Can Joshua go to Memphis? A Call for Peace

In may of this year, over 30 Southern Baptists drafted a statement known as "The Memphis Declaration." Last week, another Southern Baptist group, quite large in number, met in Florida and unveiled principles of affirmation at an event called "The Joshua Convergence." Since that unveiling, the vitriol between what appear to be two factions within the SBC has grown exponentially. Yet when I read these two documents, I cannot for the life of me perceive differences so great between these groups as to merit the kind of war that so many seem ready to fight.

For weeks preceeding the Joshua Convergence, implicit salvos have been tossed toward "the Memphis group," and those who signed the document. It has even been suggested that those who were a part of this group are politically-correct, closet moderates who want to turn back the progress that has been made since the 25-year-old Conservative resurgence began. Calls have been issued for signers of the Memphis Declaration to "come out of the closet." While I certainly cannot speak for every signer, I will speak for myself. The following are "for the record," and I invite any and all to ask any question they desire regarding anything they read here. As soon as time permits (I do have a day job) I promise to answer every one of them to the best of my ability. Please know that each word is prayerfully written in a spirit that desires reconcilliation among brothers. My hear breaks to see the kind of division that has risen as a result of the events of the past several months.

1. I am a signer of the Memphis Declaration. Though I did not attend the Tennessee meeting, I agreed to have my name placed on the list of supporters. I did not do this because I wanted to attack any individual, nor did I want to make any overtly political statement,and I do not believe this declaration makes any effort to do either of these things. I do however, believe there is a move afoot in our Convention to narrow the parameters of cooperation among conservatives. I believe that many who fully affirm the BFM 2000 are marginalized, and in the case of the International Mission Board, now barred from service because they hold to minority Biblical interpretations that are NOT outside the bounds of our common confession.

The Declaration, as best as I understand it, makes no accusations toward any person. In fact, it is a very introspective document, and my support was added only after much introspection on my own part. (See http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2006/05/spiritual-authority-and-memphis.html)

Since the release of this document, I have heard many make accusations toward certain signers, but I have yet to hear anyone pose a Biblical argument against the document itself. If anyone can point me to ANY part of this document that is clearly unBiblical, I will contact Marty Duren immediately and ask for my name to be removed. If you cannot find anything unBiblical in the document itself, I ask you not to mallign those of us who signed it simply because we signed it.

2. I am in basic agreement with the principles of affirmation released at the Joshua Convergence, and find no contradictions between these principles and the Memphis Delcaration. The one article with which I take issue is that which deals with holiness, and suggests that abstention from alcohol is one mark of holiness. #3 below will elaborate this point.

3. Regarding alcohol, I am a tee-totaller by conviction and practice. I wrote the policy in my association that forbids funded church planters from consuming alcohol as a beverage, and I preach that the wisest thing to do is to abstain. These are my deeply-held beliefs. At the same time, I see no Scriptural evidence for claiming that one ascends to a higher level of holiness because they give up this particular liberty. Though I believe abstention is the best prevention against alcoholism, I have no basis in the Word of God for judging my brother who chooses to drink in moderation. This is NOT an advocation of drinking, as I do not personally condone the practice. It IS however, an advocation of Romans 14:13-23.

4. I thank God for the Conservative Resurgence. Because of men like Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, W.A. Criswell and others, I am a two-time graduate of an SBC seminary I would have NEVER attended 25 years ago! I have NO desire to return to the days when our Convention sent an "unclear sound" regarding our understanding of the nature and authority of Scripture. Many men like those named above worked hard to reform our denomination, and as a result, I was able to attend a seminary where the Scriptures were honored. As a result, I received a quality evangelical education that most of these men only dreamed about. I will never forget what their service provided me!

5. I am an inerrantist, who fully affirms the BFM 2000, as well as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I do not, however, believe the BFM 2000 is inerrant. Are there statements that could have been better worded? I believe so. Are there statements which could be interpreted differently by two individuals? Of course. The BFM 2000 was written by our best theologians, but even our best are not perfect, and even our best are unable to draft a confession of faith that perfectly combines the specificity a theologian desires with the ambiguity that is sometimes necesary when trying to accomodate various points of view on non-essential issues.

I further believe this statement should serve as an instrument of accountability for those who are employed by SBC entities because our churches, on a national level, have stated that these are their deeply held and cherished beliefs. But when we spend the kind of time exegeting the BFM that we do exegeting Scripture, we have crossed the line into creedalism. One must also remember, that the SBC does not only exist at national, but also at state and local levels. Again, it is the CHURCHES at those levels who should decide which statements should be employed as accountability instruments for their denominational employees. As an associational servant, I wish that all of our churches fully affirmed the BFM 2000. Still, it is my responsibility to serve ALL of our churches, regardless of whether they affirm this document.

6. I consider myself to be a straightforward, grab-the-bull-by-the-horns, Bible-centered, expositional, no-holds-barred, hell-fire, Jesus-is-the-only-way, unconcerned-about-popularity, evangelical Baptist preacher. As the first "post-Mohler" graduate of Southern Seminary to pastor one particular and historic Kentucky church, I was malligned, misrepresented, mischaracterized, and unduly judged by several fellow pastors who saw me as only a "narrow-minded fundamentalist." When God's Word speaks, by His grace I will speak, loudly at times, and without apology. Conversely, if the Bible doesn't address an issue, I try my best to shut up about it in the pulpit.

7. I consider it not only sinful, but also a complete waste of time to address personalities, and therefore have done my very best to speak only of positions and actions. I believe it is wrong for someone to automatically assume the worst about our SBC leaders. I also believe it is wrong for someone to imply that one is "liberal" or "against our leaders" or "seeking power" simply because they take issue with something one of our leaders has said or done.

8. I believe that all of the following are godly men who have served their churches and/or denomination well: Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Marty Duren, Jerry Vines, Frank Page, Johnny Hunt, Bobby Welch, Wade Burleson, James Merritt, Tom Ascol, and Jerry Rankin. This list of faithful men is certainly not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it meant to suggests any sort of category or hierarchy of godliness. I also believe that all of the above-named men, in addition to myself, the Apostle Paul, and the rest of humanity all the way back to Adam, are fallen sinners who are constantly in need of God's sustaining and sanctifying grace. This means that all of us will, from time to time, say and do things that are displeasing to Jesus Christ.

9. Having thoroughly read both the Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence statement, I believe that to divide into warring factions behind these two banners is tantamount to Burger King seeking to put a Home Depot out of business. These statements address two different issues, and I would venture a guess that if all would stop beating their plowshares into swords for a moment and read both documents, the Joshua faction would find agreement with the repentant spirit, and the Memphis faction would find agreement with the need to continue standing for truth.

10. I fear that if we continue the current and very foolish exchange of words between each other, many of us will violate the standards of 1 Timothy 3, which insist, among other things, that we be "uncontentious" (v.3) and as a result render ourselves unfit for the office to which we have been called.

11. Finally, I do believe there is still a "battle for the Bible." I just don't believe that with regard to the SBC, it is an "internal" battle. There is, as there always has been, a spiritual war for the truth of the Gospel. Unfortunately, we seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time shooting at each other.

Many years ago, the British Navy arrived on the Atlantic coast near what is now Quebec. They were told to wait until reinforcements arrived and then begin attacking the city. Growing bored with the wait, the commander of the British fleet decided to do a bit of target practice, and so he ordered his gunmen to fire the ships cannons with the goal of destroying all the statues of the saints, which sat on top of a nearby cathedral. By the time reinforcements arrived, most of the ammunition was used up, and there were insufficient military resources for the British to soundly defeat the French. Two hundred years later, Quebec is still a french city, because the British decided to "fire on the saints" instead of the enemy.

Cooperative Program giving has slipped in a very noticeable way, 85% of our churches are plateued or declining, over 3500 churches close their doors for good every year in our nation, and North America is the only continent on the planet where the Kingdom is not advancing. We can't keep fighting each other. We MUST place these petty differences aside (and YES, I do believe our differences are largely petty) and work together to see the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.

For Southern Baptists, I think this can now only begin in one way. Joshua needs to take a trip to Memphis . . . .and Memphis needs to welcome him with open arms!

Further resources:

www.joshuaconvergence.com

http://www.sbcoutpost.com/the-memphis-declaration/

Boxers or Briefs: an Example

After writing the post below, I came across a great example of the "boxer-wearing evangelical" here:

http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2006/signs-that-you-attend-a-reformed-baptist-church/

If you can't laugh at this, not only are you a brief-wearer, but your briefs are probably two sizes too small! Enjoy!

Boxers or Briefs? A Theological Reflection

My apologies to my female readership for the frankness of the metaphor, but I honestly could not think of a better comparative picture for the thoughts that have been running through my head this week.

For the past several weeks, I have been immersed in missions work here in central Maryland, and have been consequently unable to contribute to the rowdy online discussion that is the blogosphere. Nevertheless, I have been able to take some time to read much of what is being said out there regarding first, second, and third order doctrinal issues, and as I observe the way in which various bloggers are addressing these issues, I have come to the conclusion that some wear boxers, and others wear briefs. Some are tight-fisted, gut-wrenched, red-faced, and stressed-out about everything, as if the rise or fall of the evangelical world depends on everyone else coming to their understanding of what it means to be a "conservative." Others are just as theologically sound, but not angry about it.

What I aim to do in the next few paragraphs is draw a distinction between the two. But before I do, a word of clarity is in order: If you are here looking to justify belief in an self-contradicting Bible, women pastors, the notion that being gay is cool with Jesus, the idea that one can enter the Kingdom without a personal relationship with the King, or any other clearly unBiblical idea, I'm afraid you have come to the wrong place. My purpose here is to distinguish within evangelicalism between those who are able to hold to sound doctrine without blowing a gasket, and those who can't.

To be totally transparent, I have to admit that I had a lot of fun with this, so don't take it more seriously than I intend it . . . .but do take it seriously enough. Below are, in my opinion, the marks of a "boxer-wearing" evangelical:

1. He can accept, and even embrace "mystery." Brief-wearing evangelicals have a very hard time with uncertainty. They feel that they must be able to answer every question regarding their faith. Ask them about the problem of evil, and they will have an answer. Ask them about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and they will have an answer. Ask them about puzzling texts in the Bible, and they will have an answer . . . because they MUST have an answer. Brief-wearing evangelicals confuse certainty with omniscience, and live with the understanding that to say "I don't know" only reveals that they haven't spent as much time in the Word as they should have.

Boxer-wearers, on the other hand, know that "I don't know" is sometimes an appropriate answer, especially when it is the honest one. They are certain of Christ's literal and physical return, but at the same time, they aren't losing any sleep over the fact that they keep waffling back and forth between respective eschatological positions. While there are some issues on which they are certain, they recognize that others have been debated for centuries, and that if Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and others didn't settle it, the likelihood that our generation will settle it is pretty miniscule.

This doesn't mean that boxer-wearing evangelicals don't think about such things. But at the end of the day, boxer-wearers apply the truth of Isaiah 55 to their own feeble minds, and conceede that compared to God's wisdom, all the human wisdom in the world is tantamount to the kind of collective ignorance one might find in an internet chat room.

2. He can hold a position without holding it against people. Brief-wearing evangelicals seem to always gravitate from issues to personalities. For example, a few years ago, John R.W. Stott announced his temporary advocacy of annihilationism. Many brief-wearers responded by not only rightfully taking issue with Stott's position, but also by anathematizing Stott from their libraries. Similarly, the vitriolic debate now taking place in the blogosphere regarding SBC issues is largely caused by a shift of focus from positions to people. I for one have been dissapointed to see substantive issues worthy of debate within the SBC largely reduced to divisions regarding whether one loves or hates Paige Patterson.

A boxer-wearer understands the differences between people, personalities, and positions. He is the kind of person who can hold strongly to a complimentarian view of gender issues, while simultaneously sitting across the table from a female with "Reverend" behind her name without either being intimidated, or himself trying to intimidate her. He can flatly (and rightly) reject Stott's annihilationism while still showing great appreciation for Stott's overall work and contribution to the church. The boxer-wearing landmarkist doesn't assume that the non-landmarkist has a weak ecclesiology. The boxer-wearing non-Calvinist doesn't assume that his 5-pointer brother is unevangelistic.

Those holding positions in opposition to the boxer-wearer leave the dinner table with the impression that he is very sure of himself, but he is also a very nice guy! In short, boxer-wearers see certain positions as unhealthy, but they don't see those who hold such positions as the enemy.

3. Their Orthodoxy is Humble. Joshua Harris was the first person I heard use the term "humble orthodoxy," and I have adapted the phrase into my own vocabulary since first hearing it months ago.

Brief-wearers have no problem with honesty, but they struggle with humility. Areas of disagreement with others regarding non-essential issues (for example, one's interpretation of the Baptist Faith and Message) includes not only confidence in one's own position, but also a sense of condescension toward those who disagree. Brief-wearers not only prefer briefs. They see briefs as superior. Boxers are liberal!

By contrast, boxer-wearers are able to take a firm stand on secondary and tertiary issues, while at the same time enjoying friendship with those with whom he differs. The boxer-wearing abstentionist can have lunch with someone who orders a beer. He can enjoy Christian friendship with someone who differs with him on the mode of baptism, and can even share membership in the same church with someone who has an opposing view of election.

Which one are you? Honestly, there are days when I am both. And I suspect, if each reader would be honest with himself, he would come to the same conclusion. I'm working hard at becoming a boxer-wearing evangelical, because I want to maintain the balance between conviction and cooperation; between certainty and humility.

This doesn't mean that I think the recent issues being debated are not worthy of good, robust argument. It does mean that we need to relax a bit!

Southern Baptists in particular have argued about a number of things over the past several months: landmarkism, Calvinism, alcohol, blogging, glossolalia, censorship, et. al. None of these issues is unimportant, but the vitriol I have witnessed of late brings me to the conclusion that maybe what some of us need is a good old-fashioned pair of cotton boxer-shorts. . . .

. . . .speaking of which, I think the dryer just buzzed!

Rosie and the "Radicals": Is there truth to her statements?

It seems that evangelicals are in an uproar over Rosie O'Donnell's recent tirade during which our beliefs are compared with those who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. Last week, I even received an email alert in which Don Wildman of the American Family Association was attempting to garner support for a petition to ABC to force O'Donnell to apologize. Strangely enough, while everyone else expressed their offense at her words, I found myself wondering if she might be closer to the truth than any of us realize!

Now, before you delete this blog from your favorites, call me a heretic, and write to discontinue your subscription to this weblog service, read on to see exactly what I'm talking about here.

Even a casual comparison of Biblical Christianity with the life and worldview of many Americans today reveals a strong antithesis, and my friend Spencer Haygood has expressed more eloquently than I could, how Rosie's words, when removed from her own intentions, seem to ring true in a way that should call us back to genuine Christianity. Regarding Rosie's comments, he says:

What she meant is wrong and foolish. But what she said is right and profound. Radical Christianity — that is authentic and passionate Christianity as the Bible defines it, seeking to love the Lord God with all one’s heart and mind and soul and strength and to love one’s neighbors as oneself — is not “just as” but probably is “more” threatening than radical Islam in a country like America — a culture committed largely to self-love, self-promotion, self-seeking! Radical Islam may disrupt business, inflict harm, cause ruin, and take lives through its terrorist tactics. But that’s not nearly as threatening to the secular American culture as a biblical world and life view that changes business and heals the harmed and reclaims the ruined and transforms lives through the power of the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. May God give us such reformation and revival as will make us radical, biblical Christians in these days when the church seems bound in this Babylonian cultural captivity.

Well said! And you can read the rest here:

http://www.bibledriven.com/?p=15

Church Planting: The Podcast!

Resources designed to help church planters bring a new congregation to life can be found in books, on discs, and online. Likewise, stories of this volatile yet rewarding work are shared frequently by those with such experience. But such stories are usually told after the fact. My friend Dave Cowan is about to change all that!

When I arrived in Maryland in January 2005, Dave was working with Horizon Church, a new start in the Owings Mills area of Baltimore, and simultaneously launching a second church on the north side of the Beltway. He and Clay Carver had already worked tirelessly for four years prior to my coming to see a church multiplication movement in the northeast, and the results of their labors are still seen today in Horizon Owings Mills, and Horizon Towson. Combined attendance at both churches is near the 300-mark, a mega-church in the northeast!

Like many apostolic-type planters, Dave acquired a case of "itchy feet" several months ago, and in bitter-sweet fashion, we said goodbye to him last month as he and his family moved to Phoenix, Arizona. Dave will be working with the Arizona Baptist Convention to start a church in the University area while simultaneously beginning work toward his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona. I know he would covet your prayers.

Like anyone else with church planting experience, Dave could certainly share his past experiences with you. But instead, he has elected to share his present experiences with you. Via a new online weblog, you can learn about all of the ups and downs of starting a new church as it is happening!

In fact, these online adventures have already begun, and you can see them here:
http://www.lowercasechurch.com/home.html

The first podcast and weblog are already up, and videos are coming soon. Pray for my friend Dave, for the establishment of this new church, and for the unreached peoples of Phoenix. This new resource will allow you to do this more intelligently, while learning first-hand, and on the fly, what it takes to establish a new, local expression of Christ's universal body. Dave is a solid guy with a passion for mission. I hope you will join me as my family and I hold he and his up in prayer.

Growing in Blasphemy

I thought to myself "surely, my wife misunderstood him." One morning last week, she came into our bedroom as I was getting out of the shower to tell me that a pudgy, middle-aged Hispanic man from Miami was on NBC's Today Show claiming to be Christ-incarnate, declaring all other Chrsitian faiths false, proclaiming that there is neither sin nor Satan, and vowing to bring an end to all man-made governments and religions.

But a quick perusal of his ministry website, along with a July 22 edition of the Miami Herald, assured me that Amy had heard correctly, which means only one thing: Satan is gunning for the Hispanic population in North America!

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, a 60-year-old native of Puerto Rico, was for a time an evangelical pastor. But 20 years ago, after founding the ministry Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace), his message began to become more nutty with each passing year, until finally reaching official nut job status in 2004, when he claimed that the spirit of Jesus Christ had been reincarnated in his body. In short, Miranda now refers to himself as "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords" with ever increasing frequency.

An examiniation of Miranda's message clearly vindicates Solomon's wise reminder that there is nothing new under the sun. Part ancient Nestorianism, part new thought metaphysics, part Prosperity Gospel, and part Liberation Theology, Miranda's "gospel" is tailor-made to a 21st century Latin-American immigrant culture.

There are a few differences, however, between Miranda and the Christ whom he presumes to be. First, having declared that sin and Satan are both myths, Miranda has conveniently forgotten that messages like those preached by his ilk are conceived by an enemy who disguises himself as a good guy (2 Cor. 11: 13-15), as well as the fact that those who say what Miranda says are devoid of truth, and lie to themselves as well as everyone else (1 John 1:8).

Second, in his quest to found "God's government on earth," Miranda is taking quite some time to accomplish this goal. The real milennium is established with one word from the real Jesus. (Rev. 19:20-21) With over 100,000 worshippers, Miranda has certainly established a following. But Scripture tells us that when He returns, the real Jesus will be able to take care of assuming control of all the Kingdoms of this world quite well on his own.

Third, The Herald noted that Miranda travels everywhere wearing a bullet-proof vest and surrounded by a tight security detail; a fact that in retrospect seems a bit absurd if his contention that sin is no more is really true. Again, the real Jesus needs no such protection, but instead comes back as a white-haired, fiery-eyed warrior wearing a robe drenched in His enemies' blood, with a tatoo up his thigh, to slaughter all who oppose Him. I read nothing in Revelation 19 that would suggest the neccesity of a security detail.

Fourth, Miranda claims that he never opens a Bible (hey, I might have found the problem here!) or prays, rhetorically asking "who am I going to pray to?" The real Jesus, by contrast, was filled with Scriptural wisdom (Luke 2:52, 4:4-13), and constantly prayed to the Father.

Perhaps, if Miranda would pick up the very Bible of which he claims to have no need, he might see a clear picture of himself there, and as a result, recognize his true identity:

Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God . . . .For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." (2 Thess. 2:3-8)

Or maybe he would find himself here:

"See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will lead many astray." (The real Jesus, quoted in Matthew 24:4-5)

In short, although claiming to be the Messiah, Miranda is but one very insignificant antiChrist in a long line of antiChrists that Jesus warned us about. Worse yet, God in the Scriptures has condemned Him. As such, he is the most pitiful of the pitied.

These incidents should trigger pity in the hearts of genuine Christ-followers. Furthermore, they should call our attention to our evangelistic impetus. Hispanics will likely be the majority ethnic group in North America within the next half-century. As they go, so our culture will likely go. Men like Miranda should serve as a solemn reminder to the church that if we don't reach the lost with the Gospel, some accursed individual or group will reach them with an attractive alternative (Galatians 1:6-9)!

One day, in the not-too-distant future, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is going to come face-to-face with the One who has marked him out beforehand for damnation (Jude 4). In that moment of truth, how many of his growing number of followers will join Him in hell? The answer to that question may very well depend on our commitment to engage our immigrant friends with the message of the real Jesus.

Further resources:

Alexandra Alter, "Divine or Dangerous: He's got Disciples" The Miami Herald. July 22, 2006

http://www.creciendoengracia.com/

http://www.growingingracespanish.com/

The Mainline Mess

Even a far-left publication like the Los Angeles Times gets it! But apparently, the most liberal wings of the church are still in denial about their imminent demise. Hemmoraging mercilessly for the past four decades, The mainline arms of the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist Church continue on a trajectory of slow and agonizing death. In a July 9 Religion column entitled "Liberal Christianity is paying for its Sins," LA Times columnist Charlotte Allen points theological liberals to the writing on the wall, describing their current condition as a "meltdown of liberal Christianity." And in a recent blog post, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll reminds us that no church is exempt from the possibility of having their candlestick removed.

In commenting on the Times column, Driscoll offers, among other things, 10 ways to destroy your denomination, and the same principles hold true for individual churches. His list is below:

In summary, here are ten easy steps to destroying a denomination:
1. Have a low view of Scripture and, consequently, the deity of Jesus.

2. Deny that we were made male and female by God, equal but with distinct roles in the home and church.

3. Ordain liberal women in the name of tolerance and diversity.

4. Have those liberal women help to ordain gay men in the name of greater tolerance and diversity.

5. Accept the worship of other religions and their gods in the name of still greater tolerance and diversity.

6. Become so tolerant that you, in effect, become intolerant of people who love Jesus and read their Bible without scoffing and snickering.

7. End up with only a handful of people who are all the same kind of intolerant liberals in the name of tolerance and diversity.

8. Watch the Holy Spirit depart from your churches and take people who love Jesus with Him.

9. Fail to repent but become more committed than ever to your sinful agenda.

10. See Jesus pull rank, judge you, and send some of your pastors to hell to be tormented by Him forever because He will no longer tolerate your diversity.

The rest of Mark's post can be found here: http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-08-21_now_the_mainline_churches_make_sense

Since he writes more eloquently than I could on this subject, I encourage all of you to check this one out. Let us never seek so hard to become "relevant" to our culture that we become irrelevant to God and His Kingdom!

Matt Chandler, and More Thoughts on Trying to be a Hero!

A great paradox regarding pastoral ministry is seen in the way pastors claim that they realize they aren't "Superman," while simultaneously trying to walk on water. Early in my ministry, a well-respected African-American pastor once told me "son, Jesus already died for your people, and there is no need for you to do it too!" It was good advice! Yet the statistics clearly reveal that pastors are still dying, at least professionally if not physically, for churches. 1500 pastors leave the ministry each and every month due either to moral failure or burnout, and in spite of ample warnings, the hemmoraging hasn't slowed down. Perhaps this is why Matt Chandler's latest post, and recent sermon, is so timely.

Chandler assumed the pastorate of First Baptist Church, Highland Village, Texas, in December 2002. Almost four years later, the church has a new name (The Village Church), a totally new structure, and has grown from 160 to over 3000 in 6 weekly services, while almost killing its new pastor.

At 32, Chandler already seems to have the wisdom of a guy with decades of pastoral experience. Of course, hearing his testimony leaves you thinking that the last four years have advanced his life by at least that many decades! While in Seattle this past May, I had the privilege of being blessed by his testimony, and reminded of my own limitations.

Evidently, the casualty rate in ministry has fostered an issue dear to Chandler's heart, and his recent post at Resurgence illustrates this concern. He states:

Why does this keep happening? Why do we keep losing sharp, young, godly men to bitterness and despair? Am I in danger? I found myself praying and thinking for the next few hours. I always want to go back to the life of Jesus when it comes to questions of surviving ministry.

This post, and his recent message "Gravity: The Weight of Pastoring and the Knowledge of Christ," will be required reading and listening for my Pastoral Theology students at Capital Seminary this fall. If you are a parishioner seeking to understand the heart of a pastor, the blog and online message will give you a brutally-honest inside look. If you are a pastor, your heart will reasonate with Matt Chandler, and if you heed his words, they just might save your ministry!

Read the blog at:
http://www.theresurgence.com/mc_blog_2006-08-10_alpha_males_and_the_messiah_complex

Hear the sermon at:
http://www.theresurgence.com/r_r_2006_session_nine_audio_chandler

Visit The Village online at:
www.thevillagechurch.net

Mel Gibson and the Myth of Christian Heroism

Less than three years after producing a phennomenal depiction of Christ's death and resurrection, Oscar-winning actor and director Mel Gibson was arrested for drunken driving, and castigated by the media and general public for strong anti-Semitic remarks he made while being placed under arrest. Once again, Hollywood and the media are simmering over "Mad Mel's" racist tirade, and this latest debacle again brings to the surface two struggles that have seemed to perpetually plague the A-list actor, the other being alcohol abuse.

While the national media debate Mel Gibson's fate, the church has largely remained silent and somewhat paralyzed by an event that has obviously caught us off guard. After all, two and a half years ago, Gibson was touring evangelical churches all across the world peddling his new film The Passion of the Christ as a tool of evangelism. Once again, someone the church at large held up as an icon of strong faith has fallen. But this isn't the first time the church has been surprised by bad behavior from those celebrated as strong believers, nor will it likely be the last. And in the midst of the media frenzy, Christians must ask deeper questions about our propensity to look to men rather than to God.

From TV evangelist Jim Bakker's arrest to NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon's divorce to singer Michael English's extra-marital affair, the list of men vocal about their faith who have fallen is a long one. I remember hearing about Gordon's rumored extra-marital affair and subsequent divorce, and immediately recalling his strong testimony before thousands of people in Indianapolis at a Billy Graham crusade just four years earlier. Likewise, many who idolized Michael English during the early nineties were crushed when it was revealed that the singer had kept secret an ongoing affair with a fellow Christian artist. Given our experience with placing people on pedestals as role models, one might think evangelicals would learn from history. Such is, regretably, not the case.

Unfortunately, our penchant for the idolization of men (and women) can be credited in large part to our hermaneutic. From the cradle, evangelicals have 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 and killed the prophets of Baal. John the Baptist was the great preacher who called all to repentance. Peter also was the great preacher at Pentecost.

We teach the Bible as if it were full of stories about heroes, when in reality it is simply a story of sin and grace. Perhaps this is why, when men like Mel Gibson demonstrate that they are, well, men, we are so shocked. We forget that Abraham was, at heart, a liar, David an adulterer, Solomon a pervert, Elijah a whiner, John a doubter, and Peter an indecisive hot-head. We forget that their moments of greatest strength were so because of God's empowerment which overcame their depravity.

From beginning to end, the Bible has one hero, and that hero is God! He is the grand protagonist throughout both testaments, and the human "heros" are essentially no more than His enemies whom He has brought near to Himself and made friends.

Paul echoes this when he tells Timothy in his first letter to preach that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." Paul understood that from the perspective of the cross, there are no heros, but only those who have been saved by grace. Therefore, as he ministers, he does so not as the great missionary-hero who sweeps in to save the heathen, but rather, as a trophy of the same grace he proclaims to those who will listen.

This perspective will put an end to the myth of Christian heroism. Even in his brightest moments, Mel Gibson is no hero. All good things that resulted from the Passion are so by God's design and power. Conversely, the recent Gibson episode doesn't make him any worse than he has always been. Anti-semitism and alcoholism are simply two expressions of a sinful nature that plagues each one of us. Such a realization will produce the right response from followers of Christ: forgiveness and restoration to one who claims to be our brother, and who has asked for help.

With that said, don't read between the lines that I think we should take Gibson's actions lightly. This is not my point at all. In fact, the restoration process is one that can only properly take place within the bounds of church discipline. The point however, is that what sets the Christian story apart from all others is that it isn't about heroism, but grace. We should expect that adherents to other religious faiths would be shocked by Gibson's actions. Their teachings all appeal to human goodness and human works as a means of acheiving salvation. But true Christianity realizes that apart from God's common and special grace, human goodness is a myth. Therefore, when professing Christians fall, we should condemn the behavior, but not the person. We should express dissapointment, but not shock. We should administer discipline, but not wrath.

"Mad Mel" messed up! Rest assured, he won't be the last! May the church use moments like these to remind ourselves that none of us wear a cape, and only One wears a crown!

The Harvest we Don't See: A Call for a Renewed North American Missiology

Over the past two decades, Evangelicals in North America have been very effective in reaching the lost, discipling them to maturity, and as a result extending the Kingdom of God into darkness . . . .that is, if you are a white, moderately-educated, middle-class, middle-income family! If you belong to any other social strata, any other socio-economic level, or any other ethnic and/or language group, you are simply not even on our radar, and it's high time that changed!

Largely due to the phennomenon of globalization, the ethnic and cultural landscape in North America is becoming more heterogenous every year, with the anticipation that by 2050, there will no longer be a majority Anglo culture in our nation. Major North American cities now share more in common with their sister-metroplexes across the ocean than with the small towns located just a few miles from city limits. In my own mission field of central Maryland, over 160 different languages are spoken, and in some places, such as the Howard County seat of Columbia, all ethnic categories are outpacing Anglos in population growth by double-digits!

Given these striking realities, one would think that those who claim the most commitment to the propogation of Biblical truth would be modeling that commitment via an aggressive missiological strategy to reach all people. Instead, the past two decades have seen Evangelicals basically ignoring those whom God has sent our way, and crying out for the next most effective strategy for reaching people who are just like us!

Such ambivelence toward those of other cultures is not new. In fact, Jesus contended with such cultural myopia in His own disciples. In John 4, He leads His disciples through Samaria toward His ultimate destination of Galilee. Samaria was definitely the wrong side of the tracks, and as far as the disciples were concerned, it had been that way for over 700 years. During the 8th century B.C. the Assyrian army had invaded this same area and scattered 10 of Israel's 12 tribes to the furtherest corners of the earth, leaving only a few in this area who eventually intermarried with the Assyrians, resulting in a new mixed race called the Samaritans. To the Jews, these were "second-class citizens." The disciples of course want nothing to do with this area, or the people who occupy it. But Jesus has other plans, which include a divine encounter with a woman at Jacob's well. Yet in spite of this life-transforming event in her life, the disciples still don't get it, and their ignorance and missiological near-sightedness become the impetus for one of Jesus' greatest challenges: "Look I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest."

In short, Jesus says "you think the harvest is in Galilee, but I have brought you through this place you don't like, and to a people with whom you will not associate, to show you that the harvest is here as well . . . . right in front of your eyes! Look!"

As Reggie McNeal well notes; "It's amazing what we don't see when we aren't looking!"

Fast-forward 2000 years, and we find the same problem. Those we are successfully reaching in North America are, for the most part, exacly like us. As for the few other groups that are successfully being reached (i.e. Asians, Hatians), the credit belongs less to an aggressive North American missions strategy and more to the indigenous evangelical history out of which these groups come. But what kind of attitude causes such a disjointed approach to mission?

For years, Evangelicals have required International Missionaries to learn the language, adopt the dress and cultural practices, and immerse themselves totally in the culture of the people they aspire to reach with the Gospel. But when similar moves are tried in North America, a double-standard results, as many churches simply trying to contextualize the Gospel are accused of compromise.

The cause of this double-standard is multi-faceted, but at the source is an assumption that the United States, unlike every other geo-political nation-state in the world, is monocultural. Because terms like "multiculturalism" were hijacked early-on by the political left in an attempt to bless sinful behavior, Evangelicals have reacted sternly against any suggestion that the term just might have some redeeming quality. One well-known seminary dean even exclaimed that in America "We have ONE culture," and in a moment of imperial superiority invited all to "come and join it."

This is the common misunderstanding: This dean, like many Evangelicals, believes that because our nation shares the same system of government, a common currency, a lingua franca, and a geo-political boundary that we as a result are all a part of the same culture. Nothing could be further from the truth! These boundaries alone do not define a culture.

Further complicating this issue are those on the other side of this debate, who seem to find "people groups" in just about every sub-strata of American life. The result of this kind of thinking is the manifestation of "cowboy churches," "biker churches," "Gen-X churches," and "35-to-40-year-old scored-greater-than-120-on-18-holes-bad golfer churches." Phillip Connor of the Center for Missional Research rightly states that while innumerable affinity groups could be identified in our culture, "it is a stretch to say that each of these population subgroups constitutes an actual 'people group' as defined in the original Greek text found in the Great Commission."

In short, as a biker, I can freely attend the church of which I am a member, and find teaching, encouragement, ministry, and friendship from those who have never availed themselves of the priviledge of mounting a Harley! To put it succinctly, the singular fact that I ride a motorcycle does not produce a significant barrier to my ability to hear and understand the Gospel.

What then does cause significant barriers to hearing and responding to the Gospel? Being a biker in and of itself produces no significant barrier. But what if I am an Hispanic biker immigrant who works two jobs to support my family? To such a person, a church full of white people speaking English, driving Lexus' and meeting at 10:00 on Sunday morning might be an issue! What follows is but an example of the investigation that should be taking place in and around every major metroplex in the US:

The language they speak: Several years ago I was working in North Africa. I was to land in southern Spain, receive briefings on the work to be done, and then cross the Mediterranean Sea to the African continent for a week. After many hours of delayed flights, I found myself re-routed from Chicago and Madrid to Newark and Zurich, Switzerland, finally touching down on the costa del Sol some 12 hours past my scheduled landing. Moreover, my contact had given up on meeting me and had returned to Africa. Of course, being an American, I spoke not one word of Spanish. I had no national currency, no way to get to my destination, and no guidance. After finally locating the phone number of my contact, it was wonderful to communicate with someone who understood me, and who I understood. To me, the English language had never sounded so beautiful!

Likewise, while those from other nations usually come to our shores with some working knowledge of our language, hearing their own dialect instantly removes all communication barriers! It is imperative, as we begin to investigate the various people groups in North America, that we identify the common languages, both official and tribal, that exist among these people. Furthermore, North American missionaries called to reach these people should do all within their power to make the Gospel available in the "heart language" of the people. Connor notes that those living in North America who represent the most unevangelized areas on the globe (i.e. the Middle East, Eastern Asia) appear to have the fewest number of indigenous churches available to them. While a number of barriers must be breached for this to change, the language barrier is, to many of these groups, primary.

The demographic context in which they are found: This of course, addresses a host of issues such as race, income, education, marital status, living conditions, and even age. While much criticism has rightly been leveled at "generational theory," I find that many are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by stating that a person's generational grouping is of no consequence. While it is correct that much of what was published in the past concerning generational theory was aimed primarily at white suburbanites, I still contend that this is still an important factor in determining an appropriate missiological response. For example, African-Americans born prior to 1964 had much different experiences than African-Americans born after 1980, and these various experiences will affect both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds of their respective worldviews.

Likewise, there has been an increasing dichotomy between residents of rural areas as opposed to those living in the nations' cities. Much of the world and life view of these two groups is formed, at least in part, on the basis of their location. Such a factor cannot be ignored when considering how best to reach people. In fact, most of the church planting failures I have witnessed came as a result of missing this key differentiation. If you are in a socially-conservative rural area, you simply cannot "copy-cat" a ministry model perfected in the city!

The questions they are asking: Ed Stetzer has observed that while 20% of the US population still wonders about what will happen to them when they die, the other 80% are largely ignored by Evangelicals because our canned evangelistic approaches are only addressing the question of life after death. While a person's eternal destination is one of the most important reasons we practice evangelism, we must meet these people at their point of concern, and for many, that concern simply isn't about the afterlife. Our task as missionaries to North America is to discover the questions that disturb the various groups we are trying to reach. No matter what they are asking, the Gospel is the answer! But in order to know how best to present that answer, we must make sure we are reaching them at their point of greatest perceived need.

The bottom line of all this is simple: We excel in reaching people who are exactly like us, stink at reaching anyone else, and as a result, at least 2/3 of the 320 million people living in the US are without a relationship to Jesus Christ. If we want that to change, we must stop deceiving ourselves into thinking that we are still a "Christian nation" with one culture, one voice, one purpose, and one set of beliefs and values. Over the past half-century, Jesus has been in the process of bringing the nations right to our door. And unlike the church in any other nation, American Christianity has the means and resources to take the Gospel to them all. But the one thing required for this is that which we have not yet done: Lift up your eyes and see the harvest!

Further Resources:

Discover more helpful information at the Center for Missional Research by clicking the link below:

Connor, Phillip. 2006. A Biblical Missiology for North American People Groups. Accessed 16 July, 2006 at www.namb.net/cmr

McNeal, Reggie. 2003. The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A Blogging Break, and Five Books Every Pastor Should Read this Year.

One of the more ruinous aspects of my seminary education is that I emerged with both a degree and an addiction to books. As one who reads seven to ten books per month on average, I often find myself "going through the motions" of merely transferring information from pounds and pounds of former-trees into my fallen brain.

Occassionally, I read a book or other resource that piques my interest enough to reccomend it to another. But rarely do the contents of a book move me to reccomend it to any and all. This is why I find 2006 an odd year, because less than months into the appointments in my PDA, I have found at least one book per month to be (in my opinion) indispensable to pastors and church planters.

For the next two and a half weeks, I will be attending the Southern Baptist Convention, and then helping lead a team of over 300 volunteers from Maryland to Mississippi to help with hurricane relief. There are many others who will be "live blogging" from the Convention. (see www.sbcoutpost.com, and www.stevekmccoy.com, for just two examples) While I appreciate each of their unique perspectives, adding my own to cyberspace would likely only clutter up the place. Plus, I want to take the time when I'm not working on my SBC committee assignment and spend some quality time with the family, and I've discovered that laptop computers can pose a great barrier to familial intimacy.

To be sure, there are things worth writing about that I will address soon enough. Look for this site to become very active again around the first of July. For now, let me leave you with the following reccomended reading, which in sum is far more substantive than my own feeble contributions.

Each of the resources below is reccomended for various reasons, and I am certainly not endorsing all that you will read. But the information and inspiration to be gleaned from the following resources will be invaluable to pastors trying to get their arms around their ministries, as well as their contexts. Therefore, I reccommend the following as "must-reading" for the remainder of 2006.

Barna, George. 2006. Revolution.
I know, I know. The biggest complaint about this book is that is touts a very weak ecclesiology, and this complaint is legitimate! But sense when do we expect a statistician to articulate a robust understanding of such things?

The same rule that holds true for Barna's other works hold equally true for this one. If you read Barna as a theologian, you will either finish the book very angry, or very confused. However, if you read him for what he is (i.e. someone with his finger on the pulse of both the church and the culture), you will glean much-needed knowlege from his "descriptions", while taking his "prescriptions" lightly at best. Like his past works, this one is dead-on in its description of the context where the western church currently finds itself.


Murrow, David. 2005. Why Men Hate Going to Church
Anyone who thinks the church is "masculine" enough will find this book by Discovery Channel producer David Murrow very frustrating. But if you, like me, believe that many local churches have been stripped of their "guts," (or maybe even stripped of other body parts a few inches south of there), you will find this work a breath of fresh air. With breathtaking candor, Murrow speaks of why men don't lead, don't attend, and honestly don't care when it comes to local church participation. The careful theologian will find himself at odds with Murrow on a few points. But over all, this book presents a much-needed clarion call for the church to get back in touch with its masculine side!


Mahanney, C.J. 2004. Humility: True Greatness.
If you are wondering which book will best compliment your Bible as you do your private devotions this summer, I'd give this one a look. C.J. Mahanney is the embodiment of the very thing about which he writes, and the challenges he issues will have you looking beneath your manners, your public prayers, and your fained humble spirit in order to kill every last vestige of pride in your being.

Why is he so passionate about slaying this particular sin? If his definition of pride is anywhere near accurate, you will strengthen your focus to slay it too! Pride, according to Mahanney, is "when sinful human beings aspire to the status and position of God and refuse to acknowledge their dependence on Him." In short, Mahanney skips right past the "symptoms" of pride, which we so often mistake for th real thing, and helps the reader face the ugly nature of this gross sin for what it is.

Roberts, Bob. 2006. Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World.
If you are a pastor trying to grow your church and have Kingdom impact with a spiritually "empty tank," this book contains jet fuel! And Bob Roberts isn't just casting a vision for community transformation and global impact. He and his church are living it! You will be challenged afresh to reorient your thinking and that of your church concerning God's definition of "success" and "obedience." This book lays out solid and real pictures of the Kingdom of God on the move, and will be one of the most pleasant drinks you have ever had from a fire hose.

Stetzer, Ed and David Putman. 2006. Breaking the Missional Code.
I'll be finished with this one by week's end, but I'm already praying that pastors in my area will get this book so that they can "get" this book. Stetzer and Putman remind readers in chapter after chapter that our North American mission strategy now must be taken from the pages of veteran foregin missionaries. More than this, they give readers the practical steps neccesary to know their communities fully, and thereby reach them more effectively.

Look for a more complete review of this book in particular on this site later in the summer.

Well, one more day of work and I'm off to Greensboro! I hope to meet many of you there. As for the rest of you, pop in from time to time to post and say hello, or continue sending email my way. I hope everyone has a great summer!

Calvinism and Contention: Who is Stirring Up all the Trouble?

So that you will know up front, this post is about Calvinism, and the next will be about the place of women in the church. I thought, since I am about to leave for two weeks to attend the Southern Baptist Convention and help lead a mission team to Mississippi, that I would like to guarantee a full mail box upon my return!

Every once in a while, urban legend makes its way into the church via an imagined controversy. While such conspiracy theories are usually harmless, they can also sometimes stir up needless strife within the body. With regard to the issue of Calvinism and all the noise recently made about it across Southern Baptist life, I am wondering whether this is a true threat as many contend, or simply a scapegoat so that we don't have to examine the real issues behind our problems.

I was reminded of this today after coming home from the office and picking up my latest copy of National Liberty Journal. (Yes, I admit to getting, and sometimes even reading this monthly apologia for the Republican party.) On the front page, Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, forwards the idea that one of the biggest threats to the unity of Baptist churches is Calvinism. Caner states that "it has become so commonplace in Baptist life, many of us just skim past the articles. In a Baptist paper recently, I read: "Another Church Splits Over Calvinism." Baptist news agencies have begun to investigate this mounting issue."

I hear similar things from pastors from time to time, but have yet to find anyone who can point to a definite example of a church that literally split over this issue. And one would think, given the large numbers of Baptist churches rent in two each year, that at least one tangible example could be presented.

Adding to these thoughts, I should probably reveal at this point that I personally lean very heavily in the Reformed direction. But I've never been angry about it, never attempted to convert a church to it, and honestly detest much of what has been said over the past decade by BOTH sides of the debate regarding this issue.

This is not to say that when I get to texts like Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 that I simply skip over them for the sake of "peace", and I would hope that those who have a different view of these texts would resist that temptation as well! It is however to say that I have always challenged my people to be good Bereans, examine the text for themselves, and draw their conclusions, not based on their pre-conceived notions, or on my opinion, but on the text as it stands. And what has been the result of this approach? In my first pastorate, the church doubled in average worship attendance over a three-year period and saw 60% of its growth come from people turning from their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ. I later planted a church that continues to make Kingdom impact, and has helped to birth two other churches. Presently, I get to ride the wave of what I truly believe will become a church planting movement in central Maryland. How did my understanding of the "doctrines of grace" affect this? Well, for one thing, I understand that I didn't accomplish any of the above. God by His grace chose to do it through me even though I didn't deserve it!

To be sure, I'm aware of the fact that there are a few Calvinists out there, "green" in the ministry, usually just out of seminary, who can cause quite a stir. But I have yet to see any examples of such young bucks tearing into a helpless church and leaving them broken. In every case like this I have seen, the congregation, showing much more spiritual maturity than their young pastor, simply fires the guy, and the trouble is over! Al Mohler (himself a five-point Calvinist) has wisely said that any seminary student who becomes convinced of Calvinism should immediately be detained in prison cell for a "cooling off" period! But while I appreciate all the perceived angst over what some believe to be false doctrine, I'm simply not convinced that this threat is real. To use a southern metaphor, I think it is highly possible that the whole "Calvinism debate" is no more than a theological "snipe hunt."

That said, I was surprised to hear Dr. Caner speaking of this "threat" as if the destruction of the entire Southern Baptist Convention were imminent because of it! But frankly, the more I read of his front-page article, the more I came face-to-face with categorical fallicies, undefined and mis-defined terminology, and broad sweeping generalizations. Honestly, given Dr. Caner's past track record of "debate," I should have expected no less. But I was hoping for much more from a seminary president who touts himself as the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world."

Caner's latest article is but one of a long string of vitriolic outburtsts at those who have differences with him on issues secondary to the Christian faith. Initially, I thought it best to leave this one alone. But if you are a baseball fan you know that sometimes its hard to resist when the pitcher keeps trying to get you to swing at a pitch in the dirt. Sometimes you have to pick the ball up and throw it back in his face!

Therefore, what follows are responses to a five-fold description Caner gives of "Hyper-Calvinism." My reason for this is not to prove one side or the other. The relationship between divine sovereingty and human responsibility has been debated for over 500 years, since before the Reformation, and we aren't about to end that discussion in a single blog entry! Still, my contention here is that if there is trouble over Calvinism in the Convention, it might possibly be caused just as much by those on the other side. And mischaracterizing a person's position is certainly a way to stir up trouble! So let's take a look at Ergun Caner's description of this "danger" called "Hyper-Calvinism."

Says Caner: 1. Double Predestination. Simply put, they believe that a small group of people are predestined, even before the Creation, for heaven, and that the vast majority of the world is predestined, even created for, hell.

This is an interesting way to present this doctrine. First of all, Ephesians 1: 4 states clearly that election, whatever you believe about it, happened "before the foundation of the world." To put it bluntly, Caner's problem with God acting prior to creation isn't with the Calvinists. It's with the Bible
Second, I know of no one holding this view who believes that the saved constitute only a "small number." In fact, when I read Revelation 7, John tells me that the number of the redeemed is so great, mathematics fails at keeping track of them all! Conversely, of those who go to hell, Caner speaks as if these were somehow OK with God until He made a decision to send them there. He forgets the simple Biblical truth that ALL are born dead. Therefore, while a Calvinist may technically believe in what is called "double predestination," no serious student of Scripture believes that "election" and "reprobation" are both active steps of God. "Reprobation," or the sending of someone to hell is done passively. God doesn't actively predestine anyone to hell. He simply allows them to follow their own self-made path of destruction which ends up there. If I die lost, God doesn't have to "predestine" me to hell, because I've been on my way there my whole life!

Furthermore, the contention that the majority of humanity will go to hell is in fact Biblical! Jesus repeatedly states throughout the Scriptures that more will be lost than will be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). This has nothing to do with Calvinism. It is clearly taught in the Bible.

2. Not all babies who die go to heaven. They do not say outright that 'non-elect babies who die go to hell.' They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?

For the record, I personally believe that all who die in infancy go to be with Jesus. I make this claim primarily on the basis of David's statement in 2 Samuel, where he looks forward in faith to the moment when he will see his newborn son in heaven.

That said, I have friends who do in fact believe what Caner has described above. While I do not agree, I do appreciate their struggle with this issue, and their refusal to ignore the truth that we are all born dead in our trespasses and sins, and that the "age of accountability" is nowhere to be found in the Biblical text. My own answer to this is that God regenerates the infant prior to death, and I admit that this is an incomplete answer, because it does not address how God does so apart from repentance and faith.

Caner contends that to even discuss such an issue "raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?" No it does not. It does however, raise the issue of human nature, which Caner seems to completely ignore here. Trite answers to hard questions like this help no one. And lest you think I'm simply living in an ivory tower, I'd remind you that you are reading the words of a father who has six-year-old and eight-month-old sons! What would I do if something happened to one of my boys? If I am given the choice between wringing my hands over whether they were old enough, knew enough, believed enough, or simply placing them in the sovereign hands of the Judge of the Earth whom Scripture tells me always does what is right, I choose the later!

3. God's "love for mankind" must be redefined. Yes, they will say. God does love the world. But His love is a matter of degrees . . .They do not believe that God wants a relationship with everyone. That would go against their system and theology.

Where do I even start? Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe that God truly desires a relationship with every person! 1 Timothy 2: 4 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The problem however, which Caner has completely ignored, is that not all are saved, and both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have their own understanding as to why this is. Neither side would say that there is something or someone more powerful than God who is keeping Him from saving all people. But BOTH sides believe that while God values the salvation of all men, there is something else that He values more. Calvinists say that God values the full display of His glory in both His justice and mercy more than the salvation of all men. Non-Calvinists say that God values man's free will more than the salvation of all men. But neither side, including the Calvinist side, says that God does not have a genuine love for the whole world, nor does either side deny that God is full of sorrow when the wicked refuse to repent. (Ezekiel 18:32)

4. Invitations are an insult to the sovereingty of God. Disturbing as this may sound, some ministers of this stripe have stopped giving invitations in their services.

Caner may be unaware that many non-Calvinists are also jettisonning the formal "invitation." No such presentation is given at Marathon Community Church in Easley South Carolina. Yet this church has grown to over 5000 in nine years without such a man-made practice. His myopic sense of history may in fact be prohibiting him from realizing that this formal way of inviting people to come to the front of a church building is a quite new approach, popularized by the revivalist Charles G. Finney.

Do I personally think "invitations" are an insult to God? In general, no. I came to faith in Christ by responding to just such an invitation.

However, do I think "mood music,"turning down the lights, appeals empowered more by emotionalism than truth, shouting over the music, "programming" people to come forward in order to "get it started," 493 verses of "Just as I Am," and marking such a time as more "sacred" than the previous half-hour spent in the Bible is an insult to God? Yes I do! In fact, I believe such actions border on the blasphemous!

5. Calvinism is the only Gospel. they believe that Calvinism, and only Calvinism is the preaching of the Gospel.

This is simply not true! I have rejoiced to hear the Gospel preached by Methodists, Pentecostals, Free-will Baptists, Nazarene's, and a host of others who would reject the "doctrines of grace." Such a characterization may be rightly fitted on the recent seminary graduate I mention above, but I know of no serious pastor holding to Calvinism who would say such a thing.

I found it interesting that, given all the "differences" Dr. Caner claims to have with someone like me, his description of the Gospel was identical to my own. He writes: "I believe Jesus Christ died to save mankind and offers salvation to every living soul. I believe in the 'whosoever will.' I believe that His love and salvation are extended to every person who will repent of sin and trust in Him."

To the above, I can only say "AMEN!"

So then, what is the problem? From whence comes all of the "trouble" Caner laments?

My own experiences after nearly a decade and a half in ministry have taught me that many times, the issue isn't about doctrine so much as it is about attitude. In a sense, Caner has a point. There is a vast difference between being a "Calvinist" and being a "Calvinazi." But this same point could be turned back on Caner himself. It is one thing to reject Calvinism on what you perceive to be Biblical grounds. It is quite another to mischaracterize, mallign, slander, and build "straw men," and then turn around and blame the other side for "stirring up trouble" or for "causing division," or for "splitting churches."

As a pastor, I have nearly fired staff for pushing Calvinism in the church as if the continued life of the congregation depended on their admiration of TULIP. I have also passed over otherwise qualified and talented staff who were non-Calvinists, and wanted to make an issue of it! In short, I've never hired or fired anyone because they were, or were not, a Calvinist. I have however, put my foot in the hind parts of staff members because they were jerks!

So in the end, I would contend that one side is stirring the waters on this issue every bit as much as the other side. And the sad part of this is that NEITHER side can be as evangelistically productive while yelling across the aisle.

On a more personal note, what can I do to quell this unneccesary struggle? Aside from making corrections as I have done above, I can continue to work with those who disagree with me on this issue, because making Jesus known is more important.

I can also continue to recognize that those who differ with me on this issue are my brothers in Christ . . .and when I say that I don't mean to imply that they are my "little brothers." Some seem to approach this issue in exactly this way: thinking they are promoting "unity" because they "tolerate" the other side even though the other side has what they believe to be a "warped view of God." Such a view is built on sinful pride, and will never put an end to the contention.

John Wesley never thought that George Whitefield didn't really mean it when he called sinners to believe in Christ. Whitefield likewise, never accused Wesley of not believing in a sovereign God. Maybe we should try to learn something from these two men who, while they could not have been further apart on this issue, continued to labor together in the same harvest field.

Since 1845, Southern Baptists have had robust debate about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsbility. What has kept this discussion healthy is that we have kept it "in house" and "off" the mission field! My call here is simply to stop the madness! Both sides have to stop marginalizing each other, calling each other "extremists," viewing each other as a "threat," and believing that the other teaches heresy.

Both sides preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of continuing to tear each other down, maybe we should try working together to lift Him up!

Welcome to the Real World! (A Review of Driscoll's "Confessions...")

Reading most narrative resources on church planting is very much like trying to leave reality and live in a dream world. The inspiring but atypical stories found in books by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley have the capacity to make a church planter dream big, but they can also lead him to fall hard! Yet Mark Driscoll's latest work introduces aspiring apostolic leaders to the hard realities of church planting, as well as the glorious finish line that can await all faithful servants of Jesus.

In 2001 when my family and I began planting a church, I read all the resources that were at the time considered "required reading." I still remember reading about the Real Estate broker who found Rick Warren a rent-free home for a month and simultaneously joined his church. I remember rejoicing as I read about the rapid growth of Willow Creek, and dreaming big while reading Stanley's success story known as Northpointe Church. Six months later, with no building, no money, and struggling to gather a core group, I felt very much like the special needs student who had accidentally signed up for the AP calculus course. I honestly wondered what I was doing wrong, not thinking about the possibility that Rick, Andy and Bill might be telling stories of extraordinary moves of God . . . .the exception rather than the rule.

Five years later, that church which began as a vision from God came togetherwith an older, established congregation, and by His grace continues to worship on Parkins Mill Road in Greenville South Carolina. It has helped to birth two other congregations in the Greenville area as well, but not without almost killing me first! My experiences there taught me that while it is OK to dream big, reading stories about airplanes full of people coming to Jesus can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations.

Now I have the privilege of overseeing the work of church planting in one of the most affluent areas in the country, and God is allowing me to share my limited experience with the guys who are now doing the work. While I want them to dream big, and expect God to do big things, I don't want them to think that growth comes without blood, sweat, tears, demonic oppression, temptation, fatigue, and a host of other impediments. Now that Driscoll's book Confessions is finally in print, I have a resource that will help them see this.

In the book, Mark Driscoll chronicles the birth and growth of Seattle's Mars Hill Church. Each of the seven chapters details a segment of growth within the church, which began in Driscoll's living room in 1996 with 12 people, and has since blossomed into a congregation of over 4,000. Throughout the book, there is a healthy balance of inspirational accounts of conversion and discipleship with brutal honesty concerning the sacrifice neccesary to bring about such spiritual development. Not content to allow you to see only the present worship center after a Sunday morning, Driscoll takes you into his living room where 12 people gathered initially, into the upstairs youth room of a fundamentalist church with 70s shag carpet where the church met for a period of time, into his bedroom at 3 AM for a rather blunt and personal "counseling" phone call with a porn-addict, and even into his own mind as he recounts his personal experiences with sexual temptation, spiritual warfare, sleeplessness, marital discord, frustration, anger and fatigue.

The stories come to life in a way only Driscoll can communicate, and each of his personal experiences leaves the reader with valuable lessons that will prove useful during the church planting experience. As I was reading, I found myself consistently asking "where was this book five years ago?" After reading this work, I have come to the conclusion that either Mark and I are both insane, and the only two people who have experienced such things, or his experiences represent the "norm" of church planting with much more accuracy. While I admit that my sanity is a point of debate among some friends of mine, I will opt for the second possibility.

There are a number of reasons this book should be on every church planter's shelf. First of all, there is a very helpful introduction in which Driscoll asks ten very probing questions that will help pastors and church planters alike shape the vision of their church in a way that will glorify God. Affectionately entitled "Chapter Zero," this section deals with the balance between "Gospel," "Culture," and "Church," and seeks to pull the reader from thinking of church planting solely in terms of "attraction," to thinking missionally so that their church will permeate its community with Gospel presence.

Second, Driscoll is an unabashed theological conservative, and helps today's church planters not lose sight of the fact that our programming, strategies, theological understanding, and ecclesiological foundations must be taken solely from the text of Scripture. One exerpt serves as an example:

At the time, it was becoming increasingly popular for young pastors to have churches that were not called "churches," but rather silly things like "new monastic communities," and leaders that were not called "pastor," but rather silly things like "abbess," or "spiritual director." As our mission began to develop, the New Testament teaching on church leadership and church discipline seemed increasingly wise and urgent to implement, before we ended up like the church at Corinth, divided and off mission because of folly and sin. Over the years, I have become increasingly troubled by the frequency with which young pastors simply dismiss the New Testament teaching on church leadership and discipline, so that if four guys are drinking beer in a pub, they can call it a church." (p.47)

Driscoll also takes the opportunity at one point in the book to distance himself from much of the aberrant theology coming out of Emergent. Recounting his experiences with Brian McLaren, Driscoll says "though I sincerely love Brian and appreciate the kindness he has shown to me, I generally disagree with many of his theological conclusions . . . .His pacifism seems to underlie many of our theological disagreements since he has a hard time accepting such things as the violence of penal substitutionary atonement, parts of the Old Testament where God killed people, and the concept of conscious eternal torment in hell . . . .I find it curious that, from my perspective, he is using his power as a writer and speaker to do violence to Scripture in the name of pacifism." (p.99)

Third, as I mentioned before, Driscoll's story is a "real world" story, that will likely be much more reflective of the average church planter's experiences. Angry core group members walking out, theological heresy causing the resignation of staff, and immature Christians seeking to lead before they are ready are but a few of the experiences Driscoll shares that I suspect will cause almost everyone who has planted a church to say "I remember that!"

Fourth, interspersed between these brutally true experiences are stories of grace. Driscoll is careful to note that even in the middle of the toughest times, God was working to save people at Mars Hill, and the stories are moving to say the least. Each chapter is prefaced with a one-sentence testimony that reminds the reader of the work of God, even in the midst of apparent chaos. These testimonies reveal such things as:

-God saved me while I was living with my lesbian mom and my dad was in prison for murder. I am a founding pastor.

-I was a pothead until I got saved and now I am the president of the chamber of commerce and the executive pastor.

-I was not a Christian when I came to the church. Today, I am a pastor.

Finally, Driscoll is abundantly clear throughout that the success of Mars Hill is owed to God alone. While no one who has planted a church would deny such a statement, many books on the subject seem to leave the reader with the impression that "our church grew because we . . . .[fill in the blank]." To be sure, Driscoll relates the lessons he has learned the hard way in the hopes that others will choose a less rocky path. But in the end, Mars Hill is shown to be totally the work of God. Driscoll admits from the very first sentence when he says, "I have made so many mistakes as a pastor that I should be pumping gas for a living instead of preaching the Gospel." And of the end result of his labors he states, "basically, we are a kite in God's hurricane, which is an absolute joke for reasons that will become apparent as you read through the book." (p.9)

Two cautions are in order. First, his comparisons of congregational ecclesiology with Senior Pastor and Elder ecclesiology is an exercise in oversimplification, and assumes these leadership models to be mutually exclusive. His rationale against "majority vote" decision-making in the church is worthy of a strong hearing, but in the end, he throws the baby out with the bathwater by seeing "congregationalism" as synonymous with "democracy." I agree with Driscoll that the latter has been syncretized into the local church in America, but the former has Biblical merit, and should be given more careful consideration.

Another caution is that some will find the way Driscoll sometimes expresses himself to be offensive. Many reviews have already been written that chide Driscoll heavily for what is perceived to be "coarse and offensive" language that occassionally appears in the book. But in the end, I would encourage the reader to resist straining at this gnat so that you can be blessed by hearing the heart of this pastor-missionary.

Mark Driscoll is a God-send to the emerging church. His newest book is Biblically sound, brutally honest, and cross-centered. This will be required reading for any of our new church planters. I am confident that the book will encourage them to equip themselves for the task ahead.

Driscoll, Mark. 2006. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

On Cash and Cooperation

Since the nomination of Arkansas pastor Ronnie Floyd for President of the Southern Baptist Convention two weeks ago, much noise has been made of the percentage his FBC Springdale gives to the Cooperative Program. Many of those calling for closer scrutiny of Dr. Floyd's financial commitments to the Southern Baptist machine are dear friends of mine, and people with whom I largely agree regarding recent events that have taken place in Southern Baptist life. Admittedly, $32,000 in total CP giving seems a paltry sum on the surface, when compared with a total church budget of nearly $12 million.

Still, before casting stones at Ronnie Floyd, a closer examination must be given to the overall commitment Springdale First possesses to missions. And one other observation is also in order: namely, the reality of "postdenominationalism" and its practical outworking, even in more established congregations like Floyd's.

Maybe in order to see the entire issue more clearly, both sides of this discussion need to tone it down a bit. For instance, one side needs to recognize the difference between tough, up front questions and character assassination. Marty Duren links to an excellent example of this confusion as one blogger writes "One thing that has troubled me lately is the amount of slanderous chatter going on via the blogosphere. I cannot understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and then go out and attempt to demolish the character of a fellow laborer of Christ. Someone please explain that! I can tell all the naysayers this: Ronnie Floyd is a man of God who is, in my mind, unmatched in his committment to preaching the word of God for what it is without apology."

Perhaps there are some postings in cyberspace which are more jaded than they should be, but I know of no serious thinker in SBC life, including many "younger leaders" who would disagree with the above statement. I too admire Dr. Floyd for his service to FBC Springdale, and for the impact that he has no doubt had on our culture through his broadcast ministry. The question at hand has nothing to do with Ronnie Floyd as a person, or Ronnie Floyd as a man of God. The question at hand is one of comparing recent SBC lamentings about the pathetic giving records of many of her elected leaders with the giving record at FBC Springdale.

Southern Baptists have a right to know why a candidate for the SBC presidency gives a sum to the Cooperative Program comparatvely as small as a fundamentalist's Sunday afternoon tip at Dennys. That said, I personally don't feel this issue is enough to warrant looking toward another candidate, and over all, I think Ronnie Floyd would do a superb job as the next SBC President. Still, to accuse those asking tough and neccesary questions of character assassination is to skirt the real issue, to say the least.

On the other side of this conversation are those who simply want to know the reasons behind a .27 percent CP giving record. While this is a fair question, consideration must also be given to the overall missions and outreach emphasis that is taking place in Springdale Arkansas. In addition to the $189,000 given in total to Southern Baptist causes (1.6% according to Florida Baptist Witness contributor Michael Petty), Floyd's church has partnered to plant many churches both in the US and abroad. And FBC Springdale is but one example of a host of churches doing this very same thing. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin predicted eight years ago that even theologically conservative denominations will face both downsizing and de-centralizing in years to come.

Driven by the Biblical conviction that the local church decides its own destiny and mission under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, churches will begin alligning themselves with multiple entities of like affinity that they perceive will help them to accomplish their vision. This is a trend that actually began more than a decade ago, with organizations like the Willow Creek Association. Today, other networks like Acts 29 are enlisting partners from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Each of those churches remains affiliated with its denomination on doctrinal matters, but alligns itself with other networks that will more effectively help it to reach its goals.

That said, I'm grateful for the guys out there asking the tough questions about Ronnie Floyd. But although we all have a right to know, we also need to consider the possibility that maybe, by contributing to many different streams of missions, Ronnie Floyd embodies the kind of multiple-allignment predicted by guys like Camino and Lattin, and rightly celebrated by guys like Steve McCoy.

The real crime here is that there appears to be somewhat of a double-standard on this issue. For example, when we enlist and fund guys to plant churches, we require them to give a certain percentage of their undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program (and its a lot more than .27 percent!) Had one of my church planters given a percentage close to that of FBC Springdale, I would have pastors asking me to defund his ministry. Yet it is possible that the SBC President elected this year could be pastor of a church that gives less than one half of one percent to the Cooperative Program. The bottom line is that we have no consensus on what it really means to support Southern Baptist missions.

Maybe it is at this juncture that we can learn from the emerging networks. Some, such as Willow Creek Association, have set dues depending ont he size of one's church. Others, like the Acts 29 network, require a certain percentage of a church's budget for that church to remain affiliated. Although I am not in favor of requiring "tithing" to the CP by SBC churches, I think a baseline requirement for CP giving in order for a church to remain SBC is not out of order. Personally, I would reccomend at least 2% of a church's budget given to the Cooperative Program and Association combined in order to identify as a Southern Baptist Church. I anticipate that there will be cries about "congregational autonomy," if and when such measures are suggested. But how would baseline giving criteria threaten the autonomy of the local church? If the church doesn't want to give, they are in a sense already declaring that they don't value being a part of the SBC, but they haven't lost their right to decide their own direction under the Lordship of Jesus.

My guess is that all the noise about Ronnie Floyd is due to the fact that we have no idea what it means to be a "committed Southern Baptist." We need a serious discussion about what this does mean. We need to come to consensus on what is and is not an appropriate level of Cooperative Program support. And when this is done, let's be consistent with how we apply our conclusions. The standard applied to Ronnie Floyd ought to be the same standard applied to an unknown church planter in suburban Baltimore. What's good for the goose . . .

Spiritual Authority and the "Memphis Declaration."

This week in Memphis Tennessee, Calvinists sat down to eat with Arminians. Premillenialists spent time in prayer with Amillennialists. Cessationists teamed up with Continuationists. All Southern Baptists, this diverse group, made up of roughly thirty pastors and laity, came together in a time of prayer and repentance, and left Memphis with a unified statement calling for cooperation under the Lordship of Jesus Christ to advance His Gospel in the world. In doing this, they not only provided Southern Baptists with a glimpse of the kind of unity that should permeate our denominational culture, but they also exemplified the epitome of Southern Baptist's deepest and most pressing need: Spiritual authority.

I admit at the outset that when I first heard of the meeting that would take place in Memphis, I was concerned. I know personally many of the men who participated. I share their strong conviction that narrowing the parameters of cooperation in our Convention will be detrimental to the advance of the Gospel, and deadly to our continued participation in extending the reign of Jesus Christ in the world. I'm also convinced that while a course-correction away from such a tendency comes primarily from planting and growing healthy churches, systemic change cannot take place apart from addressing the system as it exists. Yet while working in Chicago this week, I prayed often for my brothers, that their meeting would not be perceived as an attempt to grab power and control. After seeing the results of their time together, my concerns are not only alleviated, but I have a fresh hope for where Southern Baptists can go from here.

Presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is in danger of falling prey to theological and ecclesiological myopia. The recent policy and guideline moves at the International Mission Board, while the most visible examples of this danger, are merely symptoms of a greater problem. When you are the largest Protestant denomination in America, it is easy to think that your size indicates your superiority and significance. Those meeting in Memphis understood that there is a fine line between standing resolutely on your own convictions, and aggressively, or even passively, degrading the convictions of others. Within, our arguments have been over whether God's election is conditional or unconditional, whether the milennium is literal or figurative, whether the "sign gifts" ceased with the closing of the canon, or have continued to the present day. Since 1845, such arguments have not only remained "in house," but also "off" the mission field. Our brothers and sisters who met in Memphis want to keep it that way.

Still, it is possible for one to be right in the wrong way, and the wrong approach to addressing these volatile issues could have easily caused a schism within our ranks. Given the strong convictions that exist regarding these issues within the Convention, the Memphis Declaration could have resulted in the taking of "sides," and forwarding another theological battle similar to the inerrancy debates which took place two decades ago. But those writing the declaration chose not to take sides. To be sure, they stated their convictions with clarity, but not in a polarizing way.

Instead, in the tradition of Ezra, this group of faithful Southern Baptists wrote a public statement of repentance. Realizing that the Gospel is the great unifier, this group wrote a declaration that resists looking at all the current issues as a division between "heroes and enemies" and instead forwards a statement that emphasizes the sin in all of us that causes ungodly conflict, and the grace of God that empowers us to unity in spite of our differences.

This is refreshing for several reasons. For one, the Southern Baptist Convention for the past two decades has been led primarily by "positional" authority. Yet all this time, I have been convinced that "spiritual" authority has been thriving beneath the surface, empowering the SBC to continue its Great Commission task. Spiritual authority, as Gary Mayes describes it, is "quality found in leaders who speak with an authority beyond themselves." Examples of such authority are seen in the Apostles (Acts 4:13), and Jesus Himself (Matthew 7:28-29). Mayes goes on to state that to possess spiritual authority, one must surrendered to God, alligned with His will, broken before His presence, and vulnerable to the point that His spirit can work through us with complete freedom. As I read this document, these are the characteristics that I strongly sense. I know a few of the folks who were in Memphis. Though I love them, and though they are good men, I can assure you that such a humble statement did not come from them alone (and had I been there, they would have said the same thing about me). It is obvious to me that these men and women literally spent two days with Jesus.

The Memphis group has stood only on Scripture, only against darkness, and is seeking to stand with as many Southern Baptists as will agree to join them in repentance. And this is one Southern Baptist who will. Shortly after the public release of this document, I was contacted and asked to sign it. I declined at first, not because of any objection I have to its contents, but in order to do some introspection. After taking the time to do this, I am willing to own my part of the sin in our denomination. In the past, I have been guilty of marginalizing people without personally meeting them. I have spoken before having all the facts. I have used the label "liberal" because it was easier than getting to know someone who differed with me theologically. I have allowed "guilt by association" to deter me from developing genuine friendships with people who have turned out to be godly and righteous. I admit to my own contribution to the problems present in the SBC. As a result, my signature will soon be affixed to the document.

Spiritual Authority is what turned the disciples into commandos. It is what permeated the hearts of the martyrs. It has been at the heart of all the great revivals the world has known for the last 2000 years. And spiritual authority can empower the SBC to be a leader among other evangelicals to transform the world for the sake of the Gospel. But if we want to be first, we have to be last! This is, I believe, at the heart of the "Memphis Declaration." I join my brothers and sisters in endorsing its content, and invite my readership to do the same. To add your name, send your request to Mary Duren at martyduren@yahoo.com, with your name, church membership, and city. The Declaration is pasted below for your review.

There are lots of folks expecting a fight in Greensboro. Pray instead for spiritual authority that will take our theological, methodological and missiological diversity, and create a unity that glorifies God.

_____

MEMPHIS DECLARATION: MAY 3, 2006

We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering.

We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.

We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:

1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.

2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.

3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.

4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.
Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.

8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.
Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.