Theology Thursday: The Church and Changing Leadership Structures

There was a time, not too long ago, when "Southern Baptist" didn't just indicate a particular brand of evangelical theology, but also a rather uniform approach to leadership structure.

Those days are gone.

Our network includes 62 churches spread throughout the Baltimore-Washington, D.C.corridor, and each of them have their own approaches to everything from church governance to how leaders are chosen.  Though they generally share the same congregational base (procedures for choosing leaders, and leader authority is approved by the body at large), the "day to day" operations take on a different form, depending on which church you are looking at.

In recent years, many new churches have established an elder-led model of church governance, and even many of our established churches have transitioned to an elder-led approach to leading their congregations forward.  At the national level of our denomination, there is sometimes the mistaken notion that having elders means the church has "gone Presbyterian."  While those suspicions are thankfully not present in our network, I have, over the years, received several questions regarding how Baptists can reinstate a plurality of pastoral leadership in a way that honors our own history and theology.

Each time I have this conversation, I recommend four books.  The first two are written by an old seminary classmate.  Dr. Ben Merkle, after teaching for many years in southeast Asia, joined the faculty of Southeastern Seminary a few years back, and soon after published two books:  Why Elders?  and 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons.  Both of these are not only Biblically sound, but practical, and written on a level easily understood by leaders in your church who haven't been to seminary

The third is an acquisition work edited by Paul Engle and Steven Cowan entitled  Who Runs the Church?  Controbutions from Peter Toon, L. Roy Taylor, Paige Patterson and Samuel Waldron allow readers to see the context in which these questions sometimes arise in churches.  Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist perspectives are laid side by side in a way that allows church leaders to move forward in the most informed way.

The fourth is a book that, in all likelihood, saved the first church I ever planted from my own stupidity.  Many years ago, Larry Osborne wrote the first edition of The Unity Factor, which speaks about the necessity of healthy leadership teams.  Even if your structure is Biblically sound and contextually appropriate for your church, that doesn't guarantee a smooth working relationship among the leadership that will serve the people well.

Church leadership is a subject of paramount importance, and its not only crucial to get the structure right, but to create an environment with that structure that prevents needless division, disunity, and disloyalty. If you are a church leader who is rethinking your approach, or if you simply want to be better informed of how to lead, and do it together with others, you should pick up these resources.

The Kissing Cousins of Divorce and Heresy

Last month, the Christian music community was shocked to hear of the pending divorce between musicians Derek Webb and Sandra McCracken.  After 13 years of marriage, the couple announce the dissolution of their union due to Derek's infidelity.

As a pastor of more than 20 years, my heart breaks every time I hear of a couple splitting up.  I've been in those counseling rooms, and the visceral emotions and long-term damage done to both spouses and their kids (if kids are involved) is enough to convince anyone that, regardless of the reasons or circumstances, divorce is ALWAYS a tragedy.  Sometimes, as in this case where adultery was committed, the Scriptures allow the betrayed spouse the option of leaving, but even in that situation, the process is indescribably painful.  Each time I encounter a situation like this as a pastor, I understand better and better why God bluntly says "I hate divorce!" (Malachi 2:16)

It would appear from the accounts surrounding the Webb/McCracken separation that each is under both the discipline and pastoral care of other  believers.  Webb specifically has submitted himself to the authority of brothers in Christ, and accounts like this make me as thankful for the church as I am sorrowful over divorce. So this post isn't about Webb and McCracken.  Nothing redemptive can come from seeking to dissect this situation in public, and the best thing we can do is pray for this couple as they face unspeakably difficult days ahead.

But I draw attention to Webb and McCracken primarily because of a Huffington Post article that appeared last week, in which this divorce was compared with prior situations, and held up against modern Christian assumptions about divorce.  The stats cited by the Post are troubling to say the least, and two figures in particular should catch the attention of every Bible-preaching pastor.  First, the article states that Christian couples have a 30% divorce rate today, compared to 19% in 1988.  Second, and more troubling still, "10 percent of white evangelicals [in 1988] said divorce should be easier for couples to get, according to the General Social Survey data.  By 2012, that figure had doubled, to more than 21%."

In short, the number of American Christians who think our society should make it easier to split up has more than doubled.  One of two things is happening here: either pastors aren't faithfully preaching what God's Word teaches in regard to the permanency of marriage, or people in the seats on Sunday just haven't been listening.

From the opening chapters of Genesis, the Scriptures not only commend, but command that the marriage covenant be permanent.  The language invoked describes a "joining together" of husband and wife in a way that makes them "one."  Though the Mosaic covenant would later prescribe specific case law to govern divorce, such rules weren't given to encourage the practice so much as to protect the most vulnerable in the relationship if a divorce occurred.  In short, Old Testament law recognized divorce as a reality in a sinful world, but never, ever commends it as a preferred path out of marital discord.

Jesus affirms this as well when he confronts the religious leaders of His own day, saying "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way."  Later in the New Testament, Paul expounds on the reason why permanent monogamy should remain not only the ideal, but the norm in any Christian environment when in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5, he draws a close parallel between the husband-wife relationship, and that which exists between Jesus and His church.

The bottom line is this:  Marriage is a picture of the Gospel, which means that to divorce for unBiblical reasons is to preach with your actions a false Gospel.  In this way, to divorce is to do with actions what a false teacher might do with his words.  I recognize that the ubiquity of divorce in our churches makes this seem like a very harsh statement, but faithfulness to the Biblical text means when we see stats that demonstrate Christians think we should "make divorce easier," we speak back with Christ-centered conviction and compassion that will hopefully keep this heretical attitude from growing within the body of Christ.

With rare exception, we should not permit divorce in our churches, because functionally, it is no different than permitting the denial of Jesus' own faithfulness to His people.  Each and every time a Christian couple have their marriage declared legally dead, they purposefully break the picture of Jesus and the church that God intends people see when they look at a married couple.  In cases of infidelity or clear abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, sometimes it is necessary to declare what already is. (Matthew 19:9)  But "Irreconcilable differences" is not a sufficient reason for a follower of Jesus to break God's picture, and from the statistics above, it would appear we need to say this more in our churches.

Divorce can be forgiven, and I also happen to believe that God still uses divorced people, even as leaders in the church, but it would be best for the family, the church, and for all of society, if we could create an environment where said forgiveness isn't needed, because we have prevented the perversion of the Gospel.  Maybe a good way to get started is to reaffirm in pulpits everywhere that when you refuse to divorce and make up your mind to obey God, even in bad circumstances, you aren't just trying to keep your mate, and you aren't just fighting for your marriage.  You are fighting for the Gospel itself!

Missions Monday: Why are You Afraid?

My wife will tell you that I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, especially when it comes to quickly picking up on things.  But a trend is afoot in the American church that is so obvious, you'd have to be asleep to miss it.

And the trend is this:  Followers of Jesus in the west are increasingly filled with fear.

This fear is manifest in several ways, but mostly, I see it coming out in a paranoid way through people--and sometimes entire ministries--dedicated to criticizing any attempt to engage culture.  Sure, we can cross the line and compromise Biblical principles, but between the guy who occasionally goes too far and has to repent, and the guy who does nothing because he fears going to far, put that first guy on my team!

Our world is changing, and doing so more rapidly than at any other time in human history.  For a church that was so sure of itself just decades ago because of the relatively prominent place we held in western society, these changes feel threatening, principally because they make us UNsure.  But as frightening as it may be to think of engaging the world in new and fresh ways, there is something we should fear even more.

The more I observe the modern paralysis in the western church, the more I'm reminded of a well-known parable of Jesus.  In Matthew 25, a landowner entrusts three of his servants with varying degrees of oversight--five talents to one, two to another, and one to the last. The first two went to work using the resources that had been given to them, and doubled their investment by their master's return, but the third buried his talent.

So when the master returns, he rewards the first two servants with more opportunity and responsibility, but took particular exception to the third, who told him "I know you.  Your'e a difficult man, reaping where you haven't sown and gathering where you haven't scattered seed.  So I was afraid, and went off and hid your talent in the ground."  (25:24-25, HCSB)

The thing about Mason jars is that while they protect money and keep it from getting dirty, they don't earn anything either.  And, this Master apparently didn't care if his money got a little dirty.  He wanted a return on his investment!

Keep in mind that this is one of three stories linked together to teach us about the Kingdom.  The point?  Our Master expects us to engage, and He expects us to produce.  And what is the one thing that kept the last servant from doing what his Master expected?  

Three words:  "I was afraid."

People driven by fear are actually pretty easy to spot:

1. They dismiss any expectations beyond "faithfulness."  "We aren't responsible for the results.  We are just supposed to be faithful."  Sounds great doesn't it?  Problem is, it just ain't true! Now, if by "results" you mean sheer numbers, then you may have a point.  God doesn't call every pastor to lead a mega-church, we are all gifted in different ways, and sometimes the results of our labors will look very different.  But a casual perusal of any parable about the Kingdom, or just reading the Sermon on the Mount, reveals quickly that Jesus expects results.  Salt can't help but preserve. Light naturally illuminates.  And when we are granted stewardship of the most powerful and effective story in history, you'd better believe Jesus expects us to do something with it that results in transformation.  Dismissing those demands by surface level appeals to 1 Corinthians 3:6 or other similar texts is the mental equivalent of putting the gifts God has given you 6 feet under for safe keeping. There is no "increase" without planting and watering, but the latter ALWAYS leads to the former in some form.

2. They see "compromise" in every attempt to engage.  In 1790, there was virtually no Christian presence that existed in the world that was further than 100 miles from the north Atlantic Ocean.  It was in that environment that a young William Carey realized the need for alternative means to reach people with the message of Jesus, and in spite of his hyper-Calvinist detractors, his efforts launched the modern missions movement.  Over the next century, the world would know of Jesus through rapid evangelism and church planting efforts that would eventually mean a Christian presence in most nations.  

Nearly 300 years later, the modern era has come to an end, and we are witnessing a massive and rapid shift  and collision of cultures like never before.  Where is the next William Carey?  My guess is he will emerge from one of the many being currently flayed by critics too afraid to join him in his efforts to engage the postmodern world.  Historically unprecedented global migration patterns, which came as a result of now inexpensive global travel and rapid technological advance, has "reset" boundaries of every sort and kind in this new world.  The modern world, which was marked by hard national, tribal, linguistic, religious and even ethic and racial lines is gone.  Everyone now lives everywhere, and thus the way we interact with the world has to reflect this new reality.  But those too anxious to hunch and feel their way through this new global arrangement tend to see compromise rather than effective engagement

3. They have little confidence in the efficacy of the Gospel.  Paul put it this way:  The Gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes."  I still believe this.  The grand story of God's redemptive mission by sending Jesus into the world has no equal in the universe!  No other vain, empty philosophy even comes close!  So if its really true, and it its really that powerful, why is there such fear among Christ followers just because the world has changed?

The only conclusion I can reach is one of tragic irony:  Too many followers of Jesus are actually afraid of the world He died to save!

Maybe its because we want the "old days" back when we sat in comfort atop the mountain of cultural superiority.  Maybe we long for the days when all the non-Christians were "over there," and even those who were "over here" didn't have that much influence.  

In this present world, when my neighbor is as likely to be a Hindu as a Presbyterian, its harder to be trite, simplistic, and distant from those who don't follow Jesus. "Sunday School" answers to their questions just won't cut it.  I'm actually going to have to use my head, and in the process, build a relationship with someone with a radically different worldview.

Yep, I can understand why we would prefer the old world.  But you and I live right here, right now, and Jesus has given us the world we have.  One day, He is coming back.  On that day, will you have your shovel in one hand, and a dirty Mason Jar in the other?  Or, will you have found ways to invest the Gospel in this brave new world in a way that will cause Him to say "well done, good and faithful servant."?

Jesus is Lord over the whole earth, and every part of it, and His is the most wonderful, and powerful story in all of human history, and He has given it to you.  What on earth are you afraid of?

*This post originally appeared December 2, 2013

Theology Thursday: Agreement on Atonement

"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."  -Hebrews 9:22, ESV

This week's "Theology Thursday" takes on the light-weight issue of the atonement of Christ.  :)  Rarely among pastors--let alone laity in our churches--is the subject of atonement theories raised.  But when it is, the discussion seems to evoke strong emotions on both sides which can very easily escalate into a vitriolic debate that dishonors both Jesus, and the price He paid for sinners.

In our Association, our pastors hail from Reformed and non-Reformed schools of thought where this issue is concerned.  Thankfully, both sides have understood that what we agree on is greater than what we disagree on, since for most all of our churches, there is a common understanding of penal substitution as the "heart" of the atonement--the belief that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners, bearing the wrath of God in our place so that those who repent and turn to Him in faith have eternal life.

But as recent as last week, a national debate regarding the "extent" of the atonement ignited again.  On one side, Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responded to a question about "limited atonement" in a May 3 podcast, arguing that Calvinists and Arminians aren't as far apart as it might seem, while at the same time defending his own understanding that Christ died for the elect.  Four days later, Truett Seminary theologian Roger Olsen issued a written response to Mohler's statements from the Arminian viewpoint.  The online responses to these public words substantiates my claim above that it is hard to separate this discussion from strong emotion.

I'm a two-time alumnus of Southern, and overall, I admire Dr. Mohler, and to a large degree share his theological convictions, so its difficult for me to critique this discussion.  Also, I freely admit that both Mohler and Olsen are way smarter than I am on a number of issues.  Still, as I heard these two men speak, I heard nothing particularly new from either position, which concerns me, given the fact that I believe both sides of this debate have talked past each other for many decades now--principally by asking the wrong question.

By "wrong question" what I mean is this:  Asking "who did Jesus die for?" is, in my view, an over-simplified way to begin this discussion.  For one thing, how one answers this question, regardless of which "side" one takes, will carry some degree of nuance.  As a seminary student, I studied historical theology under Tom Nettles, who held to what has been pejoratively called  a "commercial view" of limited atonement.  That is, Dr. Nettles claimed that Jesus died for the elect, and the elect alone.  He believed that there is no sense in which Jesus' death on the cross benefited in any way those who reject the message of the Gospel.  I don't believe this, which is why when I stand in a room that includes non-Christians, I have no problems telling them "Jesus died as an expression of God's love for you, so that you can have eternal life."  And in that sense, I'm not only comfortable, but confident to tell unbelievers "I believe Jesus died for you."  At the same time, when I'm asked what I believe actually took place on the cross, my understanding of texts such as Colossians 2:13-15 cause me to answer that question in a way that sounds a lot like someone who believes in particular redemption.

So where does that leave a guy like me?  Honestly, I don't know.  And honestly, I'm OK with that ambiguity, because I think focus on "extent" is, to a large degree, problematic, and ultimately solves very little.  A better question to ask is, again, "What took place on the cross?"  Because the crux of the difference between the Calvinist and Arminian positions lies here.  One believes that Jesus made debt payment possible for all people, while not actually paying a debt for anyone until they repent and believe.  The other side believes that Jesus actually paid a debt.  This is, in my view, the appropriate question to ask, because its the question the text actually answers.

As I ponder these deep questions with the work of our network of churches in view, I'm deeply thankful for the men in our pulpits who, while on different sides of an issue like this, have not allowed it to interfere with their cooperation with others.  After all, regardless of what you believe about the extent of the atonement, if it keeps you from sharing the death of Christ with an unbelieving world--even alongside people who may reach a different conclusion than you regarding the minutae of what took place there--you ultimately help no one.  Truth is, Mohler is right to state that preachers on both sides of this debate are much closer than it might appear.  Perhaps what makes the distance between these two positions seem further apart are the questions we are asking.

You can find Mohler's podcast here:

Roger Olsen's response on his patheos site is here:

Missions Monday: Church Planter Perceptions of Financial Support

I've been involved in church planting for 15 years, and during that time I've both received funding for my own calling to plant, and allocated funding for others.  Financial support for new churches is essential, if for no other reason than the amount of money we invest in something is often a reflection of how much we truly value the thing we say we value.  By the end of this year, my organization will have allocated more than $175,000 of its budget to the planting of churches in our region, and in different areas around the world.  We believe in planting new churches.  And, we believe strongly in church planters.

At the same time, financial support is also a very tricky business.  Unhealthy dependencies are easily established.  Exponential growth is sometimes unintentionally inhibited.  Indigeneity can be threatened by a "big giver" whose organizational culture clashes with that of the receptor culture targeted by the new church.  So when decisions are made regarding financial support, all of these factors have to be weighed.  I've written more thoroughly on these issues here, but this morning, I want to focus on the perception of funding, and funding decisions, by church planters that I have encountered over the years.

I've had the honor of being involved to varying degrees in the planting of more than 100 new churches, and the overwhelming majority of those who have planted these churches have been a joy to work with and a privilege to serve.  But sometimes, misunderstandings--particularly when it comes to the rationale and intent of financial support--can cause hard feelings toward denominations, sending churches, and other supporting entities.  So if you are a church planter, let me offer the following suggestions as to how you should view the financial support you receive.

1. View it as a Gift.  If you are a planter--especially if you are a planter in the middle of raising your support--this may be the hardest paragraph to read, but you need to hear this clearly.  No one--not the denomination, not the church, nor any individual--owes you anything.

Go ahead, take some time to get over the shock.  Breathe deeply and in a few minutes, you should be totally over the gut-shot you just took from reading that statement.  I'll wait.......

You ok now?  Good.  Because I want you to know this for your own good.  A few times over the last 10 years or so, I've had a few established church pastors tell me stories of young men walking into their office with an entitlement mentality.  When you give off that kind of attitude, you are confirming a stereotype that will hurt you, hurt your fellow church planters, hurt our efforts to convince pastors and potential supporting churches that "most planters aren't like that," and ultimately, you hurt the mission.  Don't be the proverbial bull in the china chop.  Be direct.  Tell potential supporters what God has called you to do.  Cast an irresistible vision and allow that Gospel-driven passion to sell itself.  And in the midst of telling your story, don't be too timid to tell people what it is going to cost, and the various ways they can be involved in helping pay for it.  But above all, be grateful for every opportunity to share, and be thankful when others decide to invest in your vision, no matter the amount.

2. View it as an Investment.  Sometimes I get questions from potential planters as to why our system is so complicated, and has so many requirements.  These questions are particularly acute when aimed at our assessment process, and I freely admit that in Maryland/Delaware, our assessment system is a bear! Navigating it is not easy, and much of this is by design, because if you can't navigate the coordination of personal and professional references while submitting to online analysis of your personality and leadership traits, piecing together an overall strategy plan, writing a sermon, and preparing yourself to sit in front of three people to explain why they should give you money, you probably aren't going to be successful in starting a church.  All of those skills must be exercised simultaneously in order to plant a church, and we really aren't about giving away free money simply because someone wants it, or even because they need it.

Each year, the churches of my Association give generously to support our work, and through their votes at our annual meeting, they authorize me to steward resources for various purposes, including church planting. Our churches don't view church planting as a charity effort.  They view it as a Kingdom investment, and they expect their Director to see it that way too, and act accordingly.  When someone agrees to support you, be thankful that they believe your ministry is worth the investment.

3.  View it as Affirmation. Have I mentioned yet that we value church planting, and love church planters in this network?  From the moment we begin assessment, to deployment, launch, the first baptism, the celebration of self-sufficiency, and the planting of the first daughter church, we make an incredible investment, not only of money, but lots of time and effort as well.  Our supporting churches likewise invest lots of time and money, and they do it because they believe in you, and value your ministry.  I have shared before that churches, Associations, state conventions, and other partners should give generously, intelligently, and strategically.  So if you are receiving support from us, or any of our partners, it is because we affirm your call to this work, and want to see you succeed.

We love church planters and church planting, and we have more than a decade of behavior that proves this to be the case.  So when you encounter something you don't quite understand, or even something you disagree with, keep in mind that our entire support system--while far from perfect--is designed by those who have gone before you, who love you, and who want to see you succeed!

The Necessary Identity Crisis of Evangelicalism

Over the past few weeks, Evangelical Christians have been struggling with their identity--but in a good way. First, there was righteous indignation expressed toward one who claims to be one of us.  While speaking at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made ignorant, heretical and unnecessarily provocative comments comparing Christian baptism to the practice of waterboarding, thereby blaspheming the Biblical picture of conversion, and giving Muslims in particular a false, militaristic view of Christian faith.  Many prominent evangelical leaders were quick to condemn her words, thereby separating themselves, and evangelicals as a whole from Mrs. Palin's very unChristian words.  

Then just last week, it was reported widely that Steve Chalke and his organization Oasis Trust, were removed from membership in the Evangelical Alliance of Great Brittain.  

One on the far-right, the other on the far-left.  But what they held in common should be obvious: both are more committed to their ideology than to Jesus.  

As a servant to more than 60 churches, all of which would call themselves "evangelical," I was encouraged by both of these developments. Often evangelical Christians are pigeon-holed into one particular cultural, political, or societal sector, when the truth is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most globally inclusive message in the worlld!  

At the same time, any movement with a center also has a boundary line.  Over the past few years, a number of prominent writers, pastors, musicians, and others who identify as Christian have struggled with whether they should continue to wear the term "Evangelical," or if they should seek to reform the meaning of the term by re-drawing those aforementioned boundaries.  In short, Evangelicalism in the west has been in an identity crisis.  And given the subject matter we have been discussing that has led us to this point, count me among those who think this is a good thing. .

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.   Complementary 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.

Living in the Future: A Repost

Imagine a married couple are expecting a child.  Now imagine that during that 9-month period they do absolutely nothing to get ready for that child.  They do nothing to provide a nursery, a bed, or a place to change diapers.  They don't think through how their work schedules are going to change in order to care for this child, or how they will afford childcare outside the home should the wife decide to go back to work.  They don't add the child to their will.  They don't provide life insurance for the child.  Worst of all, they don't secure medical coverage for the child once he or she is born.  How could they could have possibly been so short-sighted.  And imagine them responding by saying "we are doing just fine right now. We don't have a baby yet, and there is no need to do any of that until we have one."

You have just observed a couple who live consistently in the present, and think nothing of the future.  How many churches do you know like this?

Churches are often accused of "living in the past," but if the truth were told, too many churches are simply "living in the present," and simultaneously wondering why there is no growth, no excitement, and no vision.

Not long ago I was consulting with one of our congregations, and made some recommendations on steps forward they needed to take.  My work with Baptist churches means that I don't have any final authority over the churches I serve, but I also figure they wouldn't be paying me if they didn't want my input from time to time. However, one particularly strong objection to my recommended changes was punctuated by the phrase, "besides, we are doing just fine as we are."

"That may be true," I replied, "but you are not doing just fine as you will be."

A church with 100 active members will always--ALWAYS be at around 100 members unless it begins living in the future, and as such, behaving as if it were at 200 or 300.  But that sort of behavior demands change that can be uncomfortable.

1. Governance.   Smaller churches can have monthly business meetings and discuss everything....and I do mean EVERYTHING.  I once sat through a meeting in which the church body had a 45 minute discussion about how to spend $100.  Unfortunately, they were also very kind and civil to one another while having this conversation, so I couldn't accuse them of being ungodly.  But I did come very close to offering to write a check if they would simply stop talking!

But once a church begins to grow, monthly gatherings where every member of the body has the opportunity to offer input become increasingly impractical.  In Baptist churches, this means that our congregationalism becomes less "democratic" and more representative.  And this may be the hardest thing to change because everyone wants to be heard!  Problem is, once a church gets to the 250 mark, its not possible for everyone to be heard any longer, and if you want to get there, you have to start behaving like you are already there!

2. Staffing.  Conventional wisdom where church staff are concerned is "we will hire them when we can afford them."  To be sure, I have sometimes consulted with churches that are "over-staffed" and did so with the false notion that simply filling a position would somehow create excitement and subsequent growth.  But hiring the right people will create growth.  Generally speaking, you shouldn't wait until you can afford them.  Instead, you should hire who you can't afford to lose, and then watch them earn their keep!

3. Budget.  The ministry budget of a church is the real statement of a church's core values, and without faith-filled and calculated risk playing a role in the budget process, churches will inevitably budget "in the present."  Instead of starting with "what we took in last year," churches should instead start with the financial necessities involved in meeting the needs of its community and the world.  Too many resources that could otherwise be invested in Kingdom advance stay in the hip pockets and purses of God's people simply because we fear dreaming big, and being straight with the church about what it will take financially to live that  dream!  We aren't "all about the money," but we are all about Jesus and His Kingdom, and church members should be challenged to give sacrificially based on a future vision.

Churches that grow and impact their communities and the world are churches that live in the future!

This article was originally published on May 29, 2012 at this site

Mental Illness and the Church: Where do We Go From Here?

I little over a year ago, Rick and Kay Warren suffered the unspeakable loss of their son Matthew.  The Warrens used this family tragedy to shine a brighter  light on mental illness, and the role the church should be playing in helping society address it.  Below is the post I wrote a few months later.

On Monday night, my wife and I watched the heartbreaking interview with Rick and Kay Warren in which, for the first time, they shared with the public their experiences surrounding the April suicide of their 27 year old son Matthew.  Due to the circumstances surrounding Matthew's death, the interview spanned a number of issues: including  parenting, gun control, and the struggle of faith that occurs in even the most committed during such gut-wrenching times. But the primary focus of the interview centered on the state of mental health care in our country, and the role the church should play in that discussion.

I watched, first of all, as a father of three.  There is absolutely nothing I wouldn't do for my children.  I can't imagine the helpless feeling of knowing your son or daughter suffers from an ailment, and that in spite of the best doctors, you are still unable to prevent them from doing something like this to themselves.  My heart broke for the Warren's when I first heard of their son's death back in April.  Last night, this father's heart broke all over again.

But I also watched this as a pastor, and I did so with one question in my mind:  "Why would anyone suffering from mental illness turn to the church for help?"  I want the church to be the first stop for people in need.  Unfortunately, I was unable to answer my own question.

As it turns out, my reservations have some statistical warrant.  Just this week, Lifeway Research released its latest poll on mental illness and the church.  You can find the bulk of that research here, but what haunts me about the results is this:  48% of evangelicals believe that Bible study and prayer ALONE can cure mental illness.  Essentially, that means that half of regular, church-going, evangelical Christians see mental illness as solely a "spiritual" issue.  By contrast, only 21% of those polled who attend church said they believed they would feel welcome in their church if they had a mental illness.  Additionally, 45% of the unchurched don't think people with mental illnesses are fully welcome in the body of Christ.

I believe that prayer works, and I believe that God still heals!  I have no doubt that the people of God, praying in faith, could certainly see someone fully restored to health.  I've seen it with my own eyes--cancerous tumors that no longer appeared on the CT scan after God's people have prayed, for example. At the same time, I don't know of any church who would discourage their people from visiting the doctor, or getting needed medical treatment.  Yet in too many churches, when it comes to mental health that same common sense approach goes out the window.

In my experience, this is primarily due to the misconception by many pastors that to accept the validity of mental health care is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture.  The problem with that assumption is that to deny our parishioners access to care that can potentially save their lives and help their families is to ignore one very important principle that those fully sufficient Scriptures teach.

Scripture teaches that God reveals Himself to us in two primary ways.  General Revelation is the process whereby God reveals truth through the created order (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20-21) and also through the human consciousness (Romans 2:14-15).  Special Revelation is the description given to specific ways in which God reveals truth throughout redemptive history, first through miraculous phenomena such as burning bushes, still, small voices, and messages in tongues, and ultimately in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2), who in turn is revealed in the written Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

So, while God reveals Himself in these two primary ways, human beings also explore truth in two primary ways.  Where special revelation is concerned, disciplines like Biblical studies, Biblical and Systematic Theology, and Hermaneutics are employed.  Where general revelation is concerned, we explore the created order through the earth, life and physical sciences, and we explore the inward human psyche through anthropology, sociology, education science, and psychology.

In short, through the behavioral sciences, God has provided us an avenue by which we can learn things about the human mind that will allow us to help.  Sure, some who handed these sciences down to us in history didn't always have the purest motives, and still others were openly hostile to Christian faith.  But we also can't dismiss that they stumbled onto some very legitimate findings that can be of help where mental health is concerned.  Some veins of historical science haven't exactly been friendly to Christians either, but I'm not about to reject the very scientific method that gave my children a vaccine for chicken pox.  Truth was discovered, albeit through some rather crooked vessels.

With all this in view, here is why it is dangerous for pastors to reject the help that can be offered by the mental health field.  First, by appealing to the sufficiency of Scripture, we are rejecting what those Scriptures tell us about the validity of discovering truth via general revelation.  To put it bluntly, we are ignoring Scripture in an attempt to defend it, and that never ends well.

Second, we treat people with legitimate illnesses as though their problems are solely spiritual.  Admittedly there are times when this is the case.  Over the past 20 years, I've met with more than a few who claimed to "need counseling," when what they really needed was repentance.  But often, working together with mental health professionals will help us help our people with the scientific advances God has given us.  My friend Ed Stetzer said it well earlier this week: Let's treat character issues like character issues, but let's treat illnesses like an illness.

Third, the rejection of mental health care sets up a polarization between two disciplines that should be helping each other.  The lack of trust between clergy and mental health professionals is both obvious and palpable in too many areas of our culture, and both sides need to rid themselves of the false assumptions they have about the other, and talk openly with each other.

I'll be the first to agree that we are an over-medicated society.  We pop a pill for just about anything these days--when we get too fat, when we are working too hard, or when we need more vitamins.  It is true that sometimes the answer isn't becoming dependent on a synthetic substance, but instead repenting from gluttony, getting some sleep, or eating some healthy vegetables.  But the answer to a society that over-medicates isn't no medication.  Its appropriate medication.  Only when pastors and mental health professionals work together can we help to strike that balance.  Many of those mental health professionals can be found in our churches each and every Sunday.  Let's seek to understand each other within the church--the very context in which God intends that trust grow between brothers and sisters.  Let's equip those saints to fulfill a calling that is ever more crucial in our day, and let's cooperate with them in a way that integrates our respective disciplines for the glory of God.

As a pastor, I want to see less Matthew Warren stories.  If the church doesn't play a role in mental health, we will see more suicides, not less. The spiritual dimension that churches bring to the healing process is absolutely and critically essential.  But if the church wants to play a role, we have to be more approachable than recent research would indicate we are perceived to be.  

We don't stigmatize people with heart conditions or diabetes.  We pray for them, and we urge them to get the medical attention that we all know they need.  Those who suffer from mental illness should be treated in exactly the same way, and mental health professionals who love Jesus can help us take a badly needed and new approach to these precious image bearers of God.  

Together, we can create the kind of church environment that causes the mentally ill to see open arms everywhere they see a church.  Let's work toward that day!

Why You Should Read "When Heaven and Earth Collide."

I've had the honor of knowing Alan Cross for about 9 years, and every time I'm around him, I learn something new, and I'm encouraged by both his wisdom, and hope in the Gospel.  For this and many other reasons, I was pleased to write an endorsement of his newest book When Heaven and Earth Collide.

Alan is a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama--where slavery, racism, segregation and the subsequent civil rights movement all found their epicenter for a period of about 100 years.  His book takes a hard look at how many southern evangelicals were a willing accomplice in the atrocities that plagued this part of our nation.

We speak often today about the temptation followers of Jesus face to simply ignore Scripture and capitulate to the prevailing views of culture, even if those views are contrary to Scripture.  Alan's book illustrates that these are not new temptations.  It also speaks honestly to a period in our history where the church in the south twisted the meaning of God's Word in order to prop up a sick and twisted view of humanity.

I'm a native southerner who was born in a time when these issues were beginning to finally be resolved.  The "new south" I see now when I visit extended family is a very different place than the one in which I spent my formative years, and that's a good thing.  I think Alan's book is important primarily because an entire generation is now coming of age that really doesn't understand how that history continues to affect not only race relations, but also social policy, demography, and economic disparity.  But most importantly, Alan is frank and honest about how southern evangelical capitulation to "Jim Crow" has affected the perception of the Christian Gospel by so many we seek to reach with the message of Jesus.

Here is my endorsement, that appears in the preface of the book.  Every human culture reflects both the image of God and the effects of the fall.  My friend Alan Cross vividly describes a 100 year period in which southern evangelicalism's theology and culture collided in a violent way that continues to affect economics, demography, social policy, and race relations.  Alan writes of an evangelical church largely unaware of how its own history has affected the perception of the Christian Gospel by so many.  The hard questions he asks come from the humility of one who lived through some of that history, and the boldness of a Christ-follower determined to change it.  Be prepared to be changed yourself! 

The foreword was written by Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX and author of Beyond Roots: In Search of Blacks in the Bible.

This book will be an invaluable tool toward understanding the history of your culture if you live in the south.  But regardless of where you live, the book will serve as a solemn reminder of the consequences that come each and every time the church rejects the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of the prevailing cultural presumptions that surround it.  Buy this book to inform yourself, and to be encouraged by a faithful and hopeful pastor who is committed to changing history.

Available here:

On Wedding Cakes and Religious Freedom

A few weeks ago, I had a hard conversation with someone who wanted my pastoral counsel.  A woman who owns a remodeling company was contacted by a family who wanted her to renovate a building they use to celebrate something she strongly opposes.  If she accepts the contract, she will, in her mind, be serving the interests of people whose lifestyle clearly violates her deeply held beliefs.  If she refuses, and the reason is discovered, these individuals could take her to court, and she could lose her business.

Thankfully, I had just finished reading this piece,  and in the same spirit, told her that remodeling a building isn’t an endorsement of what goes on in that building.  It’s just a job.  Furthermore, she should not first consider her convictions, but instead think of others and serve their interests.  Finally, after about an hour of back and forth, I honestly got tired of her struggle and told my transgendered friend to “suck it up” and say yes to re-modeling the WestboroBaptist Church.

That story not end the way you thought it would?

For several weeks now, I’ve followed the banter on both sides of a national discussion that is nearly out of control.  Though a number of legitimate issues have been raised from religious freedom to compassion and understanding, to tolerance and Christian servitude, this conversation predictably, and regrettably, became incredibly polarized. (We Americans are getting really, really good at that)

I’m not a pundit, a news commentator, a pie in the sky blogger or a politician.  I’m a pastor who currently serves a network of churches, all of whom are asking serious questions about these issues.  After the cameras are turned off and all the online news and blog sites cool down from this recent controversy—after Jonathan Merritt and Rachel Held Evans have moved on to other pots to stir--our churches will still be left to navigate the minefield that is left behind, and they will do so with both a desire to honor their convictions, and an equal desire to serve people in the name of Jesus.  And if we don’t start admitting that these issues are far more complicated than current discussions suggest, we will do neither.

Where this issue is concerned, my convictions as a follower of Jesus lead me toward two unavoidable conclusions that, on the surface, would seem to conflict.  On the one hand, the Scriptural concept of the imago dei brings me to conclude that no individual should be denied essential services, or otherwise treated as “subhuman,” regardless of who they are, or what they may be involved with that I might find objectionable.  As I understand it, the recently debated Arizona “religious freedom” law would have potentially created that kind of environment, and so I was disappointed that so many Christian leaders would thoughtlessly stand behind such a reckless piece of legislation.  I don’t want to live in a country where someone could be denied service in a restaurant because they are gay anymore than I want to live in a country where a cab driver can refuse to take me to a Baptist church because he thinks we are all ‘full of hate.”  Additionally, I tend to agree with Andy Stanley, who has recently stated that serving people who are not like you and disagree with you is, in many ways, the essence of what it means to be Christian.

On the other hand, I’m very concerned that religious freedom is being significantly diminished.  For 238 years this nation, with few exceptions, has been a model for complete and unfettered religious freedom.   I also believe that faith isn’t something that can be merely confined to what happens on a Sunday in a building, but spills over into one’s daily life and includes one’s vocation.  Contrary to those who contend that baking a wedding cake, taking pictures, or any other service-oriented task is “just a job,” 1 Corinthians 10:31 would seem to indicate that nothing a follower of Jesus does is “just a job,” and should be undertaken with this solemn realization in mind.  In light of that recognition, I want people to be able to think deeply and meaningfully about how their faith is best expressed without the outside compelling influence of Caesar—or fellow blogging Christians screaming “hypocrite!”

To be sure, some of those bloggers are asking some VERY legitimate questions: “Why would you photograph the wedding of a heterosexual couple who lived together, but not a gay couple?  Aren’t we all sinners?  Isn’t there something in Scripture about ‘going the second mile’?”  These deserve deep, prayerful reflection for churches to formulate a response.  Unfortunately, the same folks asking these questions are also insisting that those they ask be forced by law to simply comply.  To be sure, there is something quite ironic about telling your brothers and sisters in Christ to “suck it up,” and not be concerned about freedom of conscience.  “Just do what a follower of Jesus should do.  And in the event that you don’t know what to do, never fear.  We will tell you.”

Trouble is, religious freedom and the Christian responsibility to serve others aren’t mutually exclusive enterprises, and I’m alarmed at the dismissive approach to this issue that seems to be taken by more progressive evangelicals.  As a follower of Jesus, my mandate is to serve both conscience and people, and legislation from either side of the aisle won’t bring about that end.

The reason this issue is more complex than most in the media recognize is four-fold:  First, evangelical Christians hold to a sexual ethic rooted firmly in Scripture that speaks clearly to a number of things, including homosexuality. Sexuality isn’t the center and circumference of who we are, Jesus is.  But among the innumerable things over which Jesus has declared His Lordship, our sexuality is included.  As His follower, I can’t simply play the M.C. Hammer game of “can’t touch this” if I’m going to be faithful to His entire counsel, and on this issue, His counsel is clear.  I’m amenable to discussions of Biblical authority.  Send me a Dan Savage who saysthe Bible is “full of B.S.” any day and I’ll have an open, honest conversation with that guy.  But please, let’s have no more of the laughable hermeneutical acrobatics some in the evangelical world are attempting in order to harmonize a high view of Scripture with the affirmation of gay relationships.  The sheer exegetical incoherence and academic dishonesty inherent in those discussions makes me nauseous.  Disagree if you want with what the Bible says.  We can have radically different views of the authority of Scripture and still be friends.  But first let’s be real and admit that on this issue, Scripture speaks clearly.

 I love people, and I love to be loved by people.  In our current environment, I recognize that it would be much easier on me to capitulate on this issue—or to simply say nothing.  I have gay friends.  I have lesbian friends.  I have transgendered friends.  They are precious, image-bearers of God that I believe Jesus died to save.  My affections for them, combined with what I know God has revealed about this issue in His Word, compel me not to roll over.  Instead, I’m commanded to take “every thought captive” as I contemplate how to interact with those who are different from me.   The result of this will be obedience to my conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit, as well as a God-given desire to reach out and love all people.  Followers of Jesus, don’t have the luxury of choosing one of these over the other.

Second, there is a broad way in which the balance of conscience and service will be struck among churches and those who are a part of them.  if asked by one of the roughly 10,000 people who attend our churches what they should do, I would encourage them to seriously contemplate “baking the cake.”  Personally, I’m in agreement with others who contend that there is a marked difference between solemnizing a ceremony and providing the accoutrements for that ceremony.  Additionally, I don’t know of any other way that people can feel the love of Jesus unless they are around people who belong to Jesus.  At some point, we have to think about how people can be surrounded by Gospel communities that not only preach, but live, a message of loving both God and neighbor.  So as I’m consulting with churches on this issue, I encourage them to have these conversations at a much deeper level than they experience in American media or on internet blog sites.

Third, I want our churches and those who are part of those churches to come to their own conclusions as to how to respond to this without outside coercion, because freedom of religion means, well, freedom.  We have a number of churches in our Association who have policies on things like divorce, ordination, et al that I personally disagree with, but if I know that the local body of Christ has come together and, within Scriptural boundaries, come to a consensus on an issue after long, mature and prayerful discussion, then I stand with them.  My role is to encourage them to think deeply and prayerfully.  Some may take my advice above, and some will disagree. For those in the latter category, I wouldn’t want them lending their resources to something they believed to be sinful any more than I would want my transgendered friend in the hypothetical example above forced to work for Fred Phelps.

Unfortunately, the rushed discussion around these issues doesn’t allow for that.  In the face of gay marriage being legalized in my state, many churches were quickly advised by attorneys to add language to their governing documents that on the one hand would protect them from a potential lawsuit that could drive them into bankruptcy, but on the other hand, has shut down the conversation altogether.  I want people in our churches to talk with homosexuals, not with attorneys about homosexuals.  It is tragic that our current environment actually encourages the latter.  We need a better, more mature, less trite conversation than the one we are currently experiencing.

And the more I listen to the voices on all sides of this discussion, the more I’m convinced that legislation and/or enforcement from either side won’t solve the problem.  Regardless of which side prevails in a battle of this nature, the inevitable result would be that the problem gets worse, not better. 

The simplistic logic, reactionary judgment, and vitriolic division that surrounds this current discussion illustrates clearly that this is a distinctly American argument.  Our realpolitik has, for decades, created the very culture in which conversations like this one naturally turn sour.  Followers of Jesus must aspire to a higher form of dialogue.  But to do so, our clear mandate to love our neighbor must continue to be informed by and balanced with our prime directive of loving our God.  Harsh, reactionary legislation on one side, and litigious efforts to put people out of business under a “Jim Crow” mantra on the other will ensure that love is the absolute last thing that characterizes any of us.