Church Planting "Jugulars"

Its been a great week so far. Today I spoke to classes at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary about church planting. My friend and fellow partner in crime Dr. Jack Allen actually allowed his students to be exposed to me. I always enjoy the opportunity to be back in the classroom and interact with students.

Dr. Allen asked me to speak primarily on two things:

1. What I would reccomend potential planters do prior to their arrival in the field.
2. A few of the top mistakes I see guys making in the field early on.

What follows is a bit of fodder from those discussions.

Things to do before you get to the field to plant.

1. Pray, Pray, Pray!!!! Yeah I know, we talk about this issue so much already. Trouble is, we talk about it more than we do it, and there could be no more crucial time devoted to prayer than the time just before deploying to plant a church. If church planting is anywhere near as effective as Peter Wagner says it is, Satan must hate it more than almost anything else we do. From experience I can testify that the enemy will come after you. He will come after your family. And in the face of such warfare, prayer is the only hope you have. Pray alone. Pray with your family. Ask 300-500 folks to pray with you (these are Jack's preferred numbers) and get ready!

2. Confirm all Partners IN WRITING! Let me preface with this statement: No one I know at the North American Mission Board, our state convention, or our association would intentionally deceive a church planter about the amount of support he will receive. Unfortunately, the chief liability of multiple autonomous partners is that often, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In this environment, a single, innocent clerical error could mean funding cuts in the $1000s of dollars. In the event of such an error, written commitments will substantiate all that is needed for supporting partners to get their act together.

3. Research the Focus Area Before you go. Ed Stetzer suggests (and he is right)that your first day in the field, you should know as much about the history, geography, culture, and spiritual state of the area as those who have resided there for years. Such knowledge, if gained in advance of your deployment, will conserve valuable time that once you arrive, should be spent cultivating, rather than studying, your area.

4. Participate in Assessment, and if Possible, Multiple Assessments. Different church planting ministries will, by virtue of their own values, look for different things. Being assessed at least twice will give you a much more accurate picture of the "total you."

5. Secure a coach. A subscription to coachnet costs only $75 annually, and the return on investment (provided you are coached by someone who knows what they are doing, and has your best interests at heart) is immeasurable! Coaches draw out the best in you, help you "refocus" in times of confusion and discouragement, and help you work through unanticipated issues.

In a couple of days, I'll post on the top problems/mistakes I see guys making early in their church planting efforts.

Sex Scandals: Why Vietnam Got it Right

In the United States, its hip to be a whore! If you think that statement too strong, perhaps you simply aren't paying attention.

Over the past few years, sex has been so trivialized and perverted in the west that it hardly bears resemblance any longer to the intimate gift between husband and wife God intended it to be. Reality shows, movies, magazines and even the "female pornography" disguised as a romance novel have made an indelible mark on sexuality in the US. The most tangible example of this fact is seen anytime an American celebrity is caught in a compromising position. The one-night-stands and sex tapes shown on entertainment TV barely elicit a yawn. Maybe this is why what has happened recently in Vietnam has our western culture surprised . . .even shocked, that someone is actually facing consequences for their behavior.

BBC News reports that Vietnamese television star Hoang Thuy Linh's highly popular Vang Anh's Diaries has been cancelled by Vietnam Television due to a sex tape featuring the 19-year old that made its way to the internet. "This is the most scandalous and controversial thing that has ever happened in Vietnam's virtual world," says journalist Hung Nguyen.

Her TV show featured the adult Linh portraying Vang Anh, a Vietnamese student whose character has become highly popular among young teens. The average viewer is 14, and according to the BCC article, the show's cancellation has ignited a firestorm on the web. Does she deserve to be punished for her behavior? Is sympathy currently her greatest need? Is there a necesity to apologize for what she has done?

For the most part, the responses from around the world have been, well, rather western:

Seoul resident Jenny Howard laments that such a "big deal" has been made of this incident by Vietname television, and suggests that there are much greater threats to a civilized society than two young people having sex. "We see suicide bombers killing hundreds of people on TV, insugents killing and mainming hostages and yet a bit of two people enjoying themselves and we are in fear of society."

Further and harsher criticism came from Brazilian resident James Smith, who claimed that the problem is cultural oppression: "This is typical of repressive societies. The first thing they try to control is your sex life. If you permit them to tell you when, how and with whom to have sex, controlling everything else is easy. This is why religions and other despotic regimes are anti-sex. The world will be better off when we are rid of both."

Talk about killing a mouse with a Sherman tank!

For one thing, these is a huge difference between bring punished by legal authorities for breaking the law, and having your television show cancelled because you don't have the good sense to keep your most private moments private. There are currently no reports of Linh being prosecuted or "oppressed" in the sense that any of her freedoms are being taken away.

In the western world where drunk-driving hollywood stars are merely slapped on the proverbial wrist, it is apparently very hard to draw a distinction between the penal code and tacit societal approval. Nevertheless, lets set the record straight here: Linh lost her tv show, and subsequently, her huge cultural influence, because of risque behavior. No one is jailing her for life or strapping her to a gurney, which makes talk of "oppression" seem just a bit like overkill.

I'm guessing the reason the west has reacted so to this issue is because on the other side of the pond, Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton and a host of others have only grown in influence over American society. Bare it all in Vietnam, lose your show. Bare it all in America, gain a reality show!

To be sure, I sincerely feel for this young lady, whose life has now been irreversibly affected by what she no doubt admits was a stupid move. Additionally, I find it strange that no one has made any pejorative statements about Linh's boyfriend, who reportedly filmed the "event." Although we can't be sure how the video made its way to the web, I'm betting the boyfriend, in a search for fame via his bedding of a famous actress, had something to do with it.

At the same time, those who are flooding the web with their input into this whole fiasco have one thing right: there are societal consequences both ways. In the US, the consequences of such behavior are greater fame (more people recognize Anna Nicole Smith than Abraham Lincoln) and subsequently, greater influence over a culture that has, surprisingly, become ever-more sexualized. Sexual activity has increased exponentially as a result, with some children as young as 9 and 10 enjoying their "friends with benefits." Middle-school aged girls are now required in some areas to receive an HPV vaccine, assuming that their sexual activity before marriage is a foregone conlcusion. Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister and Company and others sensationalize sexuality in a desparate effort to market their clothing to teens and pre-teens.

Meanwhile in Vietnam, a nation decided not to promote such behavior. The result was that a promising, but naive young lady lost her television show.

Which would you choose?

"Missional Conversation"

"Emerging," "Incarnational," "Missional." A Google Search on any of these terms will reveal them to be the most discussed and hotly debated topics within the church today. But how on earth do these terms, and their much-debated definitions, help the average follower of Jesus who is genuinely seeking to live his faith in his own context?

This past May, I was asked to be part of a dialogue to answer this very question. The implications of our answer were as close to home as one of the churches we have planted here in Maryland. Metanoia Church in Ellicott City, and their pastor, Adam Feldman, hosted this dialogue, which is now available as a podcast. Joining us in this discussion were Ken Sorrell of the International Mission Board's Middle America and Carribean Region, and David Phillips.

Following this discussion was another, very helpful dialogue on contextualizing the Gospel in culture. You can find all the podcasts here.

Missionaries to the Rich and Powerful

I was privileged, not only to be raised in a church environment, but also to be raised in a “missionary” church environment. As such, my history included numerous opportunities to hear from missionaries who were serving Jesus all over the world. This included “short term” volunteers who sought to take the Gospel to different parts of the globe.

Such an environment allowed me to hear all sorts of testimonials from people in my own church, particularly those who sought to minister in the so-called “third world.” While hearing their moving stories certainly proved motivational, I was also disturbed by the limited perspective these missionaries brought back with them. For some, the most substantive thing they could say was “I had no idea how blessed I was until I saw how these poor people live.” Now that I live among a people who, from an economic perspective, are at the opposite end of that spectrum, I know why such statements bothered me so.

I was raised in a lower-middle class, blue collar home in the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains in rural South Carolina. Given that background, I sometimes wonder why on earth God has placed me in my current field of service. Where I live and serve, blue collar jobs account for less than 13% of the work force. Of that work force, more than 80% hold a college degree, and 31% hold a Master’s degree or higher. Even in the current “sluggish” housing market, the average price of a single family home here is well in excess of $450,000, but such prices are not intimidating to a population whose average per capita income exceeds $90,000 annually.

Adding to this demographic picture is the fact that this year, my county was named the third most affluent county in North America. Similarly, the state of Maryland was recognized as the most affluent of all 50 states, boasting more millionaires than any other state in the union.

In addition, the people who live here are as powerful as they are wealthy. God has allowed my wife and I to cross paths with high-level defense workers, congressmen and senators, Fortune 500 CEOs and business-owning entrepreneurs. In short, our mission field is largely made up of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world . . .

. . .people who are just as sick with sin as anyone living in the “third world!”

The issue in working with people of this stature is the way they are often stereotyped by the church. Regrettably, most Christians, rather than following a Biblical pattern of observing people, will adopt a cultural pattern. Such a pattern can be seen in the various ways our two primary political parties view the “rich.” One party believes that the rich are rich because they took advantage of those less fortunate, and the poor are poor because they are mistreated and not afforded the same opportunities as their more wealthy counterparts. Another political party believes that the poor are so because they aren’t bright enough to “cut it,” and the wealthy by contrast are so because they study hard and work hard. Thus, they deserve all the good fortune that comes their way.

Of course, the fallacy in both of these stereotypes is that in both, people are judged according to their possessions. The fact is that wealthy people are first and foremost . . .well, people! In that sense, their problems and struggles, while not nearly as obvious, are just as present. The “poor” are neither dumb nor righteous, and the “rich” are neither smart nor greedy, merely as a result of what they possess. Likewise, the “rich” are not satisfied in their riches, nor are the “poor” kept from satisfaction because of their lack.

Yet this stereotype is the reason we are so often quick to judge our celebrity culture. Take Britney Spears for example. The “train wreck” that her life has become is analyzed and lamented, not only by Hollywood, but also by judgmental Christians who think to themselves “what a spoiled-rotten girl! With all her fame and fortune, she still can’t get her act together!” Such statements assume that one’s money and fame will somehow make one’s life less of a mess, and those who make such statements should read afresh Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes!

This is a lesson I have learned from experience as I seek to reach the people of my area with the Gospel. When my family and I first moved here nearly three years ago, I thought to myself, “I’m a southern, blue-collar redneck. How on earth am I going to effectively minister to wealthy, powerful, white-collar people in the northeast?” My presumption of course, was that because they possessed more money and power than I would likely ever enjoy, that I couldn’t help them. Obviously, I had forgotten about Phillip.

In Acts 8, Phillip is providentially brought in contact with an Ethiopian eunuch. “Providentially” is a key term here, because the likelihood of this kind of encounter between a middle-class Jew and a wealthy and powerful Ethiopian official happening serendipitously was slim to none! Nevertheless, what Phillip discovered was that while this man was powerful, wealthy, famous and influential, he was also very lost! In commenting on this passage, Greg Laurie describes this encounter as “a very empty man [the Ethiopian] who met a very satisfied one [Phillip].” Ironic isn’t it? It was the “poor” man who was satisfied.

Yet the Scriptures tell us that this is exactly the way we should view our lost friends, regardless of the income bracket to which they belong. I appreciate and admire my friends in other parts of the world who minister to the “least of these.” But let’s not forget that from an eschatological standpoint, there is no difference between “rich” and “poor.” More than eighty percent of the population in my area has no relationship to Jesus Christ. They may drive a Mercedes, live in a “McMansion” and embody the epitome of the “American Dream,” but inside, their condition is identical to that of the unregenerate of the visible church in Laodicea. They are “miserable, poor, blind and naked.”

Dan McMillan was one of those people. At the top of the venerable McMillan Publishing company, he enjoyed all the benefits that came with wealth, fame and power. Still, something was missing that made all the accoutrements of his life seem worthless. Thankfully, a young church planter of “less than average” means named David Draper, brought McMillan to understand his need for Jesus Christ. His conversion led to a weekly breakfast and Bible study where McMillan sought to reach his friends in the publishing industry with the Gospel.

Not long before his death, McMillan allowed folks from the North American Mission Board to interview him about his conversion. Toward the end of the interview, this wealthy and powerful man made a desperate plea to his Christian brothers and sisters: “The church is always focusing on the poor and disenfranchised, and that’s good. They certainly need it. But what about me? Why did it take so long for someone to get to me?”

Dan McMillan is with Jesus today, not because of his money, but rather because someone loved him enough to share Solomon’s wisdom that riches, while nice, are ultimately “vanity” and “meaninglessness” if not accompanied with a fear of God that leads to keeping His commandments. I am convinced that God wants to populate heaven with people like this. But if we are to play any significant part in getting them there, our focus needs to shift from the back pocket to the soul.

Convergent: Southeastern Seminary and the Emerging Church

We Southern Baptists are blessed to have six theological seminaries spread out all over the country. Most aspiring ministers of the Gospel are within driving distance to at least one of these institutions, and all are fine places to prepare yourself for ministry. But lately, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is becoming my favorite!

Granted, thats saying a lot for a two-time graduate of Southern, but I have been particularly impressed with Danny Akin since he assumed the Presidency of this institution. This week I'm actually on the Wake Forest North Carolina campus for the Convergent Conference, which has featured Ed Stetzer, J.D. Greear, and most notably, Mark Driscoll, all of which are speaking about the emerging church and how evangelicalism should view it.

Tonight Dr. Akin closed the Friday series of meetings with a message from 1 Corinthians about appropriate Christian behavior and cultural engagement. As always, he showed an unapologetic commitment to the authority of Scripture, while at the same time demonstrating himself well-versed in N.T. Wright, and others whose theology helps to undergird the worldiew of many in emerging church circles.

Honestly, the fact that he invited Driscoll to speak is alone a sure indication of his fair treatment of the subject. I would venture a guess that the Missouri Convention, after its convoluted and hopelessly confused statements on the subject,* would not have given Driscoll the same ear . . .let alone the same respect.

Nevertheless, Akin's move to hold a conference on emerging church issues, while far from total accomodation of everything in the movement, clearly signaled his recognition that cultures are changing in North America and that the church bears the responsibility of reaching them. This requires a commitment to the unchanging Gospel, but it also requires a presentation of that Gospel in changing ways.

Anyone attending these meetings will go away with two facts about Southeastern Seminary that have been clearly demonstrated: 1. The commitment of this institution to the supreme and sole authority of Scripture has not, and will not, change. 2. The commitment of this institution to play its part in reaching everyone with the Gospel will not change either.

In the end, I suppose thats what I like best about Southeastern, and Akin. His primary passion is the evangelization of lost people. He said at this year's Southern Baptist Convention that as long as he is President of Southeastern, he would allow nothing to be raised to an issue that would be a detriment to this cause. With this in view I say, long live his Presidency!


*Regarding the Missouri Convention's statements on the Acts 29 network, two things are helpful to know:
1. Dr. Mark DeVine, Professor of Theology at Midwestern Seminary, actually gave an excellent report that for some reason seemed to be totally misunderstood by Convention leadership.
2. Acts 29 has published a response to the contentions of the Missouri Convention that clear up any misconceptions about this organization's doctrinal fidelity.

Church Planting and Authenticity/Consistency

Some of our pastors and planters spent a couple of great days this week at Branch Creek Church near Philadelphia at the Purpose Driven Launching Conference. One of the issues we deal with regularly in Maryland church planting is that of obtaining the "critical mass" neccesary for a church to really "take off." And given the number of folks who attended this series of meetings, I suspect Maryland isn't the only place where this is a problem.

However, as I listened, and had subsequent conversations with our guys in the field over lunch (and dinner, and breakfast the next morning, and lunch . . .) it occured to me that much of our problem might be less about the model we employ and more about whether we consistently employ it.

Take the "Purpose-Driven" guys for instance. It is apparent that no one takes the stage at these meetings who doesn't wholly "buy in" to the whole "baseball-diamond" effect. Personally, I like the PDC model of planting, but I'm simply not sold on it as the "be-all, end-all" of what we need. There are at least five other legitimate and viable approaches to church planting in North America, and in my opinion, each of these is needed as much (and in some cases, more) as the PDC approach. With this perception of things, it is highly unlikely that I will ever "key note" any sort of Purpose-Driven event, and actually, this is probably a good thing.

At the same time, if you are planting a Purpose-Driven church, it is, for the most part, not to your advantage to "syncretize" your approach with other ways of planting. And as I reflect on this, I can't help but think that this is part of the reason churches sometimes don't make it.

Obviously, I'm not saying that the Purpose-Driven, or any other model, shouldn't be contextualized to the area where you are located and the people you are trying to reach. My point, however, is that if you plan from the beginning to "launch large," then stick with the program until you do just that. On the other hand, if you take a more personal, "relational" approach in the beginning, don't expect an explosion of growth, and don't shift models "mid-stream" simply because things aren't what you originally pictured them to be.

One way to look at this is by comparing the two approaches to church planting. Although there are a plethora of ministry models employed on our continent, you can basically boil them down to two "approaches." And since Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch have already given names and descriptions to these two approaches, I will use their definitions.

The "Attractional" Approach: Frost and Hirsch describe this approach as one in which "the church bids people to come and hear the Gospel in the holy confines of its church and community." In short, this approach starts with some sort of established church system and seeks to invite (or attract) as many initial "seekers" as possible to come and hear. The conference we were a part of this week was most definitely promoting an "attractional" model. The main emphases were on marketing, researching the area, recruiting a team of people to help you run the "system" you set up, and "launching" the church with as many people as possible in attendance.

The "Incarnational" Approach: Frost and Hirsch give a simple definition of this term: "Instead of asking non-Christians to come to us, to our services, our gatherings, and our programs on our terms, the incarnational church seeks to infiltrate society to represent Christ in the world." To a large extent, this approach is a strong "echo" of the type of church planting often done in international contexts, and follows a path very close to that blazed by the British missionary Leslie Newbigin: Bring the Gospel, and only the Gospel, to bear on a given culture in a contextual way, and "church" then grows out of the infusion between Gospel and Culture.

With these two approaches in mind, the next question is usually: "Which of these is more effective in an American context?" The answer of course, is "YES!!!" Our association supports and encourages both approaches, because the diversity of our area demands it. However, I have casually observed, not only here, but in other places, that consistency is sometimes a real problem. Guys start with an attractional strategy, and when their launch date yields 75 people instead of 150, they quickly switch gears. Conversely, guys will also start with an incarnational strategy, and when the time comes near for funding to dry up, they try to "draw a crowd," often because they let money rather than mission determine what they will do.

I say all of this as a "backdrop" to this statement: I don't care which approach you use, so long as two conditions are met:
1. The approach is the best way to reach people for Jesus, given your context.
2. You remain CONSISTENT in your approach.

As I reflect on this past week's conference, four principles come to mind to guide us in remaining consistent.

1. Know who you are. I might add to this sentence: "know who you are BEFORE you plant." Before you move to a field to start a church, regardless of the style, you need to know what the essential DNA of that church will be made of. In short, you need to be totally sold out to the way YOU will do church in this area!

Of course, this doesn't mean you become condescending toward other models and approaches to church planting. There are already too many out there who think theirs is the "Biblical" model. What it does mean is that you have done your homework, and as a result believe strongly that the way you are going to plant IN THIS AREA is THE way to do it! In other words, be true to yourself, the Gospel, and the community and/or people group you are seeking to reach.

2. Be Consistent with who you are. I'll never forget receiving the strategy plan of a planter who wanted to take an incarnational approach to church planting. The more I read of his initial plan, the more excited I became. "YES, this is EXACTLY what is needed in this area . . .not a church (at least not initially), but instead a discipleship process that results in converts, which in turn eventually produces a congregation of people who follow Jesus." His strategy plan was streamlined, clear, and compelling . . .that is, until I got to the budget!

Although the plan was very atypical of established churches in our area, the budget looked exactly like our established churches . . .funds were allocated for advertising, facility rental, and multi-media equipment . . .none of which would be used . . .at least not during the first year of the plant. If your "advertising strategy" is 100% relational (as is usually the case with an incarnational approach), then be consistent by not budgeting money to Viacom for advertising. If you will start in homes and stay there, then be consistent by not including a line item for facility rental. If your vision is to attract people one at a time, then don't paint your people a pictture of large crowds gathered every Sunday, since it probably won't happen.

Once you have determined the best way to reach people in a given area, consistenly employ that approach. Don't just let it influence how you staff, budget, and set structure for your church. Let it exclusively determine how you do all of these things!

3. Expect support according to who you are! Our association is moving toward guidelines that reflect this principle. Called and gifted church planters are worth their weight in gold! At the same time, no one is really paid what they are worth. If that were the case, teachers would be millionaires and lawyers and politicians would be broke! [grin] Financial support, particularly from the "outside," needs to be based on the mission.

That statement of course, has a reciprocal effect on both supporters and the church planters that they support. On the one hand, if we are financially supporting a planter who utilizes an incarnational approach, we should understand that the growth, while steady, will be slow. If I judged my incarnational guys by the standards set in the conference we attended this week, I would have cancelled all their financial support a year ago. 10-15 people after a year is a dismal failure . . .in an attractional church. But in an incarnational model, these numbers can represent a huge success, particularly if you are located in an area where there is a high resistance to the Gospel.

On the other hand, church planters should understand that outside financial support cannot continue indefinitely. I can count on half of one hand the number of guys I know whose churches were financially self-sufficient enough to support them with a full-time salary before their outside funding ran out. I certainly wasn't one of that number! The simple fact is that most planters, even those planting attractional models, will eventually have to "get a job," at least for a while.

The point here is simple: if you plant Bob Banks' church, don't expect Bob Roberts' salary!

4. Judge success based on who you are. "Numbers aren't everything" they say. Well, that depends! Which numbers are we talking about? The number of people in the seats? The number of dollars in the plate? The number of bricks used to put up the new structure?

How about the number of lives transformed by the Gospel? How about the number of marriages saved because wives and husbands put Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 (and a few verses of Song of Songs) into practice? How about the number of couples who found their way out of debt and into lives of good stewardship because they were taught, and applied, Biblical principles? How about the number of children who didn't turn to gangs, or drugs, or alcohol, or violence, because their parents were taught how to raise them in the admonition of the Lord?

I remember shutting down a plant a couple of years ago and listening to the planter tell me stories like the ones above. My response to him was: "This church may have failed, but you did not!"

At the same time, I'm confident that one reason many churches fail is because they don't clearly mark out before they begin what success is going to look like!

Most of the guys leading the Purpose-Driven conferences have churches of several thousand people. That's because God has blessed their ministries incredibly. It's also because they live in areas where 100s of thousands reside. If you are in a community of 5000 people, you simply cannot judge "success" by the same standard!

Emphasizing authenticity (knowing who you are) and consistency (applying with regularity who you are) in the beginning stages of a plant can be the greatest ways to promote resilience and strength in a church planter's ministry. In a few days I'll post on leadership and management qualities that are helpful in this regard. But I'm convinced that if we do our homework in advance, we can avoid a lot of heartache . . .and bring more souls into the Kingdom . . . by resisting the temptation to "switch horses midsteam!"

Indigenous Church Planting: Lessons from Middle America

To the left and below are pictures of a recent church planting seminar I was privileged to lead in southern Mexico. God is indeed moving all over the world, and His presence in Mexico is evident in the fact that the churches of that area want to plant a new church in every "municipo" (county seat) in the state of Chiapas. I was privileged to lead a team from our association to respond to an invitation by the churches of Mexico to assist them with setting up a church planting process to acheive this goal.




It has been said that during international missions endeavors, one often learns as much as he or she teaches, and is often blessed as much as he or she is a blessing. I can certainly attest to the fact that I learned as much, of not more, from these committed pastors than they learned from me. Unfortunately, what I learned from them is something that they don't yet seem to recognize about themselves: namely, that they have every resource they need to facillitate a church planting movement without American help.



If anything, we have "helped" enough already. By this, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't seek to work with our brothers and sisters in other nations. In fact, our plans are to continue where we left off in subsequent discussions next year. However, during my time in Mexico I couldn't help but notice that the barriers to a church planting movement faced by the Mexican church are almost identical to those we face in the states. And I can't help but believe this is tied to the culture of dependency we have often created while doing missions in Middle America.

For example, one of our favorite things to do for our brothers and sisters, especially in the "third world," is to erect a church building for them. Our second favorite thing to do is to fund the salary of the pastor who will preach in that building. While I am certain these efforts are the result of the best of intentions, and a genuine desire to see disciples made, in many cases the opposite is what happens. The pastor doesn't teach his people stewardship, because the source of income for himself and the church comes from outside. The people of God don't give, because the Americans are picking up the tab. The mission dies, because the Americans aren't there to perpetuate what they started. Most tragically, no more churches are planted . . .that is, until (you guessed it) the Americans show up to erect another building!



It is in this context that we now find ourselves . . .a "culture of dependency" wherein the Mexican church has been, by and large, disempowered by its well-meaning American counterpart. Regrettably, the trouble gets worse from this point. When American money, American buildings, and American ways of doing church are interjected into Mexican (or any other) culture, American problems almost always follow. The result?


. . . The established Mexican church is now "up in arms" because Mexican church planters are telling their people that it really is OK to dance.

. . . The established Mexican church believes it cannot sustain a church planting movement on its own because of the lack of "trained professionals" to lead these churches.

. . . The established Mexican church believes it will take lots of financial resources--certainly more than they posess--to multiply churches in the way they envision.

All of this sounds eerily familiar.

The problem with indigenous church planting in ecclesiological contexts like this one is that many of the established churches themselves are not indigenous . . .they are American! In starting churches, they adopted our leadership models, our decision-making processes, our financial expectations, our programmatic approach to ministry, our "campus-centered" orientation, and in some cases, even our architecture!

Contrast this picture with that of the truly "indigenous" church . . .one that is in no way dependent on outside "suppport" or "help" to maintain its ministry. One that can reproduce itsself in ever-more contextual ways as it plants other churches in other areas. One that truly preaches a "counter-cultural" Gospel message while at the same time looking and sounding like the culture in which it finds itself.

So my question in the midst of all this is as follows: How on earth do a bunch of white guys from an upper-middle class area in Maryland help to propogate a movement like the one I've described above? While I haven't yet figured it all out, there are a few principles that I think have to guide American missionaries--short term or otherwise--as we seek to facillitate the multiplication of churches in other parts of the world. These principles are, in my view, solidly Biblical, unsophisticatedly simple, and interesting enough, very Baptist!

1. The Principle of Global Minsitry: Because we are presently the richest and most powerful nation in the world, our tendency as Americans is to think ourselves superior in every way. We think anyone without central air conditioning or an electric Viking range is "poor and unfortunate" when in fact many who live in mud huts are quite happy with their living conditions. Similarly, we think any church without a brick structure, or any pastor without an auto allowance or seminary degree will automatically produce a "sub-standard" ecclesiology. The fact is that churches in many nations of the world exist and thrive without buildings or theological seminaries. With all of our resources, education, wealth and power, the American church is anemic when compared to the church in other parts of the globe. It would do us well to remember this so that we don't encourage our brothers and sisters in other nations to do it the way we do it.

This was, I believe, a very helpful point we made during a panel discussion with Mexican church planters and pastors on the second day of our seminar. When told by state convention leadership that their culture was to "copy" what we did in America, my response was simple: "We are the only continent on planet earth where Christianity is not growing. Why on earth would you want to emulate that?!?!" The church is indeed global, and if we are to have any significant part in helping it expand globally, we must give up our preference for western culture and allow the church to be the church wherever it is found.

To be sure, God has given us in the states a grand opportunity to empower the churches in other nations. But to take advantage of this opportunity, we absolutely must check our "national pride" at the door!

2. The Principle of Church Autonomy: Once during the seminar, one of the pastors asked me my opinion about a subject that, as it turns out, has become very controversial in Mexico. Though it wasn't a "cardinal issue" such as the deity of Christ, or even a "Baptist distinctive" such as a commitment to immersion, this tertiary issue had already caused quite a stir among God's people in Mexico.

As he was asking the question, I could feel my blood pressure begin to rise. Oh, how I wanted to simply give my opinion and encourage them to follow my lead. But in the end, my opinions, however strong they are, do not matter! What matters is what the Scriptures teach. And what matters even more is that the church be able to arrive at the right conclusion via their own study of God's Word.

While we should make every effort to teach national pastors and laity how to read and study the Word, and while the basic principles of interpreting Scripture should be laid before them, the task of theological education abroad should be the same as it is here: teach God's people "how" to think, not "what" to think! It would have been very easy for me to answer the pastor's question directly . . .and set a precedent for "spoon-feeding" them theology. It would have been very easy for us to insert the church planting process we utilize in Maryland into Mexico. But God's people should instead be empowered, as the Bereans in Acts, to study the text, and their culture, on their own.

3. The Principle of "Scripture alone": With all of our talk about strategy, contextualization, "target" and "focus" groups, behavioral assessments, and demographic and psychographic observations, the fact remains that a true New Testament church cannot be planted if the Word of God is not the final authority for that faith community. I have attended church planting seminars in the states where days were spent musing on the enigma that is postmodernism, but there was nothing said about Scriptural authority. I agree with Mark Driscoll, who says that those who do such things are "practicing liberals" even if their theology is "conservative." If we are to have any significant part in a church planting movement, here or abroad, all of our strategies, studies, and tactics must ultimately find their appropriate place in submission to Scripture.

I have experienced very little Latin American culture, and as a result, I am the last person to deliver instructions to a group of Mexican pastors about how to reach their own people. My authority during this seminar was not found in my cultural "savy," but in the Word of God, from which all the principles I taught were drawn. Once we empower God's people by arming them with the Word, and lay out the principles for how to teach the Word in a way that connects with their culture, they can take it successfully from that point.

The church in the US has before it an enormous opportunity to facilitate the multiplication of congregations, both stateside and international. But if such churches are to be effective, they must also be indigenous, which means that the lessons learned as we walk this road together with our brothers in other nations, will be reciprocal.

Was the Church the First to Change the Definition of Marriage?

He denies that Jesus is Messiah, and calls the President of my alma mater a “spiritual racist” because of his belief that Jesus is the only way to God. Needless to say, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is one of the last people with whom I thought I would ever agree!

Last Thursday evening was like most Thursday evenings for me: I came home from a day at the office to take my wife to the gym, my kids to the child care center in the gym, and myself to the treadmill (ugh!), and then the pool (ahh!).

I love my gym membership, by the way . . .especially the way all the treadmills are tied in to television screens. It’s a multi-tasking dream! And while watching a special CNN report called “God, Sex and Greed,” I caught a panel discussion regarding the injection of “faith talk” into the political speeches of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls. Host Roland Martin was emphasizing the fact that as we approach the 2008 elections, Democrats are ratcheting up talk about their faith in God, and in doing so entering a conversation that has for many election cycles been dominated by Republicans. Joining him to discuss this interesting phenomenon were liberal Baptist Theology Professor Michael Dyson, Muslim author Irshad Manji, and Rabbi Boteach.

Asked to give his perception of this phenomenon, Boteach responded, “The problem, Roland, is that for the past 10 years, religious morality has been defined as anti-abortion and hating gay people.”

Suddenly, the heart monitor on my treadmill began to beep.

Thankfully, I continued to listen. And surprisingly, in spite of all my disagreements with the Rabbi, my heart resonated with what I heard next:

“. . . .And in a sense, religion has become a mockery as a result. We've got a 50 percent divorce rate. Any country with a 50 percent divorce rate has no right to call itself civilized. Who do we blame? The gay people. I mean, we ruined marriage well before any gay people decided to get married.”

Sadly, the Rabbi is absolutely correct! While conservative politicians scream about the efforts of some in the homosexual community to “re-define marriage,” the fact is that our society has been tinkering with God’s definition for decades . . .long before any homosexual ever demanded the benefit of this rite. Fornication, adultery, and divorce are in fact nothing more than acts which pervert God’s definition of this sacred relationship.

So in a sense, the Rabbi is correct when he contends that marriage has been a mockery in America for decades. The current discussion about homosexual marriage isn’t the beginning of the “re-definition of marriage.” It is its culmination! And when the divorce, premarital sex and adultery rates are virtually the same inside the church as they are outside the church, the people of God have lost their authority to speak prophetically to this issue.

This is precisely the reason why Al Mohler, in discussing this same subject, rightly contends that evangelicals “cannot begin a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage.” Reclaiming God’s definition of marriage means not only that we flatly reject the idea of homosexual nuptials as a tragic oxymoron, but that we also refuse to “wink” at the sins against this God-ordained institution that have occurred for years within our own midst. Such reclamation means that the church must again judge marriage according to the Scriptures, and such judgment, as the Apostle Peter tells us, begins with the household of God!

Some Good Conversation on the Web

I love to write.

There is something about the exercise of putting your thoughts into words that brings clarity, and when the subject is God and His Gospel, the mental clarity gained from writing frequently makes its way to the heart as well. But from time to time, even the best writers recognize that with regard to certain subjects, there are others who have "said it better."

God willing, next week I will post on my experiences while in southeast Asia (in April) and Chiapas Mexico (last month) and reflect on them in light of what the church should be in each and every culture. But for now, there are some very worthy conversations taking place in other areas of cyberspace, and I would be remiss if I didn't call your attention to their existence.

1. The Emerging Church and Evangelicalism. On September 21 and 22, I will be in Wake Forest, North Carolina for the Convergent Conference, which will be held on the campus of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The "emerging church" has become so controversial, many evangelicals have simply written it off as a heretical aberration of the true church. In many ways, this movement is not so different from the "church growth" and "church health" movements that preceeded it, meaning that while there are indeed theological concerns in certain sectors of the movement, there is much about the emerging church that can be very helpful to the body of Christ.

I am thankful that in the midst of the criticisms and "cheap one-liners" toward this movement, Dr. Danny Akin has chosen to take the route of genuine scholarship. Akin, who serves as President of Southeastern, is hosting this conference, and will be speaking alongside Ed Stetzer (Missiologist in Residence and Director of Research at Lifeway), Mark Driscoll(Founding Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle), and Southeastern Professors Alvin Reid and John Hammett, among others.

Last year, I had the privilege of helping contribute to an article Dr. Hammett wrote for the Criswell Theological Review on this very issue. Throughout our interactions, I was profoundly impressed by his tenacious defense of the truth coupled with his careful and fair analysis of the movement as a whole. I genuinely look forward to meeting him in person.

The 21st Century finds most developed cultures in a constant state of flux. If the church is to effectively impact western culture it must cease its reactionary posture toward culture and instead begin to lead it. At the same time, emerging methods should be undergirded by a solidly Biblical theology. Through Convergent, Danny Akin has provided a context in which honest conversations can begin regarding how Southern Baptists will meet this challenge.

2. Baptist Identity in a post-denominational world. Dr. Sam Storms, Associate Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, posted a thought-provoking article today on the subjects of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I found myself in agreement with him at several points, while personally parting ways with him regarding the relationship of Baptism and church membership in particular.

Nevertheless, his words should stir the kind of conversation that needs to happen in our churches. So many Baptists apply their convictions consistently regarding Baptism and the Lord's Supper, yet have no idea where the Scriptural evidence exists that undergirds their practice. We are not "people of the Baptist Faith and Message," we are "people of the Book," which means that in a "post-denominational context," we need to be prepared to defend our heritage because it is Biblical, rather than assuming the Bible is in agreement with our traditions.

Conversations like the one started today by Dr. Storms are a helpful starting point in finding our Scriptural moorings again. You can find the article here.

3. The End of our Work and the End of the World. Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Dallas, Texas had an excellent article posted last week on how to effectively evangelize middle-eastern cultures.

Though many other things are said, his warnings against allowing a "narrow" eschatology determine not only public policy, but also missiological philosophy, were the most striking of the entire piece. One section in particular deserves to be quoted:

First, we are allowing speculative theology to formulate foreign policy. That’s very dangerous. When conservative Bible believing scholars can’t agree – for one opinion to be pushed to the point of war is arrogant and dangerous.

and again . . . . . .

we have not respected the views and situation of Palestinian evangelical Christians. Before ’67 2/3rds of Palestinians present were Christians – now that’s 8 to 12% depending on who you talk to. How could we have ignored their concerns – these are our brothers in Christ. This makes no sense. Who was better positioned to tell people in the Middle-East about Jesus than the Palestinians?!!!

Now, I have to admit, as a "non-dispensationalist," my biases toward what Bob is saying here should be clearly revealed. At the same time, his argument (and I agree) isn't against holding to a dispensationalist eschatology. Its against allowing this one view (among at least three others, all held by conservative, Bible-believing evangelicals) to so dominate the evangelical landscape that it informs both our philosophy of missions and our foreign policy views in uniform.

Sometimes, when it comes to impacting the world, we can be our own worst enemy, and one of the things I appreciate about Bob is his willingness to say this.

Find the article in its entirety here.

So there you have it! There are lots of thought-provoking discussions presently going on in cyberspace. Happy exploring, and I'll have some more thoughts of my own in about a week.

Its all about Leadership . . .or is it?

As a whole, I am very grateful for the emphasis given to the discipline of church leadership over the past two decades. Given the dearth of such training for pastors throughout much of the twentieth century, coupled with the enormous changes that have taken place in the pastoral role, the study and practice of sound leadership principles is absolutely essential.

At the same time, I have grave concerns over how a discipline that has provided great help to pastors is beginning, in some sectors of the church, to be viewed as a "magic pill."

From the turn of the 20th century until around 1930, American business culture subscribed largely to what has become known as "Great Man Theory." In order for a company to be a success, a "great man" with inherently extraordinary skills in leadership and management was needed, and all would be well. This age culminated with the celebration of Ford Motor Company and the invention of the "assembly line" of Henry Ford.

Over the next several decades, leadership theory evolved from the view of the "great man" to "group theory" (1930-1940), "trait theory" (1940-1950), "behavior theory" (1950-1960), "situational theory" (1960-1970), and "excellence theory" (1980s). While the history of western leadership philosophy is more complex than this, these categories are the generally accepted description of our philosophical evolution regarding this discipline.

The church of course, finally caught up with culture in the 1960s, when seminaries began to charge their schools of Christian Education with teaching leadership principles to aspiring ministers of the Gospel. Today, leadership as an academic discipline is viewed by many seminaries as equal in importance to the study of theology. While sound theology is an essential and foundational qualification for pastoral ministry, it is also true that sound theology without leadership skills results in knowledge wasted on onesself and a orthodox church immobilized by its own pastor.

Still, over the past few decades, leadership studies have grown to the extent that, in the church, we are almost seeing the return of the "Great Man" theory. Less than a decade ago in a conference on church planting, the late Rick Ferguson stated that if you have the "right leader," you could drop him into a barren area, with no money and no other outside support, and he would grow a church. Such statements are now commonplace in seminars and conferences on pastoral leadership.

I recognize these statement as a bit hyperbolic. Still, I ain't buyin' the point!

We spend an inordinate amount of time today with assessing potential leaders, and this is especially true in church planting. On the whole, this is as it should be. Certainly experience has told us that someone seeking to plant a church with deficient leadership skills will most likely fail. The problem come when we move beyond this base understanding of the neccesity of leadership to claim the mantra of John Maxwell that has reverberated in church life to the extent that most now look in Scripture to find it: "Everything rises and falls on leadership." But is this really true?

The fact is that great leaders fail. I have seen it personally. I remember the first church plant I ever had to "shut down." I remember meeting the planter over a four-hour lunch. I remember the bitter tears. I remember making plans with him to "re-locate" the remaining families. I remember hearing his exasperated prayers to God of "where did I go wrong?" I remember thinking with him about how he would now support his family. And I also remember thinking "we assessed this guy, and we told him he had the leadership skills to successfully plant this church." According to our "great man" mentality, this was all we needed, right?

This is the hypocritical irony I have seen in church planting systems across the methodological and denominational spectrum. We assess a guy, tell him he is the "right leader" for a plant, and then when it fails, 99% of the time our response is "this was a leadership issue."

I don't deny that many failures can be credited to a deficiency in leadership, but those who are always so quick to point out the failure at this level sometimes forget that it takes more than a "great man" to build a great church. If you question that statement, you need only take a brief look at the life of an Old Testament leader.

The time is just before the wilderness wandering. The place is Kadesh, and Moses has just sent out twelve spies in order to plot out the best way to take the land God had promised His people. Ten of the twelve return with "doomsday" predictions about their chances. Apparently, they had forgotten that their objective was to report on the "status" of the enemy, not give their opinion of whether they should do what God had already commanded.

Joshua and Caleb, on the other hand, are ready to obey. Unfortunately, the people of Israel side with the pessimists, and God's people spend the next four decades wandering . . .and dying!

Without a doubt, this is one of the most colossal "failures" in the history of any nation! The question is, was this a "leadership issue?" Perhaps Moses should have spent more time discovering how to "develop the leaders around him."

Or, just perhaps, this was a "truth" issue. Just maybe, Moses really was God's man, whom God's people simply rejected. Bill Hybels wouldn't have been pleased at all with this kind of turnout, but in recounting his life, the writer of Hebrews certainly seems to think Moses a "great leader" (Hebrews 11:23-30)

Needless to say, if a man with a failure like this on his record is referred to by Scripture as a "great leader," and we are currently assessing nearly every ministry failure as a "leadership problem," we should probably rethink our definition of "leadership." And as we are rethinking our definition, maybe it would be helpful to look to Scripture to find our parameters. In the case of Moses, his great leadership was centrally characterized, not by "success" or "acheivement," but instead by faith, conviction, obedience, values, and boldness.

Contrary to Maxwell's popular cliche, everything does not "rise and fall" on leadership. Everything rises and falls on the Word of God. Effective, godly, skilled leaders are desperately needed, and the work of church planting in particular cannot happen without such individuals. But such individuals are not a "magic pill" that cures all that is wrong with the church. This realization will guard our hearts from bowing to the idol of "personality," and empower us to undergird the right leadership with all that is essential to grow God's Kingdom

I do Believe in "Alien Baptism"

Since the latter part of 2005 there has been a debate among SBC conservatives, a sometimes not-so-friendly one, on the nature of Biblical Baptism. Birthed from the new baptism guideline adopted by the IMB's trustee board, this conversation has unfolded to include many fruitful and useful conversations about church membership, accountability, making disciples, church planting, and cross-cultural ministry.

While most of the conversations of which I have been a part have been affable and respectful, there have been a few remarks suggesting that those of us who oppose the new guideline are ignorant of Baptist history, or care nothing about Baptist identity, or even worse, are unconcerned about accurate theology. Today, I would like to clear up the true reason for my opposition to the IMB baptism guideline. Contrary to what many have said, I do not oppose this move because I don't believe in "alien baptism." I oppose it because I very much believe that "baptisms" occur that are anything but, which makes them Biblically invalid, "alien" acts. And I oppose the new IMB guideline because I believe it creates another "alien Baptism."

I firmly and proudly proclaim that I am Baptist, not because our history bears us out as the most faithful (the slaves of 19th century America would beg to differ, I think), or because my family is entrenched in this denominational stream (my loved-ones hail from Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and non-denominational backgrounds, as well as Baptist).

I am Baptist because as I examine our doctrinal beliefs and hold them up against the light of Scripture, I see a tradition that is, in my opinion, more faithful to the actual message of the Bible than any other I have seen or studied. Our view on regenerate immersion is but one reason that after a few years of searching during my high school days, I came back, willingly, to the SBC. I believe the Scriptures are very clear on Baptism. It is a picture of the Gospel, which means to alter it in any way from its Scriptural form is to distort the picture God aims to portray of the grace of God and the transforming power of the cross and resurrection. I take that seriously. And because I take that seriously, I have taken great care over the past 15 years of my ministry to ensure that "baptisms" that take place on my watch are those of which the New Testament bears witness.

In light of those 15 years, I have come to recognize four types of "baptism" which do not fit the Biblical pattern. My reason for opposing the new IMB guideline is because, regrettably, what they require misses the Scriptural mark as well. Let me explain by describing the four types of "alien baptism.":

1. An "Alien Baptism" is any baptism that takes place prior to regeneration and conversion. I love my covanental brothers, but they are simply wrong to draw so tight a parallel between baptism and circumcision as to assume the validity of "infant baptism." Certainly a parallel exists between these two rites, but so do some obvious distinctions. Circumcision, like baptism, was for the purpose of marking one as a member of the Old Testament community of faith. However, the community of faith in the New Testament does not include the children of the community simply by birth. The New Covenant states clearly that only those who have believed are its members.

Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of the discussion. But arguments expanded from the above synopsis reveal two views: one pedo-baptist and the other credo-baptist. While I love, respect, and admire my brothers who claim the former, my view is most definitely the latter. And the consequence of my conclusions is simple: I have no choice other than to reject the sprinkling of an infant. It is not baptism as described by the New Testament, which makes it "alien."

2. An "Alien Baptism" is one that occurs by any mode other than immersion. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule (For example, a quadrapalegic might have a bit of a time being "immersed"), but such exceptions should be granted in extreme cases only.

Even those who accept other modes of baptism admit that the etymology of the Greek term is abundantly perspicuous. In addition, both Luther and Calvin are on record in the annuls of history as stating that immersion was the mode practiced by the Apostles. If the fathers of the Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions respectively admit that the Baptists have it right, what does that say to their successors who remain in these traditions about sprinkling and/or effusion?

Text after New Testament text describes baptism as a metaphor for death and resurrection; the transition from a life of sin to a life of righteousness; the physical symbol of one's "immersion" into Christ and His body. Such texts have been the reason why for 15 years I have said, gently but firmly to those who have not been immersed and seek membership in a church I pastor, "you were never really Baptized."

3. An "Alien Immersion" is one that takes place among a "faith community" that is not made up of genuine followers of Christ. Simply put: The Mormon Church practices immersion after confession, but I do not accept what happens within their walls as "baptism." In a similar vein, other cult groups practice an immersion that on the surface looks exactly like what you would witness at your average First Baptist Church. But the body performing this rite does not believe the Gospel, denies the truth of Jesus Christ, and is therefore unregenerate. As the old saying goes; put an unregenerate person under the water, and they simply go down a dry sinner and come up a wet one!

4. An "Alien Immersion" is one that places the primary focus of the ordinace on anything besides union with Jesus Christ and His people. Scripture is clear in teaching that there is ONE baptism. With that in view, I am appreciative of the IMBs desire that all who go to the mission field under our banner have experienced this. The problem comes when they begin to tie baptismal validity to doctrines that while precious and essential to Baptists, are secondary in matters of salvation and the church. I am speaking of course of how the IMB ties baptismal validity to whether the congregation that performed the baptism believes in "eternal security." The outcome of such a guideline is that a candidate could be genuinely born again, immersed in the name of the triune God after this experience, as a testimony of that experience, among people who share our Gospel convictions and are themselves believers, and still be required to be "baptized" in a Southern Baptist Church.

Anyone from a Nazarene of Assemblies of God background would look at our statement on Baptism in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and find himself in total agreement with its contents. Nevertheless, because those churches differ with us (and wrongly so, I believe) on the issued of eternal security, the New Testament-based baptisms that took place within their walls are now declared to be invalid by the International Mission Board. The result is a requirement that a missionary candidate be "baptized" in an SBC church.

But if the candidate has already been Scripturally baptized, and there is only one baptism, then what exactly is being required by the IMB?

I believe IMB trustees are honorable people, and like me, they simply want to guard our Biblical heritage and ensure the same of those who will represent us on the mission field. But this new guideline changes the focus of Baptism from Christ and His people to the doctrine of "eternal security." Such a move means that the above question can be answered in only one way: The IMB is now requiring "alien baptism," which ironically, is the very thing I am certain they were trying to avoid with the new guideline.

This is precisely the reason my opposition to this new guideline has been so strong. I love our International Mission Board, and I love its trustees. But as a pastor, I will never, ever, EVER place someone under the water and bring them back up for the purpose of identifying them with "eternal security." And I will never do it for the same reason that I will never sprinkle water on the head of an infant: both are misrepresentations of what God intended baptism to be!

So now you have it. Disagree if you want (and I know many of you do), debate the points delineated above. But please refrain from saying any longer that we who oppose the new guideline do so because we don't think as highly of baptism as do those who favor what has happened in Richmond. My opposition is for the exact opposite reason.

Several years ago, I remember Hershael York (who vehemently disagrees with me on this issue, and whom I continue to love and respect) say that God has certain "pictures of the Gospel." I remember this illustration vividly, and have even used it on occasion myself (crediting Dr. York, of course). Marriage, he said, is a picture of the union that exists between Christ and His church, which is why divorce, adultery, homosexuality, etc. are such serious sins. They "break God's picture." The Lord's Supper likewise, is a picture of the sacrifice that it took to secure our salvation. Such is why knowingly allowing an unregenerate person to partake, or one partaking with known and unrepentant sin in his or her heart would be a travesty. It would "break God's picture."

Baptism, like the other two events mentioned, is yet another "picture"--possibly one of the most important. It demonstrates the candidate's confession of Christ publicly (which is why it is for believers only). It illustrates the death of the old self, and rising again to walk in a new life (which is why it is by immersion only.) In short, when we tamper with baptism, we break the picture God intends to portray of the Gospel. I don't believe for a moment that IMB trustees intended to break this picture when they formed the new baptism guideline months ago. Still, the only conclusion I can reach is that they have inserted yet another "alien baptism." With respect toward them, I cannot recognize such as valid, nor will I pretend that "its no big deal."

The Gospel is that important, and therefore, so is Baptism!

Richard Baxter, Paul Washer, and the Recovery of the Biblical Gospel

Let's face it: American evangelicalism is awash in pulpit therapy, "felt needs" foci, and nationalistic materialism. Even with our "conservative" approach to Scripture, it seems we are less and less transformed by Scripture. Radically following Christ is defined, not in terms of martyrdom, but rather in terms of wearing a Christian T-shirt into a public school.

In this environment, it is truly difficult to find men who truly and genuinely preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my personal study, I have always been able to rely on the Puritans to accurately deliver the mail. But Edwards, Bunyan, Baxter and Spurgeon are, regrettably, little known to church-goers in the 21st century, and outside of a few exceptions like John Piper, there seem to be few pastors in the broader public eye who care more about the glory of God than the applause of men.

These are heavy charges, I know. But honestly, when was the last time you heard a pastor over radio or television speak about the Gospel . . .not in terms of the key to life fulfillment, but instead in the Biblical terms of escaping the wrath to come?

This is particularly a problem in my neck of the woods. The Baltimore-Washington D.C. area is one of the most affluent in the country. From all tangible perspectives, the people who reside here are, generally speaking, not in search of "life fulfilment." They already have the $800,000 home on the 18th green, the three-bay garage with a Mercedes parked next to a Lexus, which is in turn parked next to a Hummer. They have their children all enrolled in private, college-preparatory schools, and they are living large with salaries that far exceed $100,000 annually. Telling these people that Jesus will "make their life better" is tantamount to telling Brahms that Jesus will help him play a better and more effective lullaby.

They don't need a relationship with Christ for a "more fulfilled life." They need a relationship with Christ for a secure eternity. And last night, I heard one missionary who still believes this.


Paul David Washer is the founder of the HeartCry Missionary Society, located in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Operating under the authority of Muscle Shoals First Baptist Church, this Society seeks to train and deploy indigenous pastors, missionaries and church planters all over the globe. But while I was particularly impressed with their emphasis on the use of indigenous missionaries, it was a message Washer preached on DVD, given me by a recent aquaintance, that re-energized my spirit, and reminded me that there are still genuine men of God in the broader public eye.

Still, it was dissapointing to learn that Washer has not been invited back to the same venue where I saw him preach this recorded message last night. More dissappointing still was to subsequently read of abuse by listeners, verbal assaults, and one instance of even being pelted by water balloons after speaking.

Indeed, the words he speaks are direct, and unpopular, even within the ranks of so-called "conservative" Christianity. And as I listened to this hour-long message yesterday evening, I suspect that his words are such precisely because of the conviction they bring. They sure brought conviction on me!

The evangelical sense of history has become extremely shallow. We forget that since the Apostolic age, the greatest of God's men have often preached unpopular messages. I think immediately of Jonathan Edwards and his infamous sermon preached to a crowd of unbelievers at Enfield Conneticut in 1741:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight . . .and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up . . .O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell.

Not exactly a candidate for "feel-good sermon of the year" now is it? This man, described by 18th century pastor Samuel Davies as "the profoundest reasoner, and the greatest divine that America ever produced," was such because he both knew and believed the Biblical Gospel.

The same can be said for 17th century pastor Richard Baxter. "I preach as never sure to preach again," said the Puritan preacher, "and as a dying man to dying men." Baxter, like so many of his brothers, knew the eternal gravity that came with the preaching task. Oh, for such a thing to be so in the new millenium!

I find it tragically ironic that while so many within evangelicalism chide the Emergent church for its ambivilence toward subsitutionary atonement, they simultaneously minimize what they claim is so important. While the substitutionary death of Jesus is indeed central to the Gospel message, the purpose behind that atonement barely gets mention in today's evangelical pulpit. The simple fact is that it is grossly offensive to apply penal subsitution to the life of the sinner.

To do so means the preacher must point to human nature as "rotten to the core." He must accentuate the physical sufferings of Christ, and then tell his listeners that the physical torture was a picnic compared to the terror of God's wrath that fell upon His own Son. He must remind his people of what that agonizing death at Golgotha should teach us: that the wages of sin is death. Sin is the refusal to acknowledge our Creator and follow Him unconditionally, and such is a capitol offense. He must warn all within the sound of his voice of the wrath to come, and urge them to come to Christ . . . not for a better sex life or a nicer car or a better marriage, but for the only path to redemption from the terrible wrath of an angry God whom they have despised and whose laws they have trampled under foot.

Paul David Washer is just such a preacher. It was obvious to me as I watched his message to thousands of Alabama Baptist youth that he was not interested in popularity, or accolades, or even being invited back to speak again (which, interestingly, he wasn't). His passion was the same as the Apostle who shares his name; to preach Christ crucified!

I'm not suggesting that every sermon be "hell, fire and brimstone." The Apostle Paul himself encouraged young Timothy to balance his preaching between "rebuke" and "exhortation." (2 Tim. 4:2). Nor am I saying we should never speak of Jesus as the answer to a fulfilling life. He spoke of Himself in this way (John 10:10). I am also not suggesting that the message of the Gospel is always preached in a cultural vaccum. In our age, believers in the west must increasingly live like missionaries, and the job of the missionary, according to Ed Stetzer, is to find the question the culture is asking to which the Gospel is the only answer.

What I am saying is this: In the midst of a modern evangelicalism baptized with an enculturated, albeit more conservative version of "health, wealth, and prosperity," we should be constantly evaluating our ministries to ensure that at the heart of it all remains a bloody cross and a bodily ressurection. God grant such insight to more pulpits!

You can listen online to the message I saw on DVD by clicking here: http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/index.php?option=com_weblinks&catid=39&Itemid=85
Then click on "Youth Evangelism Conference 2002."

Reflections on the Death of Jerry Falwell

After an entire week of press coverage, what more could possibly be written about Jerry Falwell? In the brief, 7-day period since his sudden death, he has been praised by Fundamentalists, condemned by leftists, mourned by thousands of students and parishioners, and had his life analyzed by every major news network in the world.

Nevertheless, although I am admittedly late to this game, I've had seven days to reflect on the life of this giant of a man. I did not always agree with Falwell. In fact, there were times in recent years when I thought his public statements ill-timed, unwise, and not well-thought-out. Still, there is something about this man of God that I truly admire. In fact, there are several godly principles he clearly exemplified with his life that are worthy, both of being admired, and being assumed by the next generation of pastors.

Speak as a Prophet. Sure, his post-9/11 comments were the epitome of "wrong place, wrong time, wrong everything." Still, there is something intriguing, and even attractive about a man who will state his convictions clearly. Just weeks prior to his death, Falwell stated in a national interview that he believed God would continue to judge our nation as long as we continue to tolerate and bless immorality. At the same time, he also made clear his love of this country. Hearkening back to the example of Jeremiah, Falwell had the capacity, as no one else I have known, to strike an appropriate balance between "prophet" and "patriot."

Be a People Person. 10 years ago, I was a "nobody" seminary student studying at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. While writing an ethics paper on the death penalty, I came across one of Falwell's opinions on the subject. Once I decided to include his thoughts in my paper, I emailed his office in order to confirm that I had understood him correctly. "There is no way I'm ever hearing from this guy," I thought to myself. But at least I could, with integrity, tell my professor that I had attempted to contact the source.

But I did hear from him . . . about two hours after sending the email. His reply was both personal and congenial, and he took a couple of paragraphs to address this young "nobody" seminary student's question, as well as to tell me how delighted he was that I was pursuing a degree at Southern, how much he thought of Al Mohler, and that he had prayed for me, my family, and my future ministry while typing his response.

Wow!

You don't forget things like that, and I have heard from others who knew him personally talk of how he loved making personal connections. Students at Liberty University knew this about him, probably more than any other group, which brings me to the next principle.

Seek to Relate to all generations. In a day that assumes the neccesity of homogeneity for effective ministry (i.e.you need someone young to reach someone young, someone old to reach someone old, and someone single to reach another single person), thousands of young students in their late teens and early 20s are mourning because their 73-year-old chancellor is dead. If you don't think that is a significant statement about Falwell's ability to relate cross-generationally, you are simply denying reality. Falwell was a living, breathing example of the fact that all ages, races, and tongues are human beings created in God's image. Liberty students that I have met spoke highly of this man as one who related effectively to a younger generation, and he never had to get a tatoo or pierce his ear to do it. He was always himself, and always let others be themselves.

Let your Message match your life. Unlike so many other television preachers, no one ever caught Jerry Falwell in a motel room with a prostitute, or seeking to have sex with his secretary, or searching for a sensual massage from a gay man, or in his office rolling MJ. After all his years of battling the pornography industry, no one ever found any on his laptop. Bottom line: when the man spoke about porn, drugs, alcohol, and other vices as being harmful to the body, destructive to the reputation, and damning to the soul, he really believed it. Disagree with him if you will, but no one can ever accuse Jerry Falwell of inconsistency.

Make the Gospel the Priority. Though he is more well-known outside Lynchburg for his controversial political views, Falwell always kept the Gospel and its spread at the center of his life and ministry. I never saw him do a news show without finding some avenue to talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, I don't think I remember a time when he didn't challenge the interviewer publicly to repent and believe . . .on the air!

In addition, Liberty University has become a school known for the sending of missionaries to North America and the world. With a great partner in such scholars as Elmer Towns, Falwell also stressed the necessity of church planting as no other public figure I know of. Colleagues of mine who are graduates of Liberty have told me that frequently in classes they would hear such sentiments as "why go a build on another man's foundation? Why not plant a church?" Indeed, Falwell himself was a successful church planter; taking Thomas Road from 35 to several thousand over the five decades he served as Senior Pastor. As one who has a responsibility to recruit those who will be successful in church planting I can tell you, when I'm looking for the good ones, I talk to Liberty University!

And while most who recognize his name more quickly associate him with the political, Falwell's real contribution can be seen in missions efforts he initiated all over the world. The Gospel was truly his central passion.

Value Longevity. In a day where pastors think they deserve a gold watch for staying longer than 50 months, Jerry Falwell managed to stay in the same place ministering, growing, raising up leaders, and leading his congrregation to fulfill the Great Commission for more than 50 years! The growth of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University are the prime examples of what can happen when the man of God refuses to look elsewhere at the first signs of trouble. The simple fact is that longevity, as a general rule, produces stability, which produces growth, which produces Kingdom impact. In my own association, the majority of our churches are stable because many of our pastors have been at their churches for at least 15 years. There is little trouble, and even less "turnover" because men of God are faithful to stay where God has placed them. While God certainly moves men to other areas of service, Falwell's legacy challenges us to think that moving every four or five years to another field of service should possibly be the exception rather than the rule.

Leave a Legacy of Leaders. Of course, with Falwell, this example started with his own family. One look at the man's family portrait and a brief synopsis of what his children and grandchildren are involved in will convince you that he knows how to raise up leaders. In addition, the leaders he brought around him now ensure that the ministries at Thomas Road and Liberty will not merely survive, but continue to thrive.

In Jerry Falwell, God raised up a giant of a man, who in turn built an even more gigantic ministry. Nevertheless, the success he enjoyed in this life cannot merely be credited to his notoriety. In the end, his life and legacy must be credited to the grace of God that allowed this man to consistently live the set of core values and principles described above. My God grant each of us that same grace!

The Immorality of Truth: A New Irony

For quite some time, the liberal media has sought to separate sex from its ethical and moral anchor, and the result of their largely successful campaign to do so has been the normalization of all types of sexual deviancy that our culture once considered taboo. Furthermore, the attempts of the secular left to marginalize any objection to this new sexual ethic have resulted in a slate of appellatives that can now be readily applied to the objectors: homophobe, bigot, and fundamentalist are three labels that quickly come to mind.

But yesterday, I found that Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald has a new moniker for those who dare raise the moral question with regard to homosexuality in particular. . . .we are now immoral!

Pitts' Friday column in the Herald addressed comments made last week by General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint cheifs of staff. Having personally heard General Pace's comments, I knew it would not be long before the press picked up on this opportunistic fodder and sent it through the rapidly-revolving cooling-unit. Calls have been made for the General's resignation, the end of the don't ask-don't tell military policy, and for a public apology...all in response to Pace's simple statement below:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Still, of all the strong objections given to the General's comments over the past week, I found Leonard Pitts' to be the most peculiar. To be sure, Pitts resorts to the typical lines of response as well:

Name-calling: "People like the general--in other words bigots, often wrap their objections up in claims of fundamental right and wrong where sexual orientation is concerned.

"Categorical Fallacy: "It is immoral to be Jewish? Immoral to be male? Is it immoral to hail from Idaho? How then, can it be immoral to be gay?

"Misrepresentation of the Opposition: "At this point, of course, someone is frantically pointing to an obscure Old Testament passage as his or her authority for the immorality of homosexuality. Thing is, the Old Testament also requires the death penalty for disrespectful children, forbids the eating of meat cooked rare, and obligates the man who rapes a virgin to by her from her father and marry her."

For the record, this "bigot" doesn't need Leviticus. I have Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. While the proscription of punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus is certainly bound within the Mosaic Covenant, the over-arching principle of Biblial sexual ethics remains a universal, and thus, trans-covanental stipulation. And for the life of me, anyone who equates ethnic nationality, gender, and geographic location with sexual behavior makes such an absurd argument that nothing else need be taken seriously.

Still, I was intrigued by the one unconventional approach taken by Pitts: that of referring to those who object to the homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds as themselves immoral. How on earth does a man with the intelligence and eloquence of a Pulitzer-prize winner manage to make such a leap? I found the steps in his column:

1. Re-define Morality: "Morality, it has always seemed to me, has less to do with commonalities of existence then with how you treat other people." There you have it! Morality is now no longer about knowing right from wrong. It is about how I "treat" my neighbor. I smell a false-dichotomy!

Would it be morally reprehensible, for example, for me to walk by my neighbors house while it was going up in smoke, with my neighbor inside? Certainly it would. Why then, is it not considered equally reprehensible to refrain from warning someone that their behavior places them at an astronomically-high risk for the worst kinds of Sexually Transmitted Diseases . . .the "terminal" kind? Why is it not considered immoral to confront a lifestyle that has led so many to depression and suicide?

And regarding the military; why would we consider it "immoral" to prohibit any behavior that might result in a breakdown of discipline? The don't ask...don't tell policy is there for the same reason the "no women in combat" rule is there (oh wait, the politically correct have done away with this one already, haven't they?) Sexual tension..whether heterosexual or homosexual..is the absolute last thing you want on a battlefield!

To say that morality has little if anything to do with "commonalities" and is all about how people are treated is to say we can all have different understandings of what "kindness" and "equality" and "tolerance" mean, yet still treat each other with these virtues. But if the above-described vision of "morality" can find its way into the mainstream, then you can be sure that the "immoral" label will be attached to any evangelical who dares to question sexual behavior prohibited by Scripture.

2. Change the Subject. "Team Bush misled the nation into war against the wrong enemy. It hospitalized wounded Americans in squalor and filth. It left the people we 'liberated' without electricity, gasoline, or medical services for months turning to years because of its failure to plan. How moral is that?"

From my vantagepoint, the jury is still out on the conflict in Iraq. As such, Pitts' claims regarding this war may indeed end up having merit. But even if his assessment of the war is correct, such an assessment changes nothing with regard to the subject matter he seeks to address.

This approach of "who are you to judge us?" is in reality nothing more than a cleverly disguised ad hominem attack. Suppose I am arrested for the armed robbery of a convenience store? Suppose that to answer for my crimes I am dragged before a judge who is corrupt? Suppose, as my defense, I say something like this:

I may be a thief, but how moral is it of you to sit up there behind that bench and judge me? How many times have you taken payoffs in exchange for 'not-guilty' verdicts? How much of the taxpayer's money have you wasted sitting through hours of court hearings only to let someone guilty go free? What about that pedophille you released just last month because of a technicality?

Could all of that be true of a judge who gives me the maximum sentence? Sure. Do I still deserve punishment? Absolutely.

On a similar note, let's just assume that Pitts' claims against the current administration are true. Let's assume the President really is a liar. Let's assume General Pace intentionally placed our wounded soldiers into abhorrent medical conditions. With all these things assumed, what has changed regarding homosexuality?

Not a thing!

In the end, Pitts accuses General Pace of holding to a "visceral" view of immorality. Upon further investigation, it appears that Mr. Pitts' view of morality is itself quite "visceral." If our culture has reached the point of referring to truth as "immoral," then perhaps the viscera is the only foundation on which we can seek to build a common understanding of right and wrong. But making absolute statements based on your "gut-instinct" seems to me the least-likely of ways to perpetuate a civilized society.

Ironic as it may sound to many on the left, I believe I'll find relief from all this "immorality" in the text of Scripture!

_____________

Read Leonard Pitt's article here: http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/43139.html