Can Complementarian Fathers Raise Strong Women? What I'm Teaching My Daughter

I believe the Scriptures teach that in the marriage relationship, wives should submit themselves to the leadership of their husbands, as husbands conversely love their wives by ultimately sacrificing their lives for their brides.  That isn't limited to being willing to die for her.  It also includes living for her exclusively, and giving of yourself without thought.  

The cultural description for this position is called complementarianism, and it is the belief that while men and women are essentially equal image bearers of God, they bear functional distinctions that complement each other.  The theological term for this concept is "male headship," and even in many evangelical Christian circles, its about as popular as a Philly steak-laden belch in a crowded elevator.

I won't belabor the Biblical and theological rationale for the classical complementarian position in this post (I've already done that here, for those who are interested.)  Instead, I want to address concerns I've heard lately that ask what kind of women emerge from homes that follow this philosophy of marriage and family.  Many have implied, and a few more have explicitly stated that male headship teaches women to be "weak."

Well, as the father of a soon-to-be 4 year old daughter, I certainly don't have all the answers.  Truth be told, having a daughter has raised many more questions than I had prior to her arrival in our family!  Furthermore, I acknowledge that I can't ultimately control the outcomes of my children's lives.  They will all ultimately make their own decisions.  But this doesn't relieve me of my responsibility as a dad to raise them in the fear of the Lord, nor does it justify abdication of setting goals for what I want to help my children accomplish.  

I also admit that for far too many, "headship" is ill-defined as something that benefits dad, and it sometimes takes the form of Dad being a drill-sergeant to the whole family.  Those guys aren't leaders.  They are jerks.  And they aren't practicing Biblical headship.  Instead, they are practicing a form of chauvinistic, gender-specified fascism.  Men, if the way you lead your home makes you more comfortable and your family less secure, whatever you are practicing isn't what the Scriptures call "headship."

So, what is the profile of a young woman raised in a complementarian home?  Well, I'm going to do my best to see the following realized in my little girl.

1. I will teach her to love Jesus.  This is the most important decision any of my children can make.  I want my daughter exposed frequently to the message that she, like the rest of humanity, is fallen in her sin and in desperate need of a Savior.  I want her to learn how to share her faith, and how to present the Gospel above the fray of "comparative religions" so that Jesus is truly seen as being offered to the whole world.

2. I will teach her to be well-read and globally aware.  I want her to be able to have intelligent discussions relative to science, politics, technology, culture, and faith.  And when I say "intelligent discussions," I mean the sort of invigorating talk that will cause her to react with a yawn to tired "talking heads" on TV, or to the over-simplified arguments that are so often given in our current culture-war environment.  I want her to know how the world works--not just our country, but the world!  I want her to be comfortable having discussions about global issues with anyone on the globe! And, I want to instill a compassion in her that will serve as a "pilot light" to ignite the knowledge she gains into action that will serve others in the name of Jesus.

I want her to be comfortable living anywhere in the world, and competent with the cross-cultural skills that should befit any young person whose prime of life will span the mid-21st century.  Most importantly, I want her to develop a genuine love for people of every nation, tongue and tribe.  I want her to have fun exploring the world God created and the people He placed in it.

3. I will teach her to fight.  Unfortunately, we live in a world where too many young men are emerging as barbarians who have no idea how to treat a woman.  Everything from over-sexualized commercials to the trafficking and sex trade itself betrays that even full-blown, tolerant egalitarianism can't wipe away the propensity of some men to treat women like a commodity.  

To be sure, I have no problem being her protector, and in the event that her safety is threatened by said meat-heads, I would have no problem using my own bare hands to pound them into a bloody pulp to the greater glory of God and the joy of all mankind.  But since I'm realistic enough to know that I won't always be there, I intend to teach my princess how to defend herself.  If she needs training that can't be provided by her old man, we will send her to classes.  But at the end of the day, I want my young lady to know how to completely and permanently wash out a guy's kneecap, as well as how to be disabling with a groin shot or pepper spray, and if absolutely necessary, lethally accurate with a 9mm.  

I want her to cherish peace, and stay away from trouble if she is able.  But when confronted with a threat to her safety or the safety of weaker people with her, I want her to be able to take care of business. (and for what it's worth, she's already proving at 3 to have the spunk to do it. Just ask her two older brothers!)

4. I will teach her self-awareness.  I want her to discover how God has gifted her, and help her develop and use those gifts for His glory.  Through everything from choosing hobbies to determining how she will educate herself, I want her to know beyond a doubt who God has created her to be, and I want her to live out the purpose for why she was placed on this planet at this time in history.  

Her mother and I are keenly aware of her "life story" from the time she was born until the moment we met her at a hotel in Guangzhou, China.  There is no doubt in our minds that God gave her to us for the purpose of raising her up for great things.  So, she will need to learn what she is good at, and what she isn't good at.  She will need to learn how to check her own gut, and make sound judgement calls based on Scriptural principles applied to her own self-awareness.  Whatever she decides to do professionally will be greatly enhanced if she does it with a keen sense of self-awareness.

5. I will teach her discernment when it comes to boys.  In some sense, she is in the worst possible environment for meeting boys.  As a pastor's daughter, she will no doubt meet a lot of meat-heads who can fake it really well and talk about Jesus in a way that is so convincing that it seems they actually know Him personally.  But there is a huge, HUGE difference between men of God and "church boys."  And I intend to teach her the difference.

It is unfortunate that in so many churches, young men are allowed and almost blessed to remain immature, unemployed, uneducated, irresponsible, and generally ambivalent about anything in life except their latest high score in World of Warcraft or Halo.  Additionally, many young men are highly capable of employing "church language" to fool a gal into thinking that they are sincere in their walk with Jesus, when in reality they just sincerely want to take advantage of the girl.  

Regrettably, the church--the one environment where strong men should be ever present and ready to help young bucks with their needed cranial-rectal extractions--is often the place perceived to be filled with women and weak men.  And the result in too many churches can be a minefield of spiritual sounding 30-year-old adolescents who don't have their own act together and are consequently in no way qualified to marry--which means they have no business dating!  As blunt and crass as it may sound, most "Christian" young men are absolutely and completely full of crap.

Fortunately, my little girl has a daddy who was once one of those young men.  I know them well because, well, I WAS one of them.  Thankfully, I had strong men who taught me Sunday School and walked with me in life in my church, which helped me more quickly cross over the bridge of authenticity from "church boy" to "man of God."  I honestly don't know where I would be today without men like Markley Edwards and Bill Merritt, who were straight and frank with me about what God expects from young men who belong to Him.

By the time she is ready to date young men, I want her "Bull meter" to be hyper-sensitive, because I don't want my young lady married to a loser she has to support one day because he is too busy still being an adolescent idiot.  And in the event that said adolescents try to force something on my little girl: well, see # 3 above.  :)

6. I will teach her to have a healthy self-image not defined by men, or by women's magazines aimed at men.  The percentage of young ladies today obsessed with their body image is astronomical, and sad.  So called "women's" magazines--which in reality are no more than rags teaching females how to be everything desired by a middle-aged boy who can shave--simply enhance this crisis of ladies who are implicitly told to interpret the whole of their existence though she shape of their bodies and the aggressive expression of their sexuality.

My little girl knows Dad thinks she is beautiful, and she always will.  But there is something else I think fathers should teach their daughters that is far more important; that GOD thinks they are beautiful just as they are.  As such, no one else's opinion matters.  If they disagree, then they are simply wrong.  From our Creator originates all things, including the base definition of "beauty."  In light of His all-expansive, multi-ethnic, expression of the concept through a myriad of body types, hair colors, and cultural fashion expressions all around the world, a nearly naked, borderline anorexic Victoria's Secret model shouldn't be seen as the "ideal."  If anything, that picture should be beneath our little girls.  And any boys who see that picture as the ideal should be beneath them as well.

Our daughters should have a healthy image of themselves as truly beautiful, and they should be given the creativity within Biblical boundaries of modesty to express that beauty in a way that enhances this healthy self-image.  Furthermore, she should never, ever change her appearance merely to satisfy a male suitor.

7. I will teach her how to be a voice of wisdom.  Though I don't believe God placed the burden of ultimate responsibility on women in the home or the church, I also reject the idea that male headship means that a woman's voice isn't to be highly valued.  I don't want my daughter bearing burdens God never intended her to bear.  But I do want her to be a meaningful contributor, and valued ministry partner with those who are charged with that burden.

I can't count the times I've been "saved" by no more than a gentle touch of my arm by my wife, who pulls me back from the edge, and speaks great wisdom by giving me a broader perspective I did not previously have.  Honestly, the Association of churches I serve has been spared plenty by my hand because I have a godly wife who headed my stupid ideas off at the pass!  (And I'm not the only one who realizes this.  See Ed Litton's post here.)

I want my daughter to be a voice of wisdom like her mother, and I want her to use that voice frequently, whether it is a work, or at church benefiting her pastor, or at home benefiting her husband if indeed God grants her a spouse.

8. I will teach her that she doesn't "need" a man.  Too many women are encouraged to find the lion's share of their future as beginning on their wedding day.  To be sure, its a big day, and certainly a major milestone that should last a lifetime.  But there is a previous step to this vision that is all-too-often missed in many Christian homes:  If she doesn't know herself, and isn't confident in herself, marriage won't fix the problem.  It will make it worse.

I recently met a new leader at one of our churches.  She is my age, gainfully employed as a professional, confident in her role and calling, and has never been married.  She isn't some rabid feminist with a chip on her shoulder, and she isn't bitter toward men.  She simply learned who she was in Christ, and accepts that she can fulfill that role faithfully without a husband.  And she is right!

It is true that most women will get married, and most will want to get married.  That's OK.  At the same time, our daughters should be taught that they don't "need" to get married--at least not in the same way that they need food, shelter and clothing.  Our daughters have a greater daddy than us in their Heavenly Father.  If they are Christian, they have a husband in His Son, and they have a protector/provider/empowering affirming presence in His Holy Spirit.  I want my little girl to know that she is already complete, and doesn't need a spouse to be complete.  

If God grants her a husband, then that is a wonderful thing that she should cherish, and in that event, fairy-tale day dreams about the wedding day are fine. If however, she ends up like Lottie Moon; well, she will be in good company!  (for those who know Miss Moon's story, it should not surprise you that I would find Crawford Howell Toy to be a wholly unacceptable son-in-law!)

9. I will teach her that men who can accept all of the above might...might be worthy of her submission.  Simply put, I will teach my daughter that men who are too weak to lead a strong woman--men who are intimidated by strong women--aren't fit to be husbands.  Typically, these kinds of men manifest in one of two ways: they are either the obvious "wimp" who never makes a decision and leads the way, or he becomes a "dictator" in his own home; overpowering the voice of his wife by intimidating her because, deep down, he is afraid to admit that sometimes, she might be smarter than he is!  I believe that wives should submit themselves to the leadership of their husbands.  I also believe that women who want to become wives should choose carefully to whom they will submit.

Candidly, this is the point where mate selection breaks down almost irrevocably in our culture.  Cultural pressures encourage young women to try and get the guy with the prettiest eyes, the best hair, or the hottest car.  Books and movies marketed to teen girls enable such surface-level criteria for establishing a long-lasting relationship.  I won't keep my daughter from those movies.  I'd much rather see her roll her eyes in disgust after seeing one.  But the only way that will happen is if Dad teaches her how to think critically and deeply about the kinds of relationships she develops.  If you can't see yourself ever trusting the leadership of a particular young man, then you shouldn't marry him.  And if you aren't going to marry him, then you have no business dating him!

10. I will teach her that it is up to her.  From a purely statistical standpoint, there is a 90% chance that one day, my role as provider and protector of my daughter will come to an end on her wedding day.  More than likely, sometime within the next two decades I will escort her down an aisle, and give her to another man.  In that moment, she will become his responsibility.  In the meantime, I can give advice and counsel.  I can offer my blessing on her relationships when I believe they are wise.  And, I can warn her when I perceive her to be going down the wrong road.  But ultimately, it is up to her to decide who she marries.  Ultimately, it is up to her whether she gets married.

Additionally, her own life decisions regarding education, career, and calling require the guidance of two parents who love her very much.  Yes, my wife and I want a complementarian daughter.  No, we do not want to raise a "doormat."  We want to raise a strong woman.  And by God's grace, and especially within the gender framework we believe He has designed, we believe we can.

The Future of Pastoral Ministry: Are we Really Up to This?

I spent this morning with a colleague working on the contours of a potential Doctor of Ministry program for Maryland pastors, and among other things, we discussed the future of pastoral ministry.  For a few semesters, I've had the honor of teaching Pastoral Theology at a local seminary,and one of the units we cover relates to the task of leadership in emerging culture.  As an introduction to this unit, I give the students a description of what the world will look like in the not-too-distant future.  We look at shifts that are coming in the area of population, family dynamics, medicine, sexuality, environmental concerns, technology and religion, and then discuss how these shifts should affect the way we lead churches to make disciples in the future.

Once during this presentation, I had a young man come up to me after class and say "wow!  I'm not sure I'm ready for this!"

How about you?  Are you ready for ministry in the 21st century?  What follows are nine scenarios that WILL take place in most churches within the next 20 years.  It is likely that many of these have already taken place, and if pastors are going to lead well, and in a way that honors Jesus, they need to be ready for how to minister among the following:

Scenario One:  A pastor is called to a church with the expectation that he will "help us reach the young families."  Problem is, everyone in the church is over the age of 60, and more than 50% of the community within 10 minutes of the church is also in that age range.  

By 2030, it is estimated that more than half of the U.S. population will be over the age of 50.  This "graying" of America is presently going almost completely unnoticed by most churches, who tend to go after the prized "young families with children" category.  Yet 80% of those over 50 live in a multi-housing situation ("55 and older" apartments, duplex communities, retirement and assisted living communities), and 98% of all multi-housing residents are without a relationship to Jesus.  Are you keeping pace with the generational shifts that are taking place around your church, and how your church should respond to those shifts?  In the future, if you really want to penetrate your community, chances are you won't be reaching that many "young people."  Are you thinking through how this affects programming, staffing, facility usage?

Scenario Two:  Multiple families visit the church who do not speak English, politely nod and smile, and never return. 

 By 2025, Hispanics will outnumber African Americans by 3 to 2, and will comprise approximately 40% of the U.S. population.  Over a decade ago, Oscar Romo noted that America, "hardly the 'melting pot' described by history texts, has become a land marked more by diversity than homogeneity."  In no area is this fact more clear than in the area of language.  A guest speaker at our Association's annual meeting three years ago told me that he walked into one of our malls, ate lunch, and walked back to his car, and never during that time heard anyone speaking English.  I responded by saying "welcome to central Maryland!"  And this dynamic is eventually coming to nearly every part of the United States!  

Is there an unreached pocket of people in your area for whom language is a barrier.  God doesn't intend for linguistics to be a stumbling block to the cross.  Are you capable of helping raise up ministries to help people from other nations who speak other languages to more easily assimilate?  Conversely, are you willing to greet them in their own language and make them feel welcome?

Scenario Three:  A married homosexual couple with three adopted children visit your church.  

This is one of those issues when if you are a pastor, you need to go ahead and check all your political arguments at the door.  What we believe society should or shouldn't do in this situation is of absolutely no consequence, because they are doing it anyway!  The fact is that homosexual marriage is, well, a fact.  Its true here in Maryland, in six other states, and is likely to be true nationwide in a very short time.  Truth is, we live in a nation and culture in which our understanding of marriage has been devolving for decades.  

Now that this is a reality, how will we minister to the parents and their children?  How should our children's departments be equipped to minister to the kids?  How are you equipping other couples in your church to interact with and minister to these precious souls? How can you uphold clear Biblical standards in love?  How will you help these parents and their children navigate what it means to follow Jesus, and what implications that decision may have on family dynamics?  Are you ready to admit that you don't even have all the answers to these questions, and walk slowly and in love with those who seek your counsel?

Scenario Four:  A young person who has visited your church for a while repents of her sin and receives Jesus as Lord and Savior.  As you prepare for her baptism, you discover through her testimony that she was born male, but had gender-reassignment surgery a few years ago.  

Scripture has no category for an "androgynous Christian."  There are Christian men, and Christian women, and the discipleship models spelled out for us in the New Testament tend to be described in conjunction with one's gender.  Sometimes the church argues forcefully over the appropriate "role" of men and women in the life of the church.  But regardless of what you believe on that issue, we can agree on this:  The reason the argument is sometimes so intense is that we all recognize that gender identity matters! 

Therefore, in a situation like this, you have someone created in God's image and likeness who has become a follower of Jesus, and how must now be discipled in accordance with her/his gender identity.  Are you prepared for the Biblical, moral, psychological and bioethics questions that will necessarily be part of that conversation?

Scenario Five:   More and more people, it seems, are asking you to perform funeral ceremonies for their pets.  You have noticed over time that the grieving process for a family losing a pet, as well as the elements of the funeral itself (pictures, memorials, poems, etc.) indicate a much greater value on animals than in the past.  

We are already witnessing attitudes in our culture that betray a gravitation towards increased "equalizing" of animals and humans, and too many in the church have bought into this idea.  Are you prepared to lovingly confront the false idea that "all dogs go to heaven," and re-assert the essential distinction between human beings, who are created in God's own image and likeness, and pets, who are not?  Are you ready for the backlash that is likely to come from supposed "mature" Christians for simply asserting the Biblical truth that their pet doesn't possess an eternal soul?  Are you ready to point your people to the serious theological implications of believing otherwise? (Did Jesus really die for a DOG?  Seriously?!)

Scenario Six:  Because of growth, your church starts a "video venue," and begins live-streaming worship and sermons via the internet.  You notice that you have a growing "online" audience, many of whom log in every Sunday, and who financially support the ministry.  Through connections with these people on social media you discover that, although they may live hundreds or even thousands of miles away, they consider your church their "church home."  

Today's advanced and inexpensive technology means that churches are asking questions that would never have been considered even 20 years ago, and one of the biggest questions today has to do with the legitimacy of the so-called "internet church."  In the future, how will your church ensure that the Biblical principles and practices commensurate with a covenant community are observed in this environment?  

Are you ready for the conversations church leadership must have in the future related to how everything from church discipline to fellowship can be achieved in this context?  The most obvious pitfall of social media is that our society has never been more exposed to each other, and simultaneously, never been more alone.  How can the church be truly "counter-cultural" in this environment?  At what point should we say "no" to certain forms of technology because they threaten sound ecclesiology?

Scenario Seven:  You discover through casual conversation that a yoga class has been started by leaders in the church, that participants freely greet one another with "namaste," and that Christian meditation has been confused with the emptying of the mind that is endorsed in many Hindu communities.  

Over the past decade, there has been a huge increase in ancient pagan practices, much like those that occurred in the days of the Old Testament.  The digital age, among other things, presents opportunities for the "blending" of faiths that was unheard of even two decades ago.  In what ways should you be prepared to bifurcate for your people between what can, and cannot, be part of the life of someone who follows Jesus according to Scripture?  Are you equipped to help your people understand the difference between "form" and "meaning" when it comes to practices, so that they can separate the truly harmless from the "seemingly harmless," the latter of which has deep roots in ancient paganism?

Scenario Eight:  You receive a call from a mainline church in town.  The size of their congregation has dropped to less than 20 members. They are fearful for their future, and they ask for your help.  It is simply a statistical fact that theological liberalism kills churches.  As such, expect the mainline protestant churches in your town to continue slowly bleeding to death.  Yet, the people in those dying churches need someone to love them by ministering to their needs and reminding them of what their faith once stood for.  Are you prepared to raise up leaders who can utilize those facilities to start a second campus for your church, or start a new church altogether?  Are you now able to be friends with these people, and love them through their struggles while holding firmly to your faith?

Scenario Nine:  Parents come to you for counseling regarding their son, who has been diagnosed with multiple "generic" disorders, but doctors have been incapable of specifying the problem, and the child has been largely un-treatable by psychiatrists.  You suspect the presence of demonic activity.  

I truly believe that we will see a sharp rise in obvious demonic activity in the west, and I believe it will unfortunately be mis-diagnosed as a solely medical or psychiatric problem.  As a result, too many children will grow up expressing the personality of a psychotrophic drug unless wise and godly pastors in the west learn to recognize the presence of demonic activity, lead families past the "exorcism" nonsense of Benny Hinn and the Church of Rome, and confront it head-on with the Gospel.

Scenario Ten:  In this "brave new world," God continues to seek worshippers, and Jesus continues to save people from sin, Satan, death, and hell in miraculous ways. 

I'm sure some of what I've written above scares some readers.  I'm equally certain that some of you are angry, and for various reasons.  As lovingly as I can say it, I don't care.  What I've described above is a culture that is emerging, and that is filled with people Jesus died to save.   And it is in this environment when I hear evangelical Christians having the dumbest arguments!  

Where the Mid-Maryland Association is concerned, I want us to be ready for that world so we can be faithful to Jesus.  So many of the arguments and "controversies" we have these days  are proven in contrast to the realities above to be as ridiculous as they appear to be.

We have some pure, honest, real-world "issues" coming, and we don't have time for the cosmetic ones.  Are we prepared to stop pining for the world as we wished it was, and begin preparing to reach the world as we know it will soon be?  I hope so.

Rise Up Church! The Battle Against Modern-Day Slavery

The down-side of popular legislation in the United States is that, after its passed, too many Americans believe the law by itself took care of the problem.  In no area is this delusion more demonstrable than the area of slavery.

We have had the 13th amendment since the close of the Civil War in 1865, yet in the United States, slavery has continued, primarily through the avenue of human trafficking.  This plague on society, which centers on the inhumane and violent treatment of women through the sex trade, has a more acute presence in my own state of Maryland. So, for those of you who live with me in the ironically named "free state," I urge you to call your legislators regarding the information below and DEMAND that they take action.

Yesterday, I received information from Maryland's Safe House of Hope, a ministry linked tangentially with our Association of churches whose mission is to serve as a place of refuge for women who have been the victims of sex trafficking.  If you are a fellow resident of the state of Maryland, then you and I live in a state that just last year received a grade of "D" from the Shared Hope Protected Innocence Report, which grades each state on how effective its legislative bodies are at putting an end to human trafficking.  In short, they called Maryland legislators incompetent.  And on this issue, they hit their mark.

In the next 10 days, you and I have the opportunity to change this.  Read the report below, weep for the reality that is embedded in our own back yard, and call the offices of your state delegate and senator.  

There are more than 500,000 professing Christians in this state.  If the church rises in one voice on this issue and demands that our lawmakers take action, it could be the difference between life and death for many young women in our state.  Call today!

'You can order a girl like a pizza'

Ten days are left to get bills through the state House and Senate to make human sex trafficking less profitable in Maryland. Without them, the forced prostitution of girls will continue to gross great wealth for pimps in Maryland. Nationally, prostitution was a $33 billion industry in 2012, importing 15,000 in addition to 100,000 U.S. teens.

"You can order a girl like a pizza; delivered to your place or you go to her place," Denene Yates, founder of Maryland's Safe House of Hope (safehouseofhope@gmail.com) told OneVoice Thursday, describing the scourge of sex trafficking in our state, and efforts to change the legal system and to bring hope to women trapped in an occupation they find disgusting but are helpless to escape. 

THE LAWS

Forfeiting Trafficking Profits

The state can require a person convicted in Maryland for the illegal sale of drugs to forfeit to the state his bank account, his car, everything used in his illegal activities. If a person is convicted in Maryland of trafficking a woman (pimping), the state cannot take his ill-gotten gain. He may go to jail for a year or two, but his profits will be there for him upon his release.

A bill to change that, Asset Forfeiture for Human Trafficking (HB 713), is stuck in the House Judiciary Committee because the committee chair, Joseph Vallario, again this year refuses to allow it to come to a vote, even though it has 80 cosponsors; over half of Maryland's 141 delegates. Your call will be answered by a clerk, who will add your call to a log of calls kept by category; in this case, trafficking.

The committee must be allowed to vote - and approve - the bill in the next ten days or there will not be adequate time for it to move through the rest of the legislative process, according to Nancy Winston of Shared Hope International, a trafficking advocacy group, who coordinates legislative activity in Maryland as volunteer Chair of the Legislative Committee of the Maryland Human Trafficking Task Force (nwinston@sharedhope.org).

To encourage Delegate Vallario to release this bill - and other trafficking bills - for a vote, call him at 800-492-7122, extension 3488 or e-mail joseph.vallario@house.state.md.us. Remind him that he was elected to protect our children. Pray the Lord will soften his heart. Your presence is also encouraged at a press conference on Tuesday, March 19, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 142 of the House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Annapolis MD 21401

Ignorance of Age No Defense

Thursday the Judiciary Committee approved a bill (HB 933) that would not allow a trafficking defendant to argue he was not aware of the age of the girl unless he can prove that he asked for valid identification to determine her age. 

The bill now goes to the full House for a vote, then to a companion Senate committee, and lastly to the full Senate, before it goes to the governor for signature. Pray for rapid passage and signature.

Trafficking a Child Under Age 16

Maryland makes abduction a misdemeanor but says human sex trafficking is a felony, for which the perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to life. This bill (HB 943) argues that the prostitution of a girl under the age of 16 (the age of consent) is abduction for human sex trafficking and should carry the penalty for trafficking. The average age at which a girl enters prostitution is 12.

Trafficking 18-20 year olds

Like the bill regarding girls under age 16, this one (SB 215/HB 1188) changes trafficking a girl aged 18-20 from a misdemeanor to a felony. 

Police Awareness

Police typically see prostitution as a crime voluntarily committed by the female, who should be arrested. This bill (HB 1056) provides training to help police recognize human sex trafficking as male coercion.

In Maryland

Denene's initial focus is to go out on the streets at 2 or 3 a.m. so she can make a personal contact with a girl and encourage her to walk away from prostitution. Her biggest need is for a support relationship for a recovering girl with someone who will be there for her later when trouble comes and she needs a place to live, food, etc. Otherwise she has no where to go except back into prostitution.

The journey from entrapment to freedom goes through a walk-in center, a safe place to talk (pimps try to frighten girls into silence), and, when the decision is made to leave prostitution, a group home. Denene needs four couples who will live as house-parents in group homes. She provides ten weeks of training. 

Girls who have been forced into prostitution usually come from homes where they have not been well parented. They are used to making demands and pushing until they get what they want. A house parent needs to be prepared to help the girl respect boundaries. 

Taking a preemptive posture, Denene has begun going into poor neighborhoods with parenting classes. Her biggest need; money, and housing for girls.

She also calls the websites where men go to get a girl and speaks with the girls, asking them "what are you going to do for yourself?," encouraging a sense of self-worth. For more on Safe House, go to www.safehouseofhope.org.

"Our Brothers' and Sisters' Keepers," a group of congregational and social service agency folks, will host a morning focused on human sex trafficking on Wednesday, April 24, from 9 a.m. to noon at Bethany United Methodist Church, 2875 Bethany Lane, Ellicott City 21042. Denene will share, along with a representative of the "Howard County Advocacy Group Against Slavery & Trafficking (HoCoAGAST)."

Breakfast foods and beverages will be provided. If you would like to attend, please contact facilitator Linda Hayes at 410-461-8100 or Martin Brooks at 410-465-2919, extension 12.

For more information see Safe House of Hope, or the Araminta Freedom Initiative. 

Send the Whole Body; Change the Whole World, Starting with You!

I'm grateful to serve a network of churches that believes our calling is global as well as local.  For many decades in my denomination, it was assumed that Associations were, well, local, and that regional and international evangelism and church planting were the exclusive purview of SBC agencies charged with those respective areas.  But radical changes in transportation and communication over the past twenty years has made a truly "glocal" environment possible.

This is good for the church for two reasons.  First, as our global awareness continues to increase, so should our conviction that our responsibility for the global spread of the Gospel can't be abdicated by churches to mission boards.  Second, these shifts have resulted in the opening of missionary opportunity to people from every profession and walk of life.  Last time I checked, the Great Commission wasn't limited to those with degrees in missiology!

Jesus' desire is to send the whole body of Christ, working within the area in which they are gifted.

About 12 years ago while teaching evangelism at a Baptist University, a young lady came to me in tears.  After a moving chapel service that morning (it was "Missions Emphasis Week"), she was convinced that God had called her to be a missionary, but wrongly believed that this calling meant she had to give up on her love of children and teaching.  Because of this assumption, she was asking me for help in transferring from the College of Education to the College of Christian Studies.

Let me tell this story another way:  A young lady in a major that would allow her to virtually write her own ticket and go anywhere in the world, believed that to "answer the call to missions" she would need to switch to a major that would likely cause her to be refused admission to a host of places around the world--places most in need of the Gospel!  After helping her realize that her love for teaching and love for missions need not be mutually exclusive, I only had one question.  Twelve years later, I still have no answer to this question:  "How on earth did we in the church arrive at such a myopic view of what missions is?"  

I don't know where these assumptions came from, but this spring I'll be writing a book (due out this fall) that confronts such nonsense head on!  More on this later in the year.

Sometimes, I get questions from pastors and others in our Association about why we are at work in so many places around the world.  "It seems like most of what you guys do is just take mission trips all the time."  I get it.  And if "taking trips" was actually all we did, I'd be as skeptical about what we do as they seem to be when they ask the questions.  But we don't just "take trips."  Five years of "trips" to East Asia as resulted in a number of house churches that have introduced hundreds to Jesus.  Many "trips" to New York since Hurricane Sandy bore down on the eastern seaboard has helped deploy the body of Christ from the areas of construction, transportation, and health care to a place where these services are desperately needed.  And when they bring these things in the name of Jesus, more people follow Jesus!  Pastors and missionaries can't do this by themselves.  If we try, we sin against the people we presume to lead, and encourage them to disobey the Great Commission by omission!

So for the past several years, Mid-Maryland Association has continually emphasized sending the whole body of Christ.  Though we are at work on every inhabited continent, I can think of only one place where we are at work that is led by pastors.  In every other effort, its a federal government security specialist, a teacher, an HVAC technician, a sports apparel salesman, or a retired grandmother leading the way, and the effect of their service is reciprocal!

One example of this is below.  Recently, our Association partnered with one of our local churches on an exploratory trip to west Africa.  One young lady (she is in her early 20s), who also happens to be a teacher, wrote a summary of her experiences, and has given me permission to share those experiences with readers here.  Those experiences weren't all fun, and they weren't all pleasant.  But God used them all to move in her, and through her, to make Jesus known in a very dark place.  This is one of the best examples I've seen of how Jesus changes the world, and changes us, when we obey His command to send the whole church.

This trip has been such an incredible blessing in so many ways.  What I've learned in the past few years is that blessings aren't always received in happy circumstances.  Sometimes God teaches us through the hard times and that is no less of a blessing than those borne in happy times.  I've learned a lot about myself, both good and bad things.  I've gained a new "family" in my mission team and have shared experiences with them that probably shouldn't ever be repeated! :)

I've been to a part of the world that few people from the west have ever set foot on.  I've seen how people can struggle every day, but I've also seen how much joy a group of people--who we would consider destitute--can have.

I've had such a privileged life.  I wake up every morning knowing I will get to eat, drink clean water, and bathe.  I didn't have to worry about taking care of my younger siblings instead of going to school.  I didn't have to work in a field instead of play.  I was allowed a carefree, happy childhood, which I am incredibly grateful for.

I don't have to worry constantly about my safety or health.  We live in a society where a proactive approach to health is possible.  Eating healthy foods, exercising, and maintaining sanitary conditions are all possible for me.  I can afford a gym membership, fresh produce and meats, and can clean my hands in water that isn't contaminated.  I've taken all of this for granted my whole life.

I'm so thankful that God sent me on this trip.  I came in expecting that my role was to help other people.  While I do think I did some of that, I also believe that God's plan for me in west Africa involved the people who live there helping me.  I believe God wanted me to learn from them, about them.  I think I was meant to learn about myself--especially the areas of myself that I need to work on.  I am a selfish, fearful, and spoiled person.   Through this trip, I've seen these parts of myself in a very clear way.  This is not meant to be self-deprecating.  These are parts of myself (And if we are all honest, parts of all of us) that need work.

In short, this trip was amazing in so many different ways, and for so many different reasons.  I am so blessed to be able to experience these things, especially at my age.

To those of you who wonder why we do what we do, the words above illustrate but one of the many reasons why.  And if you have been "on the fence" for a while wondering if God can use you, let the words above sink deeply into your soul.  YES, He can use you!  And He will also radically change you for the better in the process!

Explore opportunities to change the world while God changes YOUR world at the "news and events" section here. 

Tim Tebow and the Irony of Gnats and Camels

On the surface, the narrative seems simple and clear.  A church that has faithfully proclaimed the Gospel for many decades is taken to task by a hostile media and political correctness.  A star professional athlete who makes no secret about his love for Jesus is invited to the grand opening of a new facility to house this church, subsequently pressured by the public to renounce an association with them due to their "message of hatred," and quickly decides to back away from his initial commitment.  Another example of the growing "persecution" of Christians in North America who dare to believe and preach—among other things--that salvation comes only through Jesus, and marriage is only between a man and a woman.

First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas and her Senior Pastor, Dr. Robert Jeffress, have "taken one for the team," and done so "for the sake of the Gospel."  Tim Tebow, the New York Jets Quarterback who backed away from his earlier commitment to speak at FBC's grand opening of its new $130 million facility, has "wimped out," and left his fellow Christians wounded on the battlefield of the current culture war.  Its a moving story, and readily accepted by most evangelicals.

Unfortunately, its just not that simple.

At the outset of this post, I should clarify my overall opinion of Dr. Jeffress.  I believe he is a brother in Christ, and a genuine preacher of God's Word.  During the last Presidential campaign, I was particularly grateful for Dr. Jeffress' voice of Gospel clarity in the midst of so many others (including the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) who seemed willing to slay the Gospel on the altar of Republicanism just so the Mormon candidate could beat the so-called "socialist."  Additionally, I remain eternally grateful for the legacy of FBC Dallas.  It was the influence of churches like this one that paved the way for me to be able to study at a world-class seminary under professors who actually believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  When it comes to what we believe, I am "one of them," and proud to say so.

At the same time,  I'm as disturbed by the way followers of Jesus are framing this issue as I am by those in the secular world who would presume to attack a church simply because they hold to 2000-year old convictions.  In particular:

1. I'm disturbed by our current "culture-war" posture.  The huge assumption behind all the other assumptions regarding the Tebow debacle is that the way to "defend the Gospel" is to always--ALWAYS engage the fight publicly, and in a way that portrays culture as the adversary.  Problem is, following through with this assumption means that we actually capitulate to secular culture by, in every instance, fighting on a battleground of THEIR choosing.  I simply don't accept the silent premise that public culture-warring is tantamount to preaching the Gospel.  Certainly there are times when the church must speak publicly.   But in most cases where public heat is turned up on a particular issue, the clarity of those issues is lost in the screaming, and people Jesus died to save are turned off to the banter.  Ever roll your eyes while watching Chris Matthews on a political rant?  Too many times, I fear that people don’t hear what we are saying because we assume a similar posture.

For example, why exactly did Tim Tebow back out of this opportunity?  Unfortunately, too many of his brothers and sisters in Christ are willing to fill his public silence with their own assumptions.  And they feel justified in doing so because, in their minds, he has obviously "compromised."  He refused to engage in a public battle on an issue that has recently seen way too much heat, and way too little light on BOTH sides.  I understand, and share, many of Dr. Jeffress’ concerns about where our culture is headed.  But in the end, the call of the Great Commission is not about “saving America.” (another post for another day, perhaps)

Evangelicals, and Southern Baptists in particular, have been abundantly clear regarding our views of sexual ethics.  I really don’t think the public is unaware of where we stand, and continuing to “mix it up” using the same methods as the secular media just hasn’t worked out so well.  In some cases, its just made us look like jerks, and my guess is this was Tebow’s concern.

Even Dr. Jeffress himself took an insinuative stab at Tebow while praising James Dobson, David Jeremiah and others who are keeping their speaking commitments to FBC.  They are, in Jeffress' words, "willing to stand up and act like men rather than wimping out when it gets a little controversial."  Bottom line:  Do it my way, or be labeled an agent of compromise!

But the word "compromise" has an actual definition.  If Tim Tebow has changed his mind about the clear teaching of Scripture, then certainly the label applies to him.  Yet there is absolutely no indication that this is the case, and too few Christ-followers are unwilling to "assume the best" as commanded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.  And they seem unwilling to do so, not because Tebow has clearly denied Scripture, but because he chose a different approach that didn't involve engaging in a public fight that has proven to be the wrong venue for Christians seeking to have this conversation.

2. I'm disturbed by our caricature of others.  I've never been to a "save traditional marriage" rally, but ask my gay friends what I think about the issue, and you will get a clear answer.  Similarly, my Muslim friends know what I believe.  When we have hosted them in our churches, we have done so with Q & A guides for our own people that my Muslim friends have read, and those guides say clearly "we believe Christianity and Islam hold to beliefs that are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable, and that Islam's views of God and salvation are not sufficient to save."  But I've never tried to caricature my Muslim friends as "the enemy."  Our differences are over the person and work of Jesus.  I don't have to make up differences.

Robert Jeffress is certainly not the only evangelical leader who has caricatured these two groups, but since the recent issues do surround his ministry I will simply say this.  Its one thing to call homosexual behavior a sin (and I do!).  But Robert Jeffress has used questionable research to suggest a correlation between homosexuality and all other sorts of sexual perversion.  Its one thing to claim that Muslims need to put their trust in Jesus as Lord and God (I do that too!). Robert Jeffress has stated that Islam commends incest and pedophilia.  In his own words, “Muslim men all over the world are having sex with 4-year old girls!”

These statements hit close to where I walk every day.  I have many Muslim friends in this area with whom I would trust my wife and children.  I want to see them come to know Jesus, and I know more than most that making inaccurate, stereotypical statements about their faith simply isn't the way to do it. There is a marked difference between calling people to repentance and faith in Jesus, and merely insulting those Jesus died to save.

Its one thing to preach the Christian Gospel with clarity; quite another to break the ninth commandment about precious people created in God's own image and likeness in order to show yourself superior.  Could it be that, after having his attention called to the controversial methods of Robert Jeffress, Tim Tebow decided he didn't want to be associated with said methods?

Even Al Mohler has admitted that Jeffress' approach often reflects that of a lightning rod.  Writing for Christianity Today, Mohler states that "Robert Jeffress is no stranger to public controversy.  His sound bites are often incendiary....."  Mohler goes on to rightly state that Jeffress' beliefs--in particular about the exclusivity of Jesus and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior "are clearly within the mainstream of American Evangelicalism." (I would also add that they are even more in the mainstream of the wider, global body of Christ), and warns believers that a day is soon coming (and may already be here) when "those celebrating the moral normalization of homosexuality will demand an answer from us all."  In short, it isn't just how we say something.  It's that we say it at all that will eventually become the point of contention.  

I believe he is right. (In fact, I've said so here)   But I also believe that how we say something is every bit as important as what we say.  Followers of Jesus should never retreat from telling the truth,. But if that "truth" isn't accompanied by the "gentleness and respect” that 1 Peter 3:15 demands, we are just as derelict in our duty to Jesus.  In this case, “we know some of what he says is incendiary, but……” simply misses the mark.  Some of what Jeffress has said about Muslims and the gay community isn't merely controversial.  Some of his statements are simply not true.

Admittedly, my observations here are influenced heavily by my own experiences and training.  My field is missiology, and in this field we speak often of "receptor-oriented communication."  In a cross-cultural environment, using language or concepts that are foreign to the "receptor" with whom you hope to communicate can result in sending a message you don't intend to send!  Similarly, if we want to be clear about what we believe, we can't only be concerned about accuracy. We must also concern ourselves with clarity.  I have no doubt that the Christian Gospel is often rejected on its face.  Jesus told us it would be, and I have experienced such rejection.  But let's make sure that what people are rejecting is actually the Gospel, and not our own personalities and prejudices.

So why does it seem that everyone is criticizing a Quarterback for simply bowing out of a speaking engagement, but saying nothing about a pastor whose choice of words at times clouds the very truth that I'm convinced he wants to share?  One is just as important as the other.

3. I’m disturbed by the opulence.  It deserves mention I think, that this entire episode erupted over an invitation to speak at the grand opening of a $130 million church facility. 

$130 million.  Let that figure sink in, because its enough to put more than 500 missionaries on foreign fields for the rest of their careers.  Its enough to fully fund the launch of more than 1000 new churches in North America.  Its more than enough to fund the adoption of more than 3000 orphans.

Now, that comparative argument by itself doesn't prove bad stewardship.  Perhaps the expenditure was necessary.  I've never been to the campus of FBC Dallas, so I don’t know, and that isn't even my point.  My point is this:  we become what we celebrate.  And for a good portion of our recent history, Southern Baptists have made great fanfare of opulent buildings.  FBC Dallas has made no secret of the cost of this project.  “Look what we've done” is a statement that accurately describes their disposition toward this, and they plan to spend an entire month celebrating it.   Why do we hear so few question why there is such celebration over that which, at least on the surface, seems to excessive.

Perhaps we should instead focus on the Dallas-Fort Worth area; an area that Christianity Today just a few years ago called “the center of the Evangelical world,” where the population of those indicating no religious preference or affiliation has more than doubled. Perhaps if we celebrated churching an area as opposed to merely having the biggest church in the area, we could make a more effective difference.   I’m deeply troubled at the fact that we seem to be celebrating the wrong things.

3. I'm disturbed by our hero-worship.  Evangelicals have long had our own "celebrity culture," and for the most part, its never had long-term success.  A NASCAR driver who gives his testimony at a Billy Graham Crusade is discovered to be cheating on his wife less than 6 months after the fact.  An Oscar-winning actor who makes a riveting film about the death of Jesus is soon pulled over by police in a drunken, anti-Semitic rant.  And in all-such instances, we act deeply disappointed because we've been disappointed!

I'm thankful for what God has done in Tim Tebow's life, and I'm grateful that he wants to use his fame and talent to point people to Jesus.  But at the end of the day, Tim Tebow is human, and will thus inevitably do something or say something (or in this case, refrain from saying something) that will disappoint someone.  It is unfortunate that so many Christ-followers depend on the same "celebrity culture" as Hollywood to see our message promoted. 

We don't need yet another human hero, because our ultimate Hero has already come, died, and risen from the dead.  

Jesus put it this way to the Pharisees.  "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."  (Matthew 23:24)  Cultural Christians who condemn someone for simply not wanting to be a jerk while simultaneously ignoring their own wrong-headed assumptions may be guilty of precisely what Jesus was describing.

At the end of the day, all who follow Jesus are after the same goal; the spread of the Gospel as described by Robert Jeffress himself:  

"The good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done.  It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew, a Baptist, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Hindu, a homosexual, an adulterer, a thief or a cheat.  It doesn't matter what you've done.  You can be forgiven of your sins if you trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior.  That's not a message of hate.  Its a message of hope."

Indeed it is a message of hope!  Maybe we should do more to ensure that if its rejected, its because those who turned away found the cross offensive, and not us.

How Far Have we Really Come? The Naivete of Progressive History

The task of "assuming," to recall a popular phrase too crude to repeat here, usually makes all parties out to look rather foolish.  Yet many progressive pundits are quick to assume a particular view of history that, in and of itself, assumes too much.

A progressive view of history, simply put, states that all of human existence is a linear and perpetual move from bad to good.  Over enough time, it is believed that human societies continue to progress from prejudice to acceptance; from ignorance to education; from oppression to freedom.  Its a view most succinctly described by Dr. Martin Luther King, who stated that "the moral arc of the universe, but it bends toward justice."  Its a positive, promising, and wholly optimistic view of humanity and the history we leave behind.  It also happens to be one of the most oversimplified and naive understandings of our historical trajectory, and the human condition that moves it.

To be sure, we have "come a long way," at least in some respects.  From the perspective of science and technology, the last century has borne witness to antibiotic medications, life-saving surgical procedures unthinkable in the 19th century, and a lunar landing.  The problem of prejudice also seems to be subsiding, as  the anglo majority in North American moves ever faster to becoming the minority.  At the same time, the technology we so often worship because of its healing power has also emerged in the form of mass weapons capable of ending our very existence.  Space exploration, as wonderful and exciting as it sounds, has done little to help us clean up our act and stop irreversibly polluting the environment on our own planet.  And while racial tensions have certainly subsided, a significant number who board airplanes these days still look at anyone of middle-eastern decent with one eye closed.

It has gotten better, and it has also gotten worse.

I received an email today that, while also way too simplistic in its understanding of the so-called "good ole' days," illustrates well that not all things have gotten "better."  I did make one change.  The email compares the years 1956 and 2011.  But as I reviewed the scenarios, I realized that the 1956 scenarios were still true when I entered high school as a freshman in 1986.  My, how quickly we can "evolve."  Enjoy!

HIGH SCHOOL:  1986 VS. 2011

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.

1986: Vice Principal comes over to look at Jack's shotgun, then goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2011:  School goes into lockdown.  The FBI is contacted.  Jack is hauled off to prison and never sees his truck or his gun again.  Counselors are called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:  Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1986:  Crowd gathers.  Mark wins.  Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2011: Police are called and a SWAT team arrives.  Both Johnny and Mark are expelled from school, and summarily charged with assault.

Scenario 3: Jeffery will not sit still in class.  He disrupts other students.

1986: Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2011: Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4: Billy breaks a window in his neighbors car and his dad gives him a whipping.

1986: Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2011: Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5: Mark gets a headache and takes aspirin to school.

1986: Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock

2011: The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:  Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1986: Ants die.

2011: ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.

Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again

Yep, we've come a long way, haven't we?

Asking the Right Questions:: Christians and Boy Scouts of America

If you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years, you may be unaware that in that time--a bit less than the time span of a single generation--the moral climate of nearly the entire western hemisphere has experienced a seismic shift.

Conversely, if you have lived anywhere near a TV set and are of average intelligence, you've noticed!

The most recent evidence of this shift was made known to us recently, when the Boy Scouts of America reversed a decades-long ban that kept gay boys and men out of the scouts.  As could have been easily predicted, social conservatives from nearly every corner of our culture came out with guns blazing, along with those from the far left, who added their own fuel to a very hot, and very unclear debate.

As followers of Jesus, Christians are to contend for the truth.  But contending for what is right often requires far more light, and far less "heat" than is often contributed, especially when the discussion surrounds moral issues in the 21st century.  Various understandings of what it means to be "gay," coupled with vague understandings of this recent decision by BSA have clouded the issue, and together with the immediate response of "culture warriors" from both left and right, have made this conversation nearly impossible to have.

Enter my friend Marty Duren.

One of the reasons I'm thankful for Marty's recent post is that it doesn't contain the usual flare of "culture war" propaganda.  Instead, he takes aim at the church.  "My critique," he states, "is not toward the BSA's decision as much as toward how followers of Christ might understand it."

Marty has written a superb post that I highly recommend, and I cannot improve on what he says, so I will merely point out the basic questions he contends believers should ask surrounding this issue:

1. "Are we more concerned about the loss of Americanism than finding an authentic expression of a Christ-bought church?"
2. "If we are more concerned with an authentic expression of the church, why are we so afraid of a faltering culture since the church has usually shone brightest in the rubble?"
3. "Will we ever grasp that 'reclaiming America' is not the same as revival?"
4. "Will we ever grasp that there is no Biblical mandate--or even a suggestion--that 'reclaiming America' is not a call on God's people?"
5. "Have we misrepresented the fall of Christendom as the work of Satan, rather than considering it could be God destroying our most  grand, safe and preferred  idol?"

There are many other questions in this post as well--questions designed to get under your skin in a sanctifying way, and as you can tell just from the ones I've listed here, this post is only for those who like their coffee strong.  Of course, maybe a good dose of caffeine would help the 21st century American church awaken from a stuper of intellectual laziness and spiritual lethargy.  Read the rest of my friend's post here.

Who are "Evangelicals?"

Over the past few weeks, and more particularly in reference to discussions regarding sexual ethics, Evangelical Christians have made the news, and usually not in a good way.

To be sure, sometimes we earn the bad reputation that we  suffer with in the public eye.  Many times, however, we simply make a good "whipping boy" for a shallow and surface-dabbling media looking for someone to blame.  But to be fair, sometimes the definition of "Evangelical" can differ within our own ranks.  Years ago, David Martyn-Lloyd Jones issued a series of lectures entitled "What is an Evangelical?" in an attempt to wrest a succinct understanding of this term back from a larger Christian body who, in his view had diluted the term.  Admittedly,  accurately defining the term can be a lot like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree!  

Sometime ago, I wrote an article aimed at non-Christians outlining a more precise, and ironically, a more global view of Evangelical Christian identity.  The article was picked up by ExploringGod.com, and an edited  version can be found here.  But my original draft appears below.  My hope is that those seeking more information about Evangelicalism will hear in the following words who we really are, and what our common and central passions are.  Who are Evangelicals?  Keep reading!

“Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate.”  -Henry Louis Mencken

“To be Evangelical is to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the Good News of Jesus.”  -An Evangelical Manifesto 

“Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”  -Jesus, John 3:3

For some, no group in North America is easier to hate, or more difficult to understand, than evangelical Christians.  Admittedly, some who wear this label often fit the negative stereotype that has come to be associated with the term, and too often, loud voices claiming to speak for all evangelicals spread a message that is less like Jesus Christ, and more like a political agenda or a cultural crusade.  Reactions to the term “evangelical” can be quite strong.  “Isn’t that the group who hates women and gay people?”  or  “Aren’t these the people who are afraid of science and societal advance?”   These assumptions understandably make some people nervous, and leave many wondering “exactly what do these people believe?”

But at its core, the evangelical message is not captive to any political philosophy or particular social agenda.  The core of the evangelical message, in fact, transcends political party, ethnicity, socio-economic class, and culture, and points ultimately to a God who loves all and desires for all to know Him.

Where did they come from?

Historically, Evangelical movements in the west emerged in the 17^th century.  At that time in the United States, the movement was primarily forwarded in churches led by men such as Jonathan Edwards, a Massachusetts pastor who also served for a brief time as President of Princeton University.  The movement continued throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries, and stressed virtue and personal devotion to God.

A great number of our nations hospitals (such as Vanderbilt) and institutions of higher learning (such as Princeton University and Brown University) were started by evangelicals. In fact, every educational institution started in the United States up until 1789—with the single exception of the University of Pennsylvania—was started by a Christian denomination. The men and women who founded these institutions applied the message of Jesus to the enlightenment mindset that was prevalent at the time.  Their goal was to affect society as a whole in a positive way through the tangible expression of their Christian faith.  Literary works of this time period were also produced in this environment.  Today, students come to the United States from all over the world in order to attend western universities.  All of the top ten MBA programs in the world are in the west (8 in the United States, 1 in Canada and 1 in Great Brittain).  This reality is due in large part to the contribution of evangelical Christians who, centuries ago, implemented a vision for the betterment of culture through top quality and accessible education.

Additionally the “scientific revolution” was started in large part by Christians, who introduced an inductive “scientific method” to the world.  Christians believed then, as they do today, that God has revealed Himself in nature, as well as in the human psyche.  The 17^th century chemist Robert Boyle stated that nature “is nothing else but God acting according to certain laws he himself fixed.”  Assumptions such as these provided an environment for the study and extension of mathematics and science in the west.  Though there were certainly those within Christian circles who opposed scientific advance, the truth is that these objections never represented the consensus of the Christian community

Evangelical thought has affected virtually every part of modern western society.  It was Christians who gave the world of art such notable painters and sculptors as Botticelli and Raphael.  Western classical music likewise, continues to be informed and inspired by Bach’s “St. Matthew’s Passion” and Handel’s “Messiah.”  Sociologist Rodney Stark admits that “the modern world arose only in Christian societies…..all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”

What do they want?

Though evangelicals are often portrayed as being “against” culture, the aim of this group of Christians is to see culture redeemed and restored to God’s original intention.   Complimentary evangelical beliefs in original sin and the hope of redemption in Jesus Christ have fueled attempts to create the kind of ideal environments in which this redemption can truly take place. Such were the convictions that led England's William Wilberforce to champion the cause of the abolition of slavery, eventually putting it to an end throughout the United Kingdom by the early part of the 19th century. The history of this group of Jesus’ followers demonstrates their strong contribution to uniquely western ideals.  Freedom of religion is based on the evangelical belief that only personal faith in Jesus saves and therefore, the state should not dictate religious belief to the masses.   Principled pluralism rests on the evangelical conviction that “forced conversion” is in fact no conversion at all.  It is rooted also in the conviction that adherents to all faiths should learn to live peaceably with each other, and that each should be free in mind to pursue the truth. Belief in universal human rights and just warfare are grounded in the conviction that human beings are created in God’s own image and likeness, and that therefore, each is worthy of dignity and respect.  Even the idea of separation of church and state owes its existence to a group of Baptist evangelicals who  were concerned about the encroachment of the state’s power into the life of the church. 

Throughout history, evangelicals have sought to advance civilization through principles that they believed were found within God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture and in nature.  That same spirit permeates the evangelical mindset today.  Evangelicals’ interaction with science, education, sociology, and culture at large is for the purpose of utilizing all those domains to better society, and communicate the Christian message in the process. 

What do they really believe?

These aspirations are motivated by the core beliefs of evangelical Christianity—belief in the Bible as the ultimate source of truth, the role of the church in society, and the urgency of global missions and humanitarian work.  Most importantly, evangelical action is based on the conviction that God has fully and finally revealed Himself to all humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. 

So to truly understand what it means to be “Evangelical,” one must unplug this term from its occasional ties to American politics and culture wars.  Evangelicals can be found in “red states” as well as “blue states.”  Members in good standing of Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green Parties include devoted followers of Jesus, and all believe that the great unifier is not political affiliation, race, gender, or societal status, but the message of Jesus’ death and resurrection.  At heart, evangelicals are simply bearers of the good news of Jesus Christ, who Himself loved humanity enough to enter our world and do what was necessary to bring healing, understanding, and deliverance from ourselves into a genuine relationship with Him.  Evangelicals don’t always follow Him perfectly, but more than anything, their desire is that the world would see who Jesus is through their words and actions.