Ecclesia semper reformanda: What We Should Learn from the Protestant Reformation

Tomorrow night I will gather my kids--two of which will be dressed as a gymnast and Joe Flacco of the Baltimore Ravens---and visit a downtown area near our central Maryland home on the only night of the year in which it is culturally appropriate to allow your kids to beg strangers for unhealthy food.  For most in our culture, October 31 is merely that: a fun holiday that consists of costumes, candy, and haunted hay rides.

But for the church, October 31 marks a major turning point in our history, and provides lessons to us today.  498 years ago tomorrow night, a German monk gathered his parchment, a hammer and a nail, and ignited a movement that would spread like wildfire throughout Europe

The story begins in Medieval Rome.  The doctrinal integrity of the medevial Church was at a breaking point.  Cultural syncretism over the centuries had all but led to a complete loss of ecclesiological identity, which by the 1500s was also accompanied by rampant immorality throughout the Empire, enabled by the church.  Every kind of moral evil, from the visiting of prostitutes by priests to the fleecing of the poor and marginalized, was taking place in the "holy city."

Into this context, in the year 1500, walks an unwitting German monk named Martin Luther.  For most of his life, this young man had longed to see Rome; the fountainhead from which he believed his faith flowed.  But what he saw when he arrived shocked him to the core.  His stomach was turned by the sexual immorality he witnessed.  But Luther was more offended by the way the poor and marginalized were treated by those who claimed to be the representatives of Jesus on earth.  The system of indulgences that had been set up by the church to raise money for St. Peter's Basilica created an environment where the rich could sin as much as they wanted, while the poor not only lived in poverty, but also under the constant threat of eternal damnation. The young monk so enraptured with thoughts of visiting the holy city would later be quoted as saying "if there is a hell, Rome is built over it!"

Shaken to the core, Luther would ponder his experiences in Rome for the next seven years.  But by 1507, the escalation of the abuse of the indulgences, and the extension of these abuses into more remote areas outside Rome by Tetzel's preaching would compel Martin Luther to face the corruption head on.  And face it he did, through a document that you and I now know as the 95 theses--nailed to the door of a Wittenburg castle 498 years ago tomorrow.  Though initially written to reform the Roman church from within, Luther would eventually come to learn that the immorality and abuse he was witnessing was enabled by twisted theology that held the edicts of the church as a greater authority than the commands of the Lord of the church.  Medevial Rome was preaching a counterfeit Gospel, and it was time for the true church to separate herself and rise from the ashes.  The Protestant Reformation had begun.

For those who would soon be called "Lutherans," this reformation culminated in the Augsburg Confession (1530).  For other groups who joined Luther's followers in the break from medieval Catholicism, subsequent confessions of faith would be written--each of which would proclaim themselves as the "true church" over against the Catholicism out of which they had just emerged.   The fires of the Protestant Gospel spread throughout Europe, and established itself within two generations on the complementary foundations of the priesthood of all believers and open access by all people to the Scriptures, which at this time were being translated into the various lingua franca employed around the world.

The Gospel had been recovered, and it was time to move forward.  Unfortunately, the Reformers maintained their posture of critique, and the horrific result is mourned to this day by Baptists who know their history well--as it was our theological ancestors who would bear the brunt of their persecution.  What motivated these continued inquisitions depends on which historian you talk to, but the use of political tactics--and force--to silence dissent were commonplace throughout this period of history, and included the execution of those who held different views.

The big idea is this:  by the end of the Reformation period, the church had recovered the heart of the Gospel, but instead of seeking to spread that Gospel across the world, they maintained a posture of critique, suspicion, and paranoia that at times crossed the line into violence.  As a result, Protestants would ultimately--and legitimately--be accused of violating Jesus' "prime directive," as the Catholic theologian Erasmus suggested to Luther that these new Protestants couldn't possibly be the true church, because they had no missionaries.

To be sure, no period of Christian history proves that sometimes, Jesus' followers are Jesus' biggest problem so much as the Reformation period.  Two corollary messages rise from these events:

1. Truth is Immortal.  What Luther eventually discovered in those days leading up to the assembly at Augsburg is that a counterfeit message produces counterfeit disciples.  While maintaining what would be considered historically essential to orthodoxy (Belief in a Trinitarian Godhead, the deity of Jesus, and the necessity of salvation through His death and resurrection), the medieval church had hidden the Gospel behind centuries of syncretized tradition which, by the 16th century, was of great benefit to Rome's ecclesial institutions, but counterproductive to the spread of Jesus' message globally.  In short, the Gospel was not preached with clarity, nor was it applied consistently to Catholic followers.  The result was an immoral, greedy, self-centered church that sought the advance of its influence through power, and the intimidation of the marginalized.  Ideas, as the late Francis Schaefer was fond of saying, have consequences.

By the time of the Augsburg Confession, Martin Luther had come to realize that the dastardly and oppressive actions of the church were the natural result of the bastardized "Gospel" being proclaimed by the 16th century Roman Church.  If October 31, 1517 reminds us of nothing else, it should remind us that actions flow from our true beliefs.

Want to live a lie?  Then simply start believing and proclaiming lies, and you are well on your way.  On this day, the church is well-served by remembering that Truth, as revealed ultimately in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in Scripture alone, is the starting point for any true church.  Without it, even those who claim to follow Jesus will devolve into a 16th century Catholic-style oppression, or a Word of Faith style materialism, or an emergent-style relativism.  Our Gospel determines not only what we say, but how we live.  We'd better be sure we have the right one!

2. Truth Has a Purpose.  Truth is supposed to be spread, not "guarded" to the point that we spend more time arguing about its content than we do spreading its hope.  Protestant Christians of every tribe need to remember that not everything in our DNA is healthy.  More particularly, we need to remember that while our ancestors--including Luther whom we all hold in common--rightly began this movement with a strong critique of Roman Catholicism, a recovered Gospel does no good if we merely maintain a posture of critique and as a result continue to fight over minutiae.  Erasmus was right: no church can truly be the church without a missionary impetus that seeks to make Jesus more widely known.  Furthermore, a clear understanding of sola gratia means that we will not approach non-Christians with the presumption that we are the sole monopolizers of God's message.  Instead, we are what D.T. Niles once claimed: beggars sharing enthusiastically with other beggars where we have found bread.

It would take a separate post--or perhaps more than one--to point out the flaws of Martin Luther, because he had plenty of them.  But on days like today, I'm thankful for the legacy God gave us through Luther's fiery ministry--Scripture in the language of the people, the priesthood of all believers, and the non-negotiable element of saving faith--that it comes by faith alone in a crucified, resurrected Savior.  We too, are imperfect people, prone to wander from our intended missional path onto side-roads of dissension that keep us from the more effective spread of Jesus' message.  As we reflect on the historic significance of this day and the theological axioms we've been given through it, perhaps we should ask ourselves the following questions:

sola scriptura: Have you drank deeply lately of the very Word of God, which has now been available in your language for many centuries?

sola fide Have you shared your ultimate hope in Jesus with others?  When was the last time this took place?

sola gratia Have you approached non-Christians, not as an autonomous knower who is better than they, but instead as a trophy of the grace of God?

sola Christo Have you shared with others the identity of Jesus with clarity, and without so much of the western cultural baggage that weights-down His image?

soli Deo gloria Have you given God the glory for how he has worked through imperfect people throughout history, and for how He has worked through you?

Such questions honor the spirit of the Protestant cry expressed 400 years later by Karl Barth; Ecclesia semper reformanda.  The church, always reforming.  May our Lord continue to reform us, and by doing so empower us for the global work to which He has called us.

On Meetings that Should have been Emails: How to Avoid Time Wasters

"I survived another meeting that should have been an email."

One day, I'm going to market T-shirts with this message on the front.  Something tells me they will sell!

When you are in ministry, the requests for meetings seem endless, and I've known too many pastors over the years who feel as though they spent the prime years of their lives attending meetings that accomplished little or nothing.  Time management is a huge issue for today's pastor, and nothing wastes time like an unnecessary meeting--whether that meeting is with an individual, or a group.

Still the requests come, and the calendar is often filled with "standing meetings."  So how do you know when to make yourself available, and when to just say "no"?

What follows are some ways to recognize the various "time-wasters" who will want your attention, and a few principles for making necessary meetings more efficient.

In my experience, there are three predominant types of time wasters:

The Clueless:  These tend to be the most innocent of the bunch, mostly because they never seem able to nail down a specific purpose for wanting your attention.  "I need to have a meeting with you," is their very simple and typical approach.  When you ask them what they want to address, the best they can usually come up with is something general.  "Oh, I just want to talk with you about what's happening in my life/marriage/ministry."  Usually, its less specific than this, which means when you finally meet, you will likely talk about nothing substantive.

While you may think yourself compassionate for enabling their ambiguity, the reality is that by granting said meeting, you are feeding the myth that your mere presence and casual conversation will actually accomplish something for this person.

Be forewarned:  Once you start to draw tighter lines around when you grant a meeting, the clueless will be offended.  Usually, this is due to their perception that you are there to "be their friend." Truth is, I have many friends who also happen to be either co-workers, or co-laborers in our churches.  But I'm not paid for my friendship.  I'm paid to lead, and this same principle is true regardless of your field of employment.  Don't fall prey to the clueless time-waster.  Instead, keep on course with what you are called to do.  And in the process, you might help them more than you or they realize--mostly by helping them get a clue.

The Unmotivated:  I've had many coaching relationships over the years.  Most I look back on with fondness and thankfulness.  But a few I simply look back on in frustration, because they did not use my time wisely.

I remember one young man who would ask to meet with me every couple of weeks.  We mapped out a "life plan" for his twenties that included the completion of his wedding plans with his fiance, eliminating his student loan debt, buying a home, and securing a church family for he and his new bride.  A year later, he had accomplished precisely none of this, yet still wanted to meet with me to "talk about the plan."

Unmotivated people are in many ways like Bob Wiley from the movie "What About Bob?"  As portrayed by Bill Murray, Wiley was an agoraphobic and hypochondriac who never left his home--except to see his therapist!  For Bob Wiley, the therapist visit WAS the end game!  He never intended to improve his own life or get better.  As a result, he brought his therapists down with him.

Don't let the guy from "What About Bob" steal your time.  If there is no forward progress, stop taking meetings with them!

The Anthropocentric:  For most of human history we believed that we lived in a "geocentric" universe, where the Earth was at the center, and everything revolved around it.  Then the 17th century came along and with it, the Copernican revolution.  Because of our observations of space, we now know that we live in a "heliocentric" solar system, with the Sun at the center, and the Earth being merely one of nine planets that revolve around it.

The universe is a big place, and the earth now has more than 7 billion people on it.  And occasionally, you will meet someone in your work or ministry who thinks all those people revolve around them--including you!  This is the anthropocentric time-waster.

This is the caustic, self-centered individual who expects you to drop whatever you are doing whenever he or she calls.  My work load includes roughly 150 emails daily (those are just the ones that make it past my staff, who get hundreds more!), many, many phone conversations, and a professional calendar that tends to stay booked solid at least two weeks out.  If I abandon the routine that allows me to address all of this simply because of the demands of one person, I'm not being fair to others in our network.

This is the person who doesn't blink when you tell them "I'm unavailable at that time."  Its the person who responds to your list of availability with an "alternate" choice you haven't given them.

Anthropocentric time-wasters get you off track, and off mission, primarily by their constant demands for you to compromise your schedule, and constantly react to others as opposed to being intentional about moving forward and doing your job.  Don't let these people hijack your life.

I'm sure there are other categories of time-wasters that could be given here, but the three above broadly describe the various kinds of people you will encounter who can get you off track.  Once you have identified them, how do you deal with them?

Principle 1:  Written confirmation of meetings and their purpose.  Don't ever, ever set a meeting with someone without confirming what it is you hope to accomplish.  Agree together on the agenda and goals, and do it in writing!

Principle 2: Expectations as to meeting outcomes. This is simple mutual accountability.  At the end of every staff meeting, those who work for me take away assignments, and so does their boss!  We all walk away knowing there is an expectation on each of us that those assignments will be completed before our next meeting.  

To be a good steward of time, you can't just know what you want to get done during the meeting.  You must also know what actions are expected to be generated as a result of the meeting.

Principle 3:  Refusal of subsequent meetings until prior commitments have been met.  Don't let Bob Wiley get away with coming to you over and over again while he accomplishes nothing.  If after a limited number of times together, it appears the other party is intentionally spinning their wheels, turn them loose in the ditch!  Just because they have no desire to get out of it doesn't mean you must be stuck there with them.

This doesn't mean that you don't leave the door open for them to come back.  But it does mean you are putting expectations on them BEFORE they can come back.  Several times in response to requesting a meeting I have asked "Have you accomplished X and Y since we last met?"  If the answer is no, then my response is simple.  "Well, once you get that accomplished, give my office a call and I'll be glad to meet with you about the next steps."

Principle 4:  Don't let it get to you.  Ever been pulled over by a police officer?  I have, and I don't remember a single time when that officer threw himself across the hood of my car in a fit of emotion, or yelled at me, or abused me in any way simply because I was breaking the speed limit.  In every situation, he calmly walked up to my window with his ticket book opened, and asked for my drivers license.

Why?  Because in those situations, the officer had the authority and power.  And when you have authority and power, you don't need to spend your emotions.

Developing a habit to saying "no" to time-wasters so you can say "yes" more often to the organization as a whole will inevitably tick some people off.  They will be annoyed with you.  Some will get upset with you.  In those moments when the nasty emails come accusing you of "not thinking I'm important," don't give in to the guilt trip.  And a sure-fire way to know if you have given in to guilt is if you allow your emotions to get the better of you.

You have the authority over the time God has given you to manage on this earth.  You cannot cede that to people who are demanding, and you don't have to get angry or otherwise emotional with them.  Just be the officer with the ticket book.  Don't be afraid to calmly say "I'm unavailable"  or "we can't meet until you have......" or "we need to clarify our purpose for getting together."

I work primarily with pastors, and though I love them, pastors are the worst at allowing others to hijack the time God has given them.  Of course there are emergencies, and when those emergencies happen, you respond to your people with the pastoral care and concern that they need.  But you also need to know how to define "emergency."  Many pastors have no clue, and as a result, fall prey to the time-wasters, who subsequently restrain them from serving the entire church well.  Your church does not revolve around the most demanding congregants.  It revolves around Jesus.  Make sure you behave accordingly, and you will model Christ-centered time management for your people.

What about you?  Who are the "time-wasters" in your professional life that you have to watch out for, and how are you ensuring that you aren't allowing them to divert your attention and turn you into a time-waster too?

Pastors as Peacemakers: Why You Should Join Me at the Spreading Peace Convocation

With Ayatollah Ahmad Iravani in 2013

"Bless those who persecute you.  Bless and do not curse them.  Rejoice with those who rejoice.  Weep with those who weep.  Live in harmony with one another.  Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.  Never be wise in your own sight.  Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.  If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."  -Romans 12:14-18, ESV

We evangelicals in the west are a bi-polar bunch.  We declare God's love for the whole world while simultaneously acting as though certain parts of the world--or certain peoples in that world--are exempt.  We recite the beatitudes as we throw unquestioned support behind war.  And when it comes to missions, we are all too happy to reach people just like us over here--and pay someone else to deal with the people we don't like over there.  Alan Hirsch sadly reports that 80% of the churches in North America are after the same 20% of the American population--that part of the population that has already been largely reached!

What I'm seeing in the world that is emerging are the actions of a God who is ready for us to actually obey Him!

Inexpensive travel, available technology and historically unprecedented global migration patterns mean that everyone now lives everywhere!  As a result, nearly every major city in North America is now an active experiment in how radically diverse worldviews and lifestyles can coexist in the same small space.  Globally, that means the prospect for increased tensions is higher.  Locally, that means the best way to alleviate those tensions is to get to know your neighbor--whoever they are!

This is precisely why I was honored to be invited to be part of the Spreading Peace Convocation this weekend, and why I'm taking a large number of our Network pastors with me.  Its because peace doesn't happen naturally.  It must be made.  And I believe faith leaders should be the catalysts for ensuring that our society doesn't devolve into unnecessary conflict.

This is most evident in the global relationship between Christians and Muslims.  Ignorance, distrust, and paranoia on both sides of this discussion have led to persecution, bigotry, and hatred of the worst kind.  A member of the Christian minority is persecuted or killed for his faith in Afghanistan.  Word quickly reaches American shores, and the result is bigotry and broad-brushing against muslims, which in turn increases violence overseas.  What happens here directly affects what happens there, which in turn affects what happens here.  This is a vicious cycle of violence, hatred and distrust that can only be stopped by faith leaders.

Thursday and Friday of this week, I will be part of the first ever national meeting between Evangelical pastors and Muslim imams who will stand together and say "enough!"  The meeting will culminate on Friday morning at the National Cathedral, when participants can sign a pledge to defend global religious freedom.

If you are a pastor, you should join us.  You won't have to compromise your faith in the least to be part of something like this.  In fact, this event may help you model for your people what it looks like to live out your faith in a multi-faith world.  We aren't coming together to pretend our differences don't exist.  (though I suspect the accusation of "promoting Chrislam" will be leveled by a few watch bloggers!)  The truth is that we all hold to very strong conviction.  I don't know of a single imam who will be in attendance who thinks I can get to heaven as long as I worship Jesus as God.  Conversely, there won't be a single evangelical pastor there who believes their Muslim friends can get to heaven unless they start worshipping Him as God!

This isn't a meeting to minimize differences.  Its a meeting where we commit not to kill each other over those differences!  We have an historic opportunity to clear up misunderstandings, alleviate stereotypes about each other, and commit together to a lasting peace.  That will require Muslim leaders in Muslim-majority nations committing to the protection of the religious minorities among them--including our Christian brothers and sisters.  It will also require Christian leaders here committing to stand against ignorance, stereotyping, and bigotry toward our Muslim neighbors--respecting religious freedom for all.

My friend Bob Roberts, who is coordinating this meeting, says it best:  The best way for a pastor to foster global peace in our time is to build a relationship with an imam!  Thursday night at the First Baptist Church of Glenarden, and Friday at the National Cathedral in Washington, you will have that opportunity.  Join us!

The Forest, the Trees, and the Future of Global Engagement

I do not envy David Platt.  At all.

One year into his tenure as the President of my denomination's global missions entity, the International Mission Board, Platt announced that fiscal realities would necessitate the "early retirement" of between 600 and 800 missions personnel.  For many years now, it seems the IMB has been draining reserves and selling global properties in order to maintain and build upon its efforts.  Yet in spite of significant increases in its Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and other streams of revenue, the Board was unable to close the gap, and is now in the process of offering Voluntary Retirement Incentives (VRIs) to missionaries over 50 who have served for a determined number of years.

It is always heartbreaking when fiscal realities mean you have to tell someone called by God to a mission vocation that you can no longer support their work.  Many of these folks who labor in the name of Jesus around the world are personal friends of mine, and over the past few weeks I've received multiple calls from IMB missionaries who may be, or have already been affected by these realities.

In the midst of these difficulties, its easy to play the role of armchair quarterback, and a number of Southern Baptists have been happy to fill that role--with many criticizing Platt and seeking to place the blame on him (though no one who looks honestly at the long history of this problem can do so), and others offering any number of other options to try and keep these faithful individuals on the field as well as IMB's payroll.  A few have also been quick to charge Southern Baptists with being "cheap."  Just give more money to Lottie and this issue can be solved!

Often, an institution's greatest strength also ends up being its greatest weakness, and I think its fair to say this is the case with the primary way my denomination has executed global missions for the last 150 years.  Every methodology will eventually reach a ceiling, and when it does, the temptation is to sit astride a stationary bike, and think if you just "peddle harder" you will get somewhere.  That's where we are where global engagement is concerned.  And to a large extent, this is because the world in which our delivery systems came into being no longer exists!

Simply put, the International Mission Board (as well as NAMB, all 42 state Conventions including the one that currently employs me, and all 1000 Baptist Associations) is a product of the modern missions movement.  A little over 200 years ago, William Carey unknowingly launched what would in just a few years become a behemoth missionary enterprise.  In 1780, with rare exception, if you traveled more than 150 miles from the north Atlantic Ocean, you would not find a Christian.  Carey and his contemporaries changed all of that--beginning with Carey's own use of "means," and continuing along the historical timeline with Hudson Taylor's emphasis on indigneity, William Cameron Townsend's contributions to linguistics, and Donald MacGavran's emphasis on the utilization of the social sciences.  These and many others built an effective missions delivery system that was equal to the modern world in which it was birthed.  It was a delivery system that included:

-An understanding of mission as a full-time vocational calling
-a large, capitalist funding base
-Organized efforts under "missionary corporations."
-Bifurcation between "domestic" and "international" missions

Then came a host of fresh challenges that stretched a century, and tested the limits of this delivery system:

-China's boxer rebellion
-Mao's cultural revolution
-The Great Depression in the United States
-The Rise of Communism in eastern Europe and Asia
-Rising tensions between the west and the predominantly Islamic middle-east
-The "Great Recession" of 2008

Restrictions on religious freedom and activity around the world resulted in a new phrase emerging in our missions vocabulary--the "closed country."  We actually believed that entire countries were "closed" to the Gospel.  And our recent financial squeeze coupled with the resistance we feel around the world toward our mission efforts leads us to believe that unless we figure out a way to pour more money into our existing system, our best days may be behind us.  Neither are true.

So today, we who care about taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth are tempted to sit in sorrow, and mourn a day we fear is passing.  The reality is that we lament our recent financial woes for exactly the same reason we see some countries and peoples as "closed."  Its because 200 years after the start of the modern missions movement, we equate successful accomplishment of the Great Commission with the financial perpetuity and global receptivity of our delivery system. The reality is that the biggest barrier to the spread of our 2000-year-old message may very well be that 200-year-old delivery system.  From his grave, William Carey must be shaking his head.

This is why I was excited to hear that David Platt spoke of "widening the funnel" at the last meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Because there is simply no way to reach the world effectively using only professional, vocationally paid missionaries.  To be sure, these men and women play an invaluable role, and will continue to do so, but if we rely exclusively--or even primarily--on full-time, vocational missionaries to get to the ends of the earth, we fail!

I don't know the extent of Platt's thinking, but my hope is that his "wide funnel" analogy exemplifies what I hope is coming.  Specifically, the IMB has to reinvent itself to become as effective after the modern mission era as it was during its prime.  Over the past five years, my denomination has rightly looked with critical eyes toward our structures at all levels--Association, state, and NAMB.  But the IMB must also come to grips with the fact that it is doing its work in a world that did not exist during either its inception or its prime years.  My hope is that this is what Platt is referring to when he talks about increasing opportunities for mission while simultaneously seeking to reign in the deficit spending that has plagued this entity for some time.

In the mean time, Southern Baptist's biggest problem might be that we just can't see the forest for the trees.  That is, we are so focused on a funding gap that keeps us from doing missions the same way we've done it for years that we aren't considering whether we should look at our mission mandate in a completely fresh way.

What will this "new way forward" look like?  I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, but four things specifically come to mind:

-Local church-led efforts that connect their neighborhoods with the globe.  No more false categories like "domestic" and "foreign."  Everyone now lives everywhere, so why do we continue to speak as though missions in North America should be executed differently than anywhere else?
-A renewed focus on the Kingdom of God and tangible ways to express it around the world
-A commitment to "go through the front door," because we have too long assumed that resistance to our modern delivery system meant a culture or people were "closed" to the Gospel
-A process to equip the entire body of Christ to engage the grid of society around the globe, not just those who preach and teach

In the next post, I'll elaborate on each of these components in an effort to envision how we can move forward together.  The plain truth is this:  many of our most effective churches are already adapting how they do mission in this new reality, and they will do so with or without our denominational entities.  But if the IMB can adapt itself in the near future to be the flywheel that helps centrifugally energize the coming mission, her best days could be ahead!

The Pope and the Presence of God

Last week, there were lots of angry Protestants in Washington--but mostly because of the traffic!

For the first time since his installation to the office, Pope Francis paid a visit to the United States, starting with our nation's capital.  Over 11,000 people gathered for his first public address at the White House, and his subsequent visits and speeches to the Council of Catholic Bishops, a joint session of Congress, and the United Nations were met with great fanfare.

Reaction to his visit has been as varied as the multiplicity of worldviews that exist in our nation.  Catholics and non-Catholics alike celebrated his positive influence on the Church of Rome and the world.  And on the other end of that spectrum, fundamentalists and prophecy-addicts who had apparently also broken a shoelace sometime in the week took every opportunity to promulgate their message that the end is near.  Some praised him for his environmental advocacy; others for his defense of the unborn.  But no matter how one feels about the pope, its obvious that Francis is a rock star!

Overall, I appreciated the pope's visit.  And as I've watched his behavior since assuming the papal office, I've been pleased to see a man who refuses opulence, cares for the poor, and is a true person of the people.  That's never a bad thing, and those dispositions were clearly and consistently seen during his time on American soil.

I also realize these are strange things for someone in my position to be saying.  After all, I'm Protestant for a reason.  I don't believe our differences are minor, nor do I believe that all that transpired in 16th Century Europe was just a big misunderstanding.  And if my Catholic friends are intellectually honest, they have to admit that their church says the same thing.  Just google the Council of Trent and see what the Catholic church has been saying about us for hundreds of years--statements that have never been recanted, even by Vatican II.  Trust me, its not very nice.

Moreover, I'm not just a Protestant.  I'm a Baptist.  If Protestant theology can exist on a spectrum, then my doctrinal ancestors could rightly be described as existing on the fringe of that continuum.  But we're OK with that.  After all, this global movement called Christianity started as a perceived fringe movement of Judaism by the man I worship as God.  Come to think of it, God seems to prefer doing His work from the fringes.  So I'm happy to carry that torch as long as my heart continues to beat.

So why would a guy like me express appreciation for someone like Pope Francis?  How could I possibly speak with admiration about a man whose church still officially pronounces me anathema?

Principally, I'm appreciative of the Pope's visit because it has reminded our entire nation that, no matter how hard we try to suppress our innate desires for something bigger than us, we can't help but long for the presence of God.

For many decades now, many among the cultural elite have insisted that an increasing secularism was and is the inevitable destiny of modernity.  Even Boston University's Peter Berger admits that to attend a state university in America today is to enter an environment dominated by a secularism that has been imported from Europe.  The decline of religion in America, we are told, is the inevitable conclusion to a path long-ago marked out for us--a path that ends with the realization that we don't need God.

But if last week didn't reveal anything else with clarity, it revealed that our society--even if subconsciously--is still acutely aware of our need for Divine presence.  Such is precisely why 11,000 people were willing to be packed like sardines on the south lawn of the White House, and why so many of my neighbors had to leave their homes an hour earlier just to get to work on time last week. When they see Pope Francis, they sense the presence of God, and they long to be in close proximity to that presence.  And even non-Catholics need to admit that when a religious leader keeps the President waiting so he can spend quality time with a kid along the parade route, there is something in those actions that is very much like Jesus.  People want to be around that.

Additionally, Catholic teaching insists that the Pope is nothing less than the priest of priests, and the vicar of Christ on earth.  If you believe that--if you believe in the possibility of that--wouldn't you want to get close to him too?  If proximity truly presents the possibility of having grace dispensed, its no small wonder so many people long to be around this man.

The Pope's visit demonstrated experientially, and with abundant clarity, that in spite of increasing secularism people are still desperately seeking the presence of God.  And if I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest that this is where my doctrinal ancestors' "wild, wild west" theology can be of help.

First, the reason we seem so desperate for God's presence is because--whether we are conscious of it or not--we are separated from Him.  Deep down, we know this, which is why entire populations of people go bonkers when a prominent religious leader comes to town.  Perhaps he or she can "close that gap" for us.   But at the end of the day, no matter how much another person seems to emulate Jesus, they just aren't Jesus!  And when we discover that like us, they put their pants on every morning one leg at a time, the desperate longing for a presence that is infinitely larger than us only increases.

And this is where we need those voices from the fringe--voices which insist that ultimately, there is no more human priesthood--no "go-between" from whom you can merely catch enough Divine droppings to somehow find your way into the presence of your Creator.  And that is good news!

Its good news because through the death and resurrection of Jesus, such mediatorial sacraments are no longer needed.  If you long for the presence of God, you can have it, and you can have it right here, right now!  Earthly priests just get in the way.  You don't need me, or any other religious leader of any kind.  You need only to be in close proximity to Jesus.  And here is even better news:  He is already right there--as close as the tips of your fingers!  And because through his death on the cross He has already paid the penalty for the sin that separates you from your Creator, turning to Him alone results in your experiencing the true presence of God.  Pretty radical, huh?

I'm thankful that the visit of a Roman Pontiff has reminded us of our need for God's presence.  But I'm more thankful for a Gospel that offers His presence to anyone who truly wants it.  Without Jesus, Pope Francis is just as cut off from God as you or me.  With Jesus, you can be as close to God as you perceive the Pope to be--perhaps even closer!

Four Steps Toward Budgeting on Purpose During Tight Financial Times

For most churches in North America, its that time on the calendar when budget discussions begin for the next year.  For the past several years, those have been difficult conversations in many churches, and from a purely financial point of view, things may actually be getting worse.  George Bullard wrote just a few days ago about how downward trends in giving coupled with "ballooned" budget numbers may mean this is the year that many congregations feel most acutely the "market correction" that they have needed to pay attention to for years.  

Nearly seven years after a near economic collapse, our nation continues to limp toward what has proven to be, at best, an anemic economic recovery.  Its truly scary out there, and over the past five years,  I've had a front row seat to the effect of these realities on our churches and those who are part of those churches. Over the past several months, I've had many conversations with pastors who are seeing fresh batches of red ink, and wondering how to move forward.

The mistake that many churches make in reaction to this reality is to react too much.  I've seen elder boards, finance committees, and pastors hit the panic button when their church started hemorrhaging financially. In the economy of the "new normal," everybody is feeling the pinch, and trying to determine how to do more with less.

There is a positive side to this. For years, many churches relied on fat incomes. Now that streams of income have grown fewer and more anemic, churches are learning to truly depend on the Lord. At the same time, I've seen quite a few knee jerk reactions to a drop in giving. Though these reactions, for the most part, are motivated by a noble desire to "save the church," an over-reactionary approach to what the corporate world calls "austerity measures" can result in a demoralized staff, a culture of panic, ministries with no resources to operate, and a church adrift in "survival mode."

With all this in view, I'm going to suggest a different approach. In the past year alone I've heard from several pastors who have had their salaries drastically and suddenly cut because of panicking financial administrators. I've seen ministries and mission efforts stopped in their tracks because the "bean-counters" reacted in fear, and I've seen churches unintentionally publicize desperation to the communities they are called to give hope to. .

In other words, when you react to bad economic times by simply saying "cut, cut, cut," here is what you are saying to your church, and your community: "We are going to try and keep doing everything we have done before. We just aren't going to do it as well."

To be sure, no organization can continue spending more than it takes in (I'm waiting for the government to learn this lesson--perhaps in vain!) But there is a right way and a wrong way to cut spending. "Austerity measures" without a clear purpose don't communicate that you are responsible. They communicate that you are cheap!

So, how do you "cut with a purpose?"

1. Get ahead of the tsunami! Have good, sharp people on your financial team that can project income/giving trends in a way that allows you to prepare in advance. If you know a storm is coming, you can prepare for it in a way that minimizes the damage. Giving a pastor or staff member 60 days notice that they will have to absorb a huge cut in salary demoralizes staff in a way that can sometimes render them impotent to continue leading. A sudden freeze in spending not only damages effective ministries, but sends shock-waves of panic throughout an organization. People will honestly wonder if their paychecks are the next thing to get frozen!

On the other hand, if projections indicate that austerity measures might be necessary, communicate the reasons clearly, and communicate the plan as soon as possible. Get ahead of the problem, plan for it before it arrives, and give the people who work for the organization time to plan for it as well!

2. Re-visit your Vision and Mission. This is why I prefer the term "retrenchment" to "austerity." "Austerity" simply communicates that an organization is reducing its spending. "Retrenchment" communicates that an organization is facing tight financial times with its purpose and mission clearly in view.

The first question to ask in tight financial times is not "what do we cut," but instead, "What are we supposed to be doing?" The mission of God's church does not change simply because there isn't as much dough in the offering plate as their used to be. Though cuts must sometimes be made, making those cuts without first reassessing what the organization is called to do can unintentionally sabotage that mission. Every organization can cut spending, but no organization should cut things that will be to the detriment of the mission.

3. Jettison tangential emphases and the expenses needed to maintain them.During more affluent times, churches will often say "yes" to a program or ministry that might not be central to its purpose, but will fund it anyway because, well, the money is there.

In leaner times, when a church reassesses expenses in light of its mission and vision, the first things to go should be those things that weigh down the organization rather than help it to accomplish its goals. Most or all of these ministries may be good. But the church as a whole is ALWAYS more important than any of its parts. Don't de-fund a ministry central to the operation of the church and expect it to continue. Instead, defund ministries not central to the operation of the church, bury them with dignity, and move on!

4. Staff according to the new reality rather than merely reducing staff for the old reality. Too many churches and organizations, when seeking to cut spending in personnel, simply ask "who gets to stay, and who has to go." Both of these are the wrong first questions! Instead, construct a "new normal" in light of the overall purpose of the church, and ask how that "new normal" needs to be staffed. Yes, this may still mean that someone loses their job. But the question of whether someone keeps their job should never be answered only in light of the church's financial situation. Once tangential emphases have been eliminated and the next strategic steps of the church are clear, staffing decisions should be made in light of what it will take for the church to move forward. In one sense, you might call this "zero-based staffing."

Just because you can "afford" to keep someone doesn't mean you should. Conversely, tight financial times, in and of themselves, do not justify demoralizing a solid, faithful, and successful leader.

Austerity measures have become the norm in many churches and organizations. But cutting spending doesn't mean you have to be cheap. Tighten your belt with a purpose!

"But You're Supposed to be my Pastor!" Pastoral Authority for the Good of the Church

The man sat in my office, his lip quivering from a mixture of fear, guilt, sorrow and hopelessness.  Tears streamed down his face as he finally mustered the courage to look at me and confess actions he never thought he'd be capable of.

Pastor Joel, I cheated on my wife.

I can share this account, and everything that comes after, and still keep confidentiality because, sadly, this scenario has happened many times in my 20-plus years of ministry.  What is even more sad is the typical scenario that follows.

We pray together, cry together, and I ensure him of God's love for him and desire to see him restored, and my love for him and commitment to walk with him through what comes next.  After about an hour of hearing his story--including all the feelings and events that led to his sin, we begin to talk about where to go from here.  My counsel in this situation is fairly uniform:

You have to tell your wife, and you both need to have that conversation in the context of supportive professional crisis counselors who can help you.  Our church can help arrange that meeting, and I will be there also.  God forgives you, but you will still need to face the consequences that come with the fact that you have broken your marriage covenant.  In doing so, your wife now has the option of deciding whether she wants to help repair what has been broken, or exercise her Biblical right to leave you.  This is her decision, and it is her right to know the truth from you so she can make it.  Regardless of what happens, God loves you, we love you, and want to see you restored, and if your wife agrees, your marriage restored.

With full confession to his pastor complete and the beginnings of a plan in the works, the man leaves my office, thankful for the prayer and support he has received.  Then, usually a day or so later, I get a phone call:

Pastor, I don't think this plan is going to work because [fill in the blank with whatever excuse you want.  Every single one I've ever heard in the last 20 years has been lame].  Plus, as the head of my home, I don't feel my wife is ready to hear this yet.  But can you and I continue to meet? Because I know I still need counseling.

Again, my counsel in response to such nonsense has also been historically uniform.

For one thing, no male who is not man enough to confess this kind of sin to his wife is qualified to be "head" of anything.  If you want your headship back, you have to first reclaim your manhood, which was severely marred when you broke your marriage covenant.  We have offered to help you, and give you and your wife the support you will both need to get through this.  When you last left my office, you and I had an agreement, which you are also now trying to break, so no, I will not see you for counseling, as you have not yet followed my initial counsel.  When you decide you are ready to do the right thing by your wife, as I have instructed, I am ready to give you all the help you need.  But until then, you and I have nothing further to discuss.

And then comes the big one.......

But, but, you are supposed to be my PASTOR!

The Scriptural term "pastor" is adapted from the agrarian function of a shepherd--someone who watches over and cares for his flock, protects them from harm, guides them on the right path, and always acts in their best interests.  In the New Testament, this term (poimen, best translated "shepherd"), is coupled with two other terms:  episcopos (best translated "overseer") and presbeuteros (best translated "elder")  And in order to get an accurate and fully-orbed view of the duties of a pastor, all three terms, and their relationship to each other, must be well-understood.  When linked together in a Scripturally accurate way, the picture that emerges is of a man who possesses the spiritual "age" (elder) to discern spiritual matters accurately among the people God has called him to lead, the spiritual strength (pastor) to serve them in a way that understands their best spiritual interests, and the spiritual authority (overseer) to guide them in truth.

Yet somehow in the modern age, the pastoral office has been reduced to that of a family chaplain who simply pats people on the head and recites spiritual platitudes to make them feel better.  In my own denomination, the job description for many pastors as spelled out by most churches includes the phrase, "he shall watch over and care for the flock."  Ask any average church member what that means, and they will tell you it means he needs to be present in hospitals and nursing homes.  Somewhere along the way, we've lost sight of the Biblical role of pastoral authority.

The shepherds of the first century didn't just carry a staff.  They also carried a rod.  And some of the most difficult people to pastor are those who are offended when the rod is employed.  But if your pastor is going to stand in front of Jesus and give account for doing what is always in your best interest, then blessing your idols, excusing your sin, and refusing to hold you accountable in the local church context will result in THAT day being a very, very bad day for him.

Those who sit in our churches week after week need to remember that a good pastor wants good for his people, and the path to good doesn't always "feel" good.  Conversely, Pastors who truly have a heart for their people will occasionally break out the rod of correction when there is clear evidence that its needed.  Shepherd-like compassion mixed with Elder-like discernment will sometimes result in Overseer-like authority being exercised, because we'd rather see our people temporarily uncomfortable than permanently harmed--or worse yet--eternally damned.

Which is why phone calls like I've referenced above usually end in this way:  Yes, I am your Pastor and I take that role seriously.  I love you, and I want good for you, which is why I will not stand by while you seek to control a situation to your own short-term benefit.  When you are willing to follow my counsel, I will invest as much time in you as is necessary to get you where God wants you.  Until then, know I'm praying for you--that God would break you as I can't so that you will come back to Him where you belong.

Sometimes its hard, gut-wrenching work, but those I've counseled have one thing right: I'm supposed to be their pastor.

"Great Man Theory" and the Myth of Christian Heroism

Its been a bad summer for an awful lot of evangelical leaders.

First, there were revelations about Josh Duggar that resulted in his removal from his leadership role at the Family Research Council.  Just a few weeks later, Duggar was caught up in yet another scandal, but he was far from alone.  As promised, Hackers released a "data dump" from the website Ashley Madison, exposing millions of people who had either attempted or committed adultery using the site's services.  My friend Ed Stetzer--who does not subscribe to sensationalism when it comes to numerical data--estimated that as many as 400 church leaders would be resigning due to their exposure as Ashley Madison account holders.

One of those accounts was tied to an old email address used by R.C. Sproul Jr, who confessed his sin and was suspended from his position with Ligonier Ministries.  Fellow Presbyterian Pastor Tullian Tchjividian also confessed an affair (not related to the Ashley Madison revelations) to the elders of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and was summarily defrocked by the Presbyterian Church of America.

And then came two weeks ago, when an old video surfaced on the web that implicates former North Greenville University President James Epting in an apparent extra-marital affair.  Several months ago, it was announced by school officials that Epting would be retiring due to "health concerns," and Epting was subsequently celebrated for his long tenure and great accomplishments at the school.  Now, it appears that trustees attempted to cover up what really took place, and the result is the tearing of new wounds for the University, the Epting family, and the body of Christ.

NGU is my alma mater, and for four years I also served on their faculty.  So that last one hit close to home.  I continue to hurt deeply for the Epting family, and all in that campus community who will no doubt be affected by these events.

It would seem that too many Christian leaders fell from high pedestals this past summer.  Perhaps part of the reason is that we place them on pedestals in the first place.  I've spoken about Celebrity Pastors and Christian leaders in the past, and pointed to the masses as the primary reason this "great man" culture continues to persist.  But let's face it; we've been trapped in celebrity culture for a long time, and the practice goes all the way back to Israel's desire to be like other nations and seek stability through King Saul.   After thousands of years,  how on earth do we change now?  Let ms suggest four ways:

1. Get a new hermeneutic!  From the turn of the 20th century until around 1930, American business culture subscribed to what has become known as "Great Man Theory."  In order for a company to be a success, it was believed that a "great man" with inherently extraordinary skills in leadership and management was needed, and all would be well.  Over the ensuing decades, this theory evolved greatly in academic circles, and churches began to co-opt and "baptize" this theory for employment in congregations across the nation.  Many Pastoral Search Teams today can still be quoted as searching for 'God's man.'  And schools of thought such as John Maxwell's Leadership Institute threw gasoline on the fire of this approach.

To be sure, leadership is an invaluable asset to the church, as well as to every other domain of society.  But contrary to the popular phrase, its not "all about leadership."  Unfortunately, our approach to the Bible's teaching on leadership often enables this approach.

From the cradle, evangelicals have too often taught their children that the stories in the Bible are about "good guys vs. bad guys." Abraham is the father of a nation who, with his strong faith, was willing to filet his only son.  David is the strong King of Israel who slaughtered Goliath.  Solomon was the wise King who arbitrated a scenario between two mothers that would have otherwise been impossible in a pre-DNA testing age.  Elijah is the great man of God who called down fire from heaven.  Peter was the courageous preacher at Pentecost.

In other words, we too often teach the Bible as if it were full of stories about heroes--"Great men", when in reality it is a story of sin and grace.  We forget that Abraham was, at heart, a liar, David an adulterer, Solomon a pervert, and Peter an indecisive hot-head.  We forget that their moments of great strength were so because of God's empowerment which overcame their depravity.

Perhaps its this approach to the Biblical narrative that causes shock when popular men act like, well, fallen men.  To be sure, when their is disqualifying sin, leaders must be held accountable.  But perhaps, if we took a fresh look at how we wrongly few so many Biblical characters, perhaps we'd have a better view of the characters who lead us today.  Leaders who aren't placed on man-made pedestals are far less likely to fall.

2. One word: "accountability."  Nothing ends a conversation any more abruptly than the phrase "God told me......"  TV preachers for years have answered critics, not with honest and transparent explanations, but by invoking "touch not mine anointed."  Truth is, everyone needs human accountability, and the presumption of a "Moses complex" also presumes that God only speaks to one man and no other leaders in the church.  This sets a dangerous precedent where the abuse of sex, money or power is much more likely.  Because, again, there really aren't any "great men."  There are only sinful men called by God's grace, and those men--ALL of us--need accountability.  By the way, if you read the previous as a strong advocacy for the plurality of elders, you read me correctly!

3. Stop Depending on "Great Men" and Start Depending on a Great God!  From beginning to end, the Bible only has one hero--one grand protagonist who is presented as even now reconciling the world back to Himself.  The careful reader of Scripture will find that the Biblical writers--under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less--took great pains to be brutally honest about the sinful behavior of the so-called "great men."  In fact, they took care to malign the reputation of every single Biblical character--except one!

At the end of the day, this means there is only ONE who cannot be replaced.  After 40 years of faithful ministry and leadership in the wilderness, Moses decided in a moment of narcissistic rage to turn the people's attention from God to him.  That moment of compromising the holiness of God cost him his trip into the Promised Land.  Yet upon his death and burial in Joshua 1, the plot doesn't skip a beat.  Things moved forward because the Israelites ultimate dependency wasn't on Moses, but God.

When leaders fall because of the abuse of sex, money, or power, we should weep over their sin, while simultaneously being thankful for all they have accomplished by God's grace.  It was Jesus who empowered them for service, Jesus who will renew and restore them if they repent, and Jesus who will move His Kingdom forward with, or without them.

4. Leaders, get over yourselves!  As I said, the Kingdom moves forward with or without those of us who lead.  God doesn't need Joel Rainey!  Its a humbling recognition to be sure, but its also one of the most freeing realizations.  If you are a Christian leader, this realization will curb the undue pressure we all sometimes put on ourselves.  Apart from our responsibility to live quiet and Godly lives, and make wise decisions in the power of the Holy Spirit, the forward movement of God's Kingdom doesn't ultimately depend on us--precisely because we are not "great men."  We are sinful men who have been redeemed, called, and equipped to serve His church.  Christian leaders help themselves best when they get over themselves.

Human history has only witnessed one truly great man, and that man isn't interested in sharing His glory with anyone else.  May the church learn a valuable lesson from the past few months.  None of us wears a cape, and only One wears a crown!

"How Did You Do It?" Reflections on 21 years of Marital "bliss" and "blisters."

21 years ago at this time, a beautiful, smart, winsome, godly young lady with obvious issues of blindness and bad character judgement had already said "I do" to a young 22-year-old knot-head named Joel.  We were preparing to leave the wedding reception where we had been talking with friends and family, and head to the beautiful area of Boone, North Carolina, where we would spend our Honeymoon.

If, at that moment, you had told either of us what God had in store for us over the next two decades, we would not have believed it!

As you can tell from the pictures, we don't look the same as we once did.  Amy has gotten a lot prettier, and I've gotten a lot uglier and hairier!  Additionally, there are now three other people who live with us who call us "Mom" and "Dad," and as anyone who is a parent knows, the presence of such little ones changes life in profound ways.  All in all, its been a blessed 21 years, and yes, I'd do it all over again with this wonderful woman.  It hasn't all been fun, but marriage isn't supposed to be.

Over the past several decades, divorce statistics remain unchanged, and as a minister of the Gospel, I've personally experienced those statistics.  Charles Lowery once comically said "I'd rather preach a funeral than a wedding any day.  They pay more, and they last longer!"  I can certainly vouch for that.  About 30% of the couples for whom I have officiated a wedding are now divorced.  On the other hand, everyone I've ever buried is right where I left them!

In this kind of context, we are often asked by younger couples how we have made it as long as we have.  Because we constantly praise and adore each other publicly, sometimes folks get the false impression that Amy and I have never had marriage struggles. Truth is, we have hit a few very rough patches in our years together, just like every couple does.  So, why are we still together?

1. Because we try to love Jesus more than we love each other.  Here is the unvarnished truth.  I don't deserve my wife, and the Biblical prohibition against divorce isn't about me or her.  Its about Jesus.  I think if we based our "staying power" merely on our devotion to each other, we too might have been a statistic years ago.  Keeping the wedding vows I made to my wife aren't primarily for the benefit of my wife.  Its about a promise I made to my Creator and Redeemer when I entered into the very marriage covenant that He created in order to point people to Himself.

One day in the future, one of us will pass away and leave the other one behind.  In that moment, the Rainey marriage covenant will be forever severed, because contrary to what some false religions teach, we aren't headed toward an eternal marriage between Joel and Amy. Instead, Joel and Amy are both headed toward their ultimate Bridegroom.  On that day, we won't miss each other because we will both be too busy basking in the unspeakable glory of what our earthly marriage was always supposed to be pointing to.  As wonderful as my relationship has been with Amy, I can't imagine how wonderful that day will be!

So over the past 21 years when arguments seemed to become more regular, or one of us thought the other seemed to be less tolerable, we've tried to look beyond each other, and toward what we promised God we would do our best to reflect--the very thing He expects marriage to reflect.  It hasn't always been easy, but God has a way of always out-giving us in every way, and I've certainly experienced that when it comes to how rewarded I feel by Him for our faithfulness to each other.

2. Because we allow each other to be who we are.  Amy genuinely loves to run, and has completed two half-marathons.  If I'm running, its either because someone has a gun, or because I've come to the conclusion that I don't need to get any fatter than I already am.  Amy is a slow, careful, deliberate and thoughtful reader.  I go through books like chicken wings.  Amy likes to take her time in the grocery store.  I want to split up the list and do double the shopping in half the time.  When we vacation, Amy enjoys the journey.  I'm trying to break a record to get to the destination.

Bottom line:  we are different, and we allow for those differences in each other.  I have a pair of running shoes only because she loves to run.  She has a motorcycle helmet because she knows I'm most relaxed when I'm on my Harley in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.  Because we know these things about each other, we make sure the other can make time for these things.  They come up every time we have a "calendar meeting."  And we do this because, in the midst of my work-related travel and publishing deadlines, and her juggling of the home schedule, we don't want to lose each other.  I thank God for a woman who, when she sees me stressed out, asks "so when was the last time you took a ride Babe?"

3. Because we are best friends.  I'll be brutally honest here:  When I was standing at the altar 21 years ago with my soon-to-be wife, I had a few things going through my mind, but none so intense as the thoughts of what we would be up to that evening!  (Cue the retching now from the peanut gallery.......and my children!)

And I know what some of you are asking, "but it wasn't just the physical attraction.  You did LOVE her, didn't you?"  And I will say yes, I loved her--at least as much as any 22-year-old BOY could love anyone. Furthermore, those feelings weren't wrong.  God put them there for a reason.  But, those feelings alone don't make a marriage last, principally because they come and go.  You'd be amazed at how quickly the sweet smell of cologne and perfume fades when the stench of dirty laundry and medicinal salve is in the room!  

Over the years, Amy and I have had many "romantic getaways" when we hire a sitter and take off for a night away, or several nights away.  Our 10th anniversary was spent in Cozumel; our 20th in Key Largo.  This year's anniversary falls less than 48 hours after Amy returned from Vietnam, so whatever we are doing, it will involve a jacked-up body clock, and she will probably need to turn in by 8 PM to catch up on 40 hours without sleep from Hanoi back to Baltimore two days ago.

And then there was two years ago.  We were planning to go out for a quiet evening together at a local restaurant, but two of our three children caught a stomach bug, so instead we ate takeout, sat on our back deck, and were available in case one of them threw up.  Romantic, huh?

And over the past 21 years, we've had many more experiences like what we faced two years ago than we've had trips to exotic destinations!  And through all of those experiences, we have learned that the best way to face them is to do so as friends.  There is nothing wrong with romance.  I've learned to enjoy it far more over the years. When we get dressed up to go out, Amy is always stunning.  Its funny, I can look at women's clothes on the rack, or jewelry in her jewelry box and not have a clue, but believe me, she knows where it all goes, and it looks really good when she gets it all in place!  She is beautiful, thoughtful and intelligent, and that makes candlelight dinners with her an exquisite pleasure.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with sex.  Matter of fact, I happen to think that sex is fantastic!  Sex can greatly enhance a permanent bond between husband and wife, but it cannot create that bond, and it isn't what makes a marriage last.  Prolonged sickness, a tough pregnancy, young children that won't sleep, stressful times at work, and a hundred other things can result in you being "on the bench" for a while where sex is concerned.  But you always have friendship, regardless of whether the lights are dimmed, whether you hear the kids puking in the background, or whether or not you can work out that getaway.  Friendship isn't dependent on context.  Its unconditional, just like the love we are commanded to have for each other in a marriage.

4. Because we have sought help.  Once early in our marriage a co-worker commented that Amy and I always seemed to get along so well.  "Do you ever fight?" she asked?  "Oh yeah, " I responded, "and sometimes, chains and billy-sticks are involved!"

I've known and pastored a lot of married couples, and the only ones I've known who never had a rough patch were those who had a problem with compulsive lying.  Amy and I have experienced those rough patches too, and one of the ways we made it through was to seek help.  Twice we have visited a counselor, because there was an issue we knew we needed to work through together, but weren't sure how to do it.  At that point, our marriage wasn't "about to fall apart" (if you wait that long, you might need more than a counselor!), but we wanted to stay on top of things together.

We have also been greatly helped through the years by other couples much older, who have been married much longer.  By living in relationship with them, we have learned from their mistakes, and gained much wisdom on how to improve our own relationship.  Professional counseling can be a good thing, but trust me, the guy with a Ph.D. who is on his third wife has nothing profitable to say to you about marriage.  On the other hand, if you can find a couple who has been married at least as long as you have been alive, you will most likely gain a lot of very useful wisdom.  Come to think of it, you shouldn't even be asking this 21 year veteran about marriage.  I'm still learning myself!  Instead, go to church and find that man who has been married for 40 or 50 or 60 years.  Find that sweet old lady who walks in every Sunday with a walking cane in one hand, and her husband's hand in the other.  You might learn something.  I know Amy and I have!

I am an undeserving, but forgiven and therefore incredibly blessed man.  I'm grateful to Jesus for holding us together for all these years, and I'm grateful to a wonderful wife and best friend who continues with me on this journey.  Happy Anniversary Amy!