Indigenous Church Planting: Lessons from Middle America

To the left and below are pictures of a recent church planting seminar I was privileged to lead in southern Mexico. God is indeed moving all over the world, and His presence in Mexico is evident in the fact that the churches of that area want to plant a new church in every "municipo" (county seat) in the state of Chiapas. I was privileged to lead a team from our association to respond to an invitation by the churches of Mexico to assist them with setting up a church planting process to acheive this goal.




It has been said that during international missions endeavors, one often learns as much as he or she teaches, and is often blessed as much as he or she is a blessing. I can certainly attest to the fact that I learned as much, of not more, from these committed pastors than they learned from me. Unfortunately, what I learned from them is something that they don't yet seem to recognize about themselves: namely, that they have every resource they need to facillitate a church planting movement without American help.



If anything, we have "helped" enough already. By this, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't seek to work with our brothers and sisters in other nations. In fact, our plans are to continue where we left off in subsequent discussions next year. However, during my time in Mexico I couldn't help but notice that the barriers to a church planting movement faced by the Mexican church are almost identical to those we face in the states. And I can't help but believe this is tied to the culture of dependency we have often created while doing missions in Middle America.

For example, one of our favorite things to do for our brothers and sisters, especially in the "third world," is to erect a church building for them. Our second favorite thing to do is to fund the salary of the pastor who will preach in that building. While I am certain these efforts are the result of the best of intentions, and a genuine desire to see disciples made, in many cases the opposite is what happens. The pastor doesn't teach his people stewardship, because the source of income for himself and the church comes from outside. The people of God don't give, because the Americans are picking up the tab. The mission dies, because the Americans aren't there to perpetuate what they started. Most tragically, no more churches are planted . . .that is, until (you guessed it) the Americans show up to erect another building!



It is in this context that we now find ourselves . . .a "culture of dependency" wherein the Mexican church has been, by and large, disempowered by its well-meaning American counterpart. Regrettably, the trouble gets worse from this point. When American money, American buildings, and American ways of doing church are interjected into Mexican (or any other) culture, American problems almost always follow. The result?


. . . The established Mexican church is now "up in arms" because Mexican church planters are telling their people that it really is OK to dance.

. . . The established Mexican church believes it cannot sustain a church planting movement on its own because of the lack of "trained professionals" to lead these churches.

. . . The established Mexican church believes it will take lots of financial resources--certainly more than they posess--to multiply churches in the way they envision.

All of this sounds eerily familiar.

The problem with indigenous church planting in ecclesiological contexts like this one is that many of the established churches themselves are not indigenous . . .they are American! In starting churches, they adopted our leadership models, our decision-making processes, our financial expectations, our programmatic approach to ministry, our "campus-centered" orientation, and in some cases, even our architecture!

Contrast this picture with that of the truly "indigenous" church . . .one that is in no way dependent on outside "suppport" or "help" to maintain its ministry. One that can reproduce itsself in ever-more contextual ways as it plants other churches in other areas. One that truly preaches a "counter-cultural" Gospel message while at the same time looking and sounding like the culture in which it finds itself.

So my question in the midst of all this is as follows: How on earth do a bunch of white guys from an upper-middle class area in Maryland help to propogate a movement like the one I've described above? While I haven't yet figured it all out, there are a few principles that I think have to guide American missionaries--short term or otherwise--as we seek to facillitate the multiplication of churches in other parts of the world. These principles are, in my view, solidly Biblical, unsophisticatedly simple, and interesting enough, very Baptist!

1. The Principle of Global Minsitry: Because we are presently the richest and most powerful nation in the world, our tendency as Americans is to think ourselves superior in every way. We think anyone without central air conditioning or an electric Viking range is "poor and unfortunate" when in fact many who live in mud huts are quite happy with their living conditions. Similarly, we think any church without a brick structure, or any pastor without an auto allowance or seminary degree will automatically produce a "sub-standard" ecclesiology. The fact is that churches in many nations of the world exist and thrive without buildings or theological seminaries. With all of our resources, education, wealth and power, the American church is anemic when compared to the church in other parts of the globe. It would do us well to remember this so that we don't encourage our brothers and sisters in other nations to do it the way we do it.

This was, I believe, a very helpful point we made during a panel discussion with Mexican church planters and pastors on the second day of our seminar. When told by state convention leadership that their culture was to "copy" what we did in America, my response was simple: "We are the only continent on planet earth where Christianity is not growing. Why on earth would you want to emulate that?!?!" The church is indeed global, and if we are to have any significant part in helping it expand globally, we must give up our preference for western culture and allow the church to be the church wherever it is found.

To be sure, God has given us in the states a grand opportunity to empower the churches in other nations. But to take advantage of this opportunity, we absolutely must check our "national pride" at the door!

2. The Principle of Church Autonomy: Once during the seminar, one of the pastors asked me my opinion about a subject that, as it turns out, has become very controversial in Mexico. Though it wasn't a "cardinal issue" such as the deity of Christ, or even a "Baptist distinctive" such as a commitment to immersion, this tertiary issue had already caused quite a stir among God's people in Mexico.

As he was asking the question, I could feel my blood pressure begin to rise. Oh, how I wanted to simply give my opinion and encourage them to follow my lead. But in the end, my opinions, however strong they are, do not matter! What matters is what the Scriptures teach. And what matters even more is that the church be able to arrive at the right conclusion via their own study of God's Word.

While we should make every effort to teach national pastors and laity how to read and study the Word, and while the basic principles of interpreting Scripture should be laid before them, the task of theological education abroad should be the same as it is here: teach God's people "how" to think, not "what" to think! It would have been very easy for me to answer the pastor's question directly . . .and set a precedent for "spoon-feeding" them theology. It would have been very easy for us to insert the church planting process we utilize in Maryland into Mexico. But God's people should instead be empowered, as the Bereans in Acts, to study the text, and their culture, on their own.

3. The Principle of "Scripture alone": With all of our talk about strategy, contextualization, "target" and "focus" groups, behavioral assessments, and demographic and psychographic observations, the fact remains that a true New Testament church cannot be planted if the Word of God is not the final authority for that faith community. I have attended church planting seminars in the states where days were spent musing on the enigma that is postmodernism, but there was nothing said about Scriptural authority. I agree with Mark Driscoll, who says that those who do such things are "practicing liberals" even if their theology is "conservative." If we are to have any significant part in a church planting movement, here or abroad, all of our strategies, studies, and tactics must ultimately find their appropriate place in submission to Scripture.

I have experienced very little Latin American culture, and as a result, I am the last person to deliver instructions to a group of Mexican pastors about how to reach their own people. My authority during this seminar was not found in my cultural "savy," but in the Word of God, from which all the principles I taught were drawn. Once we empower God's people by arming them with the Word, and lay out the principles for how to teach the Word in a way that connects with their culture, they can take it successfully from that point.

The church in the US has before it an enormous opportunity to facilitate the multiplication of congregations, both stateside and international. But if such churches are to be effective, they must also be indigenous, which means that the lessons learned as we walk this road together with our brothers in other nations, will be reciprocal.

Was the Church the First to Change the Definition of Marriage?

He denies that Jesus is Messiah, and calls the President of my alma mater a “spiritual racist” because of his belief that Jesus is the only way to God. Needless to say, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is one of the last people with whom I thought I would ever agree!

Last Thursday evening was like most Thursday evenings for me: I came home from a day at the office to take my wife to the gym, my kids to the child care center in the gym, and myself to the treadmill (ugh!), and then the pool (ahh!).

I love my gym membership, by the way . . .especially the way all the treadmills are tied in to television screens. It’s a multi-tasking dream! And while watching a special CNN report called “God, Sex and Greed,” I caught a panel discussion regarding the injection of “faith talk” into the political speeches of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls. Host Roland Martin was emphasizing the fact that as we approach the 2008 elections, Democrats are ratcheting up talk about their faith in God, and in doing so entering a conversation that has for many election cycles been dominated by Republicans. Joining him to discuss this interesting phenomenon were liberal Baptist Theology Professor Michael Dyson, Muslim author Irshad Manji, and Rabbi Boteach.

Asked to give his perception of this phenomenon, Boteach responded, “The problem, Roland, is that for the past 10 years, religious morality has been defined as anti-abortion and hating gay people.”

Suddenly, the heart monitor on my treadmill began to beep.

Thankfully, I continued to listen. And surprisingly, in spite of all my disagreements with the Rabbi, my heart resonated with what I heard next:

“. . . .And in a sense, religion has become a mockery as a result. We've got a 50 percent divorce rate. Any country with a 50 percent divorce rate has no right to call itself civilized. Who do we blame? The gay people. I mean, we ruined marriage well before any gay people decided to get married.”

Sadly, the Rabbi is absolutely correct! While conservative politicians scream about the efforts of some in the homosexual community to “re-define marriage,” the fact is that our society has been tinkering with God’s definition for decades . . .long before any homosexual ever demanded the benefit of this rite. Fornication, adultery, and divorce are in fact nothing more than acts which pervert God’s definition of this sacred relationship.

So in a sense, the Rabbi is correct when he contends that marriage has been a mockery in America for decades. The current discussion about homosexual marriage isn’t the beginning of the “re-definition of marriage.” It is its culmination! And when the divorce, premarital sex and adultery rates are virtually the same inside the church as they are outside the church, the people of God have lost their authority to speak prophetically to this issue.

This is precisely the reason why Al Mohler, in discussing this same subject, rightly contends that evangelicals “cannot begin a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage.” Reclaiming God’s definition of marriage means not only that we flatly reject the idea of homosexual nuptials as a tragic oxymoron, but that we also refuse to “wink” at the sins against this God-ordained institution that have occurred for years within our own midst. Such reclamation means that the church must again judge marriage according to the Scriptures, and such judgment, as the Apostle Peter tells us, begins with the household of God!

Some Good Conversation on the Web

I love to write.

There is something about the exercise of putting your thoughts into words that brings clarity, and when the subject is God and His Gospel, the mental clarity gained from writing frequently makes its way to the heart as well. But from time to time, even the best writers recognize that with regard to certain subjects, there are others who have "said it better."

God willing, next week I will post on my experiences while in southeast Asia (in April) and Chiapas Mexico (last month) and reflect on them in light of what the church should be in each and every culture. But for now, there are some very worthy conversations taking place in other areas of cyberspace, and I would be remiss if I didn't call your attention to their existence.

1. The Emerging Church and Evangelicalism. On September 21 and 22, I will be in Wake Forest, North Carolina for the Convergent Conference, which will be held on the campus of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The "emerging church" has become so controversial, many evangelicals have simply written it off as a heretical aberration of the true church. In many ways, this movement is not so different from the "church growth" and "church health" movements that preceeded it, meaning that while there are indeed theological concerns in certain sectors of the movement, there is much about the emerging church that can be very helpful to the body of Christ.

I am thankful that in the midst of the criticisms and "cheap one-liners" toward this movement, Dr. Danny Akin has chosen to take the route of genuine scholarship. Akin, who serves as President of Southeastern, is hosting this conference, and will be speaking alongside Ed Stetzer (Missiologist in Residence and Director of Research at Lifeway), Mark Driscoll(Founding Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle), and Southeastern Professors Alvin Reid and John Hammett, among others.

Last year, I had the privilege of helping contribute to an article Dr. Hammett wrote for the Criswell Theological Review on this very issue. Throughout our interactions, I was profoundly impressed by his tenacious defense of the truth coupled with his careful and fair analysis of the movement as a whole. I genuinely look forward to meeting him in person.

The 21st Century finds most developed cultures in a constant state of flux. If the church is to effectively impact western culture it must cease its reactionary posture toward culture and instead begin to lead it. At the same time, emerging methods should be undergirded by a solidly Biblical theology. Through Convergent, Danny Akin has provided a context in which honest conversations can begin regarding how Southern Baptists will meet this challenge.

2. Baptist Identity in a post-denominational world. Dr. Sam Storms, Associate Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, posted a thought-provoking article today on the subjects of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I found myself in agreement with him at several points, while personally parting ways with him regarding the relationship of Baptism and church membership in particular.

Nevertheless, his words should stir the kind of conversation that needs to happen in our churches. So many Baptists apply their convictions consistently regarding Baptism and the Lord's Supper, yet have no idea where the Scriptural evidence exists that undergirds their practice. We are not "people of the Baptist Faith and Message," we are "people of the Book," which means that in a "post-denominational context," we need to be prepared to defend our heritage because it is Biblical, rather than assuming the Bible is in agreement with our traditions.

Conversations like the one started today by Dr. Storms are a helpful starting point in finding our Scriptural moorings again. You can find the article here.

3. The End of our Work and the End of the World. Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Dallas, Texas had an excellent article posted last week on how to effectively evangelize middle-eastern cultures.

Though many other things are said, his warnings against allowing a "narrow" eschatology determine not only public policy, but also missiological philosophy, were the most striking of the entire piece. One section in particular deserves to be quoted:

First, we are allowing speculative theology to formulate foreign policy. That’s very dangerous. When conservative Bible believing scholars can’t agree – for one opinion to be pushed to the point of war is arrogant and dangerous.

and again . . . . . .

we have not respected the views and situation of Palestinian evangelical Christians. Before ’67 2/3rds of Palestinians present were Christians – now that’s 8 to 12% depending on who you talk to. How could we have ignored their concerns – these are our brothers in Christ. This makes no sense. Who was better positioned to tell people in the Middle-East about Jesus than the Palestinians?!!!

Now, I have to admit, as a "non-dispensationalist," my biases toward what Bob is saying here should be clearly revealed. At the same time, his argument (and I agree) isn't against holding to a dispensationalist eschatology. Its against allowing this one view (among at least three others, all held by conservative, Bible-believing evangelicals) to so dominate the evangelical landscape that it informs both our philosophy of missions and our foreign policy views in uniform.

Sometimes, when it comes to impacting the world, we can be our own worst enemy, and one of the things I appreciate about Bob is his willingness to say this.

Find the article in its entirety here.

So there you have it! There are lots of thought-provoking discussions presently going on in cyberspace. Happy exploring, and I'll have some more thoughts of my own in about a week.

Its all about Leadership . . .or is it?

As a whole, I am very grateful for the emphasis given to the discipline of church leadership over the past two decades. Given the dearth of such training for pastors throughout much of the twentieth century, coupled with the enormous changes that have taken place in the pastoral role, the study and practice of sound leadership principles is absolutely essential.

At the same time, I have grave concerns over how a discipline that has provided great help to pastors is beginning, in some sectors of the church, to be viewed as a "magic pill."

From the turn of the 20th century until around 1930, American business culture subscribed largely to what has become known as "Great Man Theory." In order for a company to be a success, a "great man" with inherently extraordinary skills in leadership and management was needed, and all would be well. This age culminated with the celebration of Ford Motor Company and the invention of the "assembly line" of Henry Ford.

Over the next several decades, leadership theory evolved from the view of the "great man" to "group theory" (1930-1940), "trait theory" (1940-1950), "behavior theory" (1950-1960), "situational theory" (1960-1970), and "excellence theory" (1980s). While the history of western leadership philosophy is more complex than this, these categories are the generally accepted description of our philosophical evolution regarding this discipline.

The church of course, finally caught up with culture in the 1960s, when seminaries began to charge their schools of Christian Education with teaching leadership principles to aspiring ministers of the Gospel. Today, leadership as an academic discipline is viewed by many seminaries as equal in importance to the study of theology. While sound theology is an essential and foundational qualification for pastoral ministry, it is also true that sound theology without leadership skills results in knowledge wasted on onesself and a orthodox church immobilized by its own pastor.

Still, over the past few decades, leadership studies have grown to the extent that, in the church, we are almost seeing the return of the "Great Man" theory. Less than a decade ago in a conference on church planting, the late Rick Ferguson stated that if you have the "right leader," you could drop him into a barren area, with no money and no other outside support, and he would grow a church. Such statements are now commonplace in seminars and conferences on pastoral leadership.

I recognize these statement as a bit hyperbolic. Still, I ain't buyin' the point!

We spend an inordinate amount of time today with assessing potential leaders, and this is especially true in church planting. On the whole, this is as it should be. Certainly experience has told us that someone seeking to plant a church with deficient leadership skills will most likely fail. The problem come when we move beyond this base understanding of the neccesity of leadership to claim the mantra of John Maxwell that has reverberated in church life to the extent that most now look in Scripture to find it: "Everything rises and falls on leadership." But is this really true?

The fact is that great leaders fail. I have seen it personally. I remember the first church plant I ever had to "shut down." I remember meeting the planter over a four-hour lunch. I remember the bitter tears. I remember making plans with him to "re-locate" the remaining families. I remember hearing his exasperated prayers to God of "where did I go wrong?" I remember thinking with him about how he would now support his family. And I also remember thinking "we assessed this guy, and we told him he had the leadership skills to successfully plant this church." According to our "great man" mentality, this was all we needed, right?

This is the hypocritical irony I have seen in church planting systems across the methodological and denominational spectrum. We assess a guy, tell him he is the "right leader" for a plant, and then when it fails, 99% of the time our response is "this was a leadership issue."

I don't deny that many failures can be credited to a deficiency in leadership, but those who are always so quick to point out the failure at this level sometimes forget that it takes more than a "great man" to build a great church. If you question that statement, you need only take a brief look at the life of an Old Testament leader.

The time is just before the wilderness wandering. The place is Kadesh, and Moses has just sent out twelve spies in order to plot out the best way to take the land God had promised His people. Ten of the twelve return with "doomsday" predictions about their chances. Apparently, they had forgotten that their objective was to report on the "status" of the enemy, not give their opinion of whether they should do what God had already commanded.

Joshua and Caleb, on the other hand, are ready to obey. Unfortunately, the people of Israel side with the pessimists, and God's people spend the next four decades wandering . . .and dying!

Without a doubt, this is one of the most colossal "failures" in the history of any nation! The question is, was this a "leadership issue?" Perhaps Moses should have spent more time discovering how to "develop the leaders around him."

Or, just perhaps, this was a "truth" issue. Just maybe, Moses really was God's man, whom God's people simply rejected. Bill Hybels wouldn't have been pleased at all with this kind of turnout, but in recounting his life, the writer of Hebrews certainly seems to think Moses a "great leader" (Hebrews 11:23-30)

Needless to say, if a man with a failure like this on his record is referred to by Scripture as a "great leader," and we are currently assessing nearly every ministry failure as a "leadership problem," we should probably rethink our definition of "leadership." And as we are rethinking our definition, maybe it would be helpful to look to Scripture to find our parameters. In the case of Moses, his great leadership was centrally characterized, not by "success" or "acheivement," but instead by faith, conviction, obedience, values, and boldness.

Contrary to Maxwell's popular cliche, everything does not "rise and fall" on leadership. Everything rises and falls on the Word of God. Effective, godly, skilled leaders are desperately needed, and the work of church planting in particular cannot happen without such individuals. But such individuals are not a "magic pill" that cures all that is wrong with the church. This realization will guard our hearts from bowing to the idol of "personality," and empower us to undergird the right leadership with all that is essential to grow God's Kingdom

I do Believe in "Alien Baptism"

Since the latter part of 2005 there has been a debate among SBC conservatives, a sometimes not-so-friendly one, on the nature of Biblical Baptism. Birthed from the new baptism guideline adopted by the IMB's trustee board, this conversation has unfolded to include many fruitful and useful conversations about church membership, accountability, making disciples, church planting, and cross-cultural ministry.

While most of the conversations of which I have been a part have been affable and respectful, there have been a few remarks suggesting that those of us who oppose the new guideline are ignorant of Baptist history, or care nothing about Baptist identity, or even worse, are unconcerned about accurate theology. Today, I would like to clear up the true reason for my opposition to the IMB baptism guideline. Contrary to what many have said, I do not oppose this move because I don't believe in "alien baptism." I oppose it because I very much believe that "baptisms" occur that are anything but, which makes them Biblically invalid, "alien" acts. And I oppose the new IMB guideline because I believe it creates another "alien Baptism."

I firmly and proudly proclaim that I am Baptist, not because our history bears us out as the most faithful (the slaves of 19th century America would beg to differ, I think), or because my family is entrenched in this denominational stream (my loved-ones hail from Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and non-denominational backgrounds, as well as Baptist).

I am Baptist because as I examine our doctrinal beliefs and hold them up against the light of Scripture, I see a tradition that is, in my opinion, more faithful to the actual message of the Bible than any other I have seen or studied. Our view on regenerate immersion is but one reason that after a few years of searching during my high school days, I came back, willingly, to the SBC. I believe the Scriptures are very clear on Baptism. It is a picture of the Gospel, which means to alter it in any way from its Scriptural form is to distort the picture God aims to portray of the grace of God and the transforming power of the cross and resurrection. I take that seriously. And because I take that seriously, I have taken great care over the past 15 years of my ministry to ensure that "baptisms" that take place on my watch are those of which the New Testament bears witness.

In light of those 15 years, I have come to recognize four types of "baptism" which do not fit the Biblical pattern. My reason for opposing the new IMB guideline is because, regrettably, what they require misses the Scriptural mark as well. Let me explain by describing the four types of "alien baptism.":

1. An "Alien Baptism" is any baptism that takes place prior to regeneration and conversion. I love my covanental brothers, but they are simply wrong to draw so tight a parallel between baptism and circumcision as to assume the validity of "infant baptism." Certainly a parallel exists between these two rites, but so do some obvious distinctions. Circumcision, like baptism, was for the purpose of marking one as a member of the Old Testament community of faith. However, the community of faith in the New Testament does not include the children of the community simply by birth. The New Covenant states clearly that only those who have believed are its members.

Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of the discussion. But arguments expanded from the above synopsis reveal two views: one pedo-baptist and the other credo-baptist. While I love, respect, and admire my brothers who claim the former, my view is most definitely the latter. And the consequence of my conclusions is simple: I have no choice other than to reject the sprinkling of an infant. It is not baptism as described by the New Testament, which makes it "alien."

2. An "Alien Baptism" is one that occurs by any mode other than immersion. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule (For example, a quadrapalegic might have a bit of a time being "immersed"), but such exceptions should be granted in extreme cases only.

Even those who accept other modes of baptism admit that the etymology of the Greek term is abundantly perspicuous. In addition, both Luther and Calvin are on record in the annuls of history as stating that immersion was the mode practiced by the Apostles. If the fathers of the Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions respectively admit that the Baptists have it right, what does that say to their successors who remain in these traditions about sprinkling and/or effusion?

Text after New Testament text describes baptism as a metaphor for death and resurrection; the transition from a life of sin to a life of righteousness; the physical symbol of one's "immersion" into Christ and His body. Such texts have been the reason why for 15 years I have said, gently but firmly to those who have not been immersed and seek membership in a church I pastor, "you were never really Baptized."

3. An "Alien Immersion" is one that takes place among a "faith community" that is not made up of genuine followers of Christ. Simply put: The Mormon Church practices immersion after confession, but I do not accept what happens within their walls as "baptism." In a similar vein, other cult groups practice an immersion that on the surface looks exactly like what you would witness at your average First Baptist Church. But the body performing this rite does not believe the Gospel, denies the truth of Jesus Christ, and is therefore unregenerate. As the old saying goes; put an unregenerate person under the water, and they simply go down a dry sinner and come up a wet one!

4. An "Alien Immersion" is one that places the primary focus of the ordinace on anything besides union with Jesus Christ and His people. Scripture is clear in teaching that there is ONE baptism. With that in view, I am appreciative of the IMBs desire that all who go to the mission field under our banner have experienced this. The problem comes when they begin to tie baptismal validity to doctrines that while precious and essential to Baptists, are secondary in matters of salvation and the church. I am speaking of course of how the IMB ties baptismal validity to whether the congregation that performed the baptism believes in "eternal security." The outcome of such a guideline is that a candidate could be genuinely born again, immersed in the name of the triune God after this experience, as a testimony of that experience, among people who share our Gospel convictions and are themselves believers, and still be required to be "baptized" in a Southern Baptist Church.

Anyone from a Nazarene of Assemblies of God background would look at our statement on Baptism in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and find himself in total agreement with its contents. Nevertheless, because those churches differ with us (and wrongly so, I believe) on the issued of eternal security, the New Testament-based baptisms that took place within their walls are now declared to be invalid by the International Mission Board. The result is a requirement that a missionary candidate be "baptized" in an SBC church.

But if the candidate has already been Scripturally baptized, and there is only one baptism, then what exactly is being required by the IMB?

I believe IMB trustees are honorable people, and like me, they simply want to guard our Biblical heritage and ensure the same of those who will represent us on the mission field. But this new guideline changes the focus of Baptism from Christ and His people to the doctrine of "eternal security." Such a move means that the above question can be answered in only one way: The IMB is now requiring "alien baptism," which ironically, is the very thing I am certain they were trying to avoid with the new guideline.

This is precisely the reason my opposition to this new guideline has been so strong. I love our International Mission Board, and I love its trustees. But as a pastor, I will never, ever, EVER place someone under the water and bring them back up for the purpose of identifying them with "eternal security." And I will never do it for the same reason that I will never sprinkle water on the head of an infant: both are misrepresentations of what God intended baptism to be!

So now you have it. Disagree if you want (and I know many of you do), debate the points delineated above. But please refrain from saying any longer that we who oppose the new guideline do so because we don't think as highly of baptism as do those who favor what has happened in Richmond. My opposition is for the exact opposite reason.

Several years ago, I remember Hershael York (who vehemently disagrees with me on this issue, and whom I continue to love and respect) say that God has certain "pictures of the Gospel." I remember this illustration vividly, and have even used it on occasion myself (crediting Dr. York, of course). Marriage, he said, is a picture of the union that exists between Christ and His church, which is why divorce, adultery, homosexuality, etc. are such serious sins. They "break God's picture." The Lord's Supper likewise, is a picture of the sacrifice that it took to secure our salvation. Such is why knowingly allowing an unregenerate person to partake, or one partaking with known and unrepentant sin in his or her heart would be a travesty. It would "break God's picture."

Baptism, like the other two events mentioned, is yet another "picture"--possibly one of the most important. It demonstrates the candidate's confession of Christ publicly (which is why it is for believers only). It illustrates the death of the old self, and rising again to walk in a new life (which is why it is by immersion only.) In short, when we tamper with baptism, we break the picture God intends to portray of the Gospel. I don't believe for a moment that IMB trustees intended to break this picture when they formed the new baptism guideline months ago. Still, the only conclusion I can reach is that they have inserted yet another "alien baptism." With respect toward them, I cannot recognize such as valid, nor will I pretend that "its no big deal."

The Gospel is that important, and therefore, so is Baptism!

Richard Baxter, Paul Washer, and the Recovery of the Biblical Gospel

Let's face it: American evangelicalism is awash in pulpit therapy, "felt needs" foci, and nationalistic materialism. Even with our "conservative" approach to Scripture, it seems we are less and less transformed by Scripture. Radically following Christ is defined, not in terms of martyrdom, but rather in terms of wearing a Christian T-shirt into a public school.

In this environment, it is truly difficult to find men who truly and genuinely preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my personal study, I have always been able to rely on the Puritans to accurately deliver the mail. But Edwards, Bunyan, Baxter and Spurgeon are, regrettably, little known to church-goers in the 21st century, and outside of a few exceptions like John Piper, there seem to be few pastors in the broader public eye who care more about the glory of God than the applause of men.

These are heavy charges, I know. But honestly, when was the last time you heard a pastor over radio or television speak about the Gospel . . .not in terms of the key to life fulfillment, but instead in the Biblical terms of escaping the wrath to come?

This is particularly a problem in my neck of the woods. The Baltimore-Washington D.C. area is one of the most affluent in the country. From all tangible perspectives, the people who reside here are, generally speaking, not in search of "life fulfilment." They already have the $800,000 home on the 18th green, the three-bay garage with a Mercedes parked next to a Lexus, which is in turn parked next to a Hummer. They have their children all enrolled in private, college-preparatory schools, and they are living large with salaries that far exceed $100,000 annually. Telling these people that Jesus will "make their life better" is tantamount to telling Brahms that Jesus will help him play a better and more effective lullaby.

They don't need a relationship with Christ for a "more fulfilled life." They need a relationship with Christ for a secure eternity. And last night, I heard one missionary who still believes this.


Paul David Washer is the founder of the HeartCry Missionary Society, located in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Operating under the authority of Muscle Shoals First Baptist Church, this Society seeks to train and deploy indigenous pastors, missionaries and church planters all over the globe. But while I was particularly impressed with their emphasis on the use of indigenous missionaries, it was a message Washer preached on DVD, given me by a recent aquaintance, that re-energized my spirit, and reminded me that there are still genuine men of God in the broader public eye.

Still, it was dissapointing to learn that Washer has not been invited back to the same venue where I saw him preach this recorded message last night. More dissappointing still was to subsequently read of abuse by listeners, verbal assaults, and one instance of even being pelted by water balloons after speaking.

Indeed, the words he speaks are direct, and unpopular, even within the ranks of so-called "conservative" Christianity. And as I listened to this hour-long message yesterday evening, I suspect that his words are such precisely because of the conviction they bring. They sure brought conviction on me!

The evangelical sense of history has become extremely shallow. We forget that since the Apostolic age, the greatest of God's men have often preached unpopular messages. I think immediately of Jonathan Edwards and his infamous sermon preached to a crowd of unbelievers at Enfield Conneticut in 1741:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight . . .and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up . . .O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell.

Not exactly a candidate for "feel-good sermon of the year" now is it? This man, described by 18th century pastor Samuel Davies as "the profoundest reasoner, and the greatest divine that America ever produced," was such because he both knew and believed the Biblical Gospel.

The same can be said for 17th century pastor Richard Baxter. "I preach as never sure to preach again," said the Puritan preacher, "and as a dying man to dying men." Baxter, like so many of his brothers, knew the eternal gravity that came with the preaching task. Oh, for such a thing to be so in the new millenium!

I find it tragically ironic that while so many within evangelicalism chide the Emergent church for its ambivilence toward subsitutionary atonement, they simultaneously minimize what they claim is so important. While the substitutionary death of Jesus is indeed central to the Gospel message, the purpose behind that atonement barely gets mention in today's evangelical pulpit. The simple fact is that it is grossly offensive to apply penal subsitution to the life of the sinner.

To do so means the preacher must point to human nature as "rotten to the core." He must accentuate the physical sufferings of Christ, and then tell his listeners that the physical torture was a picnic compared to the terror of God's wrath that fell upon His own Son. He must remind his people of what that agonizing death at Golgotha should teach us: that the wages of sin is death. Sin is the refusal to acknowledge our Creator and follow Him unconditionally, and such is a capitol offense. He must warn all within the sound of his voice of the wrath to come, and urge them to come to Christ . . . not for a better sex life or a nicer car or a better marriage, but for the only path to redemption from the terrible wrath of an angry God whom they have despised and whose laws they have trampled under foot.

Paul David Washer is just such a preacher. It was obvious to me as I watched his message to thousands of Alabama Baptist youth that he was not interested in popularity, or accolades, or even being invited back to speak again (which, interestingly, he wasn't). His passion was the same as the Apostle who shares his name; to preach Christ crucified!

I'm not suggesting that every sermon be "hell, fire and brimstone." The Apostle Paul himself encouraged young Timothy to balance his preaching between "rebuke" and "exhortation." (2 Tim. 4:2). Nor am I saying we should never speak of Jesus as the answer to a fulfilling life. He spoke of Himself in this way (John 10:10). I am also not suggesting that the message of the Gospel is always preached in a cultural vaccum. In our age, believers in the west must increasingly live like missionaries, and the job of the missionary, according to Ed Stetzer, is to find the question the culture is asking to which the Gospel is the only answer.

What I am saying is this: In the midst of a modern evangelicalism baptized with an enculturated, albeit more conservative version of "health, wealth, and prosperity," we should be constantly evaluating our ministries to ensure that at the heart of it all remains a bloody cross and a bodily ressurection. God grant such insight to more pulpits!

You can listen online to the message I saw on DVD by clicking here: http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/index.php?option=com_weblinks&catid=39&Itemid=85
Then click on "Youth Evangelism Conference 2002."

Reflections on the Death of Jerry Falwell

After an entire week of press coverage, what more could possibly be written about Jerry Falwell? In the brief, 7-day period since his sudden death, he has been praised by Fundamentalists, condemned by leftists, mourned by thousands of students and parishioners, and had his life analyzed by every major news network in the world.

Nevertheless, although I am admittedly late to this game, I've had seven days to reflect on the life of this giant of a man. I did not always agree with Falwell. In fact, there were times in recent years when I thought his public statements ill-timed, unwise, and not well-thought-out. Still, there is something about this man of God that I truly admire. In fact, there are several godly principles he clearly exemplified with his life that are worthy, both of being admired, and being assumed by the next generation of pastors.

Speak as a Prophet. Sure, his post-9/11 comments were the epitome of "wrong place, wrong time, wrong everything." Still, there is something intriguing, and even attractive about a man who will state his convictions clearly. Just weeks prior to his death, Falwell stated in a national interview that he believed God would continue to judge our nation as long as we continue to tolerate and bless immorality. At the same time, he also made clear his love of this country. Hearkening back to the example of Jeremiah, Falwell had the capacity, as no one else I have known, to strike an appropriate balance between "prophet" and "patriot."

Be a People Person. 10 years ago, I was a "nobody" seminary student studying at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. While writing an ethics paper on the death penalty, I came across one of Falwell's opinions on the subject. Once I decided to include his thoughts in my paper, I emailed his office in order to confirm that I had understood him correctly. "There is no way I'm ever hearing from this guy," I thought to myself. But at least I could, with integrity, tell my professor that I had attempted to contact the source.

But I did hear from him . . . about two hours after sending the email. His reply was both personal and congenial, and he took a couple of paragraphs to address this young "nobody" seminary student's question, as well as to tell me how delighted he was that I was pursuing a degree at Southern, how much he thought of Al Mohler, and that he had prayed for me, my family, and my future ministry while typing his response.

Wow!

You don't forget things like that, and I have heard from others who knew him personally talk of how he loved making personal connections. Students at Liberty University knew this about him, probably more than any other group, which brings me to the next principle.

Seek to Relate to all generations. In a day that assumes the neccesity of homogeneity for effective ministry (i.e.you need someone young to reach someone young, someone old to reach someone old, and someone single to reach another single person), thousands of young students in their late teens and early 20s are mourning because their 73-year-old chancellor is dead. If you don't think that is a significant statement about Falwell's ability to relate cross-generationally, you are simply denying reality. Falwell was a living, breathing example of the fact that all ages, races, and tongues are human beings created in God's image. Liberty students that I have met spoke highly of this man as one who related effectively to a younger generation, and he never had to get a tatoo or pierce his ear to do it. He was always himself, and always let others be themselves.

Let your Message match your life. Unlike so many other television preachers, no one ever caught Jerry Falwell in a motel room with a prostitute, or seeking to have sex with his secretary, or searching for a sensual massage from a gay man, or in his office rolling MJ. After all his years of battling the pornography industry, no one ever found any on his laptop. Bottom line: when the man spoke about porn, drugs, alcohol, and other vices as being harmful to the body, destructive to the reputation, and damning to the soul, he really believed it. Disagree with him if you will, but no one can ever accuse Jerry Falwell of inconsistency.

Make the Gospel the Priority. Though he is more well-known outside Lynchburg for his controversial political views, Falwell always kept the Gospel and its spread at the center of his life and ministry. I never saw him do a news show without finding some avenue to talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, I don't think I remember a time when he didn't challenge the interviewer publicly to repent and believe . . .on the air!

In addition, Liberty University has become a school known for the sending of missionaries to North America and the world. With a great partner in such scholars as Elmer Towns, Falwell also stressed the necessity of church planting as no other public figure I know of. Colleagues of mine who are graduates of Liberty have told me that frequently in classes they would hear such sentiments as "why go a build on another man's foundation? Why not plant a church?" Indeed, Falwell himself was a successful church planter; taking Thomas Road from 35 to several thousand over the five decades he served as Senior Pastor. As one who has a responsibility to recruit those who will be successful in church planting I can tell you, when I'm looking for the good ones, I talk to Liberty University!

And while most who recognize his name more quickly associate him with the political, Falwell's real contribution can be seen in missions efforts he initiated all over the world. The Gospel was truly his central passion.

Value Longevity. In a day where pastors think they deserve a gold watch for staying longer than 50 months, Jerry Falwell managed to stay in the same place ministering, growing, raising up leaders, and leading his congrregation to fulfill the Great Commission for more than 50 years! The growth of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University are the prime examples of what can happen when the man of God refuses to look elsewhere at the first signs of trouble. The simple fact is that longevity, as a general rule, produces stability, which produces growth, which produces Kingdom impact. In my own association, the majority of our churches are stable because many of our pastors have been at their churches for at least 15 years. There is little trouble, and even less "turnover" because men of God are faithful to stay where God has placed them. While God certainly moves men to other areas of service, Falwell's legacy challenges us to think that moving every four or five years to another field of service should possibly be the exception rather than the rule.

Leave a Legacy of Leaders. Of course, with Falwell, this example started with his own family. One look at the man's family portrait and a brief synopsis of what his children and grandchildren are involved in will convince you that he knows how to raise up leaders. In addition, the leaders he brought around him now ensure that the ministries at Thomas Road and Liberty will not merely survive, but continue to thrive.

In Jerry Falwell, God raised up a giant of a man, who in turn built an even more gigantic ministry. Nevertheless, the success he enjoyed in this life cannot merely be credited to his notoriety. In the end, his life and legacy must be credited to the grace of God that allowed this man to consistently live the set of core values and principles described above. My God grant each of us that same grace!

The Immorality of Truth: A New Irony

For quite some time, the liberal media has sought to separate sex from its ethical and moral anchor, and the result of their largely successful campaign to do so has been the normalization of all types of sexual deviancy that our culture once considered taboo. Furthermore, the attempts of the secular left to marginalize any objection to this new sexual ethic have resulted in a slate of appellatives that can now be readily applied to the objectors: homophobe, bigot, and fundamentalist are three labels that quickly come to mind.

But yesterday, I found that Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald has a new moniker for those who dare raise the moral question with regard to homosexuality in particular. . . .we are now immoral!

Pitts' Friday column in the Herald addressed comments made last week by General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint cheifs of staff. Having personally heard General Pace's comments, I knew it would not be long before the press picked up on this opportunistic fodder and sent it through the rapidly-revolving cooling-unit. Calls have been made for the General's resignation, the end of the don't ask-don't tell military policy, and for a public apology...all in response to Pace's simple statement below:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Still, of all the strong objections given to the General's comments over the past week, I found Leonard Pitts' to be the most peculiar. To be sure, Pitts resorts to the typical lines of response as well:

Name-calling: "People like the general--in other words bigots, often wrap their objections up in claims of fundamental right and wrong where sexual orientation is concerned.

"Categorical Fallacy: "It is immoral to be Jewish? Immoral to be male? Is it immoral to hail from Idaho? How then, can it be immoral to be gay?

"Misrepresentation of the Opposition: "At this point, of course, someone is frantically pointing to an obscure Old Testament passage as his or her authority for the immorality of homosexuality. Thing is, the Old Testament also requires the death penalty for disrespectful children, forbids the eating of meat cooked rare, and obligates the man who rapes a virgin to by her from her father and marry her."

For the record, this "bigot" doesn't need Leviticus. I have Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. While the proscription of punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus is certainly bound within the Mosaic Covenant, the over-arching principle of Biblial sexual ethics remains a universal, and thus, trans-covanental stipulation. And for the life of me, anyone who equates ethnic nationality, gender, and geographic location with sexual behavior makes such an absurd argument that nothing else need be taken seriously.

Still, I was intrigued by the one unconventional approach taken by Pitts: that of referring to those who object to the homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds as themselves immoral. How on earth does a man with the intelligence and eloquence of a Pulitzer-prize winner manage to make such a leap? I found the steps in his column:

1. Re-define Morality: "Morality, it has always seemed to me, has less to do with commonalities of existence then with how you treat other people." There you have it! Morality is now no longer about knowing right from wrong. It is about how I "treat" my neighbor. I smell a false-dichotomy!

Would it be morally reprehensible, for example, for me to walk by my neighbors house while it was going up in smoke, with my neighbor inside? Certainly it would. Why then, is it not considered equally reprehensible to refrain from warning someone that their behavior places them at an astronomically-high risk for the worst kinds of Sexually Transmitted Diseases . . .the "terminal" kind? Why is it not considered immoral to confront a lifestyle that has led so many to depression and suicide?

And regarding the military; why would we consider it "immoral" to prohibit any behavior that might result in a breakdown of discipline? The don't ask...don't tell policy is there for the same reason the "no women in combat" rule is there (oh wait, the politically correct have done away with this one already, haven't they?) Sexual tension..whether heterosexual or homosexual..is the absolute last thing you want on a battlefield!

To say that morality has little if anything to do with "commonalities" and is all about how people are treated is to say we can all have different understandings of what "kindness" and "equality" and "tolerance" mean, yet still treat each other with these virtues. But if the above-described vision of "morality" can find its way into the mainstream, then you can be sure that the "immoral" label will be attached to any evangelical who dares to question sexual behavior prohibited by Scripture.

2. Change the Subject. "Team Bush misled the nation into war against the wrong enemy. It hospitalized wounded Americans in squalor and filth. It left the people we 'liberated' without electricity, gasoline, or medical services for months turning to years because of its failure to plan. How moral is that?"

From my vantagepoint, the jury is still out on the conflict in Iraq. As such, Pitts' claims regarding this war may indeed end up having merit. But even if his assessment of the war is correct, such an assessment changes nothing with regard to the subject matter he seeks to address.

This approach of "who are you to judge us?" is in reality nothing more than a cleverly disguised ad hominem attack. Suppose I am arrested for the armed robbery of a convenience store? Suppose that to answer for my crimes I am dragged before a judge who is corrupt? Suppose, as my defense, I say something like this:

I may be a thief, but how moral is it of you to sit up there behind that bench and judge me? How many times have you taken payoffs in exchange for 'not-guilty' verdicts? How much of the taxpayer's money have you wasted sitting through hours of court hearings only to let someone guilty go free? What about that pedophille you released just last month because of a technicality?

Could all of that be true of a judge who gives me the maximum sentence? Sure. Do I still deserve punishment? Absolutely.

On a similar note, let's just assume that Pitts' claims against the current administration are true. Let's assume the President really is a liar. Let's assume General Pace intentionally placed our wounded soldiers into abhorrent medical conditions. With all these things assumed, what has changed regarding homosexuality?

Not a thing!

In the end, Pitts accuses General Pace of holding to a "visceral" view of immorality. Upon further investigation, it appears that Mr. Pitts' view of morality is itself quite "visceral." If our culture has reached the point of referring to truth as "immoral," then perhaps the viscera is the only foundation on which we can seek to build a common understanding of right and wrong. But making absolute statements based on your "gut-instinct" seems to me the least-likely of ways to perpetuate a civilized society.

Ironic as it may sound to many on the left, I believe I'll find relief from all this "immorality" in the text of Scripture!

_____________

Read Leonard Pitt's article here: http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/43139.html

A Word from One who Left

Without a doubt, the Southern Baptist Convention presently stands at a crossroads. As an Associational servant, each and every day I observe both the best and the worst of our denominational culture. And while I am one of the few young guys who still see the glass as "half-full," I am well-aware that many young leaders within the SBC are simply emptying their glasses and looking for another well.

Their reasons for leaving are many...admittedly, some are simply whiners who despise all things institutional. Such persons will never be pleased, and we should never be surprised to see this type of individual jump ship. Still, there are others who are leaving; the kind of creative, competent people who are essential to our continued success and Kingdom impact. These don't usually make a lot of noise when they jump off the wagon. In fact, most simply say nothing. They just dissapear. But today, I heard from one of them, and I think you should hear from him too.

I was reading an online essay by Nathan Finn, a current Ph.D. student and staff member at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, entitled The Varieties of SBC Conservatism. I commend this article to you, and give the link to it below so that you can benefit from the wisdom of this soon-to-be Doctor. It is articulate, consistent, sagacious, and in some sense may even prove to be prophetic. Yet it wasn't Finn's article that caught my attention so much as one of the comments left on his thread.

For some time I have been seeking to put to words the sentiment I hear from many young pastors within the SBC. The annonymous comment below sums up this sentiment well:

· A handful of reasons why we are leaving:
We are leaving because we are more committed to winning souls in the world than winning a majority position in a denominational arena.
We are leaving because we have the ability to hold different theological positions and discuss those positions, without hating one another for them.
We are leaving because it is more important to us to worship with a pure heart and serve with clean hands than to judge others in their worship and service.
We are leaving because we understand that when Christ returns he will not be riding on a Donkey or even on an Elephant for that matter.
We are leaving because we want to distance ourselves from tongues seemingly set on fire by Hell that must be heard in annual meetings or on daily blogs to feel righteous.
We are leaving because the Kingdom has come, the fields are white, and many SBC workers have become more preoccupied with who THEY are and less with who HE is.

Well said.

For more than 150 years, the SBC has been used by God to extend His Kingdom in mighty ways, and I still believe our potential is great. But if our desire is to continue this legacy well into the 21st Century, we had better pay attention to voices like the one above!

________
Read Nathan Finn's post here: http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/the-varieties-of-sbc-conservatism-a-blog-essay/

The Death of a Man of God: What Really Matters

Anyone who knows me well knows that John Piper is one of the foremost influencers of my theology and ministry. For more than a decade, I have been blessed and mentored from a distance by this man of God through reading his books, listening to his sermons, and having the opportunity on a few occassions to meet him personally.

One of the reasons John Piper is such a blessing to many is because of his father Bill, a Greenville, South Carolina itinerant evangelist. I learned today that Bill Piper passed away, and a funeral will take place in my hometown to memorialize him.

Interestingly, this news came to me at the same time that I was pondering my own future. At 35, I still, God willing, have much more to do in advancing the Kingdom of God. But at my age, it is easy to get caught up in the "professional" side of what I do . . .wondering, for example, what I will be doing in five or ten years . . . .still in associational work? Back in the pastorate? Teaching in a seminary?

John Piper's recent blog entry memorializing his dad just reminded me today that none of those things really matter. What does matter is the legacy of faith I leave for my family. I read with tears the following words that Piper wrote in memory of his father, and prayed that one day, when I leave this world for the next one, similar words might be spoken of me by my sons:

An exerpt, with what I consider the most moving parts highlighted:

The doctor in his green frock came at 12:40 and listened with his stethoscope to four different places on Daddy’s chest. Then he pulled back the sheet and said, “I must apply some pain stimuli to his nail base to see if he reacts. Then he used his flashlight to test Daddy’s eyes. “The nurse supervisor will come and get the information we need about the mortuary.” Thank you.
Alone again, I felt his cheeks. Finally cool after the fevered and flushed fight. I felt his nose, as though I were blind. Then I felt mine. I thought, very soon my nose will be like your nose. It is already like your nose.

The nurse came. No thank you, an autopsy will not be necessary. Mackey Mortuary on Century Drive. My name is John, his son. My cell phone is . . . . “You may stay as long as you like.” Thank you. I will be leaving soon.

Now I just look at him. Nothing has changed in his face here in the darkness of this dim light. Just no movement. But I have watched his chest so long—even now, was that a slight rise and fall? No, surely not. It’s like sailing on the sea for days. On the land the waves still roll.
He has four-day’s beard and dark eyes. I lift an eyelid to see him eye to eye. They are dilated.

Thank you, Daddy. Thank you for sixty-one years of faithfulness to me. I am simply looking into his face now. Thank you. You were a good father. You never put me down. Discipline, yes. Spankings, yes. But you never scorned me. You never treated me with contempt. You never spoke of my future with hopelessness in your voice. You believed God’s hand was on me. You approved of my ministry. You prayed for me. Everyday. That may be the biggest change in these new days: Daddy is no longer praying for me.

I look you in the face and promise you with all my heart: Never will I forsake your gospel. O how you believed in hell and heaven and Christ and cross and blood and righteousness and faith and salvation and the Holy Spirit and the life of holiness and love. I rededicate myself, Daddy, to serve your great and glorious Lord Jesus with all my heart and with all my strength. You have not lived in vain. Your life goes on in thousands. I am glad to be one.

I kissed him on his cold cheek and on his forehead. I love you, Daddy. Thank you.

What a legacy!

So often those of us whose profession it is to ready souls for eternity are drawn toward the temporal . . .the advanced degree, the denominational recognition, the numerical growth of a church, the celebrity that certainly accompanies minsitry as much as it does any other profession . . . .in light of eternity, none of that matters. And on the Day of Judgement, if these things are brought up at all, I suspicion they will only have been barriers to what we should have been doing and a justification of God's judgement on us. God, grant us the grace to treat temporal things for what they are . . . .temporal.

Help us to live with eternity in view, that such things might be said of us as are now said of William Piper!

Read more at http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/

William Wilberforce and Pastors who Change History

To all of my non-pastor readers: I ask you to please excuse the following post, and indulge me a bit as I share a moment of comeraderie with my brothers-in-arms. And although this post is for the purpose of encouraging pastors, I encourage you, as a non-pastor, to read on. Perhaps what is written will help you to pray more intelligently for your pastor as he seeks to make the difference I am convinced he can make!

Every month in North America, approximately 1500 pastors leave the ministry. . . .for good. The casualty rate among those called to ministry is high. 4 of 5 who graduate from a theological seminary this spring will no longer be in ministry by 2012. While many of these casualties are explained by moral failure, many more are simply the result of discouragement, depression, and exasperation. Many pastors simply feel as though their ministry makes no difference.

The worst kept secret in Christendom is that the Pastorate is often a thankless job. Furthermore, those who enter ministry with dreams of striking it rich have altogether lost their concept of reality. Everyone knows that if money is what you seek, ministry is, generally speaking, NOT the place to find it. So while there are a few co-dependent golddiggers lurking in a few seminaries, most called to ministry understand the sacrifice they are making. Still, a few years into ministry, they feel as though something is missing. They signed up for this because they wanted to make a difference in people's lives. They wanted to transform their church and its surrounding area through the power of the Gospel, and after years of waiting for such, many seem to think to themselves "this simply isn't what I thought I signed up for."

As an associational servant and 15-year ministry veteran, I have heard these thoughts from a few pastors. Many more exist, I am sure, who feel the same way, and simply choose to conceal their pain. And as I think back over my own experiences, many have been the times when I have thought in regard to my own ministry: "What good am I accomplishing?"

These experiences came to mind as my wife and I decided to take in the new movie "Amazing Grace" during its opening night last weekend. The film chronicles the road to the abolition of slavery in Great Brittain as it was led by William Wilberforce. While Wilberforce had always been an opponent of slavery, it was after his conversion to Christianity in 1785 that his distaste for the barbaric practice became empassioned. Together with then Prime Minister William Pitt, Wilberforce faced in Parliament a super-majority of politicians who were themselves the beneficiaries of the slave trade. The first time he instroduced his abolition bill, it went down in flames, by a vote of 163 to 88. For the next sixteen years, Wilberforce faced defeat on this issue.

During this trying time, Wilberforce leaned on the advice of Anglican pastor John Newton. Prior to his own conversion, Newton had himself traded in human life; profiteering from the slave trade as the owner of a slave ship that transported newly captured human commodities to the British Isles. Later in life, it was Newton's own conviction over the sheer evil of his own actions that led him to encourage Wilberforce to continue the battle in Parliament. The results of Wilberforce's determination came in 1807, as slavery was abolished in Great Brittain.

In addition, Wilberforce took great encouragement from the writings of another abolitionist pastor by the name of John Venn. Parliamentary records show that during the height of the debate over abolition, Wilberforce actually took Venn's sermons on human rights into Parliament and read them to this legislative body as a way of saying "this is why the slave trade must be outlawed."

Last Friday night, as I watched the cinematic version of these events, it occurred to me that two relatively unknown pastors were faithful in discipling a young member of Parliament, and changed the world as a result. Venn's name is obscure even in the annuls of history, and Newton is known more for "Amazing Grace" than for his relationship with Wilberforce. But there is no slavery in Great Brittain because these two men were faithful in carrying out one of Paul's most impassioned pleas to Timothy:

And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (-2 Timothy 2:2 ESV)

Paul knew that the Gospel would only permeate culture if it were replicated, and it would only be replicated if entrusted to those who would commit themselves to passing on the Faith once delivered to others. A few simple things are required for this:
1. A genuine conversion; Timothy himself had to be taught, and had to accept the Apostolic teaching.
2. An evangelistic passion; Once converted, you want to share this life-changing experience with others. As John Newton said to William Wilberforce, "I'm a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior."
3. A mind for equipping others; You don't just want to be an evangelist. You want others to be evangelists, which means you are not satisfied until those you have led to Christ are actively sharing Him with others.

These three simple things will result in the transformation of a community, a city, or even a nation. Accompanying that transformation will be the jettisoning of cultural evils like slavery, racism, abortion, sexual deviancy, murder, and social injustice.

The problem is that many pastors, in moments of discouragement, are tempted to judge their ministries based upon those moments: the low-attendance on Sunday, the low offering in the plate, the seeming cultural insignificance of his local church. When we focus on such things, we lose sight of what really matters to God; namely, whether or not we are doing what He has called us to do. Faithfulness to the task of equipping faithful men with the tools neccesary to impact their spheres of influence with the Gospel IS success to God! So if you are a pastor who wonders whether he is making a difference, don't ask yourself about church attendance, or budgetary limitations, or building prominence. Ask yourself how your present actions, your schedule, your priorities, and your passions line up with what Paul commands of us all in 2 Timothy 2:2. Are you growing in your relationship to Christ? Are you in turn passing on what you are receiving to faithful men? Are these faithful men in turn passing that on to others? If the answers to these questions is "yes," then take heart. God is pleased with your ministry.

This year, the sons and daughters of former British slaves are celebrating 200 years of freedom because two men of God were faithful to their calling of equipping one young member of Parliament, and discipling him well. When I think of this as the Director of an Association of 56 Baptist Churches I have to ask: If two faithful pastors can have this effect, what kind of impact could 56 of them make?

My prayer is that this will be read by pastors who are discouraged; who are tempted to voluntarily become one of the 1500 who will leave the ministry in March 2007. I pray you will commit yourself afresh to your calling, because your faithfulness to that calling will change the world!

Missions in the Country: Not what it Used to Be!

Over the past decade, the church has witnessed an increasing emphasis on urban ministry, and rightly so! Demographic studies reveal that masses of people are now moving back into our nation’s largest cities. In addition, the phenomenon known as “globalization,” the growing affinity that world class cities have with each other that makes New York City culturally more like Bejing that neighboring New York state suburbs, makes apparent the necessity of strategically targeting the city. Missiologists are correct when they say that if we can reach the cities, we will eventually reach the world!

But can we reach the cities by urban evangelism alone? While a cursory glance at the demographic landscape might suggest an affirmative answer, a deeper look at what is happening in the countrysides of North America puts to bed the notion that our rural and town and country churches have no place in reaching the world with the Gospel of Christ.

In my capacity at the Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, I am witnessing these happenings first hand. Our association is comprised of 56 churches and church plants. Of that number, 19 are located in rural or town and country areas where rolling fields, silos and farms still outnumber tall buildings and bustling highways. Still, these areas have experienced much more change over the past several years than is immediately apparent, most of which has been caused by new residents who have moved into these areas. Want to take a guess where most of these new residents work? If you guessed the city, you guessed correctly! If we reach the cities, we reach the world. At the same time, reaching the city means reaching those who work there. Bottom line: Our rural churches are just as crucial as our suburban and urban churches are when it comes to reaching the city!

Regrettably, the appropriate focus of church growth literature on urban and suburban areas has resulted in town and country churches being largely neglected. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that most of our rural churches were started when the area around them was . . . .well, rural! Although the landscape still looks the same, the mindset of rural residents has changed dramatically over the past several years. Marty Giese, who has pastored churches in rural areas for over three decades, even suggests that the term “rural” may in fact be misleading. While it may still accurately reflect the geographic surroundings, it no longer describes the worldview and culture of many who now live there. As an alternative to the terms “rural” and “urban,” Giese suggests the use of the terms “agrarian” and “cosmopolitan.” Such terms can be used to accurately describe the mindset of the different kinds of people who now live in the country.

One real-life example of these differing mindsets would be my own home. I live in northwestern Howard Country Maryland, an area referred to by locals as “Western County.” Having grown up in a rural area, I am taking full advantage of living in an area that is largely still zoned for farming. I own chickens and my neighbors own horses. But while the area where we live is still rural, few of us now living in that area are “agrarian.” My next-door neighbor is a contractor for the Defense Department, specializing in anti-terrorism. Simply put, he doesn’t think like a farmer. While he lives in the country, his worldview is very cosmopolitan.

Another solemn reminder of this cultural clash comes by observing the influx into the countryside of the kind of societal ills that once only plagued the cities. Domestic violence, drug abuse, and a host of other “urban” problems are now just as prominent in our rural areas, and I have heard many of our pastors who minister in these areas testify to this fact.

The question then is how Pastors of churches in these changing rural environments can empower their congregations to more effectively reach the changing communities around them. Ephesians tells us that the pastor’s calling is to “equip” his people to minister effectively in their context. This calling, coupled with the above-described reality means that pastors in rural areas now bear an especially weighty responsibility! They must serve as a “cultural interpreter” between their congregation and the community. They require the capacity to lead their churches through the changes necessary to be effective, and they must be able to mobilize their people for outreach in this new context.

With this reality in view, denominational entities such as our Association should be about the task of helping equip and empower churches in the country. Regrettably, this is likely not the case for most denominational agencies. Two things currently impede denominations ability to provide what is needed. One of these is an appropriate focus on the cities that unintentionally minimizes those in rural areas. The other is that the methods currently used to equip rural pastors and churches are almost identical to those utilized a half-century ago. The cities aren't the only areas that require a new approach to ministry, and it is high time denominations who serve rural churches realize this.

For our part, this realization has resulted in a renewed focus on ministry and mission in "cosmorural" areas. Initiating this emphasis is a conference that we are sponsoring together with two neighboring associations called "Leading the Rurban Church." Our hope is that this conference will better equip our town and country pastors for this task. Dr. Marty Giese, a veteran rural pastor and author of a recent book on rural church ministry, will lead our sessions, and help us to learn from each other.

Our calling is to reach the world, and one of the reasons Associations and other denominational entities should exist is to combine our collective resources to do this more effectively. Currently, the best way for us to evangelize the world is to evangelize the city. But ironically, one of the best weapons we may have to accomplish this just might be our “country churches.”

What I Learned about Sex Education: From CMT

I knew that eventually, my eldest son and I would have to have "the conversation." But I never expected that conversation to be initiated by a Carrie Underwood video!

Although most Christian parents seek to shield their children from being exposed to adult themes too early, all of us slip up from time to time, usually by simply not paying attention. My slip up came a few weeks ago, on a laid-back Saturday morning. While helping my wife in the kitchen, the Saturday morning video line-up was playing on Country Music Television, giving us what any honorable red-neck would consider to be the ideal musical background for our activities.

Somewhere in that lineup was Carrie Underwood's newest video, which illustrated a story-driven song about her seeking revenge for the two-timing nature of her ex. My wife was unconsciously humming, and having seen the video before, I was lamenting the uneccesary pain she inflicted on the guy's ride (It really is a shame what she did to that truck!). Simultaneous to this, but unbeknownst to us, my oldest son was in the living room, hearing words that made no sense to him. A few seconds later, he rounded the corner into the kitchen to ask "Daddy, what is a 'tramp' and what does it mean to 'cheat'?"

Needless to say, that moment awakened me to the fact that my vigilance level needs to be ratcheted up a knotch or two when it comes to my kids. At the same time, I realized that children are being exposed to sexuality earlier than ever before. When 8-year-old girls are wearing shorts to school with "juicy" written across the backside, something is definitely wrong with our culture!

Over the next couple of weeks, my son and I had off-and-on conversations about sex, and through these conversations, I'd like to think I have learned a few things regarding how and when parents should talk to their children.

1. Bring it up sooner rather than later. My oldest is six. By most standards in the past, that would be way too early to have a conversation about sex. The problem is that in our current culture, by the time they are this age they have likely already been exposed to sexual themes, and been informed regarding sexuality by many other venues. And no matter how hard we try to shield them from this exposure, it simply cannot be avoided.

While conservatives rightly contend that sex education should be the responsibility of parents, often those same conservatives wait entirely too long to bring up the subject matter in their own homes. Let's face it: in most Christian households, by the time parents decide its time to talk about sex, the kids already know more than they do!

The first communication on this subject should come from Mom and Dad. If we seek to overcome the evil influence of our culture in this area, we have to beat it to the punch!

2. Communication about sex should be overwhelmingly positive. Clearly, the Biblical mandate concerning sex is that it only occur between one man and one woman who are married to each other. Unfortunately, this is the extent of most communication given to the children of evangelicals. To be sure, this boundary line should be marked clearly, but it should also be seen against the backdrop of God's overall intention regarding sexuality.

When educating their children, parents need to be clear from the start that sex is a gift from God. It is a good thing; in fact, it is a GREAT thing! It feels incredible and is designed to be the physical glue that ties husband and wife together in an even more intimate bond. Rather than portraying sex as something young men do to "lose their virginity," or as something that "de-flowers" our daughters, parents should celebrate this wonderful gift of God, and communicate their desire for their children to eventually have a fulfilling and God-glorifying sex life with their future spouses. Such is the background against which God's marital boundary around this gift can not only be clearly understood, but willingly embraced.

The marital bond should be portrayed by parents as something sacred, meaning that boys and girls learn respect for the opposite sex in light of their anticipated marriage. My son should learn to anticipate all the things he will one day share with his wife, and this same realization should result in the appropriate level of respect he should give to girls who may one day be someone else's wife.

3. Don't be crude, but do be frank. As a child, I was told that babies are created when a mommy and daddy "love" each other enough to create one. That being the extent of the conversation, I spent my early elementary school years trying hard to avoid "liking" a girl too much, lest she end up pregnant!

Parents should not only talk openly with their children about sex as a gift, but they should be accurate in describing what exactly sex is. This doesn't mean using crude language, or going into graphic detail with your six-year old. It does, however, mean clearly stating that sex is a physical activity. The conversation might even sound like this:

God designed a man's body and a woman's body so that they fit together. When this fit happens, it creates a really, really good feeling that God intended a husband and wife to feel for each other. God also created our bodies in such a way that when a man and woman have sex, their bodies together can make a third body, which is where babies come from.

A conversation like this isn't crude, but it is clear enough that a young child can understand what "sex" is. Such knowledge is not only useful for sex education, but also in the context of certain theological discussion. How can a young child actually believe in the virgin birth if he or she doesn't know what a "virgin" is? Contrary to the "sanitized" Sunday School definition of the term, a "virgin" is not neccesarily an unmarried woman! The present culture no longer allows for such a shallow understanding of this term.

Rest assured, if your kids first hear about sex from the culture, it will likely be crude. Our conversations about this subject don't have to be crude, but if our children are going to be properly equipped, they do have to be clear.

4. Parents should set the example for their kids regarding sex. Obviously, this statement is not intended to mean what it could mean! There are certain actions between husband and wife that without question should remain in the bedroom. Nevertheless, what happens in the bedroom often spills over into the other rooms of the house. In practical terms, this means that children should see mom and dad holding hands, hugging, kissing, flirting with each other, chasing each other around the house, and generally enjoying each other's company. Frankly, for this to happen in front of the kids with authenticity, mom and dad need to have a great sex life.

Young boys should be aware that dad is attracted to mom, and to mom alone! They should see in dad the sexual rewards that come from years of fidelity to one woman. By contrast, young girls should witness mom enjoying the kiss, the touch, the flirting. Once married, a woman should never hesitate to express herself in this way to her husband, and young girls will be much more likely to enjoy this good gift of God as married women, if a strong Biblical precedent is set by mom! Sure, from time to time kids will retch at watching mom and dad in this way, but isn't that part of the fun?

Perverted forms of sex abound in our culture. And as is the case with most other social issues, the problem isn't sex. The problems are the perverted forms of sex. Our children need a healthy, God-centered, Biblical model of sexuality, and they need it sooner than other children have in the past. If they don't get it from us, they will get the alternate version from someplace else.

The Real Shame of the War on Terror: A Rant

The current situation in Iraq is, from my perspective, the epitome of irony. On the one hand, the vitriolic ideological battles at home between the President and the new congress have put to bed any notion of “bipartisanship.” But on the other hand, I find it nauseating that while we fight about the war at home, those actually fighting the war itself are often forgotten.

This shameful fact was graphically demonstrated in a recent article in People magazine. While running on the treadmill last week, I came across an article about Ty and Renee Ziegel, a young couple who are coping with the very real results of warfare. While congressional democrats opposing Bush’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq are careful to note their concern for and support of our troops, many troops and their families, like the Ziegel’s have to search a bit to find any support.

Engaged when Ty was deployed to Iraq, the couple spent months apart from each other. Then, in late 2003, Ty became the victim of a roadside bomb that while thankfully sparing his life, also left him without a left arm, and barely recognizable. The touching article talked about Renee’s commitment to her fiancé, and their subsequent wedding, and I confess that this moving story about the love between these two moved my own emotions.

But two paragraphs later, my sentimentality quickly turned to anger when I read that Renee is still forced by their financial situation to work part-time. While this supplementary income, in addition to Ty’s army pension, keeps the young couple afloat, her part-time work keeps her from her husband’s side . . . the place where she really wants to be.

Immediately, I thought of all our “elected officials,” who from the day they enter office, are the beneficiaries of six-figure salaries and the best health care plans money can buy . . .all at taxpayer expense mind you. A President can send over 21,000 soldiers into battle, and will be taken care of for the rest of his life. A congressman can cut off funding to those same 21,000 soldiers while still enjoying his publicly funded healthcare and retirement. But those actually doing the fighting, even those severely injured, require the part-time employment of their spouse in order to make ends meet. This is the travesty of all travesties!

Whether you are a supporter or dissenter regarding the conflict in Iraq, all of us have a solemn responsibility to do what we can to ensure that those protecting our freedoms abroad are taken care of. When politicians are making a “career” out of a job that was never meant as a career, while at the same time career soldiers are having to seek second jobs and apply for government assistance in order to stay financially soluable, something is wrong.

The Old Testament prophets Hosea and Amos spoke sternly to those with wealth and power who took advantage of those in a lower socio-economic class. In the New Testament, James has equally strong words to the rich. It appears that such words now need to be spoken on the floor of the United States Senate, the floor of the House, and the Oval Office.

Thoughts of the wounded, the grief-stricken survivors of those who have been casualties of war, and the financial strains of both of these groups should riddle with guilt the conscience of every lawmaker in congress . . . every time they cash their exorbant paychecks.

What is the right thing to do? I’m sure this sounds radical, but it is right nonetheless. The public should, if it is possible, reach into the chambers of the House and Senate, reach into the confines of the Oval, reach into the recesses of the Supreme Court, and take away the big salaries. Take away all the health benefits . . . .and give it to soldiers like Ty Ziegel.

Political office was never intended as an avenue of personal gain. Furthermore, it is not the legislature, the judiciary, or the executive branch that guarantees our freedom. Congress retains the ability to make law at the pleasure of the people because of the soldiers. The President executes his office in security because of the soldiers. Judges adjudicate without duress because of the soldiers. And this nation is free because of the soldiers.

To get closer to home: I am called to preach the Gospel, and to do so “in season and out of season.” I could have been born in the Sudan, or in another nation where preaching the Gospel carried severe penalties. I could be preaching today under the threat of the persecution of me and my family. But I am not. I am preaching without fear of persecution or aggression. And I am doing it because of men like Ty Ziegel. That he and Renee are struggling to make ends meet after the sacrifice he made for his country is an embarrassment to this nation. Men like Ziegel should never worry again about putting food on the table. All expenses should be paid . . .courtesy of those of us who benefit from his sacrifice. And such expenses should be allocated, courtesy of those we place in office to do the right thing.

Personally, I believe that history will judge that this war was indeed just. While the road to freedom in Iraq has been far from perfect, the service of our military forces has been exemplary, and there is now a democracy in, of all places, the middle east! But any soiled reputation our country wears for not taking care of our own, we deserve!

Saddam, Sin, and Reflections on the Death Penalty

No one can doubt that 2007 was ushered in with a torrent of big news. The death of former President Gerald Ford was certainly at the top of that list, and I look forward to writing soon regarding what we can learn from the late President's life. But perhaps one of the biggest news stories of 2006 came at the end of the year, when the world was informed that Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq, had been executed for crimes against humanity. Since his execution, the public has debated about everything from the war itself to the possible culpability of the United States in the very crimes of which Hussein was convicted. For the church, Hussein's execution proved to be an appropriate moment to re-engage in our internal debate concerning the Biblical validity of the death penalty.

Certainly, followers of Christ, in good conscience, stand on both sides of this debate. But Saddam's execution seemed to bring about a more pensive inquiry regarding whether capitol punishment is ever justified. Among others, Benjamin Cole indicated on his website that he was re-thinking his position on this issue, admitting that "For the past two years I have waged an internal debate about the political and societal benefit of capital punishment." This is a shocking statement, primarily due to the fact that a Texan is questioning the death penalty. That fact in and of itself should be headline news!

Despite appeals to many different texts in Scripture, a proper hermaneutical approach to this issue can only begin with Genesis 9, the first place in Scripture where the death penalty is both mentioned and (I believe) commended. A chief opponent of the death penalty, the late John Howard Yoder himself states that this text "is perhaps the most important text in the Bible on the subject of God's will concerning the death penalty."

Delving further into this text, this able and articulate Catholic theologian suggested that verse 6 is representative of the oral lore of the time, and as such, was never intended as a legislative document, but instead a descriptive statement of how things were in "primitive, ancient societies."

With due respect to Dr. Yoder, his approach here not only liberates "its original meaning from the deposit of interpretations which have already been laid over it by centuries of readers," but also liberates the verse rather efficiently from its historical and literary context. If one accepts the authority and reliability of the Old Testament account (as Yoder did), one would be forced to believe that there were no longer any ancient societies in existence at this time because they had all been destroyed in the previous worldwide deluge.

A proper contextual reading of this text understands its words to be confined to God's covenant with Noah, one of four covenants that are declared in the Old Testament to be "everlasting." Therefore, unlike the dietary and civil laws of the Mosaic covenant, which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God's covenant with Noah, along with His covenant with Abraham, David, and Jeremiah, is still in full force. Similarly, while under the covenant with Moses the death penalty was to be used for sorcery (Exodus 22:18), Idolatry (Leviticus 20:2), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-27), and adultery (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), the covenant with Noah stipulates only one crime that is punishable by death: murder.

Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. (Genesis 9:6, NASB)

But the rationale is also given for this command:

For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6, NASB)

In short, the death penalty is to be used, not as a tool of revenge by any one individual, but by mankind as expressed in human government as a tool of justice to punish those who unjustly take the life of another human being. The importance of this principle is not tied to human life exclusively, but to the Image of God that is stamped upon each human life.

The death penalty is an action that speaks strongly and soberly to the image of God. Far from being a symbol of disrespect for life,iIt is a powerful statement of how valuable human life is to our Creator. It is so valuable, and the unjust taking of it so serious, that ones life could, and should, be taken from him if he dares violate the sixth commandment.

This principle is further strengthened by the witness of the New Testament. Both Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-14 affirm that human government was instituted by God. Even Paul, in Acts 25:11, stated to Felix that if "I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die." While we have no comprehensive exposition of Paul's views regarding the death penalty, there is ample evidence in this verse alone to demonstrate the apostolic belief that some crimes are worthy of death.

Still, asking whether there is Biblical foundation for general governmental authority in administering the death penalty is different from asking whether our own government should have the authority to administer this punishment. What therefore, gives a government the authority to take the life of one of its citizens? The following are my best, and admittedly feeble reflections on the minimum requirements:

It must be Affirmed with True Authority. Any government that presumes the right to execute one of its own citizens must understand the basis for such a right. This understanding grows out of two things: a fundamental respect for human life, and a solid conviction about why executions are sometimes neccesary. While even President Bush has staked his belief in the death penalty on his belief that it is an effective "deterrent," the Scriptures make no mention of any such rationale. Capitol punishment is not for the purpose of "deterrence." It is for the purpose of making a powerful statement about the image of God. In that same spirit, it is diffucult, if not impossible for any government to make a bold statement about human life while simultaneously promoting a culture of death.

That said, it is difficult to see how a nation that murders over 1 million unborn children every year through abortion, and talks incessantly and exclusively about the pragmatic issues of capitol punishment without regard for its true purpose, could possibly presume the moral authority to execute one of its own.

It Must be Administered with Equity. Genesis 9:6 includes no exception clauses, no "degrees" of murder, and no appeals to gender, faith, or race. If you kill someone in cold blood, the punishment is death, period. Admittedly, the way in which the death penalty is meeted out in our present culture bears little if any resemblance to this model. Any casual observer of our legal system can easily see that often, the punishment for murder is less related to the crime, and more related to the color of one's skin, or the size of one's checkbook. Racially and economically-motivated justice is no justice at all!

Even faith-based exceptions must be dismissed if God's model of capitol punishment is to be followed. In 1998, Karla Faye Tucker was executed by lethal injection for the brutal 1983 stabbing of Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton, much to the consternation of many well-known preachers, including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. These two televangelists strongly opposed Tucker's execution solely on the grounds that she was gloriously saved in 1984. Indeed, unlike many "jailhouse conversions," Karla Faye's faith demonstrated itself consistently for the next 14 years, and from a spiritual perspective, she was a very different person from the depraved prostitute who committed the gruesome crime.

Regardless, while her debt to God was dealt with at Calvary, her debt to society remained. Zaccheus, who himself was born again in Luke 19, acknowledged a societal debt after his conversion. He did not claim that he was not the same person who defrauded people, and therefore should not be required to pay. Instead, his newfound faith compelled him to make things right with his fellow-man, just as the coming cross and resurrection would make things right with God.

Appeals to faith, discrimination against minorities, and the favoring of the wealthy all take place in our current system, and consequently leave our society without the moral fortitude to carry out an execution with equity.

It must be Observed with Sorrow. After the execution of Saddam Hussein, one commenter to a political blog asserted her joy at his death. "He is not even human to me, so his death doesn't bother me in the least."

But Saddam Hussein, while a cruel, mass-murdering dictator, was human! While his atrocities no doubt further marred the image God had stamped on his personhood from conception, the imago dei remained nonetheless. To execute murderers for their crimes is proper. But to refer to them as "less than human" or "worse than an animal" is not only to debase a fellow human being, but also to spit in the face of God Himself, in whose image each human was created.

Furthermore, the celebration, partying and applause that often accompanies executions should bring shame to any people. Executions should never be turned into events of celebration, but should instead be times of deep sorrow. It is a serious thing indeed that sin has so infiltrated our society that a man must sometimes be cut off in his sin. When a human life is unjustly taken by a murderer, believers, standing firm on the principles of God's Word which demand his death, should mourn with bitter tears the sinfulness of an action that can be societally rectified in no other way.

But regrettably, our nation is often the victim of both weak judicial rulings, and the heated emotions of a populace.

Our cultural dilemma, as I see it, is this: How can we stand for the death penalty, which God has clearly commanded in Scripture, and expect it to be done by a government that has repeatedly demonstrated itself as unqualified to administer it? Some suggest that because inequity and weak arguments permeate both the rationale for and administration of executions, that executions should be banned. The answer, however, is not to throw out what God has commanded as neccesary for the continuation of a civil society. Instead, the answer is to reform our system of justice, which itself is fast becoming a proponent of all that is uncivil.

When a convicted pedophille in Vermont receives only 60 days in jail as his punishment, it is apparrent that our justice system has lost its moral authority. In short, the misappropriation, abuse of, and misunderstanding of the death penalty is not an indictment on the clear teaching of Scripture. It is instead an indictment on our unclear, overcomplicated, easily-manipulated, morally relevant and always vascillating system of justice.

As a nation, we have long since lost the moral high ground. As such, we have a long way to go to become the kind of just society that can administer the death penalty as God intended. But the problem isn't the death penalty itself. The problem, ironic as it may sound, is an "unjust" system of justice, and when rightly administered, capitol punishment will bring punishment to the murderer, justice to the victims, civility to society, sorrow to humanity, and glory to the Creator of all life.