Developing a Support System for Church Planting

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been writing posts related to a presentation I gave to Directors of Missions at the NoBA conference at Southwestern Seminary in January on effective church planting in and by the Baptist Association. The streaming video of that presentation can be found here.

In the first of these posts, I described ways to effectively develop a culture for church planting. The reason developing a church planting culture is primary is simple: The best system in the world is useless if there is no passion to take advantage of it, and no understanding of why it exists.

At the same time, creating a passionate culture for multiplying churches without a clear road-map for how to get it done would amount to zeal without knowledge, and also accomplish nothing. The two go hand in hand. So for the next couple of posts I'll be dealing with the key pieces of the puzzle neccesary to assemble for an effective support system for new churches. Keep in mind that each of these aspects of the system are very involved. Multiple and lengthy posts could be dedicated to each one of them, so the purpose of this post is to simply give you the "big picture" of all the neccesary elements. So just remember that we are flying at 30K feet here.

1. Identified Mission Field. As a church planting leader, you should know where all the pockets of need are located in your area, and you should map those areas of need out in the following way:

Geographically: Ask yourself if there are areas and populations of people that are not sufficiently served by established churches. Remember also that this is a quite different question than asking "is there a church already in this area?" In many North American contexts, the assumption for some time has been that if there is a church in the area, then there is no need to plant a new church there. The fact is that there could be several churches in a geographic area--even healthy, growing ones--that are simply not reaching a huge segment of the population.

Ethnically and Linguistically: Our Association worships every Sunday in eight different languages. But more than 60 different dialects are used in my area. If your Association is within an area that has a high immigrant population, you need to discover who these people are, because it is highly likely that they need a church planted in their midst.

Worldview: The big way of defining this issue is simply by asking "how does this population segment view and process the world?" In our area, the close proximity to Washington D.C. means that we have a lot of people transplanted from other parts of the country who work for various branches and departments of the federal government. Many of them work for the Department of Defense, NSA, or NASA, and thus their background is very scientific, and their thought process is very linear. Many of our churches in this same area are--appropriately--well-suited to reach people like this. But those same churches won't do so well at reaching the artist who sits daily on the National Mall, or the lobbyist or speech-writer, each of whom sees the world a bit differently, and consequently processes information differently. This difference in thinking means that often a new church is needed.

Relational Affinity: We have to be careful here, because the "affinity-based" church has a tendency to segregate huge parts of the body of Christ from other parts of the body. Furthermore, the Scriptures bear out a universal church of people from every walk of life, worshipping Jesus with the same unity that is found in the trinity, and we don't want to be guilty of encouraging the very segregation that is antithetical to this divine goal. At the same time, you have to meet people where they are, and many times, they can be initially reached through the cultural bridge of relational affinity. Are there huge pockets of unchurched bikers in your area? Cowboys? Your Association should vigilantly watch for common interests that can form cultural bridges across which we can carry the Gospel.

The above markers will serve you well for identifying high priority areas for church planting. To successfully multiply the Gospel, you must not only know your message, but also to whom it will be communicated.

2. Church Planter Recruitment and Assessment. Many years ago Kevin Mannoia states that "planter identification is perhaps the most underrated factor in beginning a new church." Thanks to the advent of a myriad of recruitment and assessment tools, this is no longer an entirely true statement. Nevertheless, planter ID and development is a very important aspect to this process.

Of course, identifying church planters typically begins with a thorough assessment. The assessment process utilized by our state convention has been developed over the years by the cooperative efforts of state, Associational and local church partners and as such, is one of the most accurate and contextually applicable processes in North America. Through this process, we are allowed an inside look into the character, gifts, and abilities of potential church planters. At their core, assessments are behaviorally-targeted; meaning that they don't examine hypothetical situations in a planter's life, but instead what he has actually accomplished, and whether those accomplishments and behaviors are reflective of behaviors we know to be present in those who successfully start churches.

There are also very useful assessment tools outside your denominational structure. For example, if you are planting in a highly urbanized area, investment in an Acts29 assessment would be worth your while. This network is governed by guys who are doctrinally sound, but have also demonstrated that they know what they are doing in the city. Similarly, if you are targeting a college campus for a new church, groups like the Aletheia Network will best judge the fitness of a potential planter in that context, because they specialize in planting on University campuses. Additionally, while you are getting to know people in these specialized networks, you increase the chances of finding the right person to start a church in this context, so interacting with people who have a focused passion for certain segments of the population is well-worth your time.

3. Parent/Partner Churches. I came to Maryland in 2005 with a singluar mandate: help lead the churches in our region to plant as many churches as possible. The first year we planted four. But the end of my second year in the field, we had doubled our output to eight. As I stood in front of our Association in annual session that year, 12 churches--one launching on average every two months--made me look really good, and made everyone in that room feel very good. That is, until a year later when almost half of them had failed!

So with the permission of our leadership, I commissioned a team to study our efforts, and when they brought back their conclusions, I honestly wondered whether I would stll have a job! Everything that came out of our office was either already out of business, or was weak and anemic. Thankfully, the response was more complex than a simple suggestion to "fire Joel." Instead, we looked closely at the churches that were still around, healthy and growing. When we did we discovered only one common denominator. Every single one of those churches were launched out of an established church which saw the success or failure of the mission as their own. In other words, when the Association led the way, the result was failure. When local churches led the way with Associational support, the result was strength, health and growth.

As a result of these observations, we enacted guidelines that require the serious investment of a local church before we will "pull the trigger" on any new church start. Aside from the fact that there was something thoroughly Biblical about this move, the practical results have been a joy to watch. Of course, we aren't planting as many churches in a year as we used do, but no church plant launched since 2007 (when we put these new guidelines in place) has yet failed.

I've already spoken at length to this need for sponsor churches, as well as how to involve sponsor churches in an earlier post, so I won't continue to belabor the point here. Still, it bears repeating that without church planting churches, your results will be mediocre at best.

4. Training/Coaching. There is much that could be discussed regarding the needs of church planters in this area. For now, I will simply suggest listening to your church planters and sponsor churches early on, and make determinations relative to ongoing training and coaching on the particular needs of each new church. Generic curricula like NAMB's Basic Training I are fine, but by themselves are not sufficient. "Real Time, In-time" training appropriate to the field is an absolute neccesity, as is utilizing coaching and training partners who know the field your people area in.

Many will notice the conspicuous absence of one very important aspect of any church planting support system in this post: funding. Rest assured, it is not my intention to ignore this critical component and in the process risk all the planters I work with getting angry with me. At the same time, much has been said about this issue over the years, and a myriad of opinions have been offered regarding what is "sufficient." With these facts in mind, I'm actually dedicating the entirety of the next post to this question. So in my next installment, I'll talk at length about a healthy philosophy of church plant funding.

Why Evangelicals Lost the Gay Marriage Debate

As I write these words, Senate Bill 116 is making its way through both houses of the Maryland legislature. Predictions are that both the Senate and House of Delegates have the votes necessary to send this bill—which effectively legalizes homosexual marriage in my state—to the desk of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who has said he will sign it into law. By this summer, Maryland will become the sixth state in the Union to legalize marriage between homosexual partners.

At the same time, evangelicals lost this issue a long time ago. In a recent USA Today article, Tom Krattenmaker astutely compares the current situation to the closing moments of a football game when the opposing team is so far out in front that there is no hope of recovery before the final seconds tick off the clock. Though I disagree with Krattenmaker’s proposal for evangelicals to simply “back off,” he is correct about one thing: Even with the Governor’s signature not already affixed to the bill, we have lost this ball game!

So the question going forward is simple: how did we arrive at this place? And is there a way to return our culture to previous thoughts about this issue when the playing field of dialogue is now so uneven? It is admittedly difficult—perhaps even impossible—to adequately respond in a 5-minute sound bite to why you would oppose two people who love each other being granted the same rights, recognition, and tax breaks as any other married couple. Further complicating matters is the fact that many of us have friends in the homosexual community whom we care about deeply, and on the surface, it just seems heartless to deny them the opportunities available to heterosexual couples.

If you are in favor of homosexual marriage and just read that last paragraph, you might think I’m sympathetic to the plight of a persecuted minority in our country. If you are an evangelical who just read it who thinks I’ve lost my mind, and you are wondering how on earth we ever arrived at this place, then you have stumbled onto my point. What mistakes did we make that have resulted in the current climate?

1. Our Early Treatment of the Homosexual Community. I’m speaking here of two things primarily: mistreatment and stereotyping. Let’s face it. For many decades the sum total of the evangelical church’s response to the homosexual community was “AIDS is God’s judgment on you!” Though we claim our authority is the Bible, we largely ignored what it says about all human beings being created in the image and likeness of God where homosexuals are concerned. As a result, an evangelical church—the one place where a homosexual struggling with his or her sin should have been welcomed—was the one place they avoided like the plague. We looked the other way when homosexuals were denied housing or employment or worse, when they were beaten and killed. We should have been the first to denounce such horrific acts of violence against any human being created in God’s image. Instead, we were largely silent.

Additionally, we tended to stereotype this part of our population as an aggressive minority intent on subjugating our children to sexual perversion of every sort and kind. To be sure, there is an identifiable group among homosexual ranks that walk around naked at parades, seek to radicalize school curriculum, and give support to organizations like NAMBLA. But this group represents less than 10 percent of the homosexual community. Another 20% of this population is represented by men and women who are genuinely struggling with their sexual orientation, believe it is sin, and want to find a way out. The majority in the middle are convinced that they are doing nothing wrong, but have no desire to do anything except live their lives and be left alone. Our problem is that we have treated the entire homosexual population as if they all belonged to category number 1.

These two issues illustrate a sub-human treatment of men and women for whom Jesus died. I understand that this sin begins with “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18), but given the way we have communicated our message, is it any wonder they don’t want to listen to us?

2. Our Own Perversion of Marriage: Homosexuals may very well help our society finish off marriage, but they can’t be held responsible for starting this downward slide. That began decades ago, and continues into the present. Within the evangelical church, divorce rates are actually higher than outside Christendom. In addition, our refusal to practice church discipline and uphold the standards of righteousness expected of any follower of Jesus has resulted in rampant and unrepentant fornication and adultery within our own ranks. The Bible is clear regarding sexual sin, but our ambivalence within the church toward heterosexual sin betrays the absence of any moral authority to speak to this issue. Until we start treating heterosexual sin in all its forms within the church the same way we view homosexual sin outside the church, we can never presume the moral high ground. Judgment, the Apostle Peter says, begins at the house of God. (1 Peter 4:17)

3. Our Capitulation to the Idea of Marriage as a “Right.” The homosexual community has been largely successful in couching their agenda in the verbiage of “civil rights,” and the current marriage debate is also housed within this concept. If interracial marriage is permitted, for example, then what is wrong with two men or two women being wed to each other? I appreciate the response to this issue that has been made by my African-American brothers in ministry. They have spoken eloquently to the marked difference that should be noted between skin tone and behavior. At the same time, when discussing marriage, evangelicals have failed to point out that this institution isn’t about “civil rights,” and in fact isn’t about “rights” at all. Yet at some point, we allowed the other side to co-opt the idea that marriage is a right. Rather than speaking to who does and does not have a “right” to marry, evangelicals should point out that in fact, no one has a “right” to marital union. Marriage has historically been viewed as a status of privilege, and this truth is functionally proven by the fact that although a clerk of court may be forced by law to issue a license, no public official—minister, notary public, or judge—is required to perform the ceremony. This is currently true of heterosexual couples. A so-called “right to marriage” is not necessary for equality. Marriage has never been a “right,” even among heterosexual couples. If evangelicals want to turn opinion on this issue, this point must be made clear.



4. We allowed “tolerance” to be confused with “affirmation.” Tolerance, simply defined, is the power that keeps adherents to various points of view from killing each other. It is rooted in the idea that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and describes the endorsement of the ideal of treating each other with dignity and respect, regardless of our differences with each other. But toleration is not the same as affirmation. It is one thing, for example, for our society to “tolerate” an alcoholic by not killing him, getting him treatment when he seeks it, and in general treating him like a human being. But if we were to suddenly hold him up as an example of something healthy in our society, such action would not represent “tolerance.” but “affirmation.”

I’ve been pleased to see legislative and judicial moves away from punitive results for homosexual behavior. Aside from the fact that I think our government has better things to do with its time than lock up consenting adults, the sodomy laws in our country set up a defacto hierarchy of sin whereby heterosexual misconduct was winked at while homosexual sin was worthy of attention by our penal code. Similarly, sexual behavior should, generally speaking, not be an employment issue. Ministerial employment notwithstanding, a homosexual should not be released from his or her employment for their sexual behavior any more than an adulterous husband should be fired for his last out-of-town tryst. Such a posture truly treats all sin equally and does not single out any particular group to be stigmatized. I’m thankful for evangelicals like Rick Warren, who have spoken to this issue with passion not only in our own country, but in other places like Uganda.
But a license to marry is not an extension of “tolerance.” It is instead the granting of societal affirmation. Our culture has historically affirmed marriage between a man and woman because of the inherent benefits this institution provides our society. The economic stability, emotional support, vehicle of sexual expression and ideal environment for childrearing that this man-woman institution has observably produced in our culture has resulted in our nation granting it a status of privilege. When a marriage license is issued, our society is in effect saying “we affirm this union because of the betterment of our society that we know will result.”

So when the homosexual community asks for the “right” to marry, they are asking for much more than tolerance. They are asking for the societal endorsement of their lifestyle. Regardless of whether you believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, the simple fact is that homosexual marriage is without a strong historical precedent and thus, its institutionalization by our government represents a radical approach to social engineering, the results of which will not be tangibly known or experienced for many decades. The “five-minute sound-bite” approach to this issue may make it seem as though the evangelical church is backed into a philosophical corner, but the truth is that the burden of legitimizing the radical redefinition of marriage to include two men or two women rests on those who would like to see homosexual marriage codified into our system of law. Tolerance is one thing. What the homosexual community is asking for is a quite different matter.

Evangelical Christians once spoke to the issue of homosexuality in a world that shared our opinion of the issue. Recent developments have proven that this world is now gone. The question now is how Christians can speak the truth in love in this new environemt. Admittedly, we did not use our cultural influence well when we had it, and our understanding of how to interact with the homosexual community has thankfully evolved. Our understanding of homosexual behavior as sinful must not change, but the way we communicate this truth and encourage dialogue must simultaneously demonstrate a clear compassion, and if neccesary, the willingness to be persecuted ourselves for the sake of those we strongly believe need the Gospel. We need clear and compelling arguments combined with genuine love for our homosexual friends. Anything less, and the "homophobe" label will stick for good, and perhaps deservingly.

Creating a Culture for Planting Churches, Part II

In my last post, I stressed the need for a culture-shift within Associations of churches that results in a high priority on the multiplication of churches. I'd like to continue on that theme today with a couple of additional steps that I think are crucial to developing this kind of atmosphere.

-Don't Give in to Resistant Churches. Changing a culture is a precarious undertaking in any environment, and when you seek the kind of substantive change neccesary for a organization-wide culture shift, it is inevitable that you will run into strong opposition. Baptist Associations are no exception to this reality and in fact, sometimes the opposition in this environment can be worse than in the corporate world.

When trying to create an environment in which new churches can be birthed, you will have churches (and regrettably, you will also have pastors) who, for whatever reason, don't like the new emphasis, don't want it, and will seek to undermine it. You should be nice to them. You should treat them like the brothers and sisters in Christ that they are. You should serve them selflessly as you would any other church in your network. When they call, you should pick up the phone. When they ask for help, you should provide it. But you should never, under any circumstances, allow them to influence this process.

The problem is that most Directors of Missions are like most pastors. We like to be liked, and we truly believe that the best way to facilitate cooperation is sometimes through compromise. The problem with compromise in this area (and I have the personal experience to back up my claim) is if you seek compromise in order to simply placate naysayers, you will accomplish nothing, and regardless of what you do, you won't make them happy anyway.

Think for a moment about how you would counsel a pastor dealing with a similar situation in his church. If there is some grumpy old guy sitting on the back row with arms folded who does nothing but incessantly complain, you would tell that pastor "love him, minister to him, serve him, but do NOT place him in a position of leadership or influence of any kind!" As an Associational leader, you should take the same approach with naysaying churches. When it comes to leading a culture-shift of any kind, applying "consensus leadership" will result in a grand total of nothing, and may even grant the greatest amount of authority to the most carnal congregation in your network. Don't go there!

-Intentionally Mix the Established and Emerging. One of the worst mistakes I’ve seen guys make who are trying to change the culture of their association is that they sequester the church planting types away from the established pastor types. For the most part, this action is unintentional, and occurs through hosting necessary events, training, and gatherings that are exclusively for church planters. And church planters need to learn from each other. But they do NOT need to find themselves totally cut off from the established church world, and especially from older men who have spent decades as pastors and have much wisdom to instill.

Additionally, if the “established” and “emerging” church world stay separated from each other, it becomes much easier to criticize and stereotype each other. The planters view the established guys as old, out of touch, trapped in the 1950s, and resistant to anything innovative. The established guys likewise, tend to view the planters as young, proud, bratty, and maybe even a little heretical. The more you can get these two groups together in the right context and circumstance (NOT a business session!), the better. If I am a pastor, and I have a real-life, flesh and blood church planter in front of me, and I’ve spent time with him, prayed with his wife and played with his kids, its going to be much harder for me to stereotype and criticize. In that same vein, if I’m a young church planter who senses that this older man actually cares about my mission and ministry, I’m much more inclined to slow down and listen and in the process, gain some much needed wisdom.

As a matter of regular practice, when our Association hosts a planter-specific event of any kind, there is always an open invitation issued to our Associational officers. Through getting to know each other in these contexts, the relationship between old and new churches has greatly improved over the past several years, primarily because both sides have learned to look past the style, dress, worship, and ministry model differences, and understand that each is simply trying to make Jesus known in his own context. This helps all sides see that the basis of a church planting culture is not methodological, but theological. It grows out of the healthy soil of a common understanding of who Jesus is, who His church is, and what He has commissioned His church to do. And that theological culture is built, first and foremost, in a relational way. So do everything you can to keep these groups together, not apart.

Taking care to implement these steps will, over time, result in a significant change in how the churches of your Association view church planting. Without that kind of passionate culture of advocacy, you will never produce an environment of church planting churches, no matter how sophisticated your support system.
At the same time, once you have helped create the passion necessary for this culture-shift, you will need to be able to give direction to it, which will require a support system at the Associational level. In the next two posts, I’ll speak to the non-negotiable components of an effective church planting system.

Creating a Culture for Planting Churches, Part I.

My maternal grandfather passed away when I was six years old. Even at that young age, my early experiences with him left an indelibly positive mark on me. Most of our time together was wonderful and usually involved going to baseball games or watching "Gunsmoke" re-runs. But there were a few unpleasant moments in our relationship as well. One of those would happen every time I followed him through his garden--walking barefoot through that rich South Carolina dirt that he had just churned up with his tiller. "Get out of my rows!" he would shout, and in retrospect, he had good reason to be angry. As a farmer, my Pa Pa understood well that no matter how well you farmed, the soil had to be right if you wanted crops. Environment means everything when you are trying to grow a living organism.

Likewise, when associations and networks seek to plant churches, a sufficient support system is invaluable. At the same time, the most sophistocated support system in the world is useless if there is no passion to take advantage of it and no understanding of why it exists. The environment in which the system exists matters, and if the culture within which you are trying to plant churches is not itself permeated by the priority of church planting, the result is usually failure.

So the first issue in ensuring effective church planting in your association or network is not an effective support system, but a passionate church planting culture. In this post, I'll briefly describe the steps in helping cultivate this kind of culture. For a more detailed and video-based description of this process, click here.

So what do I mean by "church planting culture?" Simply put, a church planting culture is an environment within which church planting is a high and non-negotiable priority. And the role of the network leader or Director of Missions is to catalyze the thinking that "we MUST do this . . .or we fail!" If the Baptist Association exists first and foremost as a missions organization (and that statement is a foregone conclusion as far as I'm concerned), and if the Biblically-defined and successful missionary task ALWAYS results in the multiplication of churches (another foregone conclusion, and if you don't agree, you've never read the book of Acts), the only accurate conclusion is that the Association that doesn't actively promote church planting is willfully leaving God's mission incomplete. For some these words may sound harsh, but this is the attitude that will permeate any association that is faithful to its missionary calling. The role of Associational leaders then, is to cultivate this kind of culture. Some simple steps toward this end are:

1. Read Together. Expose yourself, and other key pastors and lay leaders, to resources that reveal church planting as an essential part of the mission of God. Bibliographies abound containing resources like this, and in the past 15 years the increased popularity of church planting has caused those lists to grow exponentially. As you are mining those lists for resources your pastors and leaders will actually read, keep three distinct emphases in mind. First, expose your people to resources that describe, in full, the missionary task as defined in the Bible, which always results in converts, indigenous leaders, and new churches. Second, find resources that speak to the practical components of church planting. Such will give your leadership an initial blueprint of the kind of system that needs to be errected. Finally, expose pastors and laity in your churches to resources that focus on the local church as the primary vehicle for church planting. Repeatedly teach and emphasize that this is THEIR job. If you don't, the best you will get is an Association of well-wishers who hope this new church planting venture works out for you. And while that kind of attitude makes for great job security and probably even extra funding for the mission, it won't create the kind of environment I'm talking about. At the end of the day, local churches need to "own" their own responsibility to plant churches.

I have a few suggestions of where to start with the recommended reading here.

2. Expose the Association to Lostness in Your Area. In short, this means you need to have the statistics, be confident in their accuracy, and be able to translate the implications to your churches.

For example, if you envelop the collective geographic proximity of all 58 of our member churches, there are more than 1 million people living in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. region who have no relationship to Jesus Christ. By contrast, there are approximately 11,000 people worshipping in our churches every Sunday. To reach all of the non-Christians in my area without planting any new churches, our current churches and missions would have to grow, on average, by 17,000 people EACH. Since our largest congregation only runs about 600 on Sunday, and since facilities that can hold tens of thousands of people are at a premium in this area, the only tenable solution is to start new churches, and lots of them. I tell our folks often that if we started 1000 new churches next year, and each grew to 1000 in attendance, we would still not have reached everyone with the Gospel when you factor in projected population growth.

This is the sort of information you must communicate to the churches you serve. What are the demographic indicators in your area? You should know them better than local politicians and the Chamber of Commerce, and you should be able to translate them into the substantiation for new churches.

3. Involve Key Partner Churches. I came to Maryland in 2005 with a singular mandate: to help lead the effort to plant as many churches as possible in my region. The first year our Association planted four churches. By the end of my second year we had planted 12. At the time our Association only consisted of about 40 churches, so a 20% growth rate in one year made me look good, and it made our messengers at our 2006 annual meeting feel good . . .until two years later when roughly half of those churches no longer existed!

In reaction to this, our leadership commissioned a thorough study of our church planting efforts. What we discovered was that every single new church that originated from the Associational office was either already dead, or weak and anemic. Needless to say, I was wondering about my own job security at that point! Thankfully, our leadership also decided to look specifically at the churches that were still alive and growing by making disciples. The one common denominator of each one of these growing church plants was that they were birthed, not out of my office, but out of another local church.

So on the basis of personal experience let me plead with you: don't seek to do this on your own without local churches who are willing to own the process with you! A couple of months ago, we did another five year study. Since 2007, we have operated with the assumption that churches plant churches, and we simply empower their efforts. As a result, our success rate for all churches planted since 2007 is 100%. This sort of success is only realized when the mentality of the churches shifts from "we are helping the Association plant churches" to "we are planting churches and the Association is helping us do it."

If you are in an Association that has not seen a new church in some time and you are working with churches that simply don't know how to do this, keep in mind that your first partner churches don't have to be alligned with your Association. Use Biblically sound, evangelical churches who have planted other churches, and have demonstrated that they know what they are doing to work alongside your churches. The result will be knowledge added to zeal and over time, you will reap great results.

There are other important principles for developing a church planting culture as well, and in my next post, I'll be describing those principles. Then we will move on to describe the essential components of an effective church planting system, and finally, how to ensure an ongoing and scalable strategy for church planting.

Oh, and have I mentioned you can get the video version of these posts here?

The Strategic Role of Associations in Church Planting

As I mentioned in my last post, I'll be spending the next few weeks on this site talking about effective church planting in the local Baptist Association. For my readers who are not part of my denominational "tribe," please excuse some of the "insider" conversation that will neccesarily be a part of this discussion. It is my hope that my non-Baptist brothers and sisters will nonetheless learn some principles that they can take back into their own affiliations and more greatly emphasize church planting. The truth is that we need all evangelical denominations and non-denominational churches thinking deeply about these issues if we hope to change North America for Christ. But since my denominational home carries the label "Baptist," expect the next several posts to deal with issues within my own tribe.

Second, I fully realize that touting an organization you simultaneously work for as a "highly strategic" entity runs the risk of heavy bias and self-promotion. I also realize that not all Baptist Associations are strategic when it comes to starting new churches, and that some will never be. My purpose in this post is simply to point out why, of all denominational entities, the local Association can play a very strategic role.

Third, I don't want this post to be interpreted as "competitive" with other denominational entities at the state and national levels. One of the highly unfortunate results of the recent GCR conversations across our convention is that there has already been quite a bit of ungodly "one-upmanship," as "fans" of the various SBC entities have taken cheap pot-shots at other entities they perceive should just "get out of the way." This is not my intention in this post. On the contrary, there is no way for Southern Baptists to be unified nationally under a continent-wide strategic framework without the help of the North American Mission Board. Additionally, the specialists in areas like ethnic church planting and context-sensitive areas like urban ministry simply can't be afforded by most local associations and therefore, without the cooperation of state conventions, we might end up "flying blind" in many of our church planting efforts.

At the same time, the local Association has its own unique and very important contribution to make in the effort to start effective, disciple-making churches in North America. In particular, our proximity, flexibility, and accountability provide the opportunity for a rich environment within which new churches can be birthed.

1. Proximity: Simply put, our state convention has to keep up with more than 500 churches in Maryland/Delaware. And the further south you go, the tougher the job. The Baptist Convention in my home state of South Carolina serves the mission of more than 3000 churches! Our association, on the other hand, serves the mission of only 58 of those congregations. Where church planting is concerned, the reality is we have a greater proximity to our churches and thus, a greater propensity to develop the relationships neccesary to develop the culture within which new churches can be launched.

This is not to say that state and national entities can't also have strong relationships with churches. I am certain, for example, that the state staffer who directs Vacation Bible School has a much closer relationship than I do to many laity within our churches. But for the most part, when it comes to church planting, I am most keenly aware of the lay of the land in my association and thus, our association is in the best position to know which relationships can be best leveraged to facilitate more new congregations. My relationships with our 58 lead pastors have different degrees of intimacy and understanding. But of those in this group who are best equipped to help us plant churches, I can say I know ALL of them very well. And after more than six years in this part of the North American mission field, I know the importance of the relational dynamics between pastors and churches in this area when it comes to church planting.

I also know my field. Our churches are located in almost every kind of context that exists in North America, from the ultra-urban to "town and country," from southern Pennsylvania to College Park, from Baltimore city west to the Frederick County line. Within this area I can tell you the three most high impact sites that needed a new church yesterday. Not only can the local Association more easily keep up with high growth areas, it has the capability to know the internal psychographics of each area better than anyone else..

In short, our proximity to the mission field, to our churches, and to relationships gives Associations a high propensity for strategic influence when it comes to planting new churches.

2. Flexibility: Another aspect of Associations that make them a strategic church planting partner is a flexible structure. State Conventions and NAMB are, by neccesity, more beaurecratic. This is not a criticism of these entities, but simply an acknowlegement that the bigger you are, the more policies and procedures are neccesary in order to function consistently.

For example, when large sums of financial support are aimed by a single entity toward a new church, it makes sense that there would be tighter parameters around how those monies are invested for the sake of accountability. At the same time, creativity is always limited in such a scenario. This is where Associations, if they are structured properly, can help compensate.

One recent example in our own association will illustrate this well. We are currently targeting a high impact area for a church plant, and have a potential planter for the job. He has passed our assessment process, but desires to intern with a church planting network with whom we are partnered for this particular effort. The internship will require him to relocate and leave his current position on the pastoral staff of one of our churches, and he is now in the process of raising support for the internship. Typically, funding at all levels of denominational life only begins once the planter has actually been deployed to plant the church. However, Associational leadership discovered that because of this internship, the planter will deploy with a sizeable "hot core," all of whom will be supporting the new church financially. With this unique scenario came the opportunity to utilize a more creative approach to funding the entire church planting effort, and since Associational funding of such efforts is not captive to highly restrictive policies, but instead at the discretion of our Missions and Multiplying Churches Team and Executive Board, we were able to quickly aprove significant funding for this planter DURING his internship should he agree to plant in the high impact area we have targeted.

Additionally, strategic flexibility begins with a thorough understanding of what will be needed for effective church planting. Since every context is unique, it only makes sense to build the strategy from the Associational level.

3. Accountability: Much has been made over the past two years of the Biblical principle that "churches plant churches." I am thrilled to see this principle more practically "fleshed out" in the GCR reccomendations. And my strong belief is that the local Association can be the first resource utilized by local churches to start new churches.

For one thing, the local Association is the only entity in denominational life that is DIRECTLY responsible to local churches. Other entities throughout our SBC are neccesarily governed by Boards of Trustees. But local churches have the power to make the Association whatever they want it to be. Thus, if local churches with a passion for Kingdom multiplication desire to transform the Association into the effective tool that it can be in this area, they are free to do so.

All of the above are reasons I believe the local Association can play a vital role in the multiplication of new churches throughout North America. At the same time, I'll readily admit that not every local Association WILL play a vital role. For the realities I mention above to translate into new churches, the churches that make up Baptist Associations must have the right mindset. This requires a particular kind of culture to be cultivated within each association. In the next installment, I'll be speaking to this issue of how those who lead Associations can create a church planting culture within these vitally strategic networks.

Church Planting Systems and Baptist Associations

Two weeks ago I was invited to lead a session at the NoBA annual conference for Directors of Missions at Southwestern Seminary on Effective Church Planting in the Baptist Association. It was a privilege to talk with fellow Directors of Missions from across the country about their own efforts to facilitate church planting, and to learn from them regarding the real world issues they face in trying to cultivate a church planting culture. I was energized by their desire to do this better.

Since returning to Maryland I've received several requests for my teaching material, as well as bibliographic resources to help Associational servants do this work more effectively. In light of that interest, I've decided to dedicate the next few weeks to a blog series on the subject of church planting within Baptist Associations. My hope is that this will not only help Directors of Missions, but also local pastors and laity in churches who are passionate about seeing God's Kingdom multiplied in their own context.

In the first post, I will discuss the strategic role of the Association in denominational church planting, as well as some of the problems within denominational systems that can kill the desire and momentum for starting new churches. The Biblical pattern is that churches, not denominations, plant churches. At the same time, my very biased opinion is that Associations are in the best position of all denominational entities to empower local churches to fulfill this mandate. This is not to say that our friends at the state convention and North American Mission Board are irrelevant to the effort. On the contrary, we need ALL our partners on board for the undertaking neccesary to reach North America with the Gospel. But from a doctrinal, contextual, and ecclesiological standpoint, no one is more poised to help catalyze a movement of new churches among established churches like the Baptist Association.

In the second post, I'll discuss the neccesary work of creating a church planting culture in the Association. The best and most sophisticated support system on earth is useless if there is no passion to utilize it and no understanding of why it exists. Churches networked together in Associations must conclude that church planting is an absolute, non-negotiable neccesity. A culture of church planting understands that if an Association can't facilitate the work of churches planting churches, it has no reason to exist. I'll talk about ways to cultivate that sort of environment.

In the third post, I'll discuss the essential pieces for effective church planting strategy. I'll talk about the elements that constitute and define a "mission field," the neccesary elements of recruiting and assessing planters, and the neccesity of allowing parent churches to lead the way.

In the fourth post, I'll concentrate on a single piece of church planting strategy; funding. On the one hand, it takes money to accomplish the mission, and all the church planters reading would be very angry with me if I didn't raise this issue. On the other hand, financial support for a new church must be consistent with the strategy. Contextualization of financial support is every bit as important as contextualizing the overall strategy if you aspire to have a truly autonomous, self-supporting,and self-propogating new church.

In the final installment, I'll briefly talk about ways to ensure ongoing church planting strategy in the Association Obviously, the Director of Missions plays a vital role in catalyzing and facilitating this emphasis. At the same time, we want to "hand off" church planting to appropriate leaders in local churches, and eventually empower them as team members so that the mission continues should the DoM get run over by a bus.

My hope is that this series will be helpful to church planters, local pastors, church members, and Directors of Missions who want to see the Kingdom of God multiplied in their Association, and around the world. God willing, I'll see you in a few days with installment one.

Slander Among the Saints: John MacArthur, Darrin Patrick, and the Need for Godly, Older Examples

John MacArthur needs to repent!

That's a strong statement, I know. And before I explain why I feel this is the only appropriate response to his statements earlier this week about fellow Pastor Darrin Patrick, I should probably preface my thoughts with a few clarifications.

First of all, if you lean left theologically and you think you are about to read an attack on Dr. MacArthur's theology, save yourself the time and look for such attempts elsewhere. I love to hear Dr. MacArthur preach the Word of God. Early in my ministry, he was a shining example to me of Biblical faithfulness in the pulpit. I'm currently on my second, dog-eared copy of The MacArthur Study Bible. Although I have not always reached the same conclusions as he, I have for the most part learned much from his exegetical precision, hermaneutical skill and homiletical appeal. He is a faithful servant of Jesus, and I thank God for the incredible influence he has had on my own ministry.

Second, I write this post on my 39th birthday. While I'm not sure a guy who is now officially less than a year from being 40 can still be called a "young leader," I am writing from that perspective nonetheless. As such, I admit taht my initial reaction to MacArthur's words were more visceral than the words you will shortly read, primarily because I believe older men should set an example for younger men, and I believe Dr. MacArthur dropped the ball. Big time.

Third, this post isn't an attempt to defend Darrin Patrick or his book (which I have recommended highly to anyone aspiring to start a church, or even pastor an established one!). I'm certain Darrin can take care of himself. Furthermore, MacArthur's attack on its contents should be automatically suspect to any thinking person who discovers that this same work bears the endorsements of Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, and Tim Keller. This post isn't about the book. This post is about John MacArthur's responsibility to practice what he has so often faithfully preached.

The simple fact is that Dr. MacArthur ripped a statement from Patrick's book completely out of context and in the process, falsely accused a brother in Christ and fellow pastor of doctrinal error. Patrick's point in saying that young pastors and planters should develop their own theology was not to encourage reckless and niche-marketed doctine, and anyone who reads the context of his work sees clearly that Patrick emphasizes sound doctrine saturated with Scripture, and in the vein of historic Christian orthodoxy. His point was not to encourage pastors to create their own truth. His point was to encourage deep, Berean reflection on EVERYTHING one hears--even if it comes from the lips of your spiritual heros--and in the process to develop onesself theologically in a way that moves one closer to Jesus and more in harmony with the text of Scripture.

But MacArthur obviously read something very different into Patrick's words, and in the process reacted strongly:

"You know, there's a new book on church planting written by a guy named Darrin Patrick and it says if you want to be an effective church planter, develop your own theology.

You know when I read that I just almost fell off the chair. What? I mean, can you think of anything worse than to have some guy develop his own theology? This is ultimate niche marketing. Develop your own style, your own wardrobe, and then your own theology."

If you listen to the entire interview with Phil Johnson, a strange irony becomes apparent. Prior to this charge against Patrick, MacArthur was sharing how the thinking of theologians such as J. Gresham Maechen, B.B. Warfield, and Cornelius Van Til had helped him, in essence, "develop his own theology." In short MacArthur spends several minutes describing his own development as a theologian, only to conclude by blasting a younger pastor for doing exactly the same thing! Apparently, developing your theology is OK as long as its done in a way that doesn't include cultural relevance or efforts to contextualize the Gospel so that its offense is crystal clear to those who will hear it.

MacArthur's statement is the classic example of the "cheap shot," leveled in an attempt to emphasize in a negative way a point you are trying to make. But to make matters worse, MacArthur goes on to address the "buzz" created by his remarks by again arguing against a point that Patrick never makes; namely, that theology should be developed at least partially from the perspective of entrepreneurial business principles.

So here is my big suggestion: No more explaining or clarifying. John MacArthur should simply apologize to Darrin Patrick for misrepresenting Patrick's words in order to score points with his audience at Grace Community Church. John MacArthur should repent, and for several reasons:

1. It is the right thing to do: When you misspeak, you should correct yourself. When you mischaracterize someone else's position, your should rectify your mistake by simply saying "I got this one wrong." Yet admitting wrongdoing, or wrongthinking, is something that seems to come very hard for MacArthur. Listening to the podcast interview, I picked up on a subtle hint of this issue.

2. It sets the right example: Frankly, there are a lot of older men in ministry who preach repentance but do not practice it. From personal experience I can testify that many pastors and denominational leaders from the "builder" and "boomer" generations simply have a hard time admitting when they are wrong. Instead, they "explain" or "clarify," when a simple "I'm sorry" would suffice. Then these same men scratch their heads in bewilderment wondering why most younger men refuse to follow them. Thankfully, this is not true of some older men, and there are many who set the right example for the next generation. The fact is, young leaders are hungry to be mentored by older, godly men, but they need more than words. They need an example. (Hebrews 13:7)

3. It illustrates Grace: We don't have to always be right, but when we are wrong, we need to state it plainly and seek forgiveness from the One who IS always right, as well as others we may have offended. As followers of Jesus, we are trophies of the grace of God, and when we are transparent about our own mistakes, we display a supreme confidence in that grace.

Again, I love John MacArthur. My desire is to see him repent, not for any vindication on my part or anyone elses, but for the sake of greater cooperation with others who preach the same Gospel. We need men like John MacArthur. Spiritual fathers are rare, and over the years, he has been one of the best. I pray he does the right thing.

To Burn or not to Burn? The Koran, Christian-Muslim Relations, and the Gospel.

Pastor Terry Jones is, quite literally, "on the war path." Jones, head of Dove World Outreach Church in Florida, is determined to commemorate the ninth anniversary of September 11 in a very atypical way. Less than 72 hours from the time this article is posted, Pastor Jones will lead a ceremony in which the Koran is burned in protest of radical Islam. His announcement of these plans have already set fire to the media, the blogosphere, talk radio, and political pundits who immediately began taking sides in the whole "should he--shouldn't he" debate. More recently, General David Patreus issued a strong warning that Pastor Jones' intentions could incite further violence against American soliders in Afghanistan.

All of these are important factors to consider. But for those who claim to follow Jesus Christ, the issues at stake are much deeper than one who simply watches CNN or FOX News might imagine.

On the surface, it would appear that this is simply an issue of basic rights. Those in favor of Jones' plans to continue with a public burning of the Koran frequently appeal to the fact that he has a right to do so, and no one is arguing against that fact. To be sure, I'm very thankful to live in a place where one can burn a book, a bra, a flag, or any other thing they want without fear of government repression or persecution. Though I oppose all of these actions, their legal protection is essential to the preservation of a democratic society in which the free exchange of ideas remains unrestricted by "big brother."

At the same time, as a follower of Jesus my primary citizenship is not of this world. As such, there may be actions and attitudes I am free to express in America that I am bound to repress for the sake of the Gospel. To date, a handful of supporters have argued in favor of Terry Jones on the basis of his constitutional right to do as he pleases. What no one seems to be asking is whether this is appropriate behavior for a follower of Jesus commissioned to reach all people--including Muslims--with the Gospel. His desire is to protect our culture from the dangerous influence of radical Islam. This is a desire that I share. The difference between us is that Terry Jones seems content to jettison the Gospel mandate in order to preserve our way of life. I am not. The early apostles who started churches in the power of the Holy Spirit did not enjoy the freedoms we Americans enjoy, and still they were faithful to their call. Ultimately, our appeal as Christians is not to the Bill of Rights, but to our resurrected Lord.

Essentially, there are three primary reasons that Pastor Jones' pending actions should be condemned loudly and clearly by all who claim to know Jesus:

1. Wrong Offense. Paul tells us clearly in 1 Corinthians 1:23 that the message of the cross is a "stumbling block." Simply put, the Gospel is an offense, which means that if followers of Jesus are faithful to their calling, people will be stung with the truth that their sin has separated them from their God, and that the only way back to Him is through the bloody sacrifice of His Son. This is the offense of the cross that Jesus said would be the cause of His people being hated for the sake of His name.
The problem comes when followers of Jesus use something other than Christ crucified as a tool of offense against others, and then claim that they are simply being "hated," when in fact, they are just being a jerk. Such is the case with a pastor who makes a public spectacle out of setting fire to a Muslim holy book. Our call is to communicate the Gospel of Jesus, not our dismay at radical Islam. Furthermore, if we offend our Muslim friends through foolish political posturing, we lose any chance of bringing them to the offense that can rescue their souls.

2. Wrong Enemy. Contrary to what Terry Jones believes, Muslims are not our enemy. To take it even further, even radical Muslims are not our enemy. Instead, they are the victims of our enemy; the great adversary and accuser of souls. I'm convinced that Satan would love nothing more than for this burning of the Koran to proceed, primarily because it will serve to draw harder lines of demarcation between Muslims, and the Christians who are called to reach out to them. By focusing more on the "survival of America" than the Gospel, Pastor Jones has unwittingly positioned himself as a tool of our real enemy.

3. Wrong Focus. As I listened to Terry Jones on radio and TV today, I was struck by the number of times he justified the pending actions of his church with the following statement: "when will we stop backing down?" Accompanying this statement were insinuations that radical muslims must hear a "warning" and that "they must be shown a certain amount of force." Admittedly, Pastor Jones may be correct in his assessment of the more radical elements of Islam, but even if he is, he confuses the assignment God has given His church with the mandate God places on the state to wield the sword against evil-doers. In short, Terry Jones' statements betray the reality of a church that is out of focus and off mission. In essence, his actions, intentional or not, will result in answering radical Islam with a radical form of Zealotistic Christianity that is, in reality, no Christianity at all.

In my home library there is a shelf that contains the works of most of the worlds religions. Among those works is a very ornate copy of the Koran given to me 15 years ago by an Imam. Next to that is a copy of the Book of Mormon. Next to that is a copy of the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of the Bible. Next to that is a copy of the Bahgavad Gita and next to that the Muktika Upanishad. As I observe the media controversy surrounding Pastor Terry Jones, I am reminded that there is coming a day, at the end of the age, when in fact all claims to truth not grounded exclusively in Jesus Christ will be burned by our God, who is Himself a consuming fire.

I'm also convinced that among that kindling will be the "wood, hay and stubble" that masquaraded as Christianity, but had as its primary goal the preservation of a western culture rather than the advance of God's Kingdom. With knowledge of that day of judgment comes a responsibility to wisdom, prudence, truth, and love. This issue isn't about Terry Jones. It isn't about the military, the conservatives, the liberals, or even September 11. For Christians, this issue is about who our Lord is, and whether we love Him enough to obey His clear commands.

Gospel Unity and Gospel Mission Go Hand in Hand.

This week, I'm in Gulfport, Mississippi with about 40 volunteers from eight of our churches. We have been at work down here helping rebuild the Gulf Coast since Hurricane Katrina essentially washed the entire city away five years ago.

Our association is at work doing missions in nine different areas of the world, and our work in Mississippi serves a two-fold purpose. First, our work here is part and parcel of a larger partnership we have with the Gulf Coast Association, and we are delighted that the churches in Mississippi and Maryland will be serving each other until this partnership concludes in 2013. Second, for many people who have never served in volunteer missions this trip provides an entryway that we hope will lead to other things. Over half of our group this year are first-timers, and the next step for them after returning to Maryland is to come to our "Frontliners" event and have their awareness raised of the global scope of our work together. Our hope is that this event, combined with the experience in Mississippi, will "hook" them so that their next stop will be Mexico, or Asia, or India.

Yeah, its shady. But its for the Kingdom, so we are unabashed in our efforts to railroad people into going to the nations. :)

Along the way, I've also found another great side-benefit of this trip. The western church, like the western culture in which it resides, struggles with multicultural unity. For many churches, MacGavran's "Homogeneous Unit Principle" is treated less like a sociological observation and more like an excuse not to be intentional about reaching out to those different from themselves. This is also true when it comes to the various generational groups within the church. We have largely "departmentalized" those at different stages of life to the extent that 1 Timothy 5:1-2 cannot possibly be honored in our churches.

Yet last night I noticed that, strangely enough, these barriers seem to breakdown when God's people are on mission together. The eight churches that are represented on this trip vary greatly in terms of their worship styles and ministry processes. Some have greater numbers of younger people, and others boast great "senior ministries." A senior adult minister talked about his 50+ year marriage as a young Korean-American high school senior listened with awe-struck attention. Parents and children played cards together, older and younger men spent time looking at home improvement books together to learn more about the drywall project they will be taking part in this week. I too listened, and learned, as a parent with children slightly older than my own taught me (without realizing she was teaching me) how to best guide my boys through the next stage of their lives.

Last night--and for the rest of this week--all of these are moving together as one, helping to rebuild the Gulf Coast and sharing Jesus along the way. Last year, a young girl from New Orleans told our group that she had never heard of Jesus Christ. No one seemed to care how old everyone else was, or what color everyone else was, when her conversion was reported to the group. The Gospel caused all those distinctions to dissapear.

There is a history to this phenomennon that goes all the way back to the first century. As Paul closes out his letter to the church at Rome, you see a stark picture of a group of men who defy the class and race distinctions of the Empire in which they lived. A former rabbi, his secretary, a wealthy benefactor, a powerful government official, and the number two and number three household servants are all in the room as Paul completes this letter. Each is from a very different background. Each has nothing in common with anyone else in the room--except the Gospel of course; which is why these men are calling one another "brother."

My point? If you want to unite the various groups in your church that the news media, shopping malls, gerrymandering politicians, class and race-related activist groups, and demographers seek with all their might to keep separated, get them on mission together! Gospel Unity and Gospel Mission have a symbiotic relationship in that one always begets the other, and the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus grows in more powerful ways than we could possibly imagine!

Memorial Day Thanks

As I write this post, I'm sitting in my living room watching my boys play and anticipating a GREAT pasta dinner my wife is making. Both are a wonderful way to kick off the coming long weekend. Our plans are to do some work around the house, spend lots of quality time as a family, visit some close friends in Gettysburg, and enjoy what appears will be several beautiful days during Memorial Day weekend.

Ironically, many of those we honor during this time will not have these same privileges. They are fighting abroad in Iraq or Afghanistan, or stationed at any number of military bases all over the world. Many others still have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

As a preacher, my calling is not subject to human law. As Paul told Timothy, we are to preach "in season, and out of season." This means we speak of Jesus when it is popular and when it is unpopular; when people like it and when people hate it; when it is legal, and also whenever and wherever it is against the law.

Many who share my calling in other parts of the world are fulfilling that calling under the threat of persecution, arrest, and even death. As a follower of Christ, I like to think that I would also be this faithful to Him. At the same time, I'm thankful to live in a place where I have no fear of being arrested or killed--with government approval--because of my faith.

And the lion's share of credit for these freedoms belongs to our soliders, our airmen, our sailors, our marines, and members of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Just today my wife showed me this very touching photo of a young boy running toward his dad, who had just arrived back from a tour of duty. Take a look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwinnclan/4190853880/

Upon seeing this photo, my first thought was, "how many countries exist in the world where a child can run toward an attack helicopter with absolutely no fear?" Other places in the world fear their military. Here, our soliders are heros.

To those of you who have served to defend our freedoms past or present, thank you! This weekend is about you and the sacrifices you make. We Americans are a fickle and diverse group of people. Sometimes, we may not even agree with where you are going and/or why you are fighting. But all of us should recognize that you who "follow orders" are the ones who truly guard our freedoms. On this Memorial Day weekend, know that you are loved, appreciated, and will never be forgotten.

Racism, Depravity, and the Gospel that Unites

Reading Leonard Pitts' Miami Herald Column in this past Sunday's paper was especially hard for me. Entitled "A Child's View of Black and White," the article described with painful detail new "doll tests" that are given to children to determine if racism might exist. Pitts, himself an African-American, rightly lamented the predispositions of children, both black and white, toward identifying "darker" dolls as "bad" and "dumb." More specifically, he cited an encounter with a young black girl who "did not think she was beautiful . . . because she is dark."

Concluding this very sad column, Pitts wrote in an exasperated manner that we are "40 years into a future where Michael Jordan is an icon, Bill Cosby is a national father figure, and a Kenyan's son is President of these United States. Forty years, and still . . ."

As should be expected, Pitts claims that such a national racial dillemma begs an explanation. "How do you explain the psychology of self-loathing and the futility of judging onesself by someone else's beauty standards?" This is an excellent question, and as a white son of the south, what made this article hard to read is that I know the answer.

There are many things about my background and upbringing that make me proud. The installation of a strong Protestant work ethic, and cultural emphases on honesty, integrity, and helping one's neighbor are just a few examples. My home culture's attitude toward race relations however, is not on this list. Growing up, I heard all the standard stereotypes aimed at anyone who didn't share my skin tone. I heard interracial dating and marriage condemned. And though I was told "we are all equal, no matter what color we are," I rarely saw this "equality" meeted out fairly in my hometown.

Thankfully, God has redeemed me from such prejudice, and over the course of many years liberated me from such ways of thinking. Yet the problem of racism still exists, and I have discovered that the southern United States isn't the only place where it can be found. Shortly after moving to Maryland nearly six years ago, I was shocked to sit in a barber's chair only to hear the word "n*gger" within the first five minutes from the guy cutting my hair. 40 miles north of the nation's capital, I found a more vitriolic form of racism in the northeast that I had never encountered in the south.

The truth is that racism's origins can't be defined by a region of the country, nor can it be traced ultimately to parental attitudes, cultural prejudices, or even extremist groups like neo-Nazis, the KKK, or the Black Panthers. Ultimately, each of these sources of race-based hatred finds its origins in the Garden of Eden, within the minds of our first parents who sinned out of a self-centered heart that desired the opposite of God's design.

Paul tells us in Acts 17:24 that God "made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth." In other words, God's intent from the beginning was to create a diverse human race that would bring Him glory. The various ethnicities that exist on our planet are not the result of the fall, as is so often contended by some ill-informed and badly-biased interpreters of the text. Each originated in the mind of our Creator for His own ultimate glory. Furthermore, we are told that this divine demand for diverse worshippers all over the globe will come to pass, as that great, uncountable multitude of human beings, "from every nation, from all tribes, peoples, and languages" stand before the throne of the Lamb crying out "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever!" (Revelation 7:9, 12, ESV)

In short, God intends to unite every ethnic group and language on the globe under the Lordship of Jesus for His own glory. As one of my mentors once stated, a unison choir is nice, but a choir that sings parts--the same song sung in various tones--sounds much more glorious. Racial and ethnic diversity exist because God is worthy of so much more than a unison choir at the end of the age. Race matters! And it matters because God matters!

Such is the reason why racism is such a deadly and dangerous disease in our culture. When Leonard Pitts describes it, he rightly laments the way human beings created in God's image are mistreated as a result, but he fails to see that the ultimate insult is against God Himself.

All of us are naturally more comfortable around people most like ourselves. When we allow this disposition to evolve into a prejudice, we have at that point made an idol of our ethnicity. When we show a preference for one person over another based on skin color, we are saying to God with our actions, "you are not worthy of ethnically diverse glory."

To summarize, racism is a direct offense against the Creator of all human beings. It represents a denial of and opposition to His aim to make himself known among all peoples so that He receives the glory that is His due. It is a preference for our own glory--the lifting up of our own ethnic identity and value as created beings over His value as our Creator. This is what makes racism such an abhorrent evil.

And yet, racist attitudes are still "tolerated" among our churches. One recent example is a Louisiana Southern Baptist congregation that rescinded its invitation for an IMB missionary to speak because he and his wife had adopted interracially. I don't know whether such evil exists on a congregational level in any of the churches of the Mid-Maryland Association, but if it does, I'll go ahead now and invite that church to tender its withdrawal from our fellowship--before MMBA takes care of it for you! In the end, such a strong stand isn't about being politically correct. Ultimately, it isn't even about the treatment of fellow human beings, as important as that is. In the end, this issue is about whether our churches desire what God desires--a unified universal church where no ethnic or language group is left out! If your church seeks any less than this because of racial prejudice, your church isn't preaching the Gospel and it is very likely that you stand on the precepice of being damned for eternity.

But there is yet another side to this issue. As Pitts rightly points out, we are 40 years beyond the civil rights movement--more than 145 years beyond the end of the Civil War and the ratification of the 13th ammendment, and the spirit of racism is still alive and well. As a journalist, Pitts seeks, and fails, to understand why this is the case. To Pitts, it seems logical that a bloody civil war, sweeping constitutional changes, and monumantal cultural shifts brought on by the Civil Rights Act should be enough to create a culture wherein racism no longer exists. And such would seem logical, were it not for the reality of sin. To be sure, all of the above were the right decision. No nation that presumes any moral authority whatsoever should tolerate involuntary servitude or government-endorsed preference for any race. At the same time, the abolishment of slavery, by itself, doesn't stop one from looking with disdain on his darker-skinned brother. Likewise, goverment emphases like Affirmative Action might help mask the symptoms of racism, but it will never cure what is really wrong with us.

The central problem is that we are in rebellion against our Creator and thus, we hate what He loves, including racial diversity. As such, the solution to racism is the same as the solution to all sin; a bloody cross and an empty tomb. If this message is genuinely preached and lived in our churches, the evil of racism cannot last long.

Pastors and churches overcome this issue by living the Gospel. Churches will confront--and if neccesary remove from membersip--those who are members of groups with racist ideology. Pastors will openly confront these sinful attitudes and call men and women who possess them to repentance. Diversity will be celebrated and reflected in a congregation's leadership, as elders and deacons are appointed who represent and look like the community they are called to reach. Pastors will emphasize the importance of being "equally-yoked" by teaching their people that this means marriage takes place within the same FAITH, not neccesarily the same RACE. Interracial marriage ceremonies will be held that give church members a foretaste of the diverse worship that we are headed for in heaven. Interracial couples and families who have repented of sin and trusted Christ will be welcomed as the brothers and sisters in Christ that they are. Families in the church will adopt children from other nations, cultures, and ethnicities, and such will be celebrated in the life of the church. Denominational entities, from the local association to the national SBC, will take a strong stand on this issue, to the extent that churches which refuse to acknowlege God's plan for all nations are removed from fellowship.

We are racist toward each other because we have sinned against our God. Thus, the Gospel is the only message that can unite us. Churches that understand this and live it will ultimately heal the scars caused by racial prejudice. This is in fact the only context in which genuine racial unity can be realized. Those churches that refuse to play this role . . .well, they may not even be true churches.

Some Comic Relief

More posts are coming shortly on more serious themes, but you MUST see the video below! Absolutely hillarious. Enjoy! Oh, and if you see yourself in it, try not to get too angry. Sometimes, we take ourselves WAY too seriously. :)

Another Gift and Heritage from God

To the left is our new daughter, Abigail Grace Rainey!

Ten days ago our family was driving to a 5-K race to help raise funds for a local pregnancy center when my wife's Blackberry started buzzing. A few seconds later she grabbed my arm in sobs, and while I'm wondering who died, she held up her phone and for the first time, I saw the picture you are now looking at!

For those who read here but were not aware, my wife and I began the process for an international adoption about a year ago. Interestingly enough, we made the decision while on a weekend away from the kids. For many years, we have sensed that God would someday want us to add to our family via an international adoption. In particular, the nation of China has long been on our hearts. Last year, that sense of call expanded to include a heartfelt desire by both of us for a daughter. One year later, it appears God is about to unite us with our little girl.

In case you didn't know, that timeframe itself is a bit of a miracle. According to the law of averages, we were supposed to be waiting for at least another year before being matched. Unbenownst to us, Chinese adoption officials opened up a database not normally accessible to Americans, and our agency was able to gain access--and find our little girl. She was found abandoned by authorities on May 6, 2009, and doctors assessed her age at four days when she arrived at the hospital, meaning that this past Sunday was her first birthday. She currently resides in an orphanage in north-central China, and with the exception of a medically-correctable cleft lip and palate, is believed to be in excellent health.

So at this point, we are simply waiting for an invitation from the U.S. Consulate in this province to travel to pick her up. God willing, sometime in the next 3 to 5 months, Amy and I will be traveling over to get her. In the meantime, I'll be finishing the work downstairs that added another bedroom to our home, and securing family transportation big enough to hold all five of us (the Jeep Liberty is great, but won't hold us all).

For those of you who know us well and have prayed for us during this time, thanks so much for the prayers. The Lord certainly heard them!

We chose her name prayerfully. We will call her "Grace," which is a name that also belonged to her maternal great-grandmother; my wife's grandmother, who was as sweet and godly a woman as has ever walked the earth. Her first name was my choice. Abigail (אֲבִיגַיִל ) was one of the wives of David who showed great strength and character in the face of her first husband's foolish behavior; a woman of great discernment who faced hard situations in the way a worshipper of God should. But its the etymology of her name that was the compelling factor. Abigail means "her father's joy."

That, she already is!

GCR Response, Part III; What We Can Do Better

Buckle up boys and girls, this is going to be a long one!

In the last two posts I have listed the good, the bad, and the ugly of the GCR preliminary report as I perceive it from the position of a missionary in a pioneer North American field. Certainly, we as the SBC can do a better job with the resources God has blessed us with to reach our own nation and the world with the Gospel. At the same time, what the Task Force has put forward so far is unlikely to accomplish that goal. From the beginning of this movement (which most would mark as coinciding with the “Axioms” message by Dr. Danny Akin), the rallying cry and rationale for a GCR has rested on the fact that we currently spend 98% of our resources on 5% of the world’s population. Missionaries are called and ready, but cannot be funded, and the SBC must do more to ensure that we play the role God would expect of us, relative to the resources we have, in reaching the world with the Gospel. This was the vision Dr. Akin put in front of the pastors in my association last November, and I saw those men rally quickly behind that vision. I have seen them just as quickly dismiss the GCR preliminary report because it does nothing substantive to meet this goal. How is it that a movement that started with the call to get more resources to the nations can end with a report that does very little for the nations, and in fact concentrates most of its attention on NAMB?
These are the thoughts I am left with as I ponder the implications of the preliminary report, and as I shared these thoughts with our Association’s Executive Board, one of its members bluntly asked “Joel, what would you do if you were in charge of this thing?”

As much as I hate being an armchair quarterback, there are many things I would suggest that would, I believe, make the SBC much more effective in reaching the original goal that was touted at the beginning of this movement. 1.7 billion people on our planet have never heard of Jesus. Each week, more than a million people within this population die separated from God because there is no missionary to share with them how they can be in relationship with Him. If we want to change that we can, but to utilize our resources to reach these people will require more radical moves than the Task Force has recommended. What follows are my own suggestions as to how this goal might be accomplished:

1. Changes at the North American Mission Board. In my last post, I stated that the indiscriminate “phasing out” of cooperative budgeting between NAMB and the state conventions was a bad idea. At the same time, these agreements do need to be revisited. . .ALL of them.
A. All national and jointly funded NAMB missionaries must have their roles examined in light of the new, sharper focus recommended by the Task Force. More pointedly, mission personnel must be directly involved in evangelism and the planting of New Testament churches in order to retain their benefits and any salary subsidies they receive. With NAMB having a more regional presence across North America under the Task Force’s proposal, accountability on this point will be easier to maintain. Those who work in an area outside evangelism and church planting would have their positions phased out over 3 years, starting in 2011. Assuming that this results in a 10% reduction in the cost of cooperative agreements, this would free up an additional $5 million by 2014. However, if the work is to remain "grass roots," missionaries will need to be answerable to local churches through states and associations rather than NAMB, as the Task Force is suggesting.
B. NAMB mission personnel involved in state and associational work in “new work” areas would be expected to model the same move toward non-dependency that they expect of the churches that are planted. Though I have strong differences with Jerry Rankin regarding the "supervisory" role NAMB should assume in the future, I agree with him that the same dependency on outside funding and support that handicapped international work for decades is today having the same effect in North America. (you can read his take on this here.) Independence and self-sufficiency are always to be prefered over perpetual ecclesiastical wellfare. As associations and new work state conventions plant new contributing churches, outside salary subsidies would be drawn down over a maximum period of 10 years. Associations that are more fiscally healthy—such as the one I currently lead—would be phased down over a shorter period of time. These funds would then be “recycled” through the appropriate state convention to start new associations if needed with more missionary personnel. If new associations are not needed, the funds would be converted and aimed at specific church planting strategies. Both the state conventions and associations would be eligible for these subsidies, as would multiplying local churches. In short, rather than eliminating cooperative agreements, make cooperative agreements directly available to partners at all levels of denominational life. Local churches and associations should have the same potential working relationship with NAMB as the state conventions now have, thereby assuring the indigeneity of any strategies that are implemented.
C. The NAMB facilities in Alpharetta, GA would be sold, and NAMB’s regional offices would be shared with the Georgia, Maryland/Delaware, New York, Northwest, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Colorado, and Texas Conventions respectively. In short, NAMB would be housed regionally within state convention facilities. The proceeds from the sale of the Alpharetta property would be used to ensure that adequate space is provided for both NAMB and the state convention in which they are housed, the balance would be deposited, and $1 million in interest annually could be given to the IMB.
The amounts freed up from these changes would be reallocated to the International Mission Board. Total anticipated allocation: $6 million.

2. Changes at the Seminaries: 5% of the amount currently allocated from the Cooperative Program to go to the seminaries would be reallocated to the International Mission Board. As each of the seminaries receives a different amount of the 22.16% of Cooperative Program dollars currently alloted to them collectively, any neccesary budget cuts would be proportional to the amount each seminary received. The average cut across the board would be a bit under $370,000 per seminary--much less than the average new work state convention is being asked to give up under the current proposal. While there are many ways that an academic institution can make up for a budget loss of this sort, one way would be to fill faculty needs with academically-qualified local pastors who would teach adjunctively.
The amount freed up from these changes would also be reallocated to the International Mission Board. Total anticipated allocation: $2.3 million.

3. Eliminate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I'll make the case for this one short and sweet. If Southern Baptists really believe that the ultimate answer to society's ills is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then let's put our money where our mouths are! While I have appreciation for the work of the ERLC, and most of the time find myself in agreement with the positions taken, I will also admit that sound political decisions are no substitute for the power of the Gospel. We learn this from the history of the Old Testament itself. King Josiah, for example, enacted wonderful, godly reforms during his rule over Judah. But without changed hearts, Judah continued in its idolatry.
Additionally, we already have SBC leaders who speak eloquently to cultural and political issues, and represent our denomination with truth and grace, chief among them being Al Mohler. Ultimately, if America is to be "saved," it will be by people repenting of their sins and coming to Jesus. That said, I'd recommend we take the monies we have invested in Republican politics for years and years, and forward it on to the International Mission Board to reach the nations.
Total allocation: $3.3 million.

4. Changes at the International Mission Board. I would cut the current number of IMB trustees in half--one per state convention is more than sufficient. (for that matter, we would probably do well to consider this same approach at every one of our SBC entities. Talk about saving money! Another conversation for another day, to be sure). Additionally, move from 6 meetings per year to 3, with only one of those meetings being "face-to-face." Twice per year trustees could meet "virtually" and the investment the IMB would make in the technology for this to happen would be minimal compared to the continual purchasing of airline tickets, hotel rooms, meals, etc. that currently cost approximately $100,000 per meeting.
Of course, the question is then asked "how will we appoint missionaries in a timely manner?" My answer to this question is for the SBC to place its trust in the candidate consultants employed by the IMB. Trustees would still set the parameters for missionary appointment, but individual appointments could be approved by IMB staff within those parameters. The past five years have revealed clearly that IMB trustees not missiologically well-informed often choose to care about the wrong things when considering missionary candidates. Employ people you trust at IMB and then trust them! The monies saved could be reallocated internally and provide needed support to missionaries.
Total allocation: $550,000.

The above suggestions, in addition to the current recommendation by the Task Force to move 1% of CP dollars from the Executive Committee to the IMB, would result in a total increase of more than $12 million dollars to reaching the nations! Of course, churches excited to see 57% of Cooperative Program dollars on their way to resource the reaching of the nations would no doubt increase their own contributions to the CP as they are able.

With this said, here is my very simple question: If the GCR was supposed to be about getting ever increasing amounts of CP dollars to the 1.7 billion who have never heard the Gospel, why then are we not seeing proposals from the Task Force that would send substantively increased amounts to the IMB? Why, after all of the noise about "the nations" is the preliminary report predominantly about the North American Mission Board?

Jerry Rankin is right to point out that the SBC could play a major role in reaching the world with the Gospel, but that our present structure suggests we don't want to. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Task Force as they now stand do very little in my estimation to change that. My prayer is that by the final report on May 3, we will see the kind of bold, courageous, faith-filled, Christ-centered vision that those of us who voted for the GCR at last year's convention hoped to see. Let us all pray earnestly for the Task Force in these final days. Even more so, let's pray for the courage and faithfulness to do what God expects as we seek our unique role in extending His Kingdom.