dockery puts it, we need consensus and renewal. Electing men committed to such cooperation is a step, but we must each make a personal commitment to such cooperation. Second, and more significantly, a GC Resurgence will have to begin in my own life and the lives of each Southern Baptist as we renew not only our “commitment” to evangelism and missions, but actually change our practice and actually do evangelism. The problem cannot be fixed merely at the denominational level. As Frank Page stated in his president’s address, “Blame the denomination if you wish, but the problem is me.” I share in that culpability. Each of us should take a hard look at our own lives and seek revival in our personal evangelistic fervor.

Blessings,

Todd

Why I have signed the IMB Change Petition

2008-06-13T21:09:00.004-04:00

I am appealing to all Southern Baptists with a concern for missions. Many of you are aware of the personnel policies put in place two years ago concerning Baptism and "Private prayer language." Recently, Allan Blume, a North Carolina pastor, and his wife Pam, a former IMB trustee, started an online petition to reverse these policies. At the Convention this week, I had the opportunity to have dinner with the Blumes and hear their heart on this issue. Heidi and I have added our names to this petition and encourage you to do the same. You may do so at http://imbchange.info. Of course, I realize the decision to add your name to such a list should not be taken lightly, however, I ask that you prayerfully consider doing so.

Previously, I have blogged on my reasons for opposing the “eternal security” clause of the baptism policy. This clause is the most personal for me, because it is the point of disqualification for me, were we to be called to international mission service. I was baptized, though by immersion and as a believer, in a church that did not believe in eternal security. I have come to believe that the baptism policy should be reversed in its entirety as well as the policy on private prayer language. Here are my reasons.

On the Baptism policy:

The policy goes beyond the BF&M 2000 and adds restrictions not included in the language of this consensus doctrinal statement.

The proper place for making decisions about baptism is the local church. The policy usurps the authority of the local church in determining whose baptism is valid and whose is not.

The policy makes a blanket restriction which does not allow for a more careful analysis of each situation – the local church is the best place for such a careful analysis and the proper place where such decisions should be made.

The remedy required, requesting (re)baptism by one’s local church is not practical in many cases. Many missionary candidates are pastors who have themselves baptized many members of their church. Others belong to churches who, because of their (correct) doctrinal stand, will not baptize the person again.

There is no biblical warrant for rebaptism of someone who has been baptized by immersion as a believer.

On the Private Prayer Language (PPL) policy:

PPL is a doctrinal issue, not a moral one, and is not addressed in the BF&M 2000 nor any resolution of the SBC. While I believe PPL to be a incorrect understanding of Scripture, I do not believe that a belief and/or practice of PPL should disqualify one from service, especially given the Convention’s silence on the issue up to this point.

PPL is part of a person’s private devotional life. There is no evidence that PPL practice among some Southern Baptists leads to Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine or practice. Further, PPL is by definition a “private” practice not a public one.

Finally, it is absolutely bad form to pass a personnel policy which the current president of the IMB would himself be disqualified. The passing of this policy gives the appearance (whether or not this is actually the case) of intentionally embarrassing the current president. If there is a legitimate problem with Jerry Rankin, then by all means ask for his resignation. If not, then at the very least wait until Rankin retires to pass such a policy. To pass a policy which disqualifies the president, especially when there is no evidence of a pressing need to do so, is just plain wrong and in poor taste.

_____

Well, for what its worth, these are my reasons. If you are familiar with the issue at all, there is probably nothing here that you have not heard before. Because of these policies, I would be disqualified from service with the IMB. I know several highly qualified persons, fine Christian servants, who also are disqualified from service with the IMB.

If you are concerned about this issue, I encourage you to sign the petition. At this time, I believe this is the best course of action to see these policies reversed.

Blessings,

Todd

***Addendum (June 19, 2008): Let me add that a significant reason these policies should be reversed is that there is no where near a consensus of opinion among Southern Baptists on either PPL or alien immersion. While I do not support imposing a rule on how trustees can govern their entities, I do believe that mission board trustees have a responsibility, on doctrinal matters, to reflect the consensus of Southern Baptist belief.

Ten Highlights from the Convention that Have Nothing to do with Politics

2008-06-13T17:19:00.003-04:00

With all the post-Convention blogging about various issues, I thought I would offer my favorite non-political aspects of my Convention experience this year. Here are my Top 10 experiences:

10. I got to reunite with old friends from across the Convention.

9. I got to hang out with my former college roommate for an afternoon.

8. I got harassed by my pastor’s wife because of my former college roommate.

7. I got to meet a pastor and his wife who are rightly opposing the IMB Personnel Policies, a seminary professor with whom I disagree a lot but was genuinely a nice guy, a church planter who used to grade for my professor, two staff members from a mission-minded church in NW Indiana, and I got Shane Hall’s autograph.

6. I ran into my former pastor (who gave me a signed copy of his new book).

5. I got to hang out at the NAMB and IMB displays and talk to missionaries.

4. I got to pray with and for fellow believers.

3. I got to stay up late and watch Indiana Jones.

2. I got to have butter on my popcorn.

1. I got 15 free pens, 6 bags, 2 coffee mugs, a T-shirt, 5 free books, 3 highlighters, 2 foam basketballs, a miniature bottle of hot sauce, and a tie tack.

Blessings,
Todd

A quick thought about the SBC President elect

2008-06-11T07:16:00.001-04:00

It’s Wednesday morning and so far all has been well. I have been able to touch base with a number of old friends and was pleased that the Convention has for the most part been uneventful.

Johnny Hunt, I believe, will make a good President. His election on the first ballot among six candidates is remarkable (for the record, I voted for Avery Willis). I believe Hunt will bring two things to the Convention that we need at this time.

First, as Southern Baptists, myself included, have come to the realization that we need a Great Commission resurgence, Johnny Hunt can effectively lead in that resurgence. Hunt is respected across the spectrum of Baptists as a man passionate about evangelism and missions and his passion is contagious. To the extent an SBC president can promote, model, and spur on Baptists to Great Commission work, I believe Johnny will do so.

Second, I believe Johnny Hunt can lead us in the direction of unity around the gospel. No factions on either side of current debates can claim victory because of their endorsement of one of the other fine candidates. Hunt will be in a better position to bring together the various groups around the cause of the gospel. (I also sincerely hope Hunt will inform himself about the “narrowing of doctrinal parameters” issue and will appoint men and women who will not further that narrowing.) He has done so in the past. I trust his presidency will continue that trend.

That’s all for now. More Convention analysis after I get home.

Blessings,
Todd

My Ministry Core Values

2008-05-21T12:27:00.012-04:00

As I have been in the transition period from seminary life to full-time ministry, I have recently been asked to share my philosophy of ministry. I have thought through some of my core values and offer them for your consideration. Feel free to offer your comments or critique.

MINISTRY PHILOSOPHY

Among my ministry core values are the following:

Kingdom Focused Ministry – My focus must go beyond my own personal success or the success of my church, but the advance of God’s kingdom. If not, I run the danger of being self-centered, self-seeking, and self-glorifying. God wants churches to grow, but as part of the bigger grander vision of expanding his great kingdom. For this reason I will lead a church in being “kingdom-focused” and in having an “Acts 1:8” mentality—reaching the local community and partnering with others to take the gospel around the world. I will lead in partnering with Southern Baptists and other Great Commission Christians in reaching my community and the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will actively support and promote the Cooperative Program and Southern Baptist partnership on the association, state, and national level. I will also lead in appropriate partnerships with both Baptist and non-Baptist evangelicals.

Relational Ministry – I place a high priority on relationships over programs and events. Evangelism, discipleship, ministry, and other aspects of church life all happen best in the context of relationships. Busyness in church life can often be detrimental to the health of a church. Being precedes doing. I will lead in developing certain programs and events and an aggressive pursuit of the Great commission, but will focus on those that build relationships in evangelizing non-believers and foster the “one another” aspect of being the body of Christ. Moreover, I will seek to equip believers in being a lighthouse to their family and neighborhood and to use their gifts and resources in service for his kingdom.

Biblically Based Ministry – The Bible is our authority as Christians. It contains “everything we need for life and godliness.” If the Bible is indeed our textbook, we must make every effort to conform our thoughts and practice to Scripture. All that I teach and preach will have its basis in Scripture. Most of my preaching is expository although I will preach topical sermons when appropriate. Ministries, strategy planning, counseling, and all other aspects of ministry will be biblically grounded and biblically measured. I affirm the doctrine of inerrancy as expressed in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Great Commission Ministry – The mission of the church is the Great commission. To fulfill that commission means that we focus on making disciples. This begins with evangelism, and moves to discipling and equipping believers for service. Evangelism must be an urgent priority. We must implement innovative and “contextual” strategies to reach people where they are. Our job is not done, however, until we develop fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, growing in his likeness, using their gifts in the body of Christ, and reaching others with the gospel. I will lead a church to be fervent in evangelism, but also in discipling and equipping ministries.

God-empowered Ministry – The Bible teaches that it is the Holy Spirit which empowers our mission. Ultimately, it is God and not human effort which determines the success of mission – our attitude and action must reflect that. This emphasizes the need for absolute dependence on God, a vibrant faith, and a devotion to prayer. I am an avid supporter of church growth principles and effective strategizing. However, if we depend only on our knowledge and effort and not on the power of God, we will have not only an unfruitful ministry, but an ungodly one. Apart from Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5).

Revisiting the IMB Baptism Guideline

2008-05-20T16:49:00.010-04:00

In this post, I will offer two reasons I believe the eternal security clause of the IMB personnel guidelines is in error and should be changed.

First, I believe that the policy is based on a mistaken view of Arminianism.

Before I was a Baptist, I held erroneous views of what Baptists believed. My Arminian pastors wrongly charged that eternal security or “once saved, always saved” was a false doctrine that taught that you merely had to pray a prayer or respond to an altar call then continue sinning all you want because now that you were saved you were saved forever. While, I suppose, there may be some Baptists who hold this view (I haven’t met any) that certainly is not what Baptists teach or believe. To the extent that Baptists do believe this, my Arminian pastors were right to criticize their doctrine.

Having become a Baptist, now 18 years later, I continue to find that many Baptists hold what I contend are erroneous views of what Arminians believe. To deny eternal security, I am told, is to lack assurance of salvation. Many Baptists think that Arminians believe that you may somehow “lose” your salvation because of sin; that Arminians teach that although you are initially saved by faith, your are kept by works. Arminians live in fear that they may “lose” their salvation if they sin or fail in good works. Like my former belief about Baptists, there are indeed some Arminians who hold this view, but this is not a teaching of classic Arminianism, nor the doctirinal position of the major evangelical Arminian denominations such as the Assemblies of God.

However, such a doctrine is not the belief of all or even the majority of Arminian believers. For example, the Assemblies of God, in an official statement on eternal security, states

“As the believer's salvation is received, not by an act of righteousness but by an act of faith, so the believer's salvation is maintained, not by acts of righteousness but by a life of faith!

Being a Christian then is not a matter of works; it is a matter of faith. This must be emphasized. In no case is the sinner accepted by God on the basis of any good that he has done. He is saved totally and solely by grace through faith . . . . Through the process of "becoming conformed" he is secure; his salvation is sure. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).

The believer's security, then, is solely through faith, both in the receiving of salvation and in the keeping of salvation. This security is made possible through the mercy of God in imputing the righteousness of His own Son to the fallible and faulty believer as long as he maintains a living faith in Christ. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

I agree that Arminians are in error in their denial of the doctrine of eternal security. This error, however, does not mean that Arminians teach a works salvation, lack biblical assurance, or are not a New Testament Church.

Second, I believe the policy is based on a faulty view of Assurance.

In the argument about eternal security and its relation to Baptism, some Baptists incorrectly equate assurance of salvation with the doctrine of eternal security. The two concepts are related, but not the same.

I do not find that the Scriptures join the two. Wherever the Bible speaks of assurance, it speaks of one’s present experience with Christ. That is, a person has assurance because of the evidence of Christ working in him. Further, the Bible encourages believers to test themselves to see if they are in the faith, and to make their calling and election sure.

In 1 John, assurance comes with our present walk with Christ as we obey his commands (1 John 2:3), love the brethren (3:14), believe in his name (3:23) and the experience the presence of His Spirit (3:24). No where in this letter, written “so that you may know that you have eternal life,” (5:13) does John link assurance with our initial conversion experience.

When a Baptist is not walking with Christ, he may indeed be saved, but he will not have assurance that he is. A person can thus believe in eternal security, but lack assurance. Anecdotally speaking, I am sure of my salvation, not because of my conversion experience 31 years ago coupled with my belief in eternal security. I am sure of my salvation because of the evidence of the Spirit as he works in and through me and because of my faith in the cross of Christ.

Further, true Arminianism does not foster doubt of one’s salvation. As noted above, Arminians believe that salvation is both “received and kept by faith.” If one believes, his eternal destiny is sure. It is only if one abandons the faith “by rejecting Christ” that one “loses” salvation. In reality, assurance is faith, so it is not improper for an Arminian to say that assurance is based on faith. Further, in our experience as believers, both Arminian and Baptistic views of the security of the believer are tied to faith. The difference is that when an Arminian abandons the faith they say that such a person is no longer saved and when a Baptist abandons the faith we say they were never saved in the first place. Either way they’re lost.

The possible danger of Arminianism, when not properly understood, is that one would have false doubt. The possible danger of our Baptist view of eternal security, when not properly understood, is that one would have false faith (I prayed a prayer, so I’m saved forever). All this is to say that assurance and security are related but not inseparable. A Baptist can believe in eternal security and still not be sure of his salvation. Likewise, an Arminian can be assured of his eternal salvation without believing in eternal security.

I agree that Arminian doctrine is in error. I do not believe, however, that Arminian belief is a false faith or deficient gospel nor that an Arminian cannot have assurance of eternal salvation.

Conclusion

I submit that a baptism should not be disqualified because of a lack of belief in the doctrine of eternal security alone. Thomas White, in a White Paper for the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the following summary statement on the validity of baptism: “The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid” (White 2006, 10). In most cases, for a person baptized by immersion in an Arminian church, the answer to all four questions is “YES.”

In the final analysis, I believe the eternal security clause of the IMB personnel guideline should be reversed. I hope that it will be. In the mean time, I urge those who disagree with the guideline to continue their support of the IMB and the Cooperative Program. Further, I hope that Baptist on both sides of the issue will see the importance of preserving our Baptist Identity. In all things, let us continue to work together for the cause of Christ and for His glory!

Blessings,

Todd

_____

Note: Nathan Finn has also blogged on the IMB guidelines today.

Calvinists and Evangelism -- What Some Arminians are Saying

2008-05-20T14:01:00.004-04:00

Here is an interesting quote about Calvinists and evangelism I came across in an article from the Assemblies of God home page.

"Certainly there are true Christians who believe and teach Calvinism; there are also true Christians who believe and teach that men and women have free will. Unfortunately, both sides have spent more time arguing doctrinal terminology and interpretations of theology than reaching out to a lost world. The irony of the disagreement is that Calvinists, who believe in predestination, are sometimes more active in witnessing and evangelism than Arminians who believe that man has a free will and should be encouraged to accept Christ as Savior."

Reflecting the Love of Christ

2008-05-10T11:16:00.003-04:00

Well, I'd like to introduce my first ever guest blogger: my wife, Heidi. Last night, Heidi was asked to speak at our church's mother/daughter banquet. With her permission, I am reproducing her speech here. I hope you will see Heidi's heart for the mission of God and her desire to serve Him in her everyday life. Here is her speech:

Tonight I would like to share a little of my passion for reflecting the love of Christ to others. I believe God has given me a desire deep inside to share his love with both my brothers and sisters in Christ and those who don’t know Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

When Sheila asked me to speak I immediately thought , no I can’t do that, I don’t’ speak in front of people. I’m the person who hated speech class in high school and come college looked for a major that didn’t, once again require a speech class. But upon going home and telling my husband Sheila asked me to speak at the Mother/Daughter banquet, he lovingly said, you have to! So tonight I stand here before you a little out of my comfort zone but I pray that some little thing I may share will minister to your heart.

After committing to speak tonight I then began worrying first and then praying, I told God, I need a verse and faithful as He is He gave me one about a week later. I Peter 4:11 says “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves he should do it with the strength God provides so that in ALL things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory and the power forever and ever Amen. “ I found this verse in my journal, I had written it there months before and God brought me right back to. This verse is meant for all of us here tonight. If anyone speaks! I know that I can speak, not always comfortably in front of a large group of woman but I definitely do my share of speaking and I’m sure y’all do as well. When we speak it’s as one speaking the very words of God, wow!!! I find that both a huge responsibility and challenge on our part, we are reflecting something when we speak, is it the love of God? The second part of the verse says , if anyone serves! Do it with the strength God provides - I have to say I like that part, the part that says I don’t do it alone - God provides the strength for us to do the things He calls us to do. In I Thess 5:24 God reminds us that He who calls us is faithful and will also do it. And why do we speak the words of God and serve others? So that in ALL things God may be praised through Jesus Christ and get the glory! So tonight I stand here before you to encourage you to look at your own life and see How you are reflecting Christ’s love to others?

I’d like to briefly share from my own personal experience that no matter how young or how old you are tonight God can and will use all of us if we allow Him to. I will share some examples from my own life. One thing that I have always loved to do when I have time is bake a large batch of Sugar cookies. One day I decided we would put them on plates and deliver them to the neighbors, all the way down the block. This was something my children loved to do, the knocking on the doors part especially, and delivering cookies,. This small task was something that allowed us to get to know our neighbors and begin relationships with them. This past year I mindlessly sent one of my children outside to give some cookies I had just freshly baked to a maintenance man who I saw outside. Months later I ran into this man and God opened a door to talk about spiritual things such as church and a relationship with God, and this man mentioned those cookies! I had completely forgotten about the day I shared those cookies, but he hadn’t. He mentioned that people just don’t do that anymore. God’s love was reflected.

A cookout is also something we have tried to do each year as a family. We invite neighbors again and try to build relationships with them. A baby girl can share the love of Christ when a Senior adult in the store stops to admire and we choose to slow down our pace and just be friendly and visit a moment. My daughter, Ashley, can reflect Christ’s love at school when she chooses a good attitude and chooses to make godly choices even when her friends and teachers don’t understand and give her a hard time. I can reflect Christ’s love by helping out a mom who needs a break, or a family who is struggling. I can reflect God’s love by stopping long enough to really listen to a person who just needs a friend and a listening ear. I can reflect God’s love by praying with that person. On a daily basis God gives us opportunities to share Christ’s love. I came across these words while I was reading a few weeks ago and they spoke to me and I want to also share them and I hope they will challenge you as much as they did me -

“He [Jesus] was fully present with people, whether they were religious leaders or lepers. He responded gently to the inevitable interruptions in life. Do you see interruptions as an opportunity for ministry? Are you mindful and unhurried enough to discern what people really need and whether you can give it to them? Are you humble enough to listen to what is really going on before you tell them how to fix themselves? I sometimes have to admit that my frustration with interruptions is mostly about my desire to be in control. . . .

I’ve found it easier to see interruptions as opportunities to love other people if I can keep my own agenda very short. Not that I ignore my own needs, not at all. But I seriously evaluate everything on the list and make sure it really needs to be done.” *

As I read these paragraphs shared in this book, I thought wow, am I that person, Am I mindful of others, am I unhurried? Not very often, if I’m honest. Am I humble, do I listen? Interruptions in our days are often opportunities to minister God’s love to others. So I challenge you, Choose to make interruptions great opportunities to share Christ! Choose to actively take part in others lives. As much as I’d like to stand before you and say that I always have time for others and I’m always ready and mindful of sharing Christ in every situation it’s not true. I believe we must choose to actively make these choices and remember I Peter 4:11 God provides the strength so that in all things He may be praised. I have had three opportunities in the last year to share Christ with others and I had to pray for courage and choose to do it. So I challenge you to think of maybe just one person, a sister in Christ or someone who comes to your heart that needs the Lord and start praying for them. God will open doors and I stand here before you tonight as an example of Yes, with God’s strength and through Him we can step out of our comfort zones, we can speak and we can serve and God will get all the glory. If you are here tonight and don’t have a personal relationship with Christ, it is easy and I just know that someone near you would be thrilled to share Jesus with you so I pray that you will not leave here tonight without finding Christ’s love, because He truly loves us and gave His life for us. Thank you!

__________
* Keri Wyatt Kent, quoted by Tina Cole and Nocona Koenig, “Never Enough Time” in My Husband Wants to be a Church Planter . . . , (Alpharetta, GA: North American Mission Board, 2007), 69.

Thoughts on the analysis of Paige Patterson on the ACP

2008-05-08T07:05:00.002-04:00

Paige Patterson has offered what I believe is an insightful analysis on the ACP report and the wealth of punditry that has followed. Patterson concludes by suggesting four real reasons for the numeric decline. I believe Patterson is spot-on (Patterson’s words appear in italics with my comments following).

1. The first failure is the busyness of the age, which has robbed churches of serious prayer . . . Prayerlessness is foe number one.

Two comments: First, one unintentional aspect of the church growth movement has been a dependence on methods rather than on the power of God. This, of course, was never the attention of McGavran or of the second generation of CGM leaders. Nevertheless, more than fifty years later, McGavran has been largely forgotten and his God-dependent principles with him. I am personally an advocate of Church Growth and its emphasis on removing manmade barriers to the gospel and church growth. However, as McGavran would agree and Patterson alludes in his column, no method can advance the kingdom apart from absolute dependence on God. To the extent that prayerlessness is a characteristic of our churches, we should not be surprised at a decline in our numbers. Patterson rightly calls Southern Baptists to a return to prayer and complete dependence on God for success in ministry.

Second, prayer is not the only casualty of the busyness of the age. Christians have, by and large, abandoned the mission of God for other pursuits. It is time that Christians reject the busyness of the age that centers on the mundane and get consumed by passion for God’s mission. We must reorient our lives around the Great Commission rather than our own self-interests. This leads to Patterson’s second point.

2. The second culprit is our failure to witness. We are so adept at "marketing" and "programming" that we have failed to share Christ individually on a consistent basis. In fact, because meaningful church membership has been traded for numerical addition, most of our people hardly witness at all.

Again, another unintentional and non-McGavranite consequence of some modern mutations of the church growth movement. Numerical addition was never intended to replace meaningful church membership. In fact, McGavran argued for numbers that were meaningful. McGavran states,

“It is not adding mere names to the roll or baptizing those who have no intention of following Christ. Roll-padding, aside from being dishonest, is useless. The numerical increase worth counting is that which endures from decade to decade. Roll-padding and dishonest baptizing will never produce lasting growth.”[1]

To the extent that numerical addition has replaced meaningful church membership, churches ought to repent and return to the growth principles centered on abundant, unhindered, contextual evangelism.

Second, as Patterson has so rightly reminded us, we must return to the actual practice of witnessing. As many have noted, the conservative resurgence has not yet resulted in a Great Commission resurgence. In my opinion, part of the problem among conservative evangelicals, is that we have pursued Christ-likeness in terms of character but not in terms of mission. Certainly, we must pursue the one without abandoning the other. We have forgotten, however, that to become truly like Him, we must allow God to work not only in us, but also through us. How can we know Christ and truly be like him without pouring out our life for his mission to reach the lost? Baptists must renew our commitment to evangelism, not only in theory, but in practice.

3. Third, the shallow state of preaching has exacerbated the lethargy of the church and left the lost with no real Word from God. The pastor ought to be the major source of theological understanding and the most able teacher of the Bible. Anemic pulpits create anemic churches and denominations.

I’ll let Patterson’s words stand on their own here. I will only add to my last point that we must return to preaching the full counsel of God so that our preaching is God-centered, cross-centered, and mission-centered rather than merely self-help, self-actualizing, felt needs preaching. Certainly, we need to preach those texts that help believers become better Christians, but even then the preaching must be centered in Christ and his cross.

4. Finally, our churches, in their hot pursuit of cultural adaptability look more and more like the culture and the world. Even at its best, the church is not good at being the world. In looking like a faint imitation of the world, the holiness of God and a thirst to be like Him have apparently been lost. And with the loss of holiness has come the corresponding loss of power and appeal!

Hear Patterson correctly here. I do not believe he is saying that we must abandon contextualization. He is, however, saying that not all contextual methods and models are God-honoring and faithful to him. We must approach contextualization critically and approach evangelism in away that both communicates to the culture and at the same time remains faithful to the biblical gospel. To the extent that churches have capitulated to the culture and abandoned the offense of the cross, we must return to the true gospel and to biblical models and methods.

In the final analysis, Patterson has offered wise words that should be considered by all Southern Baptists. We must recommit ourselves to the prayerful, powerful, critically-contextual, abundant proclamation of the gospel. Until we do, we should not be surprised when our statistics are not what we wish them to be.

Lord, send a revival and let it begin in me.

[1] Donald A. McGavran, How Churches Grow: The New Frontiers of Mission (London: World Dominion Press, 1959), 16.

A Second Look at the Annual Church Profile (ACP)

2008-04-28T15:16:00.006-04:00

As Dale Carnegie said, “Of course, I could be wrong – I often am.” The truth is, I don’t really know what the numbers mean for our denomination. Upon further review, however, I did find one statistic of particular interest. One significant number figured in the ACP is the ratio baptism rate—a ratio which continues to increase. In 2007, the number of baptisms to members was 1:47. In 2006, the ratio was 1:45.

The significance of the year-to-year changes reflected in the ACP report remains elusive. Even the change in the baptism ratio is not easily explained. Looking back at my last post, if I am correct about only the change in who is a candidate for baptism, i.e. we are baptizing fewer people but no less are being genuinely converted, then one would expect the ratio to rise. That is, fewer total baptisms means fewer baptisms per member. If, however, I am correct only about the change in membership reporting, i.e. some churches are cleaning their roles, then you would expect the baptism ratio to decrease. That is fewer members means fewer members per baptism. If I am right about both, then the numbers will off-set to some degree. If I am right about neither, then we have reason to be alarmed. While the year-to-year change may or may not be significant, I am more concerned with the change in ratio baptisms from 1:19 in 1950 to 1:47 in 2007. This seems to me to be a bigger problem than the changes in reporting practices can account for. If Dr. Stetzer is correct, the decline in ACP numbers is part of a 50-year trend. (I highly recommend reading and pondering Stezer's original assessment, whether or not you agree).

Regardless of what the numbers mean, I offer two opinions:

1. We should be concerned about increasing our evangelism efforts.

2. We should be concerned with statistics – that is, the numerical results of our efforts.

No, we should not make statistics an idol. Yet, neither should we ignore numbers as one useful indicator of our faithfulness to the evangelistic task. Results are not faithfulness, but they may indeed be an indicator of faithfulness or a lack thereof. In the face of declining numbers, every church must be willing to ask themselves whether their lack of results is an indicator of a lack of faithfulness. (For more on this, see my forthcoming dissertation).

In response to Stetzer's assessment on our declining numbers, Malcolm Yarnell suggests,

“Perhaps the churches are busy proclaiming God’s Word, but the Spirit in His sovereignty has not yet seen fit to bless us with the numbers we desire to see. Perhaps our focus should be less upon meeting statistical goals and more upon simply being faithful with what responsibilities we have been granted.”

Of course, Dr. Yarnell’s scenario is within the realm of possibility. However, should we default to the assumption that we are being faithful without conducting a rigorous examination of our evangelistic efforts? I respectfully offer another “perhaps.”

Perhaps we are NOT busy at the work of evangelism. Perhaps we do not often share the gospel. Perhaps in our evangelism we do not clearly present the cross of Christ. Perhaps we are failing to communicate the gospel clearly, in a contextual manner, without unnecessary social or culture barriers. Perhaps we are presenting facts without pressing for a verdict. Perhaps God is waiting for our obedience. Perhaps we are NOT being faithful.

Are we or are we not? Again, the answer to these questions is not in the ACP. The numbers may mean a variety of things. Of course, we should not base our entire assessment of either our denomination or our local church on numbers alone. Dr. Yarnell is right that we should be focused on being faithful more than on numbers. However, I would suggest that numbers are a good place to start in self-examination. The ACP ought to get us to ask of ourselves the hard questions. Just what IS the significance of the numbers? If we are unwilling to examine ourselves, our motives, our methods, and our evangelistic activity, how can we justifiably claim that all is well?

Let us press on toward the mark. Let us be consumed with the mission of God and his glory. Let us not be satisfied with sagging numbers until we are absolutely sure we are doing all we can for the cause of the gospel.

SBC Numbers Down

2008-04-24T00:06:00.001-04:00

Well, I just finished my dissertation and can return to blogging . . . just in time to respond to the 2008 ACP report. In a nutshell, baptisms are down, membership is down, church planting and attendance is up.

Before offering my analysis, let me affirm that I am neither interested in spinning the statistics for the purpose of preserving the perceived status of the SBC, nor do I wish to overstate the significance of the report as a way of highlighting the importance and urgency of renewing our passion for evangelism as a denomination.

That being said, while the ACP is valuable for self-evaluation and year-by-year comparison, the significance of numbers from one year should not be overblown. The number of churches reporting is not consistent (down 1300 this year), and the way that churches report is in flux. I personally believe that there is a gradual shift in the way that churches are counting. An increasing number of pastors are baptizing less people because they are, rightly or wrongly, raising the bar on who they are willing to baptize. This may account for at least part, if not all, of the decline in the number of baptisms. Further, some pastors are, under the banner of regenerate church membership, leading their churches to clean up their membership roles. An example of this attitude can be seen in the (defeated but widely supported) resolution proposed by Tom Ascol last year on integrity in church membership. That an increasing number of churches are reducing their membership in this way may account for some or all the decline in membership.

It is quite possible that the cumulative ACP statistics are seeing a kind of correction, similar to what happens periodically on the stock market, which could continue over the next 5 to 10 years as more and more church leaders adopt these practices. This, in my opinion, would be a good development in the long run.

The continued use of statistics, however, should not be rejected. Statistics are a valuable tool, but numbers are only as valuable as the facts they represent. While ACP reporting practices are changing, the value of the cumulative annual report may be, for the time being, diminished. However, ACP statistics can be a valuable tool in a church’s self-evaluation process. Since a church tends to report numbers in the same way, significant changes in particular statistics can communicate a lot about a church’s progress or lack thereof. Comparison with other churches, however, will prove useless as long as churches do not report their numbers in the same way. Likewise, when churches vary extensively in their baptism practices, comparison of the number of baptisms is often misleading and unfair. Such comparisons often reflect poorly on churches who may actually produce more genuine converts.

In any case, given the gradual change in the nature of ACP numbers, there may not be anything definitive we can conclude about this year’s ACP report. The report will be seen by some as a positive development, by others as a disaster, but hopefully will remind all of the urgency of our evangelistic task.

Answer to Prayer -- Dr. Mohler

2008-03-25T14:31:00.002-04:00

This just in: Dr. Mohler does not have cancer. Praise the Lord! Please continue to pray for his complete recovery.

Please join me in praying for Dr. Mohler

2008-02-14T15:00:00.004-05:00

I'm taking a break from my dissertation long enough to ask my few readers to pray for our seminary president, Dr. R. Albert Mohler. In chapel today, after a sermon on accepting adversity by Dr. Ware, and once the cameras had been turned off, Dr. Mohler announced to the seminary family that he has a pre-cancerous tumor on his colon. Dr. Tom Schreiner led us in prayer as we laid hands on the Mohler family. Please join me in continued prayer for Dr. Mohler, his family, and our seminary.

Blessings!
-- Todd

p.s. You can read the full story at Baptist Press. Of particular note to my readers is that Dr. Mohler has withdrawn is candidacy for SBC president. I regret that I will not be able to cast my ballot for him this year. Please pray for Convention messengers as they select a president in June.

Living the Missionary Motto

2008-02-04T07:19:00.000-05:00

Early in my seminary career, Dr. Mark Terry taught me the missionary motto:

Where He leads me, I will follow;
What He feeds me, I will swallow!

This week, my "friend," colleague, and mentor, Bryan G helped me practice it.

For our Birthdays (we share the same day) the church where we are serving together as co-interim pastors threw us a pot-luck dinner. One group of ladies made Bryan his favorite dish, fish head curry. Not something I would choose for myself, but Hey, he's lived in the Pac Rim for 15 years.

As my Birthday gift to me, Bryan decided that I should share the "delicacy" of the dish, one of the fish eyes. So, before letting everyone eat, I got the special "privilege" of eating the first bite of our potluck --the curry flavored fish eye from this appetizing dish. Bryan ate his first . . .

Then I followed suit.

This of course doesn't make me a TRUE missionary, but in my opinion, it was a brave first step.

I can get the recipe for you if you'd like to try it too :-)

Blessings!
-- Todd

A Driving Conviction about Evangelism: Practical Suggestions (Five Essentials, part 1B)

2008-01-31T06:50:00.000-05:00

Passion for missional Christianity comes from the Lord. You cannot create a passion in your church, only God can. For that reason, the primary “methods” for creating this passion in your people are prayer and the Word.

In your personal devotion, pray and ask God to create this passion in His people. Pray for more laborers in His harvest (Matt 9:38). At the same time, be intentional in times of corporate prayer to pray for the lost, to pray for missions, to pray for unreached peoples, to pray that God would give his people a burden for evangelism, to pray that God would raise up more laborers.

Pray and ask God to give YOU a burden for the lost and for his gospel. Pray and ask God for opportunities to evangelize. Pray specifically for lost individuals. Set aside time for personal evangelism. Baptize believers with rejoicing. Allow the church to “catch” your own passion for the gospel.

Make God’s act of redemption through Jesus Christ central to your preaching. Spend more of your sermon and teaching time focusing on the Cross and Resurrection. When preaching on practical issues, make sure to emphasize not only the moral guidelines. Rather, preach Christian living in terms of redemption, putting on the new self. Preach a sermon series on God’s redemptive plan. Demonstrate this redemptive purpose through the entire corpus of Scripture and not just the Great Commission. Show how evangelism and missions is the role of His church.

How do we create a passion in God's people? Continually bring the need for gospel passion to the Lord in prayer. Then, bring that need to the church in your word and witness.

Wade Burleson Resigns

2008-01-30T08:40:00.000-05:00

For those of you following the IMB trustee story line, a significant event occurred yesterday. Wade Burleson has resigned from the IMB Board of Trustees.

Grace and Truth to You: A Decision I Believe Is Best for the Future of All

I have no comments at this time, but reserve the right to comment in the future. In the mean time, I encourage you to pray for Wade as well as the remaining Trustees. Above all, pray that the work of the IMB will continue to be used of God for his glory.

Weekend Reading for Missional Christians

2008-01-26T10:54:00.000-05:00

Friends,

Here are a couple blog posts I recommend:

David Sills, on his blog Culturality and Missiology, has posted a compelling essay that deserves wide readership. I strongly encourage you to read "Has Anybody Seen Our Missionary Heroes?" May we live up to the standard set in this post. May God raise up a generation of missions leaders.

Also, Larry Baker has posted preliminary findings presented by Chuck Lawless on the habits of pastors of high impact churches. The official report will be released this spring. The findings may not surprise you, but they may convict you. Read the post here.

Blessings!
-- Todd

A Driving Conviction about Evangelism: Essentials of a Missional Church, part 1

2008-01-24T20:48:00.000-05:00

It is surprising to me how many believers go through their Christian life with little or no concern for reaching people with the gospel. While teaching a discipleship course on evangelism at my church last fall, one member, a leader in the church, commented that he really did not have a burden for the lost. He admitted that he had never thought of evangelism as an important aspect of his Christian faith. I am thankful that he was candidly honest about where he was. Unfortunately, this man is not an anomaly. His viewpoint is far too common and in many churches is the norm. Multiply that perspective by 150 church members and you have a partial answer for why a church is not effectively reaching their community for Christ.

It is a good thing for churches to be concerned about the discipleship of their members. It is important for churches to teach their members the truths of Scripture and help them grow in faith and in the image of Christ. However, such discipleship must include teaching believers to be missional Christians. How can we claim to be like Jesus if we neglect his very mission?

If a church wants to fulfill the Great Commission, it will require first that its members share the heart of Jesus for the lost he came to save. We must share the heart of Jesus who wept for Jerusalem (Luke 18:41). We must follow the model of Paul whose heart was for the salvation of his fellow Jews (Rom 9:1-3; 10:1). We must be compelled by the love of Christ for a lost world and take on the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:14, 18).

Still, in many churches, evangelism is something we talk about and list among other Christian duties. As Russell Moore quipped in Southern Seminary’s chapel last fall, we know we should evangelize in the same way we know we should floss. Until evangelism ceases to be a Christian virtue that we have not yet achieved and becomes the driving passion of our church and personal ministry, we will never fulfill the purpose God has set for us. To become a missional church, we must have a passion for the Great Commission – reaching persons with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the grand theme of Scripture. It should be our theme as well.

Five Essentials of a Missional Church

2008-01-14T10:50:00.002-05:00

The following is an outline I have been developing concerning evangelism and missions in the local church. I intend to blog about each of these points over the next couple weeks as well as offer suggestions for implementing them. For now, here is a summary of my thinking. Please feel free, as we go along, to offer your comments, additions, suggestions, etc. (Sidebar: In my view, verbal witness is primary and essential but should also be accompanied by the kinds of works described in Matt 25:31-46. Also, fulfilling the GC includes initial conversion as well as establishing of believers in the faith.)
_____

To be effective in Great Commission work, a local church ought to have the following:

1. A deep conviction about evangelism. The church must develop a heart for the lost and a passion for the gospel.

2. A church culture that in which fulfilling the Great Commission is central to the mission of the church. This priority should be evident in every aspect of church life.

3. An equipping ministry that trains believers to effectively share their faith and use their gifts in kingdom work.

4. Sufficient opportunities to be involved in missions and evangelism.

5. Complete dependence on the Holy Spirit for the success of the mission.

I will break up a more detailed discussion of these points over several posts. In the mean time, feel free to comment. (For those that prefer an alliterated list, here you go: To be truly missional, a church must have a Driving Conviction, a Dynamic Culture, a Developing Competence, Deliberate Connections, and a Dependent Confidence.)

Blessings!

-- Todd

Why R. Albert Mohler is Good for Evangelism

2008-01-07T23:50:00.000-05:00

Many are weighing in on the prospect of a Mohler presidency. Whether or not he is elected, here are a few reasons (among many) that Dr. Mohler is a positive force for Great Commission work.

1. Mohler has shown himself as a uniter around the cause of the gospel. In his commentary, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” Dr. Mohler has laid out what he calls “second-order” and “third-order” doctrinal differences. While contending for right doctrine on all three tiers, Mohler has demonstrated a willingness to work together with those he differs with on second and third order differences for the cause of missions and evangelism. A number of examples demonstrate this willingness to unite around the gospel:

a. His prominent role in the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville.

b. His 2006 Pastor’s Conference break out session with Paige Patterson, “Reaching Today’s World Through Differing Views of Election.” Mohler called Patterson, with whom he disagrees on the issue of Calvinism, a close friend. He went on to say, ““Dr. Patterson and I have discussed this far more extensively than a one-hour presentation here would allow,” Mohler said. “It’s a part of the vibrancy of our friendship in the Gospel. … We owe it to each other as brothers in Christ, who share an affection for the Gospel … to, as iron sharpens iron, talk about these issues so that we can be evermore faithful in preaching and teaching the Gospel.”

c. His co-founding of “Together for the Gospel” with Presbyterian Ligon Duncan and charismatic C.J. Mahaney, along with Mark Dever. The first line of the Together for the Gospel statement reads, “We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause – to stand together for the Gospel.” Mohler says of this group, “I am incredibly thankful for my friendship with Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, and C J Mahaney. In recent years, I have come to a new and deeper understanding of what these friends mean to me . . . I have come to prize most highly those friendships that can last a lifetime. Yet, I am confident that something deeper and more important is at work here. The friendship that binds us together is a friendship that is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here we have found our shared redemption, our shared identity, our shared calling, our shared commission, and our shared passion. . . . We are together . . . in and for the Gospel.”

2. As a major leader among younger reformed evangelicals, Mohler has rejected hyper-Calvinism and has defended the proclamation of the gospel. In his breakout session at the 2006 Pastor’s Conference, “Reaching Today’s World Through Differing Views of Election” Mohler explains, “there is the real theological danger of those who do not believe in the well-meant offer of the Gospel. These are not persons who are merely five point Calvinists. Five point Calvinism is not hyper-Calvinism, it’s just Calvinism. However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons, they’re in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles.” Mohler is more pointed in his remarks in his major address, “Don’t just Stand There Do Something,” Mohler states, “if your theology does not issue a determination to see the glory of God in the salvation of the lost, and see that responsibility as a sacred privilege, then take your theology somewhere else.”

3. Mohler has continually demonstrated commitment to the gospel at Southern Seminary. Under Mohler’s leadership, Southern has founded the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth; added requirements that all students take both Introduction to Missiology and Personal Evangelism; established the Great Commission Center to promote missions and evangelism opportunities on campus. Further, Dr. Mohler continually challenges students to be involved in missions and evangelism.

4. If elected, Mohler has pledged to lead our Convention in the cause of the gospel. Speaking of his nomination for SBC president, Mohler states, “Our greatest challenge is to recover our passion for the gospel in evangelism and missions and to renew our determination to defend the gospel in an age of postmodern confusion. I would hope to articulate a vision that would unite Southern Baptists and energize us together. . . . We are not a top-down denomination—and for good reason. I promise to do my best to encourage Southern Baptists to be even more faithful, more biblical, more evangelistic, and more thankful for what God has given us in this convention of churches.” I am confident that whether Mohler is elected as president or not, he will be a champion for the gospel and a leader in Great Commission work.

May we follow Dr. Mohlers' example and passion for the good news of Jesus Christ!

The Campaign Against Mohler for SBC President Has Begun

2008-01-07T06:49:00.000-05:00

A debate concerning Dr. Mohler's qualification for seminary president can be found on Wade Burleson's blog post: Grace and Truth to You: Al Mohler: The Right Man for the Wrong Job?
See especially the comment by "Louis" (Comment #102). You may also read my response to Wade's blog post there.

Favorite Mohler quote

2008-01-05T18:38:00.000-05:00

Given the recent announcement that Dr. R. Albert Mohler will be nominated for president, I thought I would share my favorite Mohler quote (from "Two Inaugural Addresses"):

“To those of us on the faculty [of SBTS], if we are not driven to lead our students into evangelism, then we must teach somewhere else. Students, if you think evangelism is something you are called to do at some point in the future, rather than the present—or something that someone else is called to do—go study somewhere else. And beloved, if your theology does not issue a determination to see the glory of God in the salvation of the lost, and see that responsibility as a sacred privilege, then take your theology somewhere else.”

Blessings!
-- Todd

Christianity Today's Top Story for 2007

2007-12-21T07:12:00.000-05:00

Earlier this year, the Taliban kidnapped 23 Korean Christians while on a short-term mission trip. In the process, two were killed. At the time, I responded on this blog. In a year-end wrap-up article for the January 2008 edition, Christianity Today has listed this event has the top story of 2007. Another story in the list is an example of religious persecution of Christians. This has sparked a few thoughts this morning.

First, I am thankful to live in the United States where, despite any opposition, I am free to openly worship Jesus Christ and tell others about him. There is no fear of death, imprisonment, or persecution for bearing the name of Jesus. Thank you Lord for this country—God Bless the USA. Second, I am thankful for my Korean brothers and sisters who are committed to world missions. I count it a privilege to be able to study with a number of fine Korean men here at SBTS. These men are not only outstanding scholars, but are also deeply committed Christians with a passion for seeing the name of Jesus Christ exalted among the unreached peoples of the world. It has been one of the real blessings of my PhD studies to be able to learn with (and from) these men. Southern Baptists may not be the last best hope for the world, it may in fact be Korean Baptists and Presbyterians :-). Third, I am thankful for those who are willing to go to dark places with the light of the gospel. Despite many adversaries, Christians have seen doors open for the gospel message and have gone through them (1 Cor 16:9). I am thankful for mission teams that are being sent to difficult places. I am thankful for those who have given their lives to serve as missionaries whose names I cannot know for security reasons. I pray for the persecuted church and those brothers and sisters around the world who serve Christ despite persecution. I pray for more laborers for His harvest.

Finally, I ask. “Lord, what would you have me do?”

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying: Who should I send? Who will go for Us?

I said: Here I am. Send me. Isaiah 6:8 (HCSB)

Toward continued cooperation in missions: Responding to decisions of Baptist decision makers

2007-12-18T11:47:00.000-05:00

Even though this blog is about missions, I have until now decided not to post on controversial convention politics affecting missions such as the 2005 IMB baptism policy or the recent MBC executive committee’s decision to defund Acts 29 church plants. However, I have stated that this blog concerns, at least as one of its objectives, cooperation in missions. Therefore, I will offer these thoughts with the goal of furthering cooperation in missions.

1. As I stated in my previous post on critical contextualization, the danger of slipping into theological error and thus compromising the gospel is real and ever present. As we guard against this danger, sometimes bad decisions will be made, decision makers will over-react, or there will simply be disagreements on specific issues. This is nothing new and should not shock us. Let us be thankful that we serve in a denomination whose leaders are concerned about theological truth, even when they sometimes get it wrong.

2. In most cases, those pastors, laypersons, professors, presidents, trustees (and any other Baptists) that harp on theological matters, do so because of their love for the gospel and for the truth and not for self-aggrandizement or a personal agenda. Younger evangelicals must be careful to respect those with whom we disagree. This means we should not assume motives of others. I have met with several men with who I disagree and have found them to be humble godly men who are, like me, striving to be like Jesus Christ. Let us treat our brothers with respect. Personal character attacks of individual decision makers and influential leaders are neither lawful nor profitable.

3. NEVER blog when angry. No further comment necessary here.

4. Remember, we get it wrong too. In our efforts to be contextual, we can do things that are at least controversial and sometimes over the line. We must be open to others’ challenges and questions about OUR decisions, beliefs and practices. We must think critically about our own efforts to contextualize the gospel and consider outside critique of what we do. I, for one, have made some stupid mistakes that I was convinced were right at the time.

5. Not every perceived injustice is worth fighting about. We must use discernment and choose to battle only over those issues that really matter. The fact that I am personally affected by a policy does not make it a first tier issue. Each issue must be weighed and determined as to whether or not it is an issue worth fighting for.

6. Quit threatening to leave. Constant prophecies or threats that younger evangelicals will leave the Convention are unprofitable and border on being a bit juvenile. If you want to leave, leave. Do it quietly and without fanfare. If not, quit threatening to leave. Serve God where you are, join in cordial dialogue with those you disagree, give financially to missions, and go to the Convention and vote.

7. If sometimes bad decisions are made, remember that God is sovereign. God will work bad policies together for good. No errant decision will thwart his will. You may be personally affected by a bad decision or policy or know someone who is. Here is your chance to trust God. If God wants you to serve Him as a missionary or church planter, no policy is going to stop Him. This just gives God the opportunity to be creative and bring more glory to Himself. Trust Him, He knows what He’s doing :-)

Critical Contextualization: Balance for the "relevance" debate

2007-12-16T16:51:00.000-05:00

Contextualization should not be the concern of only IMB missionaries and trustees. Wherever the gospel is preached, it must be done in a way that is both biblically sound and culturally understood. Whenever we take the gospel to the world around us, we face inherent dangers. On the one hand, the danger of watering down the gospel or falling down the slippery slope of heresy is real and should be taken seriously by those who wish to be culturally relevant. It is not enough to be contextual if the gospel message is compromised or is so unclear and imprecise that it no longer communicates saving faith. At the same time, the danger of being culturally irrelevant should not be taken lightly either. It is not enough to be faithful to the content of the message if we fail to communicate that content to the lost around us because we fail to remove unnecessary cultural barriers. A gospel which does not communicate is no gospel to the one who hears it.

Since both dangers are real and present, it is important that we face them with a communication of the gospel which is both critical and contextual. [1] Of course, this will require some diligence on our part. Critical contextualization is hard work. If one is to strike the proper balance biblical fidelity and cultural relevance it will demand the conscientious efforts of decision makers to do so. If we are lazy in this process we will err in favor of one extreme or the other. Some will uncritically adopt any method that suits their fancy. Others will reject any new idea (or any old one for that matter) or, more likely, reject valid biblical attempts at contextual methods because they share some similarities with bad ones. In other words, some will fail to be contextual, others will fail be critical in their contextualization. Critical contextualization is not for the fainthearted. In whatever context one serves, critical contextualization requires study of one’s cultural context, exegesis of Scripture that allows Bible to speak for itself, and a critical evaluation of cultural practices based on the Scripture before developing new contextualized methods, and evaluation and guarding against syncretism after.

Faithfulness to the Great Commission demands that Christians, churches and denominations faithfully proclaim the gospel in a way that both communicates to the world around us and remains faithful to biblical gospel. Let us commit to doing all we can to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to a lost world. That includes the hard work of critical contextualization.

[1]The concept and process of critical contextualization was introduced by Paul Hiebert, “Critical Contextualization.” Missiology 12 (July 1987): 287-96.

An insider take on the new IMB guidelines

2007-12-12T23:12:00.000-05:00

I thought you might be interested in these remarks about the new contextualization guidelines by the other blogging IMB trustee, Dr. Hershael York. Two things in the post cause me to commend the article to you. First, Dr. York explains the C1-C5 spectrum, which I did not on my blog post on the topic. Also, he offers the following insight on the thinking of the trustees and the meaning of the new guidelines. He notes,

These principles represent a thoughtful, prayerful, and well-reasoned response to difficult missiological issues. Our missionaries are free and even encouraged to contextualize the gospel, but not to the point where it is unrecognizable. We are not free to misrepresent ourselves and claim to be members of a religion or sect other than Christian. Our missionaries can use the normal words of a receptor language, including their word for "God," so long as they theologically pack that word with the person of God revealed in Scripture. In the same way that I would explain to a Mormon that the God they believe in is different than the God of the Bible, so our missionaries should work toward that goal, even as Paul did on the Areopagus with "theos" in Acts 17.

You can read the full blog post here:
Confessions of a Pastor: The Most Important Business at the Recent IMB Meeting

Blessings!
-- Todd

Postscript: I would like to add, I have come to admire Dr. York not only as a scholar, but as a man of high Christian caliber. While I do not always agree with his positions on particular issues, he is a man of integrity and a real model for young Christian leaders. Thank you Dr. York for your leadership and example.

'Tis the Season for Missions Giving

2007-12-09T07:24:00.000-05:00

In many churches I have been in, I have felt that our goal for the Christmas missions offering (Lottie Moon for all you Southern Baptists) was quite low given the number and financial make-up of the congregations. Yet, at the same time, Christmas is a time where people are being bombarded with requests for money from a variety of good causes. Here is my question. What are some ways we can increase giving to missions while not putting a lot of pressure on people to give -- especially at a time when finances are often tight already. Here are a few ideas I have come up with:

Ideas to increase Lottie Moon giving:

1. Have a pledge drive for missions – have members pledge to set aside money each week/month for the next year (this idea actually came from my "home" church, TRBC -- they call it "Love Offering for Jesus").

2. Put missions on your Christmas list (before you budget for gift buying) – commit to give God your best by giving to missions as much or more than the top person on your Christmas list.

3. Have a restaurant fast for missions – give up eating out for the month of December and give what you would have spent to missions. (This would work for a variety of things, not just restaurants).

I'm working on building a much bigger list and that's where you come in. I’m looking for ideas, thoughts or opinions from all my readers. What do you think of these ideas? Do you have a creative idea of your own? Here is your chance to leave a comment on my blog.

Blessings!

-- Todd

p.s. Here's an incentive: Someday when I write my best-selling book, I'll quote you and you'll be famous! :-)

Thank God for Footnotes:

2007-12-05T11:36:00.000-05:00

Three signs that our IMB trustees understand the balance between missiology and theology.

In the recent meeting of IMB trustees, a new statement was adopted outlining guidelines for contextualization. You can read the full report here. While I have been among those who are concerned about the “narrowing of doctrinal parameters” by some of our agencies’ policies, I am pleased with these new guidelines. In fact, these guidelines are, in my opinion, right on the money.

I submit as evidence of a good policy, the three footnotes, each of which give contemporary practical applications to the new policies.

Footnote “a” reads:

“In John Travis’ spectrum of contextualization, C-4 would be the extent of indigenization acceptable for IMB personnel (“The C1 to C6 Spectrum.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34. [4]:407-408).”

Without explaining for the uninitiated exactly what that means, C4 is pretty far along the contextual scale. C5, I believe, is goes too far and blurs the line between Christianity and Islam. This is exactly where I and most of my missiologist colleagues draw the line as well. I am pleased that the trustees are willing to go as far as C4. (Please email me if you would like access to the EMQ article cited above).

Footnote “b” reads:

“For example, the theological construct represented by the term 'Allah' in the Quranic system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of 'Allah' predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who 'Allah' truly is in accord with biblical revelation.”

This footnote reveals that the Trustees understand and are willing to acknowledge the difference between form and meaning. Rather that enforcing a blanket policy banning use of the term, the new contextualization policies empower the missionary to make critical contextualization decisions particular to that context. In other words, when the “forms” are morally neutral, they may be retained and given new meaning. The use of “Allah” is one of the hot-button issues in recent debate and I am pleasantly surprised at the trustee’s stance.

Footnote “c” reads:

“Integrity requires, for example, that we not imply that a false prophet or a body of religious writings other than the Bible are inspired. There is a level of contextualization that crosses the line of integrity. Our board has dismissed personnel who have refused counsel and deliberately positioned themselves beyond that line.”

This policy seeks to recognize the balance between doing whatever it takes to reach the lost and maintaining biblical fidelity and integrity in our witness. To read between the lines here, the policy is referring most immediately to the use of the Koran in witness to Muslims. This footnote appears to affirm the use of the somewhat controversial “CAMEL” method (which begins with the Koran, but in no way affirms it) while rightly criticizing methods which try to “prove” Christianity from the Koran. The footnote is worded in such a way that it applies to all religious texts and persons not just the Koran and Muhammad. This shows that the IMB trustees are willing to try new methods of reaching unreached peoples while at the same time maintaining personal integrity, and upholding the exclusivity of the gospel and the unique authority of the Bible.

**** All this is to say, that there is good news in the new guidelines and the evidence is in the footnotes. IMB trustees are faithfully doing their job and have shown through this report that they are thinking both theologically AND missiologically about missions. Bravo!

Now if they would only reverse the eternal security baptism policy . . . :-)

What's in a name (part 2)

2007-11-19T13:32:00.001-05:00

Any time we name a church you are attempting to communicate something about the identity of your church. Most of the time, the name is meant to communicate something to those outside the church body itself. Naming of churches has gone through several stages. Some names are strictly utliltarian. Older church names commonly included only the denomination and the number church they are in a given area. Thus, it is not uncommon to find churches named First Church of the Nazarene, Second United Methodist, Sixth Baptist, and Tenth Presbyterian. I even found a Twenty-eighth Church of Christ. My seminary roommate pastored a church which having had a rather contentious split named itself Friendship Baptist Church #2 (the church has since changed its name).

Other churches were named for their location—named after city, road, landmark. This results in church names such as Dowagiac Christian Center, Rensselaer Community Church, or Worthville Baptist Church. Occasionally locations can result in some interesting church names. For example, Walnut Street Baptist Church in Louisville is now actually on Third Street. There are at least three “Little Hope Baptist” churches in the U.S.; as well as First Baptist Church of Cash, Boring United Methodist Church, Intercourse United Methodist Church, and my personal favorite, Calvin Free Will Baptist Church. Personally, I have dreamed of moving to Michigan to plant the First Baptist Church of Hell :-).

Knowing that names communicate, some churches include a word that relates to the gospel message. Thus, you find names such as Grace, Faith, Calvary, etc. Newer churches choose trendy names which communicate both their “post-modern” flavor and something of their core values in the name: Sojourn, Mosaic, Discovery, Journey, etc. Of course you don’t have to be a trendy post-modern church to include a core value in your name. Churches in my home state include Friendship Baptist, Community Fellowship, and of course, Greater-Come-As-You-Are-Baptist-Church. I would submit that some churches try to communicate too much in their name. Consider the following (I’m not making these up): Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas, Restoration Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, African Church of God (Yahweh) Messianic Assembly of The Kingdom of God, and my favorite, A.B.B.A.'s (Adopted into the Beloved and Blessed Abundantly) House Church of God of Prophecy. You ask what’s in a name? Sometimes a whole lot!

Anyway, the point of all this, if there is one, is to say, that there a lot of possibilities in choosing a name and denominational identity is only one of them.

Blessings!

-- Todd

What's in a name?

2007-11-03T08:00:00.001-04:00

There is a perennial debate among North American church planters as whether or not new churches should include a denominational labels (in my case “Baptist”) in their name. Larry Baker (Kentucky Baptist church planting strategist) has offered a two recent posts on the issue and the comments to his post are as informative and helpful as the post itself. Here are a few points I would like to offer for consideration on the issue of leaving “Baptist” out of the church name. (In my next post I will offer points to consider when choosing a name.)

1. It is wrong to be intentionally deceptive. If the purpose of leaving a denominational title out of your name is a kind of “bait and switch” technique, then there is an ethical problem here. I would submit, however, that the overwhelming majority of church planters have no intention to make people think that they are something they are not, nor hide their denominational affiliation.

2. You cannot communicate everything through a name. Names, generally speaking, are short labels. With the exception of those churches with obnoxiously long names, church names tend to be 2-4 words in length. There is a limit to what you can communicate in four words or less. Including “Baptist” in a church name communicates something, but you cannot communicate what “Baptist” means. Many people are unclear what the word “Baptist” really means so that in many cases having the word in the name does not communicate anything.

3. Omission is not necessarily deception. Again, unless your name is very long, you cannot include everything in a name. The question is, what do you include and what do you leave out to communicate a different way? Are you deceiving people if you do not include everything here? Is it deception for a Southern Baptist Church to leave “Southern” out of their name? Must every distinctive of your church be included in the church name: “First Southern Inerrantist Exclusivist 7-Day Creation Contemporary Music Small Groups instead of Sunday School 3.5 point Calvinist Preach out of the NIV Serve Communion Once a Month Southern Baptist Church”. All of these are something someone might want to know. Not all of these belong in a church name. Who decided that denominational affiliation was the most important thing about a church?

4. There are other ways to communicate denomination than the name. A few examples I’ve seen include literature tables, visitor information packets, denominational missions posters, membership class, church website, etc. The most common way, perhaps, is to answer the questions of those who ask. In my first church plant, rightly or wrongly, we did not include “Baptist” in our name. We did communicate our Baptist identity in other ways and most people who wanted to know simply asked. I’ve visited other Baptist churches where you had to do extensive detective work to discover whether they were Southern, American, General, Independent, or something else. Each church must find its own way to communicate what is important and distinctive about their congregation—including denominational affiliation.

5. There are much better measures of denominational loyalty than the name of the church. “Baptist” in the name doth not a loyal Southern Baptist make. I would humbly submit that loyalty to your denomination has much more to do with involvement than the name of your church. Much more important, in my opinion, are missions giving and associational involvement. Even more important is commitment to the Great Commission.

Generally speaking, I am not highly concerned whether or not a church includes denominational identity in their name. I offer these points to suggest that we do not judge a church or church planter by their name alone.

You comments are welcome.

Should Everyone be a Missionary?

2007-08-30T06:56:00.000-04:00

The following are exerpts from my response to a discussion in my missions class on the definition of “missionary”:

Let me offer a few thoughts on the matter that, for purposes of discussion, will be labeled as “my opinion” :-)

1. While I do not call every Christian a missionary, the motivation for doing so is admirable. The point most are trying to make is that the Great Commission is for all believers and that evangelism is the job not just of the hired guns, but of every believer. Christians need to be motivated to share their faith to the world around them and the church should in fact be a sending agency (Rom 10:15) whether the place they are being sent is next door or across the globe. Many people do not like the distinction missiologists make [e.g., Olsen, What in the World is God Doing, 9-13] because they do not want to diminish the calling of every Christian to spread the gospel wherever they are.

2. At the same time, definitions are important. We use words to communicate and it is important that everyone understands what we mean by what we say. Precise words are often needed to distinguish between one category and another. One case is that of “missions” vs. “mission.” A generation ago, this distinction became extremely important as Christians debated just what was the primary task of Christians around the world. In a nutshell, the distinction needed to be made between the primary task of evangelism and church planting and every other good thing that Christians should do (feeding the hungry, medical care, social justice, etc.). As one theologian noted in the midst of that debate, “if everything is mission, then nothing is mission.” Words and their meanings matter.

Most of our discussion on this topic has been over the definition of “missionary” and whether every person should be one. While I do not think the use of the term is a major issue worth fighting over, I offer a few points for your consideration:

a. Since the word “missionary” is nowhere in the Bible, a precise definition is not a matter of biblical fidelity. Likewise, we are free to delimit our understanding of the word and its use. In doing so, we do not undermine the Great Commission, the responsibility of every Christian to be a witness wherever they are, or the tremendous need for the gospel here at home (cf. Acts 1:8).

b. In my opinion, I believe it is indeed helpful to narrow the use of the term missionary because, although there may be no difference in importance, there is a definite difference in expectation in what a missionary does. Among other things, missionaries typically must: leave their home and extended family, move to a distant location, learn a new language, adapt to a new culture, study the new culture in order to communicate the gospel effectively, change his or her diet, etc., etc. The call to be a missionary, then, is quite different from the call to witness to a neighbor or be a light in the workplace. Having a distinct and separate term helps us to define the specific task of leaving, crossing cultures, planting churches, and reaching the unreached peoples of the world with the gospel.

c. We have other terminology that is adequate to describe the task/role of every believer. Every believer is to be a witness (Acts 1:8). Every Christian should be active in evangelism (2 Tim 4:4). What is the purpose served in calling everyone a missionary? Using the term does not change our responsibility to spread the gospel wherever we are. It may be that by calling everyone a missionary we may inadvertently discourage missions. While highlighting the responsibility of every believer to share the message of Christ with those around them, we may blind ourselves to the great need in other parts of the world. By reserving the term for those who go to another place and/or cross cultures, we remind Christians of the billions of people in the world who have yet to hear the good news. We highlight the fact that while in America there may be one born again Christian for every ten people, in the 10/40 window there may be one for every hundred thousand. Having a distinct and separate term helps us to highlight the great need in other places and define more precisely the specific roles in fulfilling the Great Commission.

3. Of course, the discussion can get even more precise. Even when we agree that the term “missionary” should be reserved for a particular type of ministry, what are the elements that define the term. There are still a few areas that my colleagues debate. For example, how far does one have to go; How much of a cultural barrier does one have to cross before they are in fact doing missions? I am a church planter. If I plant a church in my home town, am I a missionary? What about the next town? California? Western Europe? Southeast Asia? Each location offers an increased level of spatial and cultural distance one must cross. (I know one professor that argues that Paul was not actually a missionary, since he did not cross any cultural barrier in his ministry). When we want to be even more precise, missiologists have ways to classify the different types of evangelism. Ralph Winter, for example, developed a paradigm to delineate the various barriers one might cross in missions: E1 evangelism—to those of the same culture and language; E-2 evangelism—to those of similar culture and/or language; E-3 evangelism—to those of a significantly foreign language or culture (originally developed by Ralph Winter in Perspectives of the World Christian Movement, William Carrey Library, 1981, 1992). The issues can be as complex as we want them to be.

Summary: In my opinion, we must strike a balance between the academic need to be precise in our language and the pastoral need to challenge our churches with the commission of Christ. The important point is to be sure that we are actively participating in God’s global mission—both here at home and around the world. Words are merely tools to help us communicate specific concepts. Whatever terminology we use, let us be sure that we are obedient to Jesus’ command to “go into all the world” with the gospel of redemption.

Korean Missionaries Freed -- What Now?

2007-08-29T07:38:00.000-04:00

Thank you for all who prayed for the release of 19 Korean missionaries held in Afghanistan. Thus far, eight have been freed with the remaining hostages to be freed over the next day or so. Let us return thanks to the Lord for answered prayer.

This release, however, came at a cost. I'm not talking about the credibility Korean government negotiations gave to the Taliban. That is an issue for a political blog. The issue to which I am referring is the promised ban on Christian missions to Afghanistan by the South Korean government. Whether or not this will have a real effect on Korean mission work to Afghanistan remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it shows how much we must depend on the Lord who "who opens and no one will close, and closes and no one opens." Rev 3:7 (HCSB)

South Korean missionaries have been a vital witness to their Muslim neighbors, gaining access and open doors for witness that Westerners cannot. Many of my Korean brothers in our doctoral program are preparing for ministry among Muslims. Still others look for ways to penetrate this seemingly closed area. We can be assured that God continues to work in this region.

As God continues His work, we must remember Paul's statement about his own ministry in 1 Cor 16:9: "For a great and effective door has opened to me, and there are many adversaries."

With the release of these missionary hostages, our prayers for the region cannot end. We must pray both for a "great and effective door" for the gospel to go out to Muslims and the unreached people groups in the 10/40 window. We must pray for and support those missionaries who have committed their lives to taking the gospel to them despite "many adversaries." We must pray that the harvest be ripened and for God to send more laborers into it.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26321
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?ei=UTF-8&p=taliban+korean+hostages

Friday is for funny -- A Pause from Serious Reflection for a Little Humor

2007-08-24T15:46:00.000-04:00

Forgive me for this, but after this recent "close encounter" on campus at Southern, I just have to ask . . . Do you believe in Alien Baptism?

My Baby is 10 Today

2007-08-23T09:16:00.001-04:00

Today, my first-born turns ten years old. This is her first day as “a double-digit.” Like most parents whose kids grow up, I wonder where the time went and realize how quickly life passes us by. It is at these times that certain passages of Scripture come to mind and seem to have special significance. Passages such as,

“See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” Eph 5:15-16 NKJV

and

“teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Psalms 90:12 NKJV

Our days on earth are not infinite and we must be careful to use them wisely. This means as a parent, my days with my children are limited. I only have a little time to bring them up in the Lord, lead them to faith and growth in Christ, and teach them the skills to live a Christian life. This is something I have been thinking about (and teaching in Sunday School) over the past few months.

In Colossians, there is a parallel passage that has specific application for missions and evangelism:

“Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time.” Col 4:5 (NKJV)

It is in the context of his own ministry that Paul challenges us to make the most of our time not only in our life and family, but in God’s kingdom work. As stewards of our lives, it is incumbent upon every believer to be workers in God’s harvest field, to “pray, give, and go” with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, my daughter is ten today and seemingly has her whole life ahead of her. Yet as someone who was once ten myself, I know that life is short. I must be conscious of the time I have left with my children. I must teach her the value time to make the most of every opportunity -- to use every moment to glorify God. Most of all, I must demonstrate a life that is “on mission” with God. I must be involved in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ at home and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

God has only given us one life to live and we must be stewards of it.

How will I use it?

How will she use it?

How will you use it?

I Still Believe in Church Planting

2007-08-18T06:44:00.000-04:00

I have come full circle on North American church planting. I became a passionate supporter of church planting during my M.Div. studies and upon graduation, moved to a rural town to plant a church (which we did). I returned to Southern for Ph.D. studies with a bent toward church planting. In the middle of my doctoral studies, I became a bit disenchanted by the trendiness of it all. Yet, upon further reflection, I continue to see the importance and need for new churches and will continue to be an advocate for church planting here at home. I agree that there is ministry to be done in existing churches. I also am a strong advocate partnership and support for international missions. Here, however, are a few reasons I believe that churches should be involved in planting new churches in North America:

1. The population of the United States continues to grow at a pace that is continually increasing the church/population ratio. There is a need for new churches because the number of persons in the US continues to grow. At the same time, reports indicate that attendance in mainline and Catholic churches is steadily declining, and a large number of these persons remain unchurched.

2. Population shifts and development are seeing new communities emerging where there are few if any existing churches. New churches are needed to fill the gap.

3. The number of immigrants continues to grow. There is a need for churches to reach these rapidly growing ethnic populations.

4. Not all existing churches are willing and/or able to make the contextual and methodological changes necessary to reach our culture with the gospel. (Other churches are “unhealthy” and are unwilling to reform.) New churches often have a freedom and flexibility that established churches do not.

There are many more arguments in support of church planting. These are a few that I find compelling.

Author’s Note: This post was first written as a comment to a blog post entitled “Churches that Don’t Plant Churches” by a fellow PhD student at Southern.

The Meaning of Missional -- How I Use the Term

2007-08-17T08:09:00.000-04:00

On his new blog at LifeWay, Ed Stetzer has begun a much needed series on the “Meanings of Missional.” I look forward to his study on the history and usages of the word. In many ways, the current debate over the term “missional” is the new front on the old battle between “mission” and “missions.”[1] Of which of these words is “missional” the adjectival form? It appears that all depends on who is using the term.

For the sake of understanding this blog, however, here is how I presently use the term: The quality of being oriented toward or focused on God’s Kingdom mission. In my use, the term implies a strong priority on evangelism both to those around me and to the unreached peoples of the world. It involves intentionality in seeking ways to become increasingly involved as a “world Christian.” It constitutes a world and life view that focuses beyond oneself toward fully participating in God’s redemptive plan.

I will continue to think through this issue, as my explanation leaves much room for improvement. I will leave it to Dr. Stetzer to do the academic work here and to offer a precise, evangelical definition of the word (I am a little preoccupied with my dissertation:-). In the mean time, feel free to add your comments and suggestions to what I have offered here.

[1] For those not familiar with this distinction, here is the gist of it in its simplest form: Mission (singular) includes the entire program God has for His church. Missions (plural) refers to the specific task of taking the gospel to the world to bring persons to faith in Christ and establish churches. See, e.g., Olsen, What in the World is God Doing, p. 9-14.

A picture worth a thousand prayers

2007-08-11T06:26:00.002-04:00

Pray for Korean Mission Workers

2007-08-10T07:26:00.000-04:00

To my limited readership, let us join in continued prayer for the safe return of Korean mission workers held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"No matter what issues currently occupy Christians in the U.S., they should shift their focus to Afghanistan right now and join the churches in South Korea in vigilant prayer for the remaining hostages." -- Faith McDonnell, Institute on Religion and Democracy

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26193
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26183
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?ei=UTF-8&p=taliban+korean+hostages

Advice for Next Year's Mission Trip

2007-08-09T18:22:00.001-04:00

My kids started back to school today, and so for our family, the summer season has officially come to an end. With the end of the summer comes the end of the mission trip season as well. Now is the time to begin planning for next spring and summer’s mission trips (as well as getting a passport if you need one). Having both hosted mission teams as a church planter and planned trips for churches of which I have been a part, I have a few ideas (in the realm of “my personal opinion”) about avoiding some of the common pitfalls of sending and receiving mission teams. The following are a few tips for both the mission team planners and the host missionary:

Tips for Mission Team Planners. There are several pitfalls associated with mission teams. One of the big draws of mission trips is the benefit these trips have for the sending church. Because of these benefits, some churches send mission teams merely to provide an experience for their church or group and do not look at things from the host missionary’s perspective. While an uplifting experience is certainly one goal of m-trips, it should not be the most important one. Other churches come with a preconceived idea of what will work (usually a variation of what they are doing in their home church) with no knowledge of or regard to the cultural difference of the host culture, basic missiological principles, or the current goals of the missionary. Some groups arrive with their own agenda which has not been communicated and is often in conflict with the strategy goals of the missionary. Any of these scenarios can have serious consequences. At best these can lead to a reduced effectiveness of the mission team. At worst, the team can cause real problems or can even be detrimental to host missionaries and their work.

These pitfalls can be avoided, however, if the group approaches their planning with the proper attitude and perspective. Groups that wish to go overseas should do so with an attitude of humility and a servant's heart. They should be teachable and be willing to follow the lead of the missionary. They should seek and follow the advice of the missionary concerning cultural and contextual information needed in planning the trip. Additionally, churches need to make sure that the needs of the missionary shape the agenda of the trip. Team leaders should be in close communication with the missionary before the trip so that their visit is of mutual benefit to the m-trip group and the host missionary. In a mission-board model, part of this problem is addressed by having the missionary on the field request specific mission projects to be done by those teams. Churches who wish to take a group then are connected with missionaries requesting a team, etc. In an independent missionary model, or for “home” mission trips, churches should contact various missionaries to find out what their needs are and coordinate trips that are a help to them, allowing the missionary to take the lead. In all cases, team leaders should do their best to make sure the needs and goals of both the team and the missionary are a good fit. Finally, team leaders should do all they can to be as self-sufficient as possible during the trip. The less the missionary must be responsible for in terms of meals, lodging, transportation and other logistics, the better (obviously this will vary depending on the context).

Tips for Host Missionaries. Missionaries who do receive mission teams also have a responsibility if they agree to host a team. The missionary needs to realize that for an effective relationship, there must be a mutual benefit. Many mission teams have come home discouraged after investing their vacation time and financial resources on a domestic or overseas trip where the host missionary was disinterested, unorganized, or did not effectively use the team. Nothing is more discouraging for a mission team than to travel a great distance to sit around and do nothing for a missionary who is unprepared, or worse, really does not want them there (this does actually happen sometimes).

To be effective, the missionary can do several things. First, do your best to incorporate mission teams into your overall strategy rather than adding them on and trying to make them fit. This keeps the missionary from seeing mission teams as a distraction, but as an essential part of the plan. There are several things that mission teams can do well and that can be a real asset to the missionary. Second, recruit teams whose ministry goals meet the goals of the missionary. If a mission team is not a fit, it is better to acknowledge that before the trip is planned than after the team is on the field. Third, make sure the team has any essential information they need about the culture and how their trip fits in your overall strategy so they can orient themselves before they leave their home. Finally, see the hosting of the mission team as a ministry to that group. When done well, mission trips can result in significant spiritual growth of the participants, increased fellowship, and avid missions supporters.

These are just a few ideas. As always, there is certainly much more that can be said about the issue. I for one have an earnest desire to discover ways to mobilize churches toward effective partnerships with missionaries for the mutual benefit of both, for the advancement of God's kingdom.

(Disclaimer: This is advice for working with an existing missionary. New models are emerging for churches to make long term commitments to engage unreached people groups for which this advice may or may not apply. But that will have to wait for another post . : -)

An Encounter with "Feel Good" Theology

2007-08-02T10:10:00.000-04:00

While on vacation this week, My wife and I are visiting friends in another state. We were blessed to be able to worship with them and meet their pastor. Despite our denominational differences, the pastor and I hit it off as we were like-minded in our passion for the gospel. A couple of comments during the Bible study, however, (we were in Romans 3) caused a moment of concern. It had nothing to do with eternal security, the gift of tongues, or ecclesiology (though we likely differ on all of those). It wasn’t that he said something that bothered my Baptist sensibilities. In fact, I have heard the same thing said in Baptist churches. The belief he expressed has become widespread among evangelicals even though it has no real biblical support. It is an attractive belief -- real "feel good" theology. The pastor introduced the idea with the phrase “the Bible teaches that . . . .” At the end of the Bible study, when the floor was open for questions, a young woman (also a visitor) asked eagerly where she could find that in the Bible. She was not challenging the pastor as I would have been doing had I asked the question. Rather, she had never heard this idea before but really liked it and wanted the “proof text” to confirm it. The pastor could not come up with a verse on the spot (I whispered to my wife, “that’s because it’s not in there”) but he assured her that this was the Bible’s teaching.

This belief to which I am referring is the belief that all people in the world will have an equal chance to accept Christ. That is, because God is loving and fair, God will give everyone a chance to become a Christian. I understand the desire to have such a belief. For one, it helps resolve the tension in the question “What happens to those who have never heard.?” I helps us solve the dilemma of the fairness of God given the present situation in the world. There are several problems with this reasoning, however. Below are a few of those problems as I see it in the early morning before anyone else in the house is awake an functioning:

1. This is not the Bible’s teaching. There is no suggestion in the Bible that salvation is available to any without the preaching, hearing and responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact the book of Romans expresses this in chapter 10:

¹³ For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." ¹⁴ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? ¹⁵ And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" ¹⁶ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" ¹⁷ So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17 (NKJV) cf. 1 Cor 1:21. There is no other biblical way. People must hear and believe the gospel to be saved.

Some try to explain away this lack of biblical support by saying that the Bible is silent about the fate of the unevangelized and claim that God is free to do whatever he wants. We don’t have to know HOW he will give everyone an equal chance, we don’t even have biblical precedence, we only have to know that God is loving and fair and fairness demands that everyone have a chance to believe. The problem here is two-fold. a. We are on dangerous ground when we say that go beyond what God has revealed in his word. We have enough statements about salvation and evangelism to rule out such a scenario. b. God already addresses the question of those who have not heard the gospel. God has already given revelation through creation, and even this light has been rejected. No one can say at the judgment “We never heard the message.” They are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20). Others approach the problem a different way by saying that is someone truly seeks God, God in his faithfulness will send a messenger. This scenario is also ruled out in Romans since “no one seeks God”(Rom 3:11).

2. In effect, this view undermines mission and evangelism. No longer burdened by the fate of those who do not hear the gospel, we lose our urgency for evangelism and missions. We may feel some guilt for lack of involvement in missions and evangelism, but the guilt is now only from not obeying a command of Scripture. Add that to the list of things I need to work on in my own personal spiritual development. Since God is fair, my lack of involvement puts no one’s ultimate destiny at stake. The urgency for missions and evangelism is lost.

3. Finally, such a view does not take our own depravity seriously. I say this because the idea of God’s fairness really reflects our own doubts about the seriousness of sin. The reality is that I deserve death and hell as does every person in the world. I am no better than the person who has never heard the gospel Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for my sins, I too would be condemned. When people die of a disease, it is not the lack of a cure that kills them, it is the disease itself. When God condemns sinners, whether or not they hear the gospel, they are condemned for their sin and nothing else. We have the cure, we must take it to them. Without the gospel, we too would be condemned.

I could take up much more space discussing this subject and really have not done it justice here. I bring it up because it is becoming such a popular view among otherwise bible-believing Christians. In any case, that’s all I can do while on vacation. My family is getting up and soon will be ready to get going on fun vacation stuff. There is much more to say on this subject. Feel free to add your comments.

In defense of pragmatism

2007-07-24T13:36:00.000-04:00

In a recent commissioning service for IMB missionaries, Jerry Rankin challenged his audience to follow the example of the apostle Paul. That is, they should adopt a “‘wigtake’ attitude – to do ‘whatever it's going to take’ to get the Gospel to all peoples.” Whether “wigtake” will become the next new buzzword in missions I don’t know (I’ve heard at least one professor at Southern Seminary use it in class), but it does suggest to me an interesting question: What is the role of pragmatism in missions and evangelism?

I for one believe the word “pragmatism” has unfairly gotten a bed rep. Perhaps it is because many define pragmatism by the old maxim “the end justifies the means.” Perhaps it is because we blame pragmatism for the many excesses and examples of outrageous outreach practices among some evangelicals. Perhaps it is because we have become leery of meaningless numbers[1] -- inflated statistics, large numbers of “decisions” or even baptisms that do not result in real church growth -- all seemingly as a result of pragmatism. Put that all together and you find that for many, pragmatism has become something of a dirty word.

I am sympathetic to those who try to avoid the pragmatic approach in favor of a strictly biblical one. Those of a theological mindset might say things like “just preach the Word” or “All I have to do is be obedient and leave the results up to God.” I should not focus on being pragmatic, rather, I should be focus on being “biblical.” While this attitude is pious and well intended, in my opinion it is overly simplistic. I say this because no matter how biblical we become, we still have practical choices to make for which we have no clear biblical direction. Take for instance the person who says “Just preach the word.” Great! I’m all for it. Now, which Scripture(s) are you going to preach? In what language? Which translation? Where will you preach? To whom? At what time of day? What will you wear while preaching? The choices go on and on.

Try another. “All I have to do is be obedient in evangelism.” Ok, now the practical questions: Whom will I evangelize? How will I approach them? When and where? How will I gain a hearing? Should I find a way to build a relationship? How? What approach will I take in conversation? How will I begin my gospel presentation? Will I use a Bible or tract? Should I call first or just cold call? Should I pop in a breath mint? Should my wife and I speak to this couple individually or together? Each circumstance has its own set of questions and choices to be made -- and most of them are biblically neutral.

At this point you have a decision to make. You can say that these questions (and others like them) are irrelevant as long as you are obedient to the biblical command. Or, you can say that at least some of these decisions may have a bearing on the effectiveness of the effort. If you choose the options you think will be more effective, like it or not, you are a pragmatist.

Now, I will grant that not every choice is appropriate – some ideas are unbiblical and should be avoided. I am not suggesting that we should ever do something unbiblical just because it works. At the same time, if given the choice between two equally biblical alternatives—one that might work and one that probably won’t—am I more spiritual if I choose the latter and appeal to Divine sovereignty? In such a case, I will choose what works. The glory still belongs to the Lord. As one of my professors often reminded us, pragmatic means practical. Is it more spiritual to be impractical?

Here, then, is my two cents: Let us be diligent in evaluating everything we do by the words of Scripture. Let us also do whatever it’s going to take to bring the gospel to the world. Let us be biblical and pragmatic. Let us be biblical pragmatists.

[1] Admit it, you thought that wigtake meant “whatever it’s going to take to have impressive statistics to report on the Annual Church Profile.” :- )

Is the focus on Unreached People Groups mandated by Scripture?

2007-07-20T10:07:00.000-04:00

This week, Wade Burleson has provided his readers with another summary of the IMB trustee meetings. One part was of particular interest to me. Burleson reports concerning Jerry Rankin’s report to the board: “[A particular trustee asked Dr. Jerry Rankin after his address to the trustees], ‘Dr. Rankin, I only ask because I'm curious and have heard this said before. Is your focus on the unreached people groups driven by an eschatalogical motive?’ Dr. Rankin answered by quoting Matthew 24:16 [sic], 'The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to the whole world, and then the end shall come' and said that eschatology does not compel the IMB's mission (or his), but obedience does. Dr. Rankin said the timing of the coming of the Son is up to the Father and nothing we do will define when He comes. It is up to God. We are simply to obey His commission."

This trustee’s question is pertinent because if a particular policy of the mission board is in place because of theological reasons, and those theological views prove erroneous (or at least questionable), then the board is on shaky ground. Indeed, one of the perennial problems of missions and evangelism methodologies is that the supporters of those policies often attempt to justify their chosen model as mandated by Scripture – often using less that sound hermeneutical principles.

The Unreached People Group (UPG) strategy has been a topic of continued discussion among my missions buddies. Of particular concern has been the theological justification made for such a strategy. There are those who do in fact find theological support if not a mandate for a UPG strategy. For some, an interpretation of Matt 24:14 which suggests that the Lord will not (or can not) return until the Great Commission is fulfilled; i.e., the last people group is reached. This is based also on an understanding of the Greek phrase panta ta ethne in the Great Commission as referring to ethnolinguistic groups. (I personally hold neither of these views, though a number of my colleagues do).

There are good reasons to question this view:

Assuming that Matt 24:14 is speaking of the second coming of Christ (which is not universally accepted, as some scholars believe this is a reference to the destruction of the temple in 70AD -- see Matt 24:2), note the following:

1. Even if the spread of the gospel is a prerequisite to the return of Christ, but this does not mean that we can in any way hasten the return of Christ. God may be waiting for those who have already heard the gospel to respond, for yet unborn future believers, or waiting until his own appointed time and good pleasure. (cf. 2 Pet 3.9)
2. What does it mean that the gospel will be preached in all the world.. to all nations? – every region? Every geo-political entity? Every people group? Every individual? – How will we know when we have completed the task?
3. Jesus told us that it is not for us to be concerned about the timing of the second coming but to be his witnesses throughout the world (Acts 1:6-8).

All this is to say, that in my opinion, (echoing the answer given by Dr. Rankin) it is much more important to obey the command of Christ and be about the business of taking the gospel to all than it is to focus on the timing of the second coming and how we might hurry it along.

As far as panta ta ethne in the Great Commission, despite my respect for men like Donald McGavran and John Piper, I think it is in error to translate this as "people group." I am more inclined to agree with those exegetes who see the phrase as a general reference to the whole world -- i.e. all of humanity. A better case for people group strategy might be made from passages like Rev. 5:9. In any case, it is difficult to make a real case that the UPG strategy is Scripturally mandated.

While I believe the UPG strategy is a good one, I don't believe it is necessarily mandated by Scripture. What IS commanded is that we take the gospel to the world. The real reason to adopt the UPG strategy is on pragmatic grounds. That is, we should focus on UPGs because this strategy is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission in this period of Christian Missions. This focus is the best way today to bring the gospel to as many people as possible in a way that they can hear, understand, and respond. In this era of missions, a focus on UPGs makes sense. Of course, things may be different in the future. In the wake of globalization and the seemingly constant (if gradual) change in the number and makeup of ethnolinguistic people groups, there may be a need in the future for a change in strategy. For now, I personally believe a focus on UPGs is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission.

Finally, regardless of how one views the particulars of the UPG strategy or the reasons behind it, it is important for missionaries, practitioners, and their supporters to continually be in dialog about how we can be obedient to God's command to reach the nations.

How Can I Be a Witness to Lost Christians?

2007-07-17T13:54:00.000-04:00

In a post-Christian America, evangelism is becoming increasingly more difficult. It is not that the gospel has changed – it hasn’t – but it is increasingly more difficult to clearly articulate the gospel to a culture who, to a large extent, is nominally Christian. For anyone who lives in the South or Midwest, most people have heard a simple presentation of the gospel and many have responded to a gospel invitation of one kind or another. It seems that one large category of lost people I know identify themselves as “born again” Christians. That is, they know and believe the facts about Jesus, have prayed the sinner’s prayer, and may have even been baptized (by immersion as a “believer”). Their gospel formula is believe these facts, pray this prayer, do this religious acts and your are a Christian. The problem is, their lives have not changed at all. There is no sign of true repentance. There are none of the evidences of regeneration. They have, as Billy Graham used to say, got enough of a dose of Christianity to inoculate them from the real thing. They call themselves Christians. Many even have fond emotional sentiment toward Jesus and may even pray. Yet, their fruit indicates they are most likely lost.

In my secular employment, I have several of these “Christian” friends. Of course they rarely attend church, cuss like sailors, sleep around, “party” (sometimes with illegal substances) all while claiming a “personal relationship with God.” It seems to me there is something wrong with an evangelism where these kinds of Christians are the result. Many have written on the woes of modern evangelism presentations so I will not belabor the point here. My concern is Where do we go from here? If I share a simple gospel message with these friends, they are willing to affirm everything I offer. So here is my dilemma—how to share the gospel of Christ with those who need Him but already think they know Him.

Thinking Cooperatively About Missional Christianity

2007-06-29T13:02:00.000-04:00

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 3: A Cooperative Conversation

A third purpose of this blog focuses on how Bible believing Christians generally, and Baptists particularly, might work together to fulfill the Great Commission.

Evangelicals for the last few generations have generally been drawn toward a responsible ecumenism. Christians have held a sentiment that all who believe the gospel are brothers and sisters in Christ and should do all they can to build this unity despite differences on peripheral doctrines.[1] While some have held to a kind of liberal ecumenism marked by religious relativism and a “broad tent” mentality, others have sought for a more evangelical type of unity that allows for fellowship among true believers and, when appropriate, working together in Great Commission work.

In recent years, Southern Baptists have renewed their sense of the importance for cooperation. Seven years ago, messengers (myself included) adopted the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message forming the capstone for the conservative resurgence. Since that time, there has been a renewed effort toward working cooperatively in Great Commission work. The executive committee, led by Morris Chapman, has called for increased cooperation among churches challenging messengers in its annual reports, introducing the theme “Empowering Kingdom Growth,” and a leading in a renewed commitment to the Cooperative Program. The International Mission Board has led in developing ways churches can partner in the global effort. At the same time, the board has renewed guidelines that both allow cooperation with other groups and set parameters for how it could be done appropriately. Many other things could be mentioned that demonstrate this trend toward cooperation, but suffice it to say that Southern Baptists continue to think both about how we might promote partnership in missions and evangelism and how we might do so appropriately.

The purpose of this blog begins at the next level. Once determining the appropriate boundaries for responsible partnership, how can we best cooperate as missional Christians and churches? What are the ways in which we can do so? Southern Baptists are perhaps most familiar with financial cooperation through the Cooperative Program. But beyond joint funding of mission efforts, Christians ought to think through ways we can partner together for kingdom purposes (through prayer, mutual encouragement, sharing of ideas, and appropriate joint efforts). It will be the purpose of this blog to explore ways in which Baptists and other evangelicals can work together toward His Kingdom purposes.

[1] For a great assessment about doctrinal differences and their relative importance, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s recent blog entry, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.”

Thinking Effectively About Missional Christianity

2007-06-20T07:57:00.000-04:00

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 2: A Practical Conversation

If my last blog entry leaned toward the academic, this one “gets down to the nitty-gritty.” That is, once I discover what I must do biblically, there remains the question: How can I do it practically? The big problem is that evangelism is the one thing that every Baptist knows they ought to do but is also the thing that few do well. Some respond by clinging to methods that are outdated and ineffective, some go off the deep end and do whatever works in an uncritical pragmatism (see previous post), while a large number simply give up in their frustration.

This blog will seek, under the biblical guideline laid out in the last post, to have a practical conversation about being missional Christians and churches. Specifically, it will seek to discover and share how we can fulfill the Great Commission in real life – at this time, in this place, to this culture. I hope through this discussion to present genuine problems faced by those who wish to be missional, and work together to find workable solutions. Again, this is not a place where I will engage in ministry-bashing of others’ honest (though often misguided and inappropriate) attempts to reach people with the gospel. Nor will I join the gossipy “culture of criticism” (title of a future post?) in which I rail against other churches perceived inactivity (whether or not I know anything about their ministry situation). Rather it will be a place to address real problems and find actual solutions that are both practical/effective and biblical. It will be a place to lift up one another as we seek ways to best serve Christ. If no one ever reads this blog, this will at least allow me to lay out in writing the continuing questions for which I seek answers. If I am blessed to become part of an online community, then I hope this second purpose of this blog to be the most beneficial one – one that finds a mutual edification and encouragement in this great mission task.

Thinking Biblically about Missional Christianity

2007-06-19T18:26:00.000-04:00

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 1: A Theological Conversation

As I seek to be a missional Christian in obedience to Christ, I want to be sure I am thinking and acting biblically. If the Bible is indeed God’s word, I must make every effort to conform my thought and practice to Scripture. Whether speaking of church planting models, ecclesiology, contextualization, evangelism, or theology, I must be faithful to the revelation of God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. If the error of the past generation was a lack of commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, the error of the present one is a lack of commitment to sound biblical exegesis. In the preface to his recent two volume work, Early Christian Mission, Erkhard Schnabel acknowledges this problem. He states,

Missiologists, missionaries and representatives of missionary societies seek to promote interest in crosscultural dialogue and witness and to encourage and develop the involvement of Christians, young and old, in active outreach to non-Christians. As laudable as these endeavors are, their proponents have not always sought to provide exegetical explanations or to engage in theological discussion when presenting models for missionary work and paradigms for effective evangelism.[1]

The Scripture is the basis of our Christian faith. When acting missionally, then, my practice must be biblically sound. Where the Bible commands I must be obedient. Where it gives examples I must learn from them. Where my methodology appeals to biblical precedent, it must do so on the basis of sound exegesis rather than a hermeneutic of convenience. In no case may the methods I use violate the Scriptures.

Current questions in for missional Christianity will need to be resolved with biblically appropriate answers. Application of biblical principles to missional practice must be done through a sound hermeneutic. We must discover the original meaning of the text, bridge between the biblical context and the present one, and make application in line with the intent of Scripture. I must not go to the Scripture to validate my preconceived ideas or preferences whatever they may be. I must allow my ministry and method to be shaped by Scripture itself. Köstenberger contends,

The descriptive nature of New Testament theology entails that we set aside for the time being our concern for the contemporary application of the biblical message. At the proper time, this will, of course, be very important, and, truth be told, this is also what fuels our interest in the present subject in the first place. But unless we are willing to let the New Testament speak to us on its own terms, we only deceive ourselves. We will merely find in the pages of the Bible what we have already determined to find there on other grounds. If we thus domesticate Scripture, we deprive ourselves of an opportunity to be instructed by, and even transformed by, Scripture, and we rob Scripture of its authority and preeminence.[2]

I must then take this approach to Scripture when dealing with the “hot button” issues of our day. Not only must I be “critical” in my contextualization,[3] but also in my church planting models, ecclesiology, soteriology, evangelism, worship, discipleship, and every other thing I do.

One of the purposes of this blog will be to seek biblical solutions to the problems faced by those who wish to be missional Christians. My purpose is not to criticize others or examine how everyone else is doing it wrong. Rather, I am striving in my own life and ministry to do things in ways that are consistent with the teaching of Scripture. I hope through conversations with others committed to the same ends to be able to think biblically about fulfilling our mission.

[1] Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004), xxiii.

[2] Andreas J. Köstenberger, "The Place of Mission in New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Determine the Significance of Mission Within the Scope of the New Testament's Message as a Whole," Missiology 27 (1999): 349.

[3] See Paul G. Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," Missiology 12 (1984): 287-96.