We Believe What? New Lifeway Research Reveals that our "Consensus Statement" May be Anything But When it Comes to Communion

The good folks at Lifeway Research just released some insightful data related to the practices of Southern Baptist Churches when it comes to communion, and its relationship to what our confession of faith actually says we believe.

For readers outside my denominational tribe who wonder why this matters:  Baptists observe only two church ordinances; baptism, and communion or "The Lord's Supper," and the history of our distinctive identity is largely bound up in how we view and practice these ordinances.  

I'll let the article below speak for itself, but will say that its contents should prompt discussion regarding whether our current confession of faith is really, as it claims to be "a consensus of opinion" of Southern Baptists.

Of course, the wider context of this is the comparison of what we say Southern Baptists believe with how we actually practice our faith in our churches and communities.  Though personally in agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, I've worked with Baptists at the Associational level long enough to know that this document cannot realistically be considered a true statement of consensus, if for no other reason than most were not present to approve it in 2000 and many have not even read it.  I've often chuckled when I hear people say "the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists believe" when referring to the BFM2000.  I do this because anyone who is the least bit in touch with reality knows the most positive thing we can say about this document is "the overwhelming majority of the less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Southern Baptists who were actually present to vote on this document believe . . ."

In the end, this apparent disparity between what is on paper and what goes on in our churches related to this most central of Baptist teachings should at least prompt a basic question:  is it time to revisit our "consensus" statement?

LifeWay surveys Lord’s Supper practices of SBC churches

By Carol Pipes

NASHVILLE, Tenn.— The majority of Southern Baptist churches permit anyone who has put their faith in Jesus Christ to participate in the Lord’s Supper, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research. The survey also revealed that 57 percent of SBC churches observe the Lord’s Supper quarterly.

“Denominational distinctives are often evident in how the Lord’s Supper is observed,” said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. “We sought to measure two attributes of Southern Baptists’ remembrance of Jesus’ death and resurrection: who may participate in the Lord’s Supper-- with five distinct options listed-- and the frequency it is observed.”  

The survey of 1,066 SBC pastors found 96 percent of their churches allow individuals who are not members of that local church to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Only 4 percent restrict participation to local church members.

According to the survey, 52 percent of SBC churches offer the Lord’s Supper to “anyone who has put their faith in Jesus Christ.” Thirty-five percent say “anyone who has been baptized as a believer” may participate. Five percent of SBC churches serve communion to “anyone who wants to participate,” while 4 percent of churches don’t specify any conditions for participation.

“A single question cannot capture all the nuances of who churches allow to participate.  There are many descriptive phrases different people prefer,” McConnell said. “However, the choices provided address key attributes mentioned in the Baptist Faith and Message such as believer’s baptism and church membership. Today, many Southern Baptist churches may nuance their answers in different ways, but this gives a helpful picture of where SBC pastors are on the issue when choosing between the provided options.

“Clearly, though, this survey points out a difference between the beliefs expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message, and the Lord’s Supper practices of many Southern Baptist churches,” McConnell said.

Article VII of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (SBC.net/bfm) lists baptism as a “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” Article VII also says the Lord’s Supper is for “members of the church.”

While quarterly observance of the Lord’s Supper is the norm for almost 60 percent of all Southern Baptist churches, a small 1 percent observes the Lord’s Supper weekly. Eighteen percent offer it monthly and 15 percent from five to 10 times a year. Another 8 percent conduct the Lord’s Supper less than four times a year.

The survey also found sharp regional differences in the frequency with which Southern Baptist churches conduct the Lord’s Supper. Pastors of churches in the Northeast (67 percent) and West (45 percent) are more likely to say they observe the Lord’s Supper monthly than pastors of churches in the Midwest (17 percent) and South (14 percent).

The majority of churches in the South (61 percent) and Midwest (58 percent) conduct the Lord’s Supper quarterly compared to churches in the West (29 percent) and Northeast (12 percent).

Methodology: These questions were asked as part of a mail survey of SBC pastors conducted April 1 - May 11, 2012 that included the option of completing it online. The mailing list was randomly drawn from a stratified list of all SBC churches. The 1,066 completed surveys were weighted to match the actual geographic distribution and worship attendance of SBC churches. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed +3.0 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Carol Pipes is editorial manager for LifeWay Christian Resources’ corporate communications team.

9/11, Christian-Muslim Relations, and the Great Commission

Over the past year, Murat and I have become very good friends.  He is a young guy in his 30s with a wife, a young son, and another child on the way.  He is an engineer who works just around the corner from my office in Eldersburg Maryland, and as we have shared lunches together, attended meetings together, and gotten to know each other, I've found him to be an all-around good guy with a sincere faith who loves his family and his home in  America.  In fact, I'd trust him with my money, my home, and even my wife and children.

Oh, and by the way, he's also Muslim.

But that's not all.  In nine days, Murat and I will depart from Washington, D.C.'s Dulles airport and spend a week and a half in the middle east together.  An organization he is a part of has graciously invited me and six pastors affiliated with our Association to tour their home country.  During those ten days the plan is to learn as much as possible about these great people, their history, their culture, and their faith.  In the process of learning, we will also discuss a broad range of topics including religious liberty, civic discourse, religion in the public square, religious extremism, and ultimately, our respective faiths, how they drive us to behave as we do, and the hope we believe they provide not only for this life, but the life to come.  We have communicated clearly to our Muslim friends that our greatest desire would be for them to know Jesus Christ as we know Him.  But we have also committed to not allow our mutual friendship to be affected, regardless of whether they decide to become Christian.  After all, Murat isn't my "project."  He is my friend.

I write this post one day after the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvannia--a day when all of a sudden, Islam understandably became a subject of interest to every American, and automatically suspect to many.  In that context, together with a swath of other attacks since then inspired by Islamic extremism, one might wonder how on earth a relationship like the one I've described above can be developed.  Couple this with the atrocity that took place yesterday in Libya, and the aversion to Islam becomes even more acute.  In this environment, how on earth can a group of Baptist preachers engage these people at all?

The answer however, is quite simple. Jesus demands it!

Our opportunity to build relationships with Muslims here in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area, as well as our forthcoming opportunity to build relationships with the broader, global Muslim community, hasn't come without hard questions from some within our own tribe.  I get it.   Still, the commissioning remains from our Lord; not just to share our message, but to be sent as He was sent to us (John 20:21), which means incarnating ourselves among those He wants to know Him, and being their friends. (John 1:14)

Truth is, if you are an evangelical Christian (and I am) and you want to get yourself into hot water with your own tribe, there are two groups of people you should get really close to:  The homosexual community, and the Muslim world.  And over the past year as I have listened closely to some from my own tribe, I've discovered five predominant issues that are preventing us from engaging our Muslim friends as we should.

1. Mystery.  Up until roughly twenty years ago, Islam was to most Americans nothing more than a weird eastern religion that was largely confined to the middle east.  Over the past two decades, North African immigrants into Europe as well as immigrants into the United States from various parts of the middle east have forever changed that dynamic.  And since the sum total of our exposure to them has been the stereotypical middle-eastern terrorist, we find living across the street from them a bit uncomfortable.

So how do we solve this mystery?  It's pretty simple actually.Start by welcoming them to the neighborhood!  A play-date with the kids, or a meal together (just be sure to respect their dietary laws) will most likely result in your getting to know some really good folks who, like you, just want the best for their kids and to enjoy the good life this country affords.

A young mother I know just tried this approach, and in her own words, "My kids have Muslim friends and I would like to learn more.  I can't relate if I don't know.  And honestly, I do not see evil when I look into a Muslim mom's eyes.  I see a woman who loves her family and her faith."

2. Media.  I could write an entire blog post just about this issue.  For one thing, if the only source you use in seeking to understand the world is American news media, then you simply don't understand the world.  CNN, FOX, MSNBC, pick your poison.  Each network has its own angle and its own presuppositions, and none is as interested in actually reporting the news as they are increasing their own ratings, which is why when it comes to Islam, they go for the most sensational approach possible!

Unfortunately, turning to the printed page often doesn't help matters.  Just this past week, a regrettably uninformed preacher told a local congregation here to read a fictional novel written by Joel Rosenburg and "you will understand what Muslims are looking for."  Problem is, whether it is a book, a magazine article, or a TV segment, the propensity to generalize blinds much of the American populace to reality, and that reality is that when a religion boasts 1.6 billion followers worldwide, it will also boast a great deal of diversity.  Think about the difference between an Orthodox Priest in Armenia, and a Pentecostal preacher in Alabama. BOTH are Christian, and yet they are very, very different from each other.  The Muslim world boasts that same sort of diversity, which means they only way to really know what your Muslim neighbor believes is to enter into relationship with him or her.

I live in a politically "blue" state, and often when it is discovered that I'm an evangelical Christian, those who don't know me will sometimes ask uninformed questions like "so why do you all hate women and homosexuals?"  When confronted with such questions, I'm rightfully offended, because I've been "generalized," lumped in with the Westboro Baptist "church."  What if a Muslim Imam said to his congregation "Just watch Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church, and you will know what Baptists believe?" Feel that offense?  Yep, that's the same offense your Muslim neighbors feel when you and I buy the generalized line given us by much American media today.

3. Speculative Theology.  God's Word tells us that there are things that are clearly revealed, and other things which, ultimately, the Lord keeps to Himself (Deuteronomy 29:29).  When it comes to the study of so-called "end-times" theology ("eschatology" for those who like ten cent doctrinal verbiage), there are within Christendom at least four different ways of understanding how those events will play out.  There are, additionally, four different interpretive ways of approaching the meaning of the book of Revelation!  This doesn't mean that we shouldn't study these things intently, or that we shouldn't form opinions based on our own understandings of these passages and hold to them strongly.  But it does mean that we hold to our opinions tentatively!

For example, I think Scripture is clear that as we approach the end of the age, God is going to turn His attention back toward the Jewish people.  I believe Scripture predicts a mass conversion of Jews, who will finally come to recognize their true Messiah.  What is unclear to me (and also, to a good percentage of evangelical scholars) is whether the current geo-political state of Israel plays any prophetically significant role.  It might, and I certainly admit that my colleagues who believe this strongly may be correct.  However, Scripture speaks clearly of people groups, not "nations" as you and I understand that term.  So if you think 1948 was a prophetically significant year, good for you!  But when you allow speculative theology to inform a rigid and narrow view of U.S. foreign policy (and in doing so also assume a prophetically significant role for the United States.  Another post for another day!) the results can be bad.  Point in fact is that the results have been bad!

American Christians, by and large, have taken one very narrow and very novel (its less than 200 years old) interpretation of the Divine promises to Israel, and applied it with the force of an equally narrow foreign policy that says to many in the Arab world  "If you want to know Jesus, you have to accept our politics as well."

Now, don't hear what I'm not saying.  I believe Israel as a nation-state has a right to exist, and that the U.S. should see her as an ally. I love the Jewish people, and long for them to come to their true Messiah.   I also don't believe we should countenance ANY terrorist activity toward ourselves or our friends. But when these positions begin to be mixed with our theology in such a way that we are saying "This is God's position," the results on the Great Commission are catastrophic.  Prior to 1967, nearly 2/3 of the Palestinian world was Christian.  Today, largely because of evangelical-driven foreign policy, its less than 10%.  How could we have ignored the concerns of our brothers in Christ?

Speculative theology has done a lot of damage to the attempts of American Christians to make Jesus known in the very part of the world where He is least known!  Our position should be that we want everyone to come to faith in Jesus.  A friend said this to me the other day:  All religions without Jesus at the center are sad.  Are you less "lost" in Judaism than you are in Islam?  If you take the Bible seriously, it clearly says that there are only two kinds of people in the world: those with a relationship to Jesus Christ, and those without.  Whether its a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or just a mean-as-hell, unregenerate Baptist deacon, lost is lost!!!

Unfortunately, our theological speculation has resulted in much of the Muslim world believing we don't value their souls as much as their Creator does.  Read Genesis 16 more closely.  God loves the sons of Ishmael too!

4. Fear.  Eleven years after 9/11, polls still give strong indication that many Americans fear Muslims, and Christians are not exempt from those numbers.  Largely because of the close association of Islam with terrorism, many are afraid because they assume this is the majority position in the Islamic world.  And many "conservative" talk-show hosts are happy to pour gasoline on that fire!

Here is the reality.  Islam has 1.6 billion adherents globally.  That's more than 20% of the global population.  If even a significant minority of Muslims were terrorists, we would be seeing far more bloodshed!   The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are people just like you and me who have many of the same concerns we have.

Of course there are violent people who commit their violence in the name of Islam!  And when they do, they should be pursued, and they should be punished.  And when I say "punished," I mean killed!  When you set off a bomb and kill innocent people, I don't care why you did it.  You should pay the ultimate price for it!

Funny thing is, the Muslims with whom I'm in relationship all agree with me.  If anything, they are more visceral in their opinions than I am, because they realize the "blowback" that comes when someone commits atrocity in the name of their religion.  Its regrettable that many Christians have allowed their fear to keep them ignorant of their neighbors.

5. "Church boys."  This will be the shortest, and the bluntest statement of this post.  To engage the Muslim world in any meaningful way, we need men!  While I'm very thankful that the ladies love Jesus and want to serve him, the women are signing up by almost a 2 to 1 ratio when it comes to building relationships with Muslims.

We need some "church boys" to grow a backbone and invest their lives among these precious people!  Where are you men?

Our current international context of fear and suspicion grants us a great opportunity to model Kingdom living, which lives fearlessly, and which does what it does out of love for all people created in God's image and likeness, and not because we are trying to defend some national position or manage God's end-times agenda.  I'm grateful for a group of pastors in central Maryland who get this, and I'm grateful to my Muslim friends for the opportunity to get to know them even better!

When I return, I'll be posting about our experiences, and everything we learned, as well as how we will continue to walk together in life with these precious people.

The Right to Choose What?

This week, as the Democratic National Convention meets in Charlotte, more has been made of the abortion issue than in past years, all under the guise of a "woman's right to choose."

As you consider all the issues in play this November, let me encourage you to remember something:  "I believe in a woman's right to choose . . ." is only half a sentence. What you and I must ask is "the right to choose what?

Let's fill in the blanks, shall we?

"I believe in a woman's right to choose to carry a concealed firearm under protection of law, for her own self-defense."  I'm guessing most attending the DNC would disagree with this statement.

"I believe in a woman's right to choose to invest her Social Security contribution into a private account, since the money belongs to her anyway."  Again, I'll go out on a limb and conjecture that this statement will NEVER be worked into the Democratic Party platform.

"I believe in a woman's right to choose the school her children attend, based on her own assessment of the best educational environment for her children."  Yeah, this one isn't going be affirmed either.

"I believe in a woman's right to choose to purchase and drive a Hummer."  No way the environmental wing of the DNC is going to allow this statement to be codified into official Democratic dogma.

Of course, the Democratic Party has every right to believe that the above choices should not be a "right" for a woman, and they may very well have legitimate reasons for denying those rights.  That isn't my point.  My point is that to get at their meaning, you have to complete the sentence, and where the "pro-choice" lobby is concerned, there is only one way to finish it:

"I believe in a woman's right to choose to terminate the human life that grows inside of her body, even if said termination requires the burning of that human being with saline solution, or the live dismemberment of that human being while still inside her."

THAT is a complete sentence.  And its a sentence that should make anyone shiver when one considers how abortion has actually been celebrated in Charlotte this week.

The Calvinism Debate: Will Southern Baptists Learn from History, or Repeat it?

If you are a Southern Baptist who came here to witness or participate in yet another fight over Calvinism, browse on.  You are in the wrong place!

Nope, this post isn't going to be about what you think its going to be about.  The debate over the proper balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility has been going on for more than 500 years, and many of the participants who were way smarter than this native South Carolina redneck were unable to settle the question for good.  So I have no intention of adding gasoline to the fire that seems to be spreading across my beloved denomination.

Instead, my hope is to provide some historical perspective, as well as point out some historical parallels.  Though I can't remember who first said this, our current situation in the Southern Baptist Convention illustrates well that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Right here, right now, we are at that very crossroads!

A casual perusal of church history bears out that there are cycles of debates that are necessary, which are usually followed by subsequent debates that, while important, are simply incendiary and ultimately unhelpful.  What I find interesting about the current debate in Southern Baptist life is how uncanny the parallel is between our current situation, and that in which the issues we now fight about find their origin.  As is now the case with Southern Baptists, so it also was at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation; a necessary battle that was unfortunately followed by incendiary and divisive conflict that threatened to tear apart the very fabric of what had just been built.

To see this parallel requires a bit of a dive into Church History.  But stay with me.  I promise we are going somewhere!

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

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

Shaken to the core, Luther would ponder his experiences for the next seven years.  But with the escalation of abusive indulgences, and their extension into remote areas outside Rome through Tetzel's preaching, he would finally be motivated to face the corruption head on.  And face it he did, through the document you and I now know as the 95 Theses.  In the coming years, Luther would discover that all of the debauchery he was witnessing in Rome, as well as the strong resistance to his warnings, were informed by bad theology.  And so, the Protestant Reformation had begun.

For those who would soon be called "Lutherans," that Reformation culminated in the Augsburg Confession (1530).  For others who took part in the breakaway from Rome, subsequent confessions would be written, and each would identify themselves as the "true church," over against the Roman Catholicism out of which they had come.  The fires of the Protestant Gospel spread throughout Europe, and established itself within two generations on the complimentary foundations of the priesthood of all believers, and open access to all to the Scriptures, which were translated into the languages of the people.

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

Within this context, a group of Dutch theologians felt the need to respond to aspects of a theology forwarded by the students of a French pastor named John Calvin.  Heavily influenced by Jacobus Arminius, These "Remonstrants" presented a document to the state of Holland in 1610 containing five points of disagreement with their Calvinist bretheren.  Nine years later, the Synod of Dort convened, and developed their own statement in response to the Arminians.  Out of these Canons of Dort came what we know today as the "five points of Calvinism."

(As a side note, I think it would be very helpful to some of my fellow Calvinists if they would understand this historical context.  The "five points" were simply a response to a particular set of 17th century articles of faith.  To be in agreement with them is one thing.  But to centralize one's entire theology around a snapshot in church history is both myopic and foolish!  But I digress . . . )

Here is the big idea:  By the end of the Reformation, the church had recovered the heart of the Gospel.  But instead of seeking to spread that Gospel across the world, they maintained a posture of critique, suspicion, and paranoia.  Ultimately, the Protestant church would be legitimately accused of violating the "prime directive" of Jesus, with the Catholic theologian Erasmus suggesting that these new Protestants can't be the true church, because they don't have missionaries.

Fast forward 450 years, and we find the Southern Baptist Convention in the throes of a theological identity crisis.  In the mid 20th century, the SBC was headed down the same path as most other liberal mainline traditions.  Our mission boards sent an unclear sound to the world regarding the exclusivity of Jesus.  Our seminaries were plagued with Existentialism and Neo-Orthodoxy.  Our Ethics arm in Washington D.C. was essentially "pro-choice."  We were an unhealthy denomination whose dysfunction was enabled by bad theology.  The Gospel was at stake, and something had to be done!

Thanks in large part to men like Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers and others, local churches were empowered over a 30 year period to change the direction of the SBC, and in most ways, the ship has been set in the right direction.  And the question in front of us is the same that confronted the Protestant Reformers:  Will we move ahead and spread the Gospel globally, or maintain a posture of critique and in-fighting that destroys the very fabric of what has just been built?

The current level of discussion over this issue in SBC life doesn't bode well for our future.  One one side are some Calvinists who maintain a posture of superiority and exclusivity, criticizing everything that doesn't fit into their particular paradigm as "unBiblical."  Though I love and appreciate him, some of Al Mohler's comments haven't helped matters  either.  Though I think his statements are misinterpreted by those who disagree with him, referring to Calvinism as "the heart of the Gospel" simply sends the wrong message.  The Gospel isn't Calvinism or Arminianism.  The Gospel is Jesus!!!!  Calvinism is one way of understanding how Jesus does His work of saving sinners, but it is not the heart of our message as Southern Baptists.

It is sad to admit that, to use a sports analogy, Calvinists seem to have more referees than players.  I don't believe this is true, but I do believe the perception is there.  I also believe there are a few, vocal Calvinists who are not helping us move the ball down the field at all in terms of extending the Kingdom of God, but instead remain on the sidelines ready to blow their whistles and cry "foul" anytime someone espouses something that doesn't completely line up with their own system.

On the other side are those who have recently branded themselves "Traditionalists."  Fueled by a fear that the SBC is in danger of becoming "Calvinized,"  if there is a group on the planet that is more obsessed with Reformed theology than hyper-Calvinists, it is the Traditionalists.  Like the majority of Calvinists, most of those in this camp want to get past the vitriol and back to the mission field.  But a few are spending way too much time developing lists of "how to tell if someone is a Calvinisst," and scouring Sunday School curriculum to ensure proper "balance" is given to their particular understanding.  As a colleague recently said to me, "it's theological bean-counting at its worst!"

So here we sit, with a strong belief in Biblical inerrancy, an exclusive view of Jesus, and the largest and most effective missions-sending delivery system in the history of Protestantism.  Will we come together to capitalize on the opportunity God has given us to change the world, or will we continue to segregate ourselves--fueled by misinformation about each other, suspicion and paranoia--until we become the very thing we claim we hate?

There is another path.  Coming at the conclusion of the One8 Church Planting Conference in Mississippi, Russ Moore paints a potentially great picture of our future together:

What I saw today: Suits and flannel, Reformed and traditionalist, hymnals and iPods.  Fighting devils, loving each other.  The future of the SBC. 

I like that picture!  Let's start drawing it together, shall we?

God and Guns: Do they Go Together?

In the wake of the recent shootings in Aurora and Washington, many Christians have questioned whether it is  time to have a fresh conversation about the availability of guns in our culture and its possible correlation to the violence.  Of course, broaching that subject in the United States is always sure to ignite a firestorm, and some of our brothers from abroad demonstrated that they were not averse to that fight.  The most prominent of these brothers was Alan Hirsch.

For the record, I love Alan Hirsch.  God has used Alan's writings to challenge me in fresh ways for the past 10 years, and without his influence on my life and ministry, I would be far less effective in what I seek to do for Jesus.  Additionally, I appreciate Alan's willingness to speak counter-culturally to my country.  As a native Aussie, he has often possessed a wise outside voice and American Christians should pay attention when he speaks.  Though I felt his words following the tragic shooting in Aurora were ill-timed, I appreciate his passion to see the culture in which he now lives (he currently resides in Los Angeles) redeemed.  Furthermore, he is right when he says that American culture is saturated with violence that demeans human beings and our God, in whose image they are created.  I agree with him that we are a nation awash in violence, from video games to crime to our own national propensity to think that nearly every foreign policy problem can be fixed by flexing our military muscle.

That said, Alan and many others made two strong claims in the wake of the most recent shootings.  First, they believe that the proliferation of firearms in the United States has a direct correlation to the amount of violence that occurs here.  Second, they ground their call for strict gun control in the view that Christians should never resort to violence because such action is always--always--contrary to the spirit of Jesus, who instructs us to "turn the other cheek."

As a follower of Jesus who has been positively influenced by Hirsch for years, these statements gave me pause.  I'm a Christian, a minister of the Gospel, and a gun-owner.  (Actually, I own more than one!)  Are these identities irreconcilable?   Certainly they can be, but must they be?  Or, as Darrell Cole astutely asks "How can Christians reconcile God the Warrior with God the Crucified?"

In light of all this, I wanted to take a moment to speak to my pacifist friends in the larger body of Christ who believe guys like me are a living contradiction.  But before I explain how I reconcile my faith in Jesus and my strong belief in our nation's second amendment, let me say the following to my pacifist brothers and sisters:

1. You are right to point out that our nation has grown too war-hungry.  Too often when our leaders decide to take us to war, American Christians are more worried about being "good patriots" than we are followers of Jesus who must sometimes condemn unjust violence, even when it is waged by those in authority.
2. Contrary to the stereotype, the pacificsts I know are VERY tough people.  Inherent in living the pacifist lifestyle is that you must, if necessary, be able to take a beating.  Though I disagree with you, I have an enormous respect for the sacrifice you are willing to make if necessary, to truly and consistently live your faith.
3. We need your voice in regard to how we interact with our government.  Alan is absolutely right that "civil war" resides in too many hearts in the United States.  Where government authority is concerned, the first responsibility of the Christian is to submit, not rebel.

So if I truly believe this, why am I not a pacifist?  Why do I think its OK to own, and if necessary use, a gun?

1. "Turn the Other Cheek" doesn't mean becoming a doormat for bullies.  I hear that question all the time.  "How can someone who follows Jesus truly "turn the other cheek" and at the same time own a gun?"   In the spirit of "The Princess Bride" I can only answer by saying "You keep using that verse.  I do not think it means what you think it means!"

In the context of Matthew 5, Jesus is speaking about the propensity of self-justification and "getting what is ours."   A "slap on the cheek" in the 1st century was the way you personally insulted someone.  It wasn't a hard or physically abusive slap, but simply a cultural way of insulting the dignity of another.  So when Jesus refers to "slapping on the right cheek," He isn't saying we should always take a beating.  Instead, He is saying that when we experience personal insult, we should refrain from returning insult.  In our vernacular, Jesus is saying "let it go!"

This is a far cry from the way this text is often abused.  The command to "turn the other cheek" is far from an unqualified command to never defend yourself or others.

That said, this command would certainly speak to any inclination we might have to "get even," including any employment of violence we may desire to use to achieve our goals.  If someone insults me personally, slanders my name, or treats me as beneath them, I have no right under the Lordship of Jesus to shoot them, hit them, or for that matter, to do anything to them. Furthermore, I would challenge any follower of Jesus who believes it is their "American right" to kill someone for stealing their private property.  Depending on the state you live in, you may indeed have that right, but exercising it may result in disobedience to Jesus.

 But using a firearm to defend yourself or others from a vicious attacker is a far different scenario.

2. Force is sometimes justified, especially if employed to defend the weak.  If injustice is being suffered by the weak and helpless, that is a different matter, and in such a scenario, it behooves us to remember that the same Lord who commanded us to "turn the other cheek" also turned over tables in the temple, cracked a whip and physically drove thieves out of God's house!  The same Jesus who warned Peter about improper dependence on "the sword" is prophesied as Himself coming back wearing a robe that is drenched in the blood of His enemies.  If violence is always inherently wrong, then you and I are worshiping an imperfect Savior.

To quickly resort to the use of violence is a sinful abomination.  But if there is an imminent threat to your wife and children, misapplying Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" is also a sinful refusal to defend the weak.  I don't want to hurt anyone.  But if faced with the choice of having my wife and children abused or taking the action any Christian husband and father should take to defend them, I will choose the latter course every time!

3. In many cases, greater force would curb violence.  The answer to violent acts like that which took place in Aurora Colorado is not to take guns out of the hands of those who lawfully possess them.  The answer is for the state to exercise its God-given authority to terminate the life of the man who so thoughtlessly murdered innocent people.  Somewhere along the way, we've lost sight of the fact that shootings are the fault of the shooter, not Smith & Wesson, Glock, or H&K.

I understand that there are people who love Jesus, and are, in good conscience, on both sides of the "death penalty" debate.  I may take up that subject in more detail in a later post.  For now I will simply say that the environment that breeds such horrific behavior should not be ignored, but individuals must be held responsible for their own actions.  And sometimes, the only way to put an end to unjust violence is force.

4. Violence is always unfortunate, but not always evil.  In fact, I would contend that most who condemn all violence are unwittingly supporting violence that might otherwise be stopped.  If a classroom full of children is being held hostage by a madman, to condemn police for targeting the perpetrator is to encourage the slaughter of innocents.  If a rapist has set his sights on a woman in a desolate parking lot, condemning her for carrying a concealed weapon for protection is, whether you intend it or not, granting the criminal a perfect environment to commit a horrific act of violence.

All over the world, human beings created in God's image and likeness are trafficked as slaves.  Those who deal in this unspeakable trade have the hardest of hearts, and their intent for profit is, literally, murderous.  Simply speaking against them isn't enough.  In many cases, even the laws of the countries in which they operate are such that their victims will never find peace this side of heaven....unless someone is willing to use force.  I want peace as badly as my pacifist friends.  But genuine peace, as it is portrayed in Scripture, requires more than simply the absence of violence.  It also requires the presence of justice.

It is on this point where I find the greatest paradox with Alan Hirsch.  Hirsch was quick to condemn the "gun culture" in North America, and cast his condemnation against the backdrop of the assumption that all violence is inherently wrong.  Yet this is the same Alan Hirsch who publicly endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election.  This is the same Barack Obama who voted against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act," and thus wants it to remain legally permissible, not only to murder unborn children, but to murder them even minutes after they are born if the abortion attempt is botched.  I understand that Alan's support of the current incumbent is based on a wider platform of issues than this, and respect his views on those issues.  Still, it is impossible to be more violent than this, or to commit this violence against a more vulnerable section of the population.  In light of this, I find it difficult to take his condemnation of "violence" seriously.

Like Alan and others, I long for a world where violence no longer exists.  Unfortunately, this isn't heaven.  This is earth, and its an earth filled with sin.  Alan is correct that "violent hearts" are many, especially in the United States.  He is correct that it is these violent hearts that cause much of the anguish we see on the news each night.  As a Christ-follower, I stand with him in wanting to see an end to this.  I just happen to believe he is mistaken to think that the way to end criminal violence is to take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and those whose safety and well-being they are responsible for.

Our current system of government grants this right of self-protection to the populace as well as those who wear a badge.  Certainly there are times when, as a Christian, exercising a American right would be contrary to the spirit of Jesus.  But where the right to bear arms is concerned, taking that right completely away is not the answer.

But that's my view, and I recognize, and respect, that there are others among our global Christian family.  With this in view, and with the recognition that there is no clearly "Biblical" position on gun control, perhaps the best text to which we can appeal is Romans 14.  Those like Alan Hirsch are, where guns are concerned, "weaker brothers."  As one who holds a different view on this issue, my responsibility to them is not to cause them to stumble by trying to force them into my way of thinking.  If some Christians believe it would be wrong for them to own and possibly use a firearm, then they shouldn't have one, and I shouldn't bring guilt on them for not having one!  Conversely, since there is no prohibition in Scripture against owning a weapon, or using that weapon in self-defense or the defense of others, Paul's words in Romans 14 for my pacifist friends are clear.  "Who are you to judge the servant of another?"

So let's continue conversations that sharpen each other's iron.  Let's continue to contend for justice together. Let's continue to work on our violent culture together with the Gospel.  But let's not toss salvos at each other.  That's a politician's game.  And followers of Jesus are called to a higher level of play.

New Book that is Worth a Look

My friend Ed Stetzer asked me several weeks ago to preview and review his new book Subversive Kingdom.  Ed now turns out new books with more frequency than Papa Johns delivers pizzas, but this one represents a different fare for him.

Written more like a series of sermons, "Subversive Kingdom" is a challenge engage the world Jesus died to save in fresh ways--ways that are grounded in a thorough exegesis of the "Kingdom of God."  The book consists of three parts that challenge the reader to a new way of thinking about how to advance God's Kingdom, the requirements for living this kind of life, and practical ways to apply "subversive living."

I like this book, and will likely use it for discussion groups with my pastors.  However, the real potency of this work will not be known until its message gets into the hands, and hearts, of the "laity" in our churches.  The title doesn't help, as I can't imagine the average church-goer excited about buying this one for the cover, so it will take pastors and others actually putting the book into the hands of their people.  But if you can only put one book into your people's hands this year (other than Scripture of course), this is the one!

Additionally, most of Ed's books are of the "how to" variety.  This one casts a fantastic vision for what it would look like if God's people would truly live "at His complete disposal, deployed by His Spirit to make creative, courageous inroads into the heart of a dying culture."

I've been using a new term with our Associational leadership recently; "broken arrow missiology."  If you recognize the military reference, you know that "broken arrow" is a code word the indicates that the lines of battle have broken down to the point that they are no longer recognizable.  In such a situation, you can still recognize who is with you and who isn't, but the lines of demarcation are blurred to the extent that you can no longer tell where you end and enemy territory begins.  In an actual battle scenario, this is never a good situation.  Yet in many ways, this is precisely how God desires for us to engage the world.  As long as there are lines of demarcation between "Christian culture" and "non-Christian culture," the best we will be able to do is occasionally scoop out unbelievers from the world and bring them over to our side of the "battle lines."  Problem is, God owns the whole world and demands that we take the whole thing!  For this to happen, the message of the Gospel must be brought to bear in a way that interlaces with the world systems that you and I face each and every day.

In "Subversive Kingdom," Ed Stetzer has painted a great and accurate picture of what such engagement looks like.  You can pick it up at your local Lifeway store, or buy it here at Amazon.

Why I'm Joining the Gay Community at Chick fil A this Friday

This Friday night, the homosexual community is planning sit-in protests at Chick fil A restaurants all over the country.  And this Friday, I'll also be at my local Chick fil A, hopefully making some new friends!

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past month, you are already aware of how much cultural bru-ha-ha can be stirred up over something as basic as a chicken sandwich.  Today, Christians from all over the country rallied in support of the Chick fil A chain of restaurants by packing parking lots and dining rooms to the tune of hours-long waits at some locations.  "Chick fil A Appreciation Day" was, by any commercial standard, a roaring success.

This Christian, however, stayed away.

It isn't that I didn't try.  Spending a few hours with my 6-year-old son this evening, he asked for their nuggets (and their indoor playground!)  But I'll be honest.  Once I saw the line wrapped around the building...twice, I decided otherwise.  Besides, I wasn't going to "show my support."  I was going because I wanted my kid to have a white meat alternative to that nasty stuff at McDonalds!

This is not to say that I don't support the company.  I do!  Aside from making great chicken sandwiches and a reputation for stellar customer service, many positive things about Chick fil A have been overshadowed by the current culture-war back and forth, including the large amounts of money they give back to local communities, and generous scholarship programs for employees.  And for the record, I'm thankful for strong, ethical companies run by Christian business leaders.

Additionally, I've been personally blessed by the Cathy family.  It was Dan's father Truett--who founded the company decades ago--who was present at Southern Seminary the day my wife and I presented our first-born infant son to the seminary community in chapel.  At the close of the service, Mr. Cathy told us "a young couple who has just had a baby needs to get out now and again," while pressing into my hand enough coupons to allow us to eat on his company's dime for at least a week!  A servant's heart and the spirit of generosity have always been present in the Chick fil A chain, because that same heart is possessed by its owners.

But in times like these, when the "culture war" reaches a fever pitch, I have to step back, take a breath, and ask my Lord what I should do.  I respect those who turned out in masses today to support a company that has come under media and local government fire around the country, and I also agree with their position on the family.  But ultimately, such shows of support do little to advance the Gospel.  When you pack the room with people already going to heaven, it tends to discourage non-Christians from showing up!

By contrast, when I read about Jesus' words and actions in Scripture, I see a Savior who aggressively pursues relationships with people who are far from God, and who simultaneously displays a strong reticence toward fighting over the control of temporary kingdoms.  His mission was, and is, much larger!

Jesus was, in fact, once asked about his views of marriage by the Sadducees--the 1st century's equivalent to modern political liberalism.  The context of the question was, of course, different from today's debate, as was their goal of forcing their denial of the resurrection.  But the scenario was the same; a group of people bent on forcing a theological and political point of view.  Jesus' answer pointed to something higher and better. (Matthew 22:23-33)

And just prior to that conversation, the "1st century conservatives" also confronted the Lord with a sticky political issue; that of income taxes!  Here again is a special interest group seeking to entangle the Lord in a lesser battle over lesser, temporary things.  Jesus' response is quite comical.  He had someone present a coin and simply asked whose picture was on it. I can almost see Him tossing the coin back to its owner in disdainful fashion, in a way saying "if Caesar wants these little coins, give them to him.  Just remember to give God what is His!" (Matthew 22:15-22)

As an evangelical conservative, I sympathize with those who showed solidarity and support today for Chick fil A.  I agree with their position on this issue.   But the gay community is not my enemy.  And even if my views bring them to view me as an enemy, I am compelled by the undeserved love I've received from Jesus to love them back. (MAtthew 5:43-48)

Like all other kingdoms that came before it, the one you and I live in now is also temporary.  Its that other Kingdom.. .the one Jesus mentions more than 80 times in the Gospels...the one He is obsessed with, that I care about extending.

This Friday night, a group of people He wants to be part of that Kingdom have announced where they will be.  What else can I do but show up?  No, I won't be making protest signs or standing in solidarity out front.  I'll be inside, inconspicuously consuming waffle fries that will most likely shorten my time here on this earth.  Come to think of it, someone might identify me as "one of them!" But that's OK.  I may not share their attraction for the same sex, but at heart we really aren't all that different.  Ultimately, these are people just like you and me.  They are broken with sin, just like you and me, and I want to get to know them, if they will let me.  I want to hear their stories.  I want to identify with their struggles, at least as much as a heterosexual man is able.  And I want to offer the Kingdom and its King.  I might even buy them a great chicken sandwich while we talk!

I love Chick fil A, and agree with what they stand for.  But I love the Savior I know Dan Cathy serves more, and I long for His Kingdom to be realized in the hearts of my friends in the gay community.

Chick fil A has taken some heavy shots over the past couple of weeks because Dan Cathy took a strong, but compassionate stand.  Showing support for that company is a great thing, but let's ensure that our support accomplishes more than simply "return fire" in a war over a temporary culture.  This Friday, I'll do my best to use this moment to be kind to people created in God's own image and likeness, work hard at demonstrating the values of God's eternal Kingdom with my actions, and invite people into that Kingdom!

Who knows?  Maybe the lines will be just as long Friday night.  And while I won't stand in line for an hour over a "culture war" issue, I'll stand there all night for the opportunity to extend God's Kingdom on earth!

Its a tough thing to do.  After all, if you want to get yourself into trouble quickly with the hyper-conservative, "culture war" evangelicals, just start spending time with members of the homosexual community.  But ultimately, I'm not interested in following the 21st century equivalent of the Pharisees or the Sadducees.  I want to be where Jesus was.  And I think Chick fil A on a Friday night among a hoard of homosexuals is exactly where He would be!  In fact, its exactly where He WILL be!

So let's do something unconventional...something thoroughly Biblical this Friday night.  Support a great company and invite some new friends into the Kingdom!  That's a win-win!

2012 Summer Reading List

"What are you reading?" I've been hearing that question since I started out in ministry more than 20 years ago. In the beginning, it came from older, wiser and seasoned pastors who used the question as a way to start a conversation that would guide me in my own development. Years later, the question continues to be asked by ministry colleagues as an avenue of inquiry and accountability.

But in recent years, I'm beginning to notice that when I answer this question, people actually take my answers seriously. Whether I'm old enough or wise enough for this reaction to be justified I can't tell, but regardless, I'm always recommending what I believe to be good (and also not-so-good, but neccesary) reading to those who lead our churches.

As the summer continues, I wanted to provide a recommended reading list for 2012, as I have done in past years. The list below is diverse. Some books are strictly theological in nature, and others deal with cultural engagement and mission. But if you were to ask me to list for you the five books that any pastor or church leader MUST put on their read list for the summer, I'd respond with the following (in no particular order):

1. Matt Chandler and Jared Wilson.  The Explicit Gospel.  Wheaton, IL:  Re:Lit:  2012.  I share the opinion of the authors that almost every problem in the church, or outside the church, is ultimately a Gospel problem.  Too often, we assume our understanding of the Gospel when what we should do instead is remind ourselves afresh of its power.  This book is a helpful aid in doing just that.

The one weakness of this work is its occasional and laborious departure into tangential issues, which unless one is trying to write a comprehensive Systematic Theology (and this book is NOT that!), are unnecessary.  But overall, this book can serve as a useful tool for pastors who are rightly concerned that their people not forget or assume their own perpetual understanding of the message Paul calls "The power of God unto salvation."

2. Jim Clifton.   The Coming Jobs War: What Every Leader Must Know about the Future of Job Creation.  New York: Gallup Press, 2011.  Clifton, the current Chairman of the Gallup Organization, cuts right to the heart of the concerns of our now globalized population.  What I love about Clifton is that he isn't interested in useless partisan banter, and calls out erroneous thinking on both sides of the isle while identifying through the reputably accurate polls of his organization the real issues that concern the very people you and I preach to every week.  You will likely not agree with some of his conclusions (I didn't), nor will you be pleased at some of the observations his research has uncovered.  But if you want to reach and touch people where they are, and if you want to understand the one common element that underlies almost every global issue we face today, read this book!

3. Timothy Keller. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God.  New York: Dutton, 2011.  Last year there was a lot of bru-ha ha over a marriage work written by Mark and Grace Driscoll.  While their book included many helpful principles of young married couples, it was, overall, an exercise in missing the point.  Unfortunately, Keller's book on marriage was overshadowed in the process.  But its Keller's tome, also co-written with his wife Kathy, that contains a rich depth of Biblical wisdom that results in a lifelong and satisfying marriage.  The deep and abiding Christological focus of this book means that readers not only get wisdom that leads to a healthy and lifelong marriage, but also a clear presentation of the Gospel that marriage was created to emulate.

4. Jonathan Merritt.  A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.  New York: Faithwords, 2012.  Unlike many of my fellow conservative colleagues, I greatly enjoyed the insight I gained from this book, though like them I did find disagreement with some of the approaches Merritt suggests.  But regardless of how you feel about what you read, it is undeniable that when Jonathan Merritt speaks, his voice resonates the consensus of his milennial generation.  If you want to know what emerging leaders in evangelicalism believe and how they are approaching current cultural issues, this book is an excellent resource.

There are many places where I cheered while reading this book.  Overall, Merritt nails the propensity of older evangelicals to quickly revert to the political to achieve their ends, and I'm deeply appreciative of his call for the 21st century church to concentrate less on "saving America" and more on making Jesus truly known.  At the same time, there are some issues which cut across the political spectrum that Christian simply cannot ignore, and on which we cannot compromise, and candidly, a few of Merritt's suggested approaches to these issues made me thankful he wasn't around 80 years ago saying similar things during Nazi Germany.  Ultimately, though I have a few grave concerns about what I read, I commend this book as an accurate picture of the emerging generation's approach to "culture wars," and appreciate the way Merritt challenges the church to think differently.

5. Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.  Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010.  This 542 page work is the most comprehensive and practical biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a generation, and Metaxas does a masterful job of applying the lessons learned during the Nazi occupation of Europe afresh in our own time and culture.  In some ways, this book offers a more deeply historical contrast to Merritt's work, and warns of the consequences of inaction.  Ultimately, like other Bonhoeffer biographies that have preceded it, this book reminds us afresh of the ultimate cost to be a disciple of Jesus.

Enjoy your summer!  I'll be back after a few weeks away with a great lineup of subjects to discuss in the fall!

How a Church of 50 People is Rebuilding an Entire Community

Just days after Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast and left indelible changes on the area, Pastor Don Elbourne was surveying a landscape he no longer recognized.  "We literally did not know who was still alive and who was dead" he told me.

The building that had once housed the Lakeshore Baptist Church in Mississippi, where Don was pastor, was no more.  But this storm brought added dread to the temporal losses of real property.  When a tornado lifts a roof off a building, you put it back.  When a building burns to the ground, you rebuild.  But when a hurricane wipes out entire cities, taking not only homes and churches, but entire industries, you don't just lose the church building.  In a very real sense, you also lose your church.

"That was one reason that, even though we were insured, we chose not to immediately rebuild," he said.  Eventually, the people who remained at Lakeshore built a temporary edifice where seven years later they still hold worship services.  But once the worst was over and the church members once again gathered in the Lakeshore community, Pastor Don says they found another, more important reason not to rebuild.  "We just couldn't fathom giving all of our attention to putting up a church building when our entire community was virtually homeless."

The result?  This small church, which just after Katrina had around 35 members, didn't rebuild their church.  Instead, they rebuilt the community of Lakeshore!

Since 2005, Lakeshore Baptist Church has worked with multiple partners, including our Association, to put more than 100 families in the area back into their homes.  More than 60 of those were total rebuilds.

Additionally, the church responded to this crisis by building "The Mercy Center," a place where members of the Lakeshore community can receive clothing, counseling, food, and most importantly, the Gospel of Jesus!

Volunteers from our Association are but one group who have been involved in building The Mercy Center, and this morning, our entire team of 30+ volunteers was able to see that center in action as more than 100 families were given groceries!  Additionally, those who came this morning received an introductory financial seminar to help them manage money more effectively.  And all of this was preceded by Pastor Don reminding everyone present that spiritually, we are all born "bankrupt" before God, and in need of redemption that is only provided in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

It was a good day!

Our Association values partners like Don Elbourne and the Lakeshore Baptist Church.  Attendance at the church is now around 50 people every Sunday.

Did you read that?  A church of 50 people has rebuilt an entire community of homes!  What's your excuse for not doing more with the resources you have?  What's my excuse?

In my denomination alone there are more than 40,000 churches.  What effect would it have on our country if all those churches served and tangibly loved their communities as Lakeshore does?  Would there be a need for Social Security?  Nationalized healthcare?    Wellfare? Is it conceivable that we could literally change the world by simply loving our neighbors?

Beginning this fall, the congregation at Lakeshore will finally begin to build a new sanctuary.  We look forward to doing our part to help them, just as together with us they have helped so many.  This church and its pastor will never be on the cover of Christianity Today.  Lakeshore will likely never become one of the "50 fastest growing churches in America."  But guys like this are my heros, and churches like Lakeshore are the hope of our culture!

Check out everything this great church continues to do here:  http://www.rebuildlakeshore.com/

Repost: What will the SBC Look Like in 2035?

The following is a post I authored in 2005 in an attempt at prognostication.  As the annual meeting of my denomination comes to an end, I thought it would be interesting to look back seven years and see how far we've come.  Sometimes its fun to look back at something like this and see areas where you were perceptive, and other areas where you missed it big-time!  I'd be interested in reader feedback on the following.  What do you see in this list that has already come to pass?  What is on this list that is "in process."  What is on this list that makes you think Joel just had some bad pizza the night before?  What would you add to this list?


"Lots and Lots of candles!" That is how a colleague (tongue in cheek, of course) responded to me when I asked the question: "If the conversations about young SBC leaders result in their taking the reigns of leadership, what will our convention look like in 30 years?"

Regretably, many who know of the recent conversations between SBC and emerging leaders would reply in the same manner, without trying to be funny! Others would balk at the thoughts of where our denomination is headed should these "young bucks" get hold of the largest Protestant group in North America. But I have noticed very few, substantive conversations that seek to conjecture the question; "Where would young leaders take us?"

Below is my own feeble analysis of this question. Based on conversations I have had with young SBC pastors and church planters, as well as books and other resources I have read on the emerrging church, I believe the things below are avery real possibility! But before you explore my personal attempt at "futuring," let me throw up a two-fold preface:

1. I have listed things here which I believe, given the current trajectory of emerging leaders, WILL happen in our denomination should they be given the reigns of leadership. But although I am in favor of many of my predictions, the reader should not mistake my predictions for an endorsement of everything they read.

2. At the start, let me admit to my own ultimate ignorance of the future, and offer an open invitation for anyone to respond with critique of my predictions. My goal here is not to be an "autonomous knower," but rather, to foster discussion, which means of course, that I have failed if no discussion is generated from this post. You are encouraged to leave your own views on this post as a response.

And now; fast-forward with me about 30 years into the future:

ORGANIZATION:
-"Southern Baptist Convention" will no longer be used, as the multi-national and multi-cultural nature of our denomination is reflected in a new title. (anyone want to suggest what it should be?)
-Although the national convention will still convene, attendance will plummit, not because of any lack of interest, but due to the regionalization of annual meetings to different parts of the United States and other nations. The national convention will then be simulcast to these regional meetings.
-State Conventions by and large will continue to decline, as their influence continues to wane, and as newer churches opt to be resourced either by non-denominational entities outside the SBC, or by professional educational staff in their own churches. Eventually, state conventions will be 'streamlined' so that many both state and associational staff will include those who also work bi-vocationally as pastors and staff members in the local churches which support these entities. Continuing education and leadership training will move closer to the local level, as larger churches provide their own professional staffs to be at the disposal of the smaller congregations.
-Local associations; well, their fate depends solely on how relevant they are perceived to be by the churches they serve, which means that many will die, and die soon! Others however, will assume a place of prominence that was once held by the state convention, as localized equipping and training will be seen as more appropriate for their context. The "Director of Missions" job description will radically change, eliminating the idea of the DOM as a "bishop without power," and replacing it with the view of the DOM as a "missions facillitator." As these more traditional understandings pass, the DOM will be expected to fulfill a job more closely associated with a Church Planting/Church Growth Strategist, thereby resulting in the elimination of those positions at the associational level.
-Local churches will, by and large, adopt governmental systems that, while still "congregational" at their base, are much less "democratic." The use of "elders," church councils, etc. as administrative advisory arms to the Senior Pastor and staff will grow exponentially. The "team" approach to leadership (i.e. co-pastors, or plurality of elders) will also see a sharp rise. "Robert's Rules of Order" will be an unfamiliar term to the vasy majority of new churches. In addition, the title "Reverend" will go the way of the dinosoaur, as younger leaders eliminate theessential distinctions that have been made by the modern church between clergyand laity. Ordination will still exist, but only for legal and tax purposes. Those who lead God's church will prefer the Biblical term "Pastor" to "Reverend," "Preacher," or even "Doctor."
-The role of women in church leadership will rise. Many will serve as deacons, and a few will begin serving as elders. We will see a surge of single women volunteer as missionaries, and be sent out by their local churches to the ends of the earth.

MISSIONS:
-As the lines between methodologies in North America continue to blur with those in other parts of the world, eventually the International and North American Mission Boards will merge. In addition, those who are funded through this new missions organization will not be "missions administrators" but rather, practicioners who are "on the field" among the people he or she is attempting to reach. Many administrative positions will be eliminated, as local church pastors and volunteers from the business sectors assume these roles, thereby giving local churches more control over the decisions made concerning doctrine, qualifications for appointment, etc.
-Deputation will again enter Southern Baptist life for the first time since the inception of the Cooperative Program in 1925! Mission Boards will still underwrite much of the financial support for keeping a missionary on the field, but the missionaries will be required to raise additional support from the local churches that reccomend them for service to the field. In addition, the local church will have much greater control over who is and who is not appointed. The result of this will be a closer, more personal connection between the missionaries and the churches that support them.
-While the Baptist Faith and Message will remain the de facto confession for our churches, less rigid statements (Such as that used by the Evangelical Theological Society) will be employed as guidelines for working across denominational lines with other evangelicals in the field of mission. The result of this will be cooperative, joint efforts with Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and others whom our missionaries are now told to limit their cooperation with because of diferences on secondary issues (such as speaking in tongues, etc.).
-The SBC (under its new title, whatever that may be), will appoint missionaries from other nations of the world to come to the United States for ministry, as well as other countries. As multiculturalism eventually engulfs the planet, there will be an increased amount of "crossover" as Americans go to other nations as missionaries, and vice versa. The single, mission board will be charged with the oversight of all of these missionaries.
-Giving to the Cooperative Program will plateau, if not decline, but special mission offerings. (Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and World Hunger) will skyrocket, as the churches participate wholeheartedly in direct missions giving and involvement.

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
-Seminary education will undergo major changes, as online and distance education becomes the norm rather than the exception. While the classical base curriculum for the basic degree programs (such as the M.Div.) will remain, many of the practical ministry courses will be re-written and contextualized to the world as it will be 30 years from now. Some of the courses that will undergo major overhauls include pastoral care and counseling, homiletics, leadership, and the practice of ministry.
-The sharp rise in bi-vocational and "tentmaker" pastorates will neccesitate that for many, the local association's training events become the primary locus for theological education. This of course, will mean "beefing up" the leadership curriculum.
-The whole basis of Theological Education is likely to be turned on its head, as the theological foundations of classical seminary education is replaced by a missiological emphasis. In effect, "Theology of Missions" will be come "Missional Theology."
-Retired Gen-Xers (sounds strange, doesn't it?) will return to the academy to learn theology and be equipped to start lay-led churches and house churches.
-Local churches will again assume the role of primary theological educator, as the seminaries once again simply act to augment this role.

CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT
-"Boycotts" will be history, as young leaders perceive these sorts of tactics to be unneccesarily alienating to those the church should be trying to reach. Instead, relational engagement will undergird the philosophy of how the church interfaces with culture. For example, instead of "boycotting Disney," Southern Baptists would purchase a showcase at Epcot Center and utilize it to speak to all who vacation there concerning the Gospel and how it relates to family values in the larger Christian worldview.
-The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will continue to be a strong and conservative "prophetic" voice to our government. But while moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cell research will continue to receive attention by this agency, other issues like taxes, gun control, the ten commandments on public property, and school prayer will largely be ignored, in lieu of subjects like the poor, and human rights throughout the world. (For example, many seem to ignore the fact that our "conservative" administration continues to advocate continued trade relations with China, which has an atrocious human rights record. Expect these issues to be addressed with much more strength.)


Obviously, this is a very incomplete list, and that is intentionally so! Where do you think we are headed, provided young leaders take the reigns of leadership. What I have left out? Where am I wrong?

The SBC is just a few weeks away, and I anticipate with excitement the conversations that I know will take place. But instead of simply complaining about the SBC as it is, why not begin discussion now of what it could be? Why not begin to speak now of how to honor its legacy? When we approach our esteemed present leaders, wouldn't it be great if, instead of a list of complaints, we brought our ideas of what could be to the table? I look foward to hearing your views. So let's get started building a vision together, shall we?