A Five-Fold Strategy Guaranteed to Kill Your Church

The following is based in experiences I've had with churches I've consulted with over my nearly 20 years of service in ministry. Over that time, I have become convinced that we have perfected the pathology by which we can accelerate the decline and eventual demise of a local church. I've seen the following happen in different orders, with different emphases, and I can guarantee that if you implement these five things, you will be pushing the nuclear button on your congregation. I've seen it happen enough times, and western evangelicalism has developed habits that have perfected this approach.

1. Perpetually send an unclear sound. Make sure that key leaders remain clueless, and divided, when it comes to the identity, purpose, vision, and direction of the church. Speak in spiritual euphemisms that seem holy, like "we just want to love Jesus and each other," or "we just want to follow the Bible." These sorts of nebulous statements, absent of any contextual application, are a way to sound thoroughly Biblical without actually being Biblical. Furthermore, they are the perfect way to stay adrift in a sea of irrelevance, and never identify who God created your local church to be, and what He wants her to do. The result, of course, is that the church will do nothing.

2. Invest More Time in Needy People than in Leaders. You know the old saying; "The squeaky wheel gets the most grease." In many local churches, those who "squeak" the loudest seem to get all the grease! And the grand mistake of church leaders is to give inordinate attention to the loudest and most needy people in the congregation, rather than invest in those God has gifted to lead the church. This sets up an environment in which people learn that the most attention will always be paid to the loudest complainers. And this is precisely the kind of environment that will suck the life out of any real leader--or inadvertently push leaders right out the door.

3. Try to Please Everybody. Almost without exception, in every church I've ever consulted with that is in decline, decisions are never executed without the final question of "who will be upset by this?" Inevitably, good decisions are always sabotaged by someone suggesting that "doing this might really upset . . .[fill in the name of your preferred group.]" In fact, the one way to ensure that #1 above takes place, is to assume this posture, because you can't make a clear decision about anything if the number one concern is always about someone not being pleased. Guess what? THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DECISION THAT WILL EVER BE MADE IN A CHURCH THAT MAKES EVERYBODY HAPPY! This means of course, that if you are trying to please everybody with decision and direction, you will never make a substantive decision, and you will never have clear direction. Atrophy is the inevitable result, because in the attempt to please everybody, you have displeased God.

4. Refuse to Confront Troublemakers. Principled dissent is one thing. Saboteurs are an entirely different matter and in too many churches, they are allowed to run free and do what they please, no matter the negative impact they have on the rest of the body. They may come in the form of the lady who "holds back" her tithe because she doesn't like a decision that was reached. They may come in the form of the guy who presumes the right to "pull the e-brake" on anything church leaders have decided on that he doesn't agree with. It may come in the form of those who use the phone or internet as a corridor for gossip to undermine the forward progress of the church.

Strong leadership is needed in these situations. The gossip has to be called out and confronted. The self-proclaimed "devil's advocate" with his hand on the e-brake needs to be told that the church isn't interested in Satan's opinion. And the lady who steals from God needs to be reminded that she isn't just "punishing the leadership," she is breaking her covenant promise to those in her church family, and to her God. Without strong leaders to confront such nonsense, troublemakers will be free to throw additional anchors over the side of their drifting ship to ensure that it goes precisely nowhere.

5. Seek to Live in the Past. Churches actually do this in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is to be highly suspicious of any sort of change. Music styles, architecture, structural paradigms, and cultural engagement in general are all evolving concepts, and if the church does not reflect the culture in which it finds itself in all these areas, the result is far worse than simply an unclear Gospel. In the end, the church may lose the Gospel altogether, because they have identified its delivery with certain cultural accutrements rather than a bloody cross and an empty tomb.

But there is more than one way to live in the past. As with any social system, churches over time develop corporate patterns of behavior, and some of these patterns are not healthy. If they are not repented of and clearly dealt with, they become the growing snowball that leads the church in one direction; downhill!

One thing is for sure though. If you want to ensure that you don't exist in the future, then just refuse to think about it.

Roughly 3500 churches in North America close their doors for good each and every year. The vast majority of those I've seen close with my own eyes did so by following the strategy I've outlined above. Many of them were not even aware of what they were doing, and when their subconsiceous path was pointed out, they simply chose to deny it . . .and keep dying!

So if you are following the principles above, and refuse to repent, I can guarantee that your church will eventually be included in that number, and you should be!

Why Mitt Romney's Mormonism Doesn't Matter . . .and Why it Does.

In case you have been living under a rock for the past five years and aren't already aware of it, one of the Republican candidates for President is a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yep, Mitt Romney is Mormon, and that fact has quite a few in the evangelical community really upset. Romney's Mormonism has also brought out others on the Republican side who simply don't understand why anyone should be so upset, because they see little if any difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

Both groups have it wrong.

Of course, Romney's religious views became an issue in the last election cycle as well, and many pundits believe it could have played a role in his primary defeat at the hands of Arizona Senator John McCain. ( I wrote about this issue here.)But this time around, the issue rose again after Texas Governor Rick Perry was criticized for his association with Pastor Robert Jeffress, who unequivocally refered to Mormonism as a "cult." To be sure, many evangelical Christians agree with Pastor Jeffress that Romney should not be a candidate for President because he is Mormon. I just don't happen to be one of them.

For one thing, Article VI of the US Constitution clearly says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Needless to say, I think the office of President fits this description.

Additionally, one need not be an evangelical Christian in order to be an effective leader. Conversely, just because someone claims to be evangelical does not mean they are capable of leading a nation. Martin Luther expressed this sentiment best almost 400 years ago when he claimed "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."

With all this in view, I'm disturbed to find many of my fellow evangelicals repulsed at a Presidential canddiate merely because of the religion with which he is associated. Mitt Romney's close association with the LDS church has little relevance to how well equipped he may be to defend our country against foreign and domestic enemies, or write and pass a cogent and effective energy policy, or get our struggling economy back on track. So I am disturbed that so many would forget the lessons we learned from John F. Kennedy's presidency almost a half century ago, and allow a man's religion to be the single issue that turns them against him.

Still, as disturbed as I am by this angst against a Mormon candidate, the response by Romney supporters who claim to be evangelical Christians disturbs me more.

A Baltimore Sun article on Sunday stated that Perry's campaign, in response to Pastor Jeffrees' statements "distanced itself from [his] remarks." And how did the Texas governor, who is himself a vocal evangelical Christian, "distance" himself? By explicitly stating that "Mormonism is not a cult."

Salt Lake City, we have a problem!

That problem, of course, is that Mormonism has about as much in common with historic, orthodox Christianity as does Hinduism. In one sense, evangelicals might actually have more in common with Hindus, since Hindus don't worship as many gods as the Mormons do. If that sounds like an over-the-top statement, consider briefly the origins and theology of "Latter Day Saint Christianity."

Founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s, Mormonism is based on three extra-Biblical sources, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, all of which were authored by Smith. In particular, the Book of Mormon is based on a series of "visions" given a 14-year-old Smith by an angel named Moroni. Although there is precisely zero archeological or historical evidence for this claim, Mormons cling tightly to the belief that in the book of Mormon, Smith answered two questions that were at the forefront of 19th century American life: Which of all the Christian denominations is correct, and what is the origin of the Native Americans?

During his encounter with Moroni at his family farm in Palmyra, New York, Smith answered the first question by saying of the various denominational expressions of the Christian church that "they are all wrong, and their creeds are an abomination in God's sight." As a result of this experience, Smith saw himself as one called to restore "true Christianity" to the earth. But the "Christianity" he subsequently spread was very odd, to say the least.

Where God is concerned, Smith taught that our Creator was no more than a highly exalted man. "As man is," Smith claimed, "God once was; as God is, man may become." In essence, Smith taught that God was not God from eternity past, but instead had advanced himself to the state of deity, and created human beings to follow after this pattern. In the face of texts like John 4:24, Mormonism teaches that God has flesh and bones, just like His creation, and that human beings, through "eternal marriage," can live forever in dominion over their own world, as gods over their own planets. Though they deny it today, it was Brigham Young himself who advocated the worship of and prayer to Adam as a god.

The tricky part of all this, of course, is that Mormons utilize much of the same Biblical language that their evangelical counterparts are familiar with. They speak freely of Jesus, salvation, and even atonement. But while their vocabulary sounds identical to ours, their dictionary gives very different definitions of those terms.

To have salvation, for example, one must not only believe in Jesus (who is not God, but instead the first "spirit baby" of God the Father and Mary), but must also submit to Mormon baptism, receive the ordinances of the temple, and perform good works. Faithfulness to these teachings of course, results in "becoming as God is."

Much more could be said here, but suffice it to say that when one looks at the totality of Mormon beliefs, it is clear that they do not embrace a Biblical view of any major Christian doctrine and therefore, they cannot be counted as "Christian."

Such a statement is a hard pill to swallow when one looks at the way 21st century Mormonism has reinvented itself in the eyes of the public. They are experts in public relations, and have successfully presented themselves as mainstream. Popular business leaders like Steven Covey and Bill Marriott, and powerful politicians like Orrin Hatch are openly Mormon, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has become an American institution, having been invited to perform at Presidential inaugurations. Brigham Young University is today the largest private institution of higher education in America, with a student body of more than 30,000. Moreover, the church has grown to over 10 million faithful followers in more than 150 countries. They certainly don't look like a cult.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney. The former Massachussets Governor is seeking the Republican nomination for President, and in the process, is trying to assure the American people that his membership in the Mormon church will not negatively affect his performance as President. I believe him. But such is not the same as saying that I believe in Mormonism, and the call for "tolerance" that minimizes these differences and as a result compromises the clear Gospel of Jesus Christ must be answered loudly and clearly.

A Politico article released just today quotes Romney, alongside popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, calling on Governor Perry to "repudiate" the remarks of Pastor Jeffrees and deny that Mormonism is, in fact, a cult. In other words, if Governor Perry desires to be "tolerant," he must turn his back on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This isn't tolerance. It is pure insanity!

Once upon a time, "tolerance" was what helped adherents of various faiths to coexist with each other. It was rooted in mutual respect, and grounded in the firm belief that "forced conversion" is in fact, no conversion at all. Such is exactly the kind of tolerance that forms the root of Article VI of our Constitution. It is why a person's religious beliefs should not be a litmus test for the office of President, or for any other office at the federal level.

Unfortunately, this is not the kind of "tolerance" that is being promoted by Governors Romney and Christie. The "tolerance" they speak of is one in which major differences about God, Jesus, Salvation, heaven, hell, and all other things of eternal importance should be minimized, or altogether erased. Yet, no honest person who examines the clear teachings of Mormonism can come to the conclusion that it is compatible in any way with the teachings of Jesus. Romney has the Constitution, Article VI, to protect him from religious discrimination. Allowing him to hijack Christianity in the process is not only unneccesary but dangerous.

Luther was right. A wise Turk makes a better leader than a foolish Christian. What the Romney campaign is ignoring however, is that a Turk is still a Turk. The fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon does not, in itself, disqualify him from holding the office of President. It does, however, mean that he cannot accurately be called "Christian." If these distinctions cannot be adequately maintained, then ardent evangelicals may deny what our Constitution clearly states. But if the "tolerance" we must have is defined in the way Christie and Romney define it, we may lose Biblical Christianity altogether.

So Einstein was Wrong?! General Revelation, the Speed of Light and the Authority of Scripture.

One of the darker results of modernity is the intellectual arrogance it has created. We know what we know, and nothing can change that. After all, we have SEEN the truth with our own eyes. We have seen the evidence, and that evidence is superior to anything else.

Richard Dawkins, the most well-known champion of what has been called the "new atheism," accurately expresses the unfettered confidence modernity has given us in our own experiences. "I believe," he states, "not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence . . .Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."

So there you have it! The evidence is overwhelming, and because of it we know what we know. We know that life is a product of biological evolution. We know that the stories in Scripture are mere fables written for the purpose of religious propaganda, because of course, they sometimes do not match what we observe and feel. Its kind of like the speed of light. Everyone knows that nothing travels faster than light . . .

. . .that is, until this past week.

Just last week, leading scientists in Geneva Switzerland discovered subatomic particles that appear to travel faster than light. A Baltimore Sun article reporting the event admitted that this observation, "if confirmed, could force a major rethinking of theories on the makeup of the cosmos."

At first glance, it wouldn't appear that placing a speed limit on light would have such a great impact on the broader physical sciences. But the theory about the speed of light, known as "special relativity" and first published in 1905, has since been one principle by which scientists have sought to understand the origins of our universe and how it continues to expand. If this theory is proven wrong, it could effectively undo decades of research that are dependent on this theory as a first premise. To put it bluntly, if these scientists' observations are reflective of reality, it means that Albert Einstein, the father of the theory of relativity, was wrong.

Yeah, THAT Einstein!

Further experimentation is of course neccesary to confirm this, and no one is yet stating anything definitively. Astrophysicist Martin Rees wisely said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is an extraordinary claim." Still, everyone involved in this very recent event is well-aware of the implications if these observations in fact turn out to be true.

For the Christian, shocking discoveries like this should remind us of our limitations when it comes to accessing truth solely through scientific experimentation. Empirical knowlege has always had its limits, and many highly intelligent people have eventually found themselves mistaken even when operating within those limits.

This is not to say that Christians should reject scientific experimentation and discovery, or that such discovery isn't believed by Christ-followers to be of benefit to humanity. From a personal standpoint, I'm very thankful that scientific experimentation resulted in medical advances that 6 years ago, saved the life of my son Seth. 50 years ago, I had an uncle die on the same day he was born of the same lung condition my son had. Science is to be credited for such life-saving technology.

Yet we run into trouble when we begin to accept scientific discovery uncritically, principally because in so doing, we assume that there is no better way to access truth. If the scientific seems to contradict what is contained in our "holy books," we reject, or radically "reinterpret" the latter almost without thought on the assumption that the former couldn't possibly be wrong.

Such has recently been the case in a new debate about the historicity of Adam and Eve. Dr. Francis Collins, a professed Christian and current head of the National Institutes of Health, has recently claimed that evidence in the study of the human genome makes it "highly improbable" that the human race is descended from a literal "first couple." Collins, the former head of BioLogos, a foundation committed to "reconcilling" science with Christianity, has apparently influenced many pastors and Christian leaders, including many evangelicals. We now, based on discoveries like these, "know" what the ancients did not know: that the Genesis account is not an accurate history of our origins, but instead is itself the product of literary evolution: an account of human origins colated from various Mesopotamian sources and accomodated to an emerging Judaic culture in the ancient near east.

In short, we must radically re-interpret the Bible in order to "reconcille" it with what we REALLY know.

These are not new arguments. Early in the 20th century, liberal Baptist theologian Paul Tillich sought to reconcille Scripture with "scientific fact" through what he called a "method of correlation." For centuries, Christians have believed that God reveals truth through both general and special revelation. In general revelation, God speaks externally through the created order (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20), and also internally through the human conscience (Romans 2:14-15). Human beings can have access to general revelation through the earth, life, and physical sciences, as well as through anthropology, sociology, psychology, and education sciences.

In special revelation, God speaks to us ultimately and finally in the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2), and Christ Himself is revealed, fully and finally, in the text of Holy Scripture (John 5:39)

But what do we do when general revelation appears to contradict special revelation? Tillich's approach was to give equal weight to both by segregating the "book of Scripture" (the Bible) from the "book of nature" (science and scientific study). The problem of course, is that though the Bible is not a science book, it does occassionally speak to issues related to the sciences. (I might add that the "Separate but Equal" argument has never yielded good results) So how do we react when, for example, scientific evidence seems to suggest that Adam and Eve could not really have existed? Tillich's approach was to take the scientific evidence at face value and recast the Biblical narrative in a way that causes it to teach something very different than what it actually says. Such an approach inevitably makes God's special revelation subservient to general revelation. Or to speak more bluntly and prophetically, it makes a golden calf out of the scientific method.

Yet many Christian leaders persist in reinventing Adam, despite the circular reasoning of evolutionaly science, its apparent conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or the admitted limitations of empirical scientific experimentation.

The recent discovery in Geneva serves to remind us that science is not perfect because the human beings that conduct scientific experiments are not perfect. The human mind is fallen and thus, never fully trustworthy. And if this observation is indeed determined to be an accurate one, and decades of scientific research based on a faulty 20th century premise are trashed in its wake, we would do well to consider that brilliant men like Francis Collins can be wrong and it is not wise to impulsively reinvent the Christian narrative simply because a few fallen minds have suggested it might not be accurate.

If Albert Einstein can be wrong, so can they.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/130366893.html

Leadership Competency: Asking the Right Questions

There is an old peanuts' comic strip that shows Charlie Brown firing an arrow blindly into the side of a barn. The next cell shows him after walking up to the spot where the arrow landed, and with bucket and brush in hand, painting a target around the arrow. Looking back at Lucy he says "this way, I never miss!"

When it comes to measuring effective leadership in local churches, I fear that many pastors and congregations use this same approach. Many congregations paint targets in the form of expectations, that are irrelevant, or unBiblical, or unrealistic. Some pastors likewise, simply paint targets around themselves in an effort to either avoid accountability altogether, or to protect themselves from a church they fear has set them up to fail. The results of this vicious cycle can be seen in many churches throughout North America.

On Sunday night, October 2, our Association will be hosting our annual meeting, and will feature a panel discussion on leadership competency aimed specifically at this issue, and led by seven seasoned leaders from our own churches. The next day, we will host two identical pastor's leadership forums to allow pastors and church leaders to further unpack the issues that will be raised at the plenary session. If you are in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area, there is no charge for attending these events, and you can sign up here.
In previous posts, I introduced you to the concept behind this approach to our annual meeting, and also introduced you to the men who will lead us in discussion on Sunday night. In this post, I want to begin asking questions that we will address on October 2.

Feel free to respond to the first three leading questions by commenting here, and if you have additional questions you would like our panel to address, please leave them here, or send them to us at wecare@wecare.org with "Panel Discussion Question" in the subject line.

Again, you can sign up for the plenary session here, and the forums here.

1. How would you define "effective leadership" in the church, in two sentences or less?

2. How should effective leadership in the church be measured and/or judged?

3. What are churches measuring/examining in their pastors that is not helpful to their pastor, or to the church?

Leadership Competency in the Local Church: Meet Our Panel

On October 2, our Association will host our annual session at Hope Baptist Church in Laurel MD. This year's theme is "Great Leaders . . .Great Churches," and our primary emphasis will be on the issue of Leadership Competency in the Local Church. Both our annual meeting and the next day's Pastor Leadership Forums will focus on this crucial topic, and the plenary meeting on Sunday night will include a panel discussion on this issue by seasoned pastors and leaders in our churches. In this post, I want to introduce you to those men.

Our Association is blessed to have a number of competent leaders as pastors, as well as many skilled lay-leaders. The panel below represents some of the best and wisest in our network of churches. I hope you will join us for this time of learning if you are in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area. You can sign up here.



Dr. Chris Brammer.
For the past 24 years, Chris has served as Senior Pastor of Hampstead Baptist Church in northern Carroll County. Under his leadership, the church has grown to an average attendance of more than 450 every Sunday. Currently, he is leading the church through its next expansion project, and simultaneously working with our Association in establishing a satellite campus in Upperco called "The Mount." He is a graduate of Southwestern Seminary, and Luther Rice Seminary. Chris is from Roanoke, VA, and he and his wife Lee have three children and 2 grandchildren.

In his more than two decades of pastoral leadership in Hampstead, Chris has been instrumental in raising up pastors and missionaries. Because of this, Hampstead Baptist Church has representation on mission fields and in pulpits all over the world.




Pastor Gary Glanville.
Gary has served as Senior Pastor of Northwest Baptist Church in Reisterstown for 32 years. Under his leadership, the church has grown to more than 500, and has planted four other churches over the past 7 years. He and his wife Debbie have three children and three grandchildren. He is a graduate of Dallas Baptist University.

After three decades of ministry to the same local congregation, Pastor Gary is uniquely qualified to discuss the various stages of change, power, and conflict that a church experiences through the years, and how best to navigate through that change.




Pastor Dan Hyun
Originally from Philadelphia, Dan is the founding and Lead Pastor of The Village, a new church he started in 2008 in Hampden Village in Baltimore. In less than 3 years, the church has grown to more than 80 people in worship, and more than 20 people finding Jesus. Dan has a missionary's heart, and is passionate about "planting the Gospel" in the city, and seeing church emerge from that evangelistic work.

A graduate of Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, PA, He and his wife Judie have two daughters. Dan will bring much insight to the discussion of leading the mission of the church.



Pastor Paul Andrews
Paul is the founding and Lead Pastor of Faith Family Church in Finksburg, MD. Under his leadership the church has grown to an average attendance of 250 since it was planted in 2002. He is a ministry veteran of more than 30 years, and as such, is able to speak with authority to issues of leading change and leading mission. He and his wife Judy have 3children and 2 grandchildren.

Paul is a graduate of Bob Jones University, and is currently working on a D.Min. from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.



Dr. Steve Neel
This year, Steve will celebrate 30 years as Senior Pastor of South Columbia Baptist Church. Steve became pastor at
South Columbia while the church was still a “mission church” with just a few dozen people. Over the past three decades the church has grown exponentially under his steady leadership to an average attendance of more than 350 each Sunday.

Steve is known as a steady pastoral leader, and can speak with authority to the issue of how to guide God's church with a steady hand, that is in turn governed by a steady head. Born in Washington, D.C., Steve is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He and his wife Nancy have three adult children.



Pastor Terry Felton
For the past 10 years, Terry has served the Mason-Dixon Baptist Church in New Freedom, PA, first as Associate Pastor, and since 2006 as Senior Pastor. A decade ago, Terry entered a ministry environment that had been marked to a large degree by conflict. Today, Mason-Dixon is a unified body of believers committed to accomplishing the mission of God both locally and globally.

Terry's experiences over the past 10 years can more greatly inform the process of change, power and conflict in a church, and many younger church leaders can learn from Terry's efforts to earn the respect and trust needed to lead a congregation as a young man.

He is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, VA. He and his wife Amanda have four children.



Mr. Neil Romano
Neil joins our panel as a layman, and will help us see the issues we discuss from the standpoint of laity, as well as speak to the aspects of leadership outside the church that will be helpful to pastors. He is the owner of The Romano Group, LLC, a media company that has produced, among other things, commercial material for Major League Baseball. Additionally, Neil has vast experience in government, having served as Communications Director for the White House Office of Drug Abuse Policy under President Reagan, and most recently as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Dissability Policy under President Bush. He is a national spokesman and strong advocate for employment of the disabled.

He and his wife Barbara have two children, and live in Clarksville, MD. They are members of Gethsemane Baptist Church in Glenwood.



Dr. Tom Fillinger
Tom has served as Senior Pastor of Southeast Community Church in Columbia, SC for more than 10 years, and is also CEO of IgniteUS, a leadership development and church consulting organization that seeks to empower pastors and churches toward transformational change. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, Tom had the privilege of having a front row seat to the Cuban missle blockade in 1962, so he knows a little something about conflict to say the least. In many ways, military conflict may have prepared him well for pastoral ministry in a Baptist church. :) He has decades of experience transitioning churches to be more effective in impacting their communities and fulfilling the Great Commission to make disciples.

He is a graduate of Denver Seminary, and has been married to his wife Peggy for 50 years. They have 3 children and 13 grandchildren.


I have the privilege of serving as Moderator of this panel. I hope you will join us to learn from these experienced pastors and leaders. What, in particular, will we talk about? The answer to that question is coming in subsequent posts. And if you have a question for this panel, leave it here at the blog, or email it to wecare@wecare.org with "Leadership Panel" in the subject line. We will also take questions from the floor, and text message questions at the meeting.

Sign up now, and sign up here. And check back here for updated information as we move toward October 2.

Great Leaders, Great Churches: A Discussion about Leadership Competency in the Church

On October 2, our Association will host our annual session with the theme "Great Leaders. . .Great Churches." The next day, we will host two Pastor's Forums in two different locations in our area to continue the conversation.

Thus far, the response has been roughly twice what we usually receive at this time, and I think I know why.

Instictively, pastors and the people they lead are aware of the crucial importance of skilled leadership. Though they tend to lag behind the curve, even colleges and seminaries are now acknowledging the need to address this issue from an academic standpoint. For the past 10 years, programs have been developed to better prepare aspiring church leaders for the seas they will have to navigate once they leave the academy and accompanying study of the church as it should be, and enter into service in the church as it actually is. The Editor of Preaching magazine said only a year ago that "there is a desparate need for more training in leadership."

Those who study the church have long recognized this. George Barna noted six years ago that "our ongoing research continued to show that churches do not act strategically because of a paucity of leadership."

Yet still the question remains, "What is a competent leader?" The need for such has been widely acknowleged, but a Biblically sound, clear and succinct description of what it looks like is scarce, if it exists at all.

The lack of clarity on this issue leaves many pastors wondering if they are truly effective, if they are spending their time in the wisest way, if they are accomplishing anything of eternal value. It also leaves many churches without a clear way to evaluate their pastor's service. For some churches, this means there is no accountability for their pastor. Other churches make up their own rules, and usually end up crucifying a guy.

If pastors were simply C.E.O.s of a business, the "bottom line" would be a sufficient marker of success, and of course in the church, the "bottom line" consists of attendance, baptisms, and giving. Church leaders are correct to point out that while these are incredibly important markers (those numbers, after all, represent the souls of people Jesus died to save), they are not the only ones that should be used to judge the competency of a ministry leader. The Scriptures bear out in many contexts that faithfulness sometimes means less numbers instead of more.

On the other hand, I have over almost 20 years of vocational ministry seen the occassional pastor who did not want accountability at all. "We aren't about numbers" is sometimes simply a cover to hide a Hyper-Calvinist aversion to evangelism, or laziness, or outright incompetence. These men take personal advantage of the church's nebulous approach to how competency is judged. I've also seen churches use the ambiguity on this issue in order to pick virtually anything they can find to criticize, demean, and even destroy a faithful pastor.

On October 2-3, we will begin a conversation that I hope at least for our context, will provide our pastors and churches with the tools to evaluate their leadership. Until that time, I will be posting leading questions here for discussion, as well as taking suggested questions back to our panel of pastors who will lead us on October 2.

In my next post, I'll be introducing that panel to you. These are all men who are faithful and effective pastors within our Association, and I'll be giving a brief profile of each of them so you can see for yourself the kind of men who will be fielding these questions. After this, I'll spend a few weeks discussing some of the subject matter we hope to cover in October. If you are in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area you are welcome to join us, and you can find details and sign up online here.

But no matter where you are, this is a critical issue for all churches, and I hope you will join in the forthcoming discussion.

Summer Reading for Pastors and Church Leaders

"What are you reading?" I've been hearing that question since I started out in ministry more than 19 years ago. In the beginning, it came from older, wiser and seasoned pastors who used the question as a way to start a conversation that would guide me in my own development. Years later, the question continues to be asked by ministry colleagues as an avenue of inquiry and accountability.

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

As the summer continues, I wanted to provide a recommended reading list for 2011, as I have done in past years. The list below is diverse. Some books are strictly theological in nature, others deal with cultural engagement and mission, and still others amount to heresy. But if you were to ask me to list for you the seven books that any pastor or church leader MUST put on their read list for the summer, I'd respond with the following (in no particular order):

1. Alan Hirsch and Dave Ferguson. "On the Verge: A Journey into the Apostolic Future of the Church." (Zondervan, 2011)
*The western church is currently swimming (or drowning!) in a sea of data that says its days as a relevant entity to civilization are numbered. In this bold work, Hirsch and Ferguson contend just the opposite: that the western church is at the point of "turning a corner" and becoming more powerful and effective than it has been in hundreds of years. But this new future won't look very much like the past. As Hirsch repeatedly states throughout the book, "what got us HERE, won't neccesarily get us THERE." Through four main sections of the book entitled "Imagine," "Shift," "Innovate," and "Move," the authors challenge the reader to conceptualize new expressions of church that don't contradict or compete with church in its current expression, but instead compliment it. As is usually the case with Hirsch, the book is almost conceptual to a fault, leavng the reader with the work of translating the concepts practially into his own ministry field. But I finished this volume highly encouraged about the future of the bride of Christ in the United States and Europe.

2. Timothy Webster. "Christ-Centered Pastors: Four Essentials Pastors Must Do To Focus on Christ, Not Man." (Cross Books, 2010)
Tim Webster is a Bible church pastor in my local area here in Maryland, and a friend to pastors everywhere. This concise volume (less than 300 pages, which is quite short when one considers the total content covered) deals with basics like pastoral character and qualifications, as well as church polity, church discipline, and the spiritual development of disciples. And unlike so many books written on these subjects, Webster's book actually lays out practical ways that a pastor can lead his congregation toward these ideals. He does take what I consider to be a few unfair swipes at guys like Jim Collins, and paints a picture of the business literature many pastors read today as more mutually exclusive from Biblical leadership than I personally believe it is. He is also an adamant supporter of a plurality of elders style of leadership, so some in my Baptist tribe might be a bit uneasy with his conclusions. But I believe he is fair in his representation of congregational govenance, and in fact believes the two can coexist (I agree!). In the end, this is a great "refresher read" for pastors, and a healthy challenge to ensure that one's focus is truly on Jesus and His mission.

3. Millard J. Erickson. "Who's Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate." (Kregel Academic and Professional, 2009)
For those who may be unaware, there is a debate currently raging in evangelical academic circles over certain elements of the doctrine of the trinity. In academic vernacular, this debate is between those holding the "gradational-authority view" and the "equivalent authority view" of the relationship of the persons within the Godhead. Erickson, the consummate theologian in his classic fashion, makes this debate understandable, and applicable in the life of the local church.
If you are wondering why on earth I would recommend a book like this, or why on earth the average pastor should care, I will propose that one's understanding of these issues will eventually affect one's views of church leadership, the role of women in the church, and even one's understanding of prayer. In short, this debate is eventually going to find its way into the local church, although admittedly it will do so using more common language. Understanding the theological issues in play that will lie behind these discussions will help the local church pastor to be ready, and to effectively lead his people through these discussions.

4. Rob Bell. "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." (HarperOne, 2011)
Be honest, you knew this one was coming, didn't you? Too many pastors simply dismiss best-selling books from the pulpit rather than deal with the actual content--usually because they don't agree with the book's conclusions. The result is that your people will read these books anyway, and have no guidance on how to assess or process its contents. So yes, I'm recommending you buy the book, which admittedly will add to Bell's royalties. I'm also recommending that you read it thoroughly, and be prepared to agree with Bell on several issues. There is much valid content in this book, although it can only be found squeezed in between shoddy historical research, "cherry-picked" Bible verses and irresponsible hermaneutics. As a pastor, you should be familiar with books like this one. And you should admit to your people that there is in fact, some good to be found in them. You should also remind them that they can find clean water in the bottom of the toilet too, and that doesn't mean they should drink it.

5. David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer. "MissionSHIFT: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millenium." (B&H, 2010)
I recommend this book assuming that you are a church leader who understands God's command for every local assembly to have a vision for evangelism as large as history and as all-encompassing as the globe. At the same time, this volume will help the local church leader to understand all the conversation currently surrounding western, domestic missions as well. Words like "relavancy" and "contextualization" are a bit spooky to some, and the concepts, as well as examples of good and not-so-good application of them, are outlined and debated well by more than a dozen seasoned pastors and missiologists. Like any aquisition work, not all articles are of the same caliber, and some even miss the point completely (I'm looking at you, Norman Geisler.) But I am aware of no better resource that helps bring understanding to the future of God's global mission.

6. Darrin Patrick and Matt Carter. "For the City: Proclaiming and Living Out the Gospel" (Zondervan, 2011)
Don't look for a ton of practical instruction on how urban ministry and church planting should be done here. (Instead, read virtually anything Harvie Conn has published). But do look forward to being encouraged, challenged, and having your own heart enlarged for the urban centers of the world. These two Acts29 network pastors share their own ministry biographies, and in so doing are communicating how God is at work in two of American's great cities through the impact of local churches with a passion for the city.

7. James Davison Hunter. "To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World." (Oxford, 2010)
I've already written a comprehensive review of this book, which can be found here, and also in the forthcoming edition of the Great Commission Research Journal. In short, this book provides a helpful beginning to a conversation about how best to engage and change culture with the Gospel. Hunter's conclusions are a bit fuzzy, but he asks ALL the right questions . . . questions that every pastor and church leader should also be asking.

False Prophecy is No Laughing Matter: What I've Learned from Harold Camping

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." -Deuteronomy 18:22, ESV

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." " -2 Peter 2:1 ESV

Let's face it, both the world and the church got a big kick out of Harold Camping's failed prophecy. It wasn't just late night comedians who benefited from Camping's idiocy. Christians everywhere made fun of this man and his prophecies. I should know. I was one of them.

And I was wrong.

By this, I don't mean that I've suddenly begun to grant credibility to Camping and his twisted message. I simply mean that for a follower of Jesus, false prophets and false messages are no laughing matter. They are eternally and deadly serious. And I was reminded of this as I read Al Mohler's article on this issue this morning.

Several weeks ago, I joined many of my non-Christian friends in their mockery of Camping. To be honest, they had some brilliant ideas about how to milk this thing for all it was worth! Leaving clothes on the ground surrounded by dry ice to make it appear as though they had been "raptured" struck a humorous chord with me, and I have to admit to laughing out loud at the pictures.

To be sure, many an Old Testament prophet spent his fair share of time mocking false prophets. (Elijah's suggestion that Baal might be too constipated to play "King of the Hill" on Mt. Carmel comes immediately to mind.) But in the end, even when mockery is employed as an apologetic tool, the seriousness of false prophecy is always made plain in the Biblical text. For the most part, this was not the case on May 21.

So after some reflection on these recent events, I've come to the conclusion that my approach to all this Camping madness was wrong. Though Camping and his "interpretations" are most certainly a joke, what this teaching has done to the name of Jesus Christ for the past 20 years is no laughing matter at all.

Within Christendom, sheep have been led astray by this false teacher, to the point that many of them emptied bank accounts and left gainful employment only to see May 21 come and go, and their livelihoods with it. Outside the body of Christ, many had their focus turned from Jesus to Harold Camping, and beginning early on May 22, secular news outlets turned from merely mocking Camping, to mocking the idea of Jesus' second coming altogether.

The name of Christ was drug through the mud by Harold Camping, and all I did was laugh about it.

Mohler's article this morning simply confirmed for me that the church needs to renew its commitment to confronting false teachers. Like wolves in a sheep pen, it is not sufficient to simply acknowlege their existence. It is not enough to simply identify the wolves among the sheep. We must also draw them out, separate them, and shoot them (not literally of course, but the analogy of wolf-hunting does indicate how ferocious out confrontation of false teachers should be) out of our love for the name of Jesus, and His true sheep.

To be sure, a man who denies the reality of hell, denies the legitimacy of Christ's church and refuses to be held accountable by other brothers in Christ has clearly exhibited the characteristics of a wolf. And wolves are no laughing matter.

So to my non-Christian friends, though it is always fun to laugh with you, I'm very sorry to have misrepresented how serious this issue was to you. Camping is wrong, but Jesus IS coming back . . .to the wailing of those who do not follow Him. It is true that no one knows the day or hour, but that day/hour is coming with absolute certainty, and I am sorry to have wasted an opportunity like this to talk about the REAL second coming of Jesus Christ. Camping does not represent Jesus or His message, but I should have made that message more plain to you.

To my Christian friends, let us commit from this moment on to stand vigilant against anyone who would defame the name of our Lord and Savior. Rest assured, this is not the last time a false prophet will make a ridiculous claim in the name of Jesus. Next time, lets commit to treating this issue as seriously as the Bible does.

Mohler's excellent article can be found here.

Tornadoes, Terrorism, and Other Reasons we need a Sovereign God: Part II

As I write, the clean-up from terrible storms that tore through the south three weeks ago continues. Two weeks ago when seeking to address these storms, and other current and terrible events from a proper God-centered perspective, no one was aware that this same region of the country would continue to reel from the effects of storms in the upper mid-west, which in turn caused massive flooding along the southern Mississippi River, and in turn have forced officials to intentionally flood lesser populated areas for the sake of cities like Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA, in a game of “lesser of two evils.”

Our God on the other hand, knew of these events even prior to creation! Furthermore, the Scriptures declare that His good and sovereign purposes are accomplished in such things. And this truth, whether applied to national crises such as storms and terrorism, or personal crises such as my own family has sometimes faced, gives the kind of assurance to believers that only a sovereign God can give.

Still, these blanket statements of God's complete control over all things beg further questions in our minds. How can such horrific events as the Japan nuclear disaster, or the perishing of newborn babies, or the flooding of entire town and subsequent washing away of history be part of the plans of a God who is always good?! Admittedly, no final answer to these questions can be given on this side of eternity. Yet even in the midst of this uncertainty, the Scriptures declare that there are things we can know for sure, and things in which our hope must lie, not only during crises, but throughout every moment of our lives.

In Deuteronomy 29:29, Moses sucinctly describes this juxtaposition when he says to the people of Israel: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." The first phrase of this statement speaks poignantly, if bluntly, to our present situation. Put simply, Almighty God is not obligated to explain Himself or His actions to any of us! There are things that take place in this world in which lie God's "secret things." The Hebrew term here translated "secret" means, in its verbal form, "to conceal." Whether it is because of our self-centerdness, or because God knows we would never understand anyway, He has chosen to keep certain of His purposes hidden from us. As I said in the last post, the ultimate why question simply cannot be answered.

And never have such Biblical truths been more profoundly driven into my own heart than in times of personal and family crisis! On a Sunday night almost 6 years ago, my then-pregnant wife went into pre-term labor. Sixteen hours later, our son Seth was born just before noon and five weeks early! Early reports were not good, and we sat, as do many new moms and dads in this situation, on "pins and needles." It would be fifteen days before he would be allowed to go home, and in that time period, a myriad of tests, and painful procedures such as spinal taps would have to be performed. Today, he is a healthy, 5 ½ year-old little boy who is the delight of his father’s heart, and full of energy. But in the midst of that crisis, the uncertainty and anxiety were palpable. Additionally, as I ponder the wonderful way our trying story ended, I’m acutely aware of young parent’s whose stories do not end on such a joyful note. I have pastored those families, and officiated at those funerals where the casket in front of me was unnaturally small. As always, the question comes: Why?

In such a situation, both sides of Deuteronomy 29:29 are imminently applicable. First, just as God isn't obligated to explain why He allows the things he allows. To speak bluntly, His reasons for this are His business!

Still, we have yet to look more closely at the other half of this verse: "but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." My wife and I have learned through the above and other examples that while God chooses to keep some things to Himself, He does not want us totally ignorant. But while such events may tempt us to search for knowledge of the events themselves, God uses such events to steer us toward knowing Him. God doesn't want the United States to know why we have experienced an historic number of terrible storms, or why we continue to live anxiously in the current environment of terrorism, just as God didn't want me to know why we had to helplessly watch our second-born son spend more than two weeks in NICU. But through all of these things, He does want humanity to know Him. And when we know Him, we learn other things the Word has revealed:

Our Dependence: Isaiah Chapters 13-23 describe the future of a number of powerful nations that existed in the prophet's day. . . powerful nations, I might add, that either longer exist, or have barely survived to the present day in a severely weakened state! In this section of Biblical prophecy, God through his servant Isaiah predicts the destruction of Babylon (13:1-14:23), Assyria (14:24-28), Phillistia (14:29-32), Moab (15:1-16:13), Damascus (17:1-14), Ethiopia (18:1-7), Egypt (19:1-24), and a host of other nations. The political context of these passages suggest that Isaiah, through these predictions, is warning Judah not to enter into alliances with these countries to shore up its own security. This is also consistent with the overall political nuance of Isaiah's message: "Trust in the Lord, not in alliances with foreign and pagan nations." The point is simple: Judah will not find security in any nation, only in God!

With that said, the question must always be poised as to where our hope lies. In the wake of a natural disaster or attack of terror, some will hope in the cooperation of local, state and federal government. Still, even the most efficient coordination efforts cannot totally prevent the damage. Some may even hope in the return of Christ.(In fact, I hear there are a few expecting Him to make His entrance this Saturday, but I digress onto the ridiculous!) But while Scripture commends such hope, it does not do so on the basis of escape from the hardships of life. In addition, the second coming didn't prevent believers along with unbelievers from feeling the wrath of last month’s storms.

Similarly, while waiting on my son’s health to improve years ago, I was forced to continually ask myself whether the greater portion of my hope lay with the excellent physicians and nurses who treated him, or in God who at this very moment continues to allow his now-healthy heart to beat. During any crisis, be it personal, national, or somewhere in between, the first step to finding peace is to realize that we are often more vulnerable than we think we are! Such a realization will compel us to look to God alone.

Our Responsibility: We may not know why God allows calamity, but even the one casually aquainted with Scripture knows what God expects of us when such clamity strikes. It is during times like these that the public at large is able to see the feet, hands, and compassion of Jesus Christ Himself through the presence of His church. And God commands that we act, not only as His mouth, but as His hands and feet.

Bob Foster is a walking example of this principle. Struck blind in an auto accident, Bob could have spend the rest of his life asking why. Instead, he asked what. And over the past several years since his accident, he has walked the halls of nursing homes in Howard County, ministering to residents there, and leading over 40 of them to faith in Jesus Christ! In short, we may not know all that God is doing through crises, but the text of Scripture is clear as to what our responsibilities are during such times.

Our Calling: Some things God doesn't intend for His people to know. Other things He wants us to know! And Deuteronomy tells us that those revealed things are for the purpose of our observing "all the words of this law." I don't know all the reasons God allows intense trial, but none of that allows me to abdicate my responsibilities as a husband, father, neighbor, citizen, and pastor! Sometimes, we simply don't know what God is up to. We do, however, know from the Bible what He wants from us in obedience, and those requirements don't change in bad times.

Our Confidence: Moses tells us that the things God has revealed have been given to us "and to our sons forever." My last post dealt more specifically with the neccesity of believing in a sovereign God, but this emphasis must be reiterated again. Promises of a secure eternity, the end of sin and death, the final, triumphant return of Jesus Christ and the subsequent inauguration of an eternity of the glory of God are things we can be confident in only because the God we serve has declared the end from the beginning! It is illogical, not to mention unBiblical, to claim that God has somehow lost control of His creation, yet at the same time claim absolute assurance of His promises in Scripture. You simply cannot have one without the other!

This requires believing the hard truth that God really does control all things. It requires believing that although he is not responsible for sin and evil, such things are used, even against the will of those who perpetrate them, toward the advancement of an ultimate good. As Rick Warren has simply stated, we aren't in heaven. We are on earth! And this means that heartache, destruction, pain, death, sadness, sickness, perversion, crime, poverty, injustice, confusion, and other issues will always be with us on this sin-sick planet. But the Word of God tells us that even these things are under His control. Such a truth may be difficult short-term, but in the long run, it is the only basis on which we base our confidence in His promises, and cry along with John in absolute certainty, "even so, come Lord Jesus!"

For Further Reading:

Bray, Gerald. 1993. The Doctrine of God: Contours of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intevarsity Press.

Packer, J.I. 1973. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

McCullough, Donald W. 1995. The Trivialization of God: The Dangerous Illusion of a Manageable Deity. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Ware, Bruce A. 2003. Their god is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Tornadoes, Terrorism, and Other Reasons we need a Sovereign God: Part I

Does God know the future? Furthermore, has God declared the future? How much control does He actually exert over His creation? Questions of this sort often seem to be relegated to the "ivory towers" of theologial conjecture. But when the kind of chaos—both positive and negative--that has recently affected our nation encloses itself around our lives, those deeply philosophical questions quickly become the ones for which we seek answers.

While we try with all our being to think of God as good, right and just, we look at the soaring energy prices at home, with the devastation brought about by terrible storms throughout the south last week against the backdrop, and ask in anguish the age-old question best coined by the prophet Amos: "Does disaster come to a city unless the Lord has done it?"

Philosophers of Religion call this question one of "theodicy," or an attempt to explain and justify the actions of God. Why would He allow such devastation? Yet when disaster of this magnitude strikes, any attempt to verbally express what God is up to seems to fall short, and those who claim to have a handle on God's plans (think Jerry Falwell after September 11) seem as naive as they really are.

Still others assume that God must simply be "asleep at the wheel." Throughout the American media the assumption seems to be that "God can either be all-powerful, or all-good, but he cannot be both." As the average American surveys the landscape in our country today, it would be easy to come to the same conclusion, regardless of how ahistorical and unBiblical such a position would be.

The ironic thing is how many suporters of this view of God exist inside Christendom! A relatively recent theological movement called open theism, which has been afoot in the church for a little over 15 years now, takes the side of this populist view of God: namely, that He doesn't control everything that happens in the world, and that He too is often caught off-guard by the chaotic events of our planet. Such a view goes beyond the historical debate between Calvinists and Arminians, which deals primarily with the extent of God's sovereignty over against the extent of man's freedom. The current debate moves beyond the issue of "free-will" to suggest not only that God doesn't predetermine events in history, but that He sometimes is competely unaware of these events!

Gregory Boyd, Senior Pastor at Woodland Hills Church in Minneapolis and Open Theism's most vocal proponent, introduced this view of God to the church en masse via his 2000 book God of the Possible. Boyd's intentions were honorable. Seeking an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable suffering many Christians are forced to experience in life, Boyd simply suggested that perhaps our concept of God as omniscient (all-knowing of all past, present and future events) was in error. Says Boyd, "The open view, I submit, allows us to say consistently in unequivocal terms that the ultimate source for all evil is found in the will of free agents rather than in God."

On the surface, this view seems to serve as the ultimate and final answer to the question of theodicy: God isn't causing the affliction because He is love, and would never send something like this on a person. This is not to say that open theists believe God is ignorant of the possibility of catastrophe, but rather does not know that something will actually happen. Therefore, catastrophes like the tornadoes of last week aren't something caused by God. They just happened! In reality, God is just as surprised as the rest of us, because often He simply doesn't know about coming affliction, much less how severe it will be. Similarly, the squeeze you and I have felt over this past month as gas prices have risen by double-digit percentages, and the accompanying anxiety over whether we will be able to afford transportation are not the result of a God-ordained event. They can't be, because God is just as much in shock over these things as we are!

Furthermore, it must be asserted that the Scriptures do indeed place the responsibility for evil squarely upon the will of man. The justice of Osama bin Laden’s extermination by American military forces is vindicated by his evil acts over the years against innocent human beings, and his behavior is the epitome of human depravity within a context most conducive to its development.. But is this where the questions end? Is there no higher purpose behind chaos and catastrophe? In the end, Open Theism's attempt to "get God off the hook" leaves the seeker with little hope, and little incentive to look to the God of Scripture for an answer. To seekers of truth, a deeper investigation must ensue.

Contrary to the claims of open theists, the historical view of God, while not answering every question definitively, gives great hope to the one who truly believes. The Scriptural teaching concerning God's sovereignty can basically be boiled down to three truths:
1. All that God decrees or permits is ultimately for good, because God cannot sin, nor does He tempt others to sin.
2. All evil falls upon the shoulders of men.
3. Evil is thus allowed by a sovereign God, but He is not responsible for the evil permitted.

One Biblical example among many that could be given summarizes these truths well. In Isaiah 10, the prophet foretells of the destruction of the nation of Assyria. In the 8th century B.C., Assyria was to the world what the United States is today to the world: a lone superpower. Yet because of her disdain for and mistreatment of the people of God in Israel, God through Isaiah foretells of their ultimate demise.

Still, this demise did not come until after the Assyrian armies invaded Israel, killed, raped, maimed and scattered God's people, and settled in the land to intermarry with the leftover Israelites and create a new, Samaritan race. Furthermore, God through the prophet declares that the plan to invade Israel did not belong first to Assyria, but to God Himself as punishment for Israel's idolatry. This ironic juxtaposition is revealed by the grammatical structure of the text: "Ah Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and in his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cutt off nations not a few." (10:5-7 ESV)

The text could not be any more clear! God ordained that His own people should be utterly and embarrasingly defeated at the hands of enemies even more godless than they were! Yet while the evil actions of the Assyrian armies is used by God to correct and ultimately bring His people back to Himself, the evil desire behind those actions is the fault of the Assyrians. In this passage, Isaiah has struck the correct balance between divine sovereingty and human responsibility, and he has done so without diminishing God's knowlege and power, or man's culpability and free choice to do evil.

How can the prophet do this? Ultimately because his prophecy is based within a more fully-orbed picture of a God who really does control everything, even those unimaginable and horrific events that boggle the human mind. That true and Biblical picture of God is given by the Lord himself to Isaiah later in the text, and in a way that reminds His followers in the midst of seeming chaos to stand on the promises of His sovereign will: "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done."

Such a picture of God gives people hope in times of uncertainty. But it does far more than this.

As our nation struggles to make sense of last week’s storms, while simultaneously bracing itself for any potential backlash from Sunday night’s fatal confrontation with bin Laden, followers of Jesus Christ are called upon to be the feet, hands, voice and compassion of God Himself. And the church for the most part has responded beautifully, as is but partially evidenced by meals served and rebuilding already taking place by my own denomination's disaster relief efforts in the area.

But how do we connect the relief efforts with the above lessons on a sovereign God? What hath Isaiah 46 to do with Matthew 25:31-46? I will speak to this issue more particulary next week. But for now, suffice it to say that it is not only Christians who need a sovereign God in times of crisis. Now, more than ever, the people of Mississippi, Alabama and surrounding areas need a God who is sovereign! Receiving the truth about this God means that we also accept the hard truth that these tornadoes were His storms, traveling His path, and accomplishing His purposes!

But what purpose? How could those purposes have possibly included the hundreds of innocent lives lost? How can we conceive of a God who allows such things? These questtions have no easy answer, and what His purposes were will likely never be fully known on this side of eternity! But this much we know--the same great God who controls the weather commands that we give shelter, food and clothing to the homeless, hungry and naked. And with these supplies, He also commands that we communicate to the victims of this disaster that God is not only great. He is also good!

How can this be? Reflection on this question will come next week.

New Paradigms for Cultural Engagement: A Review of "To Change the World."

This week, I'm at the Exponential conference in Orlando, the largest gathering of church planters in the world. As is usually the case with conferences of this nature, much time is being spent emphasizing the importance of cultural exegesis and contextualization. Being surrounded by these themes all week reminds me of the vociferous nature of the debate surrounding all these issues.

Recently, I wrote a book review that is scheduled to be published in the forthcoming issue of The Great Commission Research Journal. The book I reviewed contains one man's take on how the church needs to adjust its approach to mission in the West in order to make a significant impact. James Davison Hunter's book is a mind-bending read, and a great "iron-sharpening" tool for followers of Christ who are truly looking for ways to have more influence on an increasingly post-Christian world in the United States and Europe.

James Davison Hunter is the LaBrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture and Social Theory at the University of Virginia, and also serves as the Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture. He is also the author of Culture Wars and The Death of Character.

Hunter’s latest volume is the product of roughly ten years of research into the subject of cultural engagement. It consists of three major essays that address the Christian mandate relative to culture, issues of change, power and conflict related to this mandate, and a suggested model for accomplishing this mandate respectively. A Christian himself, Hunter states, “I find many perplexing disparities between the Christian faith that I have come to know and what I see acted out in the world” (ix). His ultimate goal in this volume is to reconcile the Christian responsibility for world-changing with a western form of Christianity he perceives to be largely impotent at accomplishing this goal.

In Essay One, Hunter contrasts the Scriptural mandate of leading culture with the common view of culture he believes fails at this task. On the one hand, “human beings are, by divine intent and their very nature, world-makers” (3). On the other, “the dominant ways of thinking about culture and cultural change are flawed, for they are based on both specious social science and problematic theology” (5).

With these corollary propositions in mind, Hunter examines the view of culture held by most within Evangelical Christianity—namely, that cultures are, at heart, driven by ideas and worldviews. He credits (or blames, depending on the reader’s perspective), conservative Christian figures such as Chuck Colson and James Dobson, and progressive Christians such as Jim Wallis for this popular view. He laments the practical result of this philosophy of culture, believing “it is not an exaggeration to say that the dominant public witness of the Christian churches in America since the early 1980s has been a political witness” (12).

Hunter confronts this common view by stating that cultural values are shaped in a much more complex fashion, not only dependent on ideas, but also artifacts, history, and dialectical interdependence, and are generated within networks that are eventually guided by unprecedented leadership. In contrast to the “great man theory” of leadership, Hunter believes that the aforementioned networks are “where we do find the greatness of a Martin Luther or John Calvin, a William Wilberforce, a Dorothy Day, a Martin Luther King, and so on” (38). Building on this theory of cultural development, Hunter contends that “the deepest and most enduring forms of cultural change nearly always occur from the “’top down’” (41). In short, lasting cultural shifts rarely happen at the popular level, but instead take place within networks of institutions led by cultural elites. He then examines these claims against the measuring stick of Christian history, tracing how the development and growth of Christianity (from its first century Jewish roots to the European Barbarian conversions to the Reformation to the Great Awakenings to the present) followed the pattern he describes in the first four chapters. He ends the first essay by seeking to balance the inherently despicable nature of elitism with the equally disturbing picture of cultural egalitarianism, with a view toward laying the groundwork for a church that “exercises itself in all realms of life, not just a few” (95).

In Essay Two, Hunter critiques what he perceives as the misuse and abuse of power—and in particular political power—by the three most commonly identified expressions of Christianity in America, the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the neo-Anabaptist movement. Hunter suggests that what binds a diverse society together is power, and that in democratic environments, “the final repository of legitimate force is found in the state” (101). As a result, these various fragments of diverse society, including those identified as “Christian” tend toward the use of politics, a pattern that Hunter believes has been common in the west since the time of the New Deal. He states that “Slowly, often imperceptively, there has been a turn toward law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life” (108). Hunter further illustrates how this “turn toward law and politics” has negatively affected what he identifies as the three primary streams of Christianity in the West.

Where the Christian Right and Left are concerned, Hunter believes that both have resorted to the “selective use of scripture to justify political interests” (147), and that the primary goals of each group, which through a more fully-orbed understanding of Scripture should be viewed as complimentary, are ironically divided through an identically applied realpolitick. Hunter then compares the approaches of the Right and Left with the view of the neo-Anabaptists, who seek to essentially disengage from all aspects of political life. Yet in the end, Hunter presents neo-Anabaptism as itself “a political theology that reinforces rather than contradicts the discourse of negation so ubiquitous in our late modern political culture” (166).

Hunter concludes the second essay with a challenge to fresh thinking about the issue of power from a theological perspective, leading the reader inevitably to the third and final essay in which he envisions a “postpolitical witness” (184). In this final essay Hunter posits a vision for a fresh Christian encounter with culture that evolves beyond the current paradigms of engagement and toward what he describes as “faithful presence.” Beginning with one’s own local community and branching outward, Hunter describes the possibility of Christians making a decipherable mark on the world in which they live.

Self-critique is always a painful business, and as a Christian Hunter speaks well to the apparent failures of his faith as it is often applied in the West. His encouragement to move beyond mere political engagement is timely, and his revelation that culture is primarily changed at the level of the elite—though this be an unpalatable truth to an Evangelical Christianity that is largely grassroots—is poignantly accurate. At the same time, his comparison of conservative and progressive versions of Christianity cloud over his failure to distinguish cultural and evangelical Christianity. He is correct to point out that many in the Christian Right and Left do not hold to a holistic understanding of their faith, but in the process he neglects the possibility that neither of these approaches is genuinely Christian.

Perhaps what is missing in the midst of thorough definitions of “left,” “right” and “Anabaptist” is an equally thorough understanding of “evangelical.” It seems apparent to this reviewer that the author’s focus on the social and cultural is certainly more accurate than his treatment of the theological, which results in the occasional abuse of terminology that is first and foremost theological in nature.

Additionally, Hunter’s understanding of current approaches to cultural engagement is at times overly -simplistic. His use of the term “always” to describe the approach of Christian conservative action, for example, seems a broad generalization hardly compatible with a scholarly work of this magnitude (219). Likewise, though he is familiar with precedent literature such as Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture, he appears to confuse Niebuhr’s own categories of engagement. For example, he describes Calvin’s views on cultural engagement—which in reality were philosophically close to his own—in terms that when examined resemble more closely the views of cultural interface held by Tertullian (231). Such may be the cause for Hunter’s assumption that any attempt by the church to build God’s Kingdom “this side of heaven is to begin with an assumption that tends to lead to one version or another of the Constantinian project” (233). Such categorical confusion also appears as Hunter unveils his own model of cultural engagement, which places great emphasis on disengagement with almost all things political and thus, seems strangely reflective of the neo-Anabaptist view which he finds insufficient.

Two final concerns where this book is concerned involve a relatively vague description of the meaning of “faithful presence,” and an overly pessimistic view of the result of this presence. In an anti-climactic conclusion, Hunter contends that if the reader takes to heart and applies the principles he suggests, “it is possible, just possible, that they will help to make the world a little bit better” (286). Such a statement, in the end, betrays an underdeveloped eschatology, and a negative understanding of the power of the church as the presence of Jesus in culture.

Still, the book’s shortcomings are overshadowed by the positive challenge toward an alternative route of cultural engagement for the church. The overall thesis of Hunter’s work—that God’s people must move beyond “culture wars” toward a more productive path to world impact—will well-serve the follower of Christ who rises to the challenge to become a “culture-maker.” Hunter gives ample evidence that the current approach to cultural engagement is not working, and grounds his primary emphases firmly in history, social science, and Scripture. The church will be better and more effective for heeding the exhortations of this book.

It is certain that Hunter would find a military analogy for his book to be an ironic thing indeed. Nevertheless, one moment in military history does serve as a great object lesson for what Hunter aspires to communicate. On the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate General James Longstreet tried in vain to convince Robert E. Lee to pull back from the current battle lines and head south to re-engage Union soldiers on ground of their choosing. Lee refused, believing not only that his Army of Northern Virginia could successfully overwhelm Union forces at the center of their lines, but also that any sign of pullback indicated a retreat from battle that Lee found unacceptable. Longstreet’s response was that he was not asking for retreat, only redeployment. The subsequent bloodshed that day vindicated Longstreet’s appeal.

James Davison Hunter has written a comprehensive analysis of the current state of Christianity in the West and its failure to be the global force for good that Jesus demands. His call is essentially to back away from the current “lines of battle,” to get a realistic and practical view of the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be. Many who are heavily involved in the current “culture war” approach to extending the influence of Christian faith will see his book as a call to retreat. To be sure, some of the solutions he suggests are vague, others simply not practical. Still, his overall point is worthy of strong consideration. Christians should take a fresh look at how the spiritual battlefield has manifested itself in our current culture and “redeploy,” lest American Christianity meet with its own Pickett’s charge.

Why Maryland Should Grant In-State Tuition Benefits to Illegal Immigrants

If you want to see tempers flare up quickly on both sides of a volatile issue, just start a conversation about illegal immigration. If ever there was an example of an issue where the fringe elements on each side are permitted to dictate the terms of debate, immigration fits the bill! Unfortunately, those who believe this issue is as simple as choosing sides between Republicans and Democrats--or between CNN and FOX News, fail to understand the deep complexity of the issue at hand. What's worse is that followers of Jesus, for the most part, don't appear to have realized that God speaks much in His Word about how just nations are to treat the alien and stranger from another land.

The latest manifestation of this unfortunate shouting match is now occuring in my state. This week, the Maryland legislature is considering a bill that would grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. As usual, reactions to this bill have been predictably strong and shallow. On the far left are those who are simply content to ignore the law. On the far right are those who have confused respect for the law with the worship of law. Since I have written on this issue in a more comprehensive fashion before (here, and here), this post will be relatively short. But as much as my politically conservative friends might lament my position here, I feel compelled to give a rationale for why I do believe this bill should become law in Maryland:

1. From a financial point of view, the reason we grant "in state" vs. "out of state" tuition has to do with whether students and their families have actually contributed financially to the public University system in a given state. Unless I am mistaken, I believe this legislation stipulates that the families of illegals have to pay income taxes in Maryland before their children can qualify. If this is not true, then I would join others in opposition to its passage. Those who aren't paying taxes in MD should not have "in state" rates for the same reason my kids won't get in state tuition if they choose to attend JMU--because our family doesn't pay income taxes in Virginia and thus, we don't contribute to the public support of James Madison University. If they pay taxes in Maryland, they have contributed to the public support of our institutions of higher learning. Thus, I have no problem with them receiving the same benefits as my family.

2. From a practical point of view, we have to remember that in most cases, we are talking about the children of illegals, who were brought here by their parents, thus having their illegal status chosen for them. We might rightly call them victims of their parents illegal choices. Since we aren't living in an ideal world, and consequently will continue to live with these individuals among us, we should ask a very simple question: Would we rather them remain uneducated, possibly start down a spiral toward volitional criminal activity themselves, and take from our society, or would we rather offer them the opportunity to contribute to our society?

3. Finally, from a Christian point of view, those who claim the name of Christ must speak first and foremost as His followers, not as Republicans or Democrats. Anyone with the ability to read and common sense can clearly see that our current immigration situation represents the epitome of mistreatment of "aliens and strangers," and embodies the very kind of unjust law that Christians should oppose with all our might. As one who works with immigrant Pastors (our Association of churches worships every Sunday in eight different languages) and helps them legally navigate the nightmare that is the USCIS, I can readily testify to the fact that when our pastors try to obey the law (as they should) and do the right thing, they are jerked around, malligned, and in some cases, even abused by the system, while simultaneously, thousands every day cross our borders illegally. In short, our current immigration system does indeed reward lawbreakers, but it also punishes those who try to obey the law, and makes victims out of the children of both groups. This is unjust law by any standard! Isaiah 10 contains strong words for those who would write and support such law, and as a Christian, I am forced by my obsevations of our current situation to favor extending grace to the children of illegals. But more than this, I believe evangelical Christians should join with President Obama in calling for comprehensive reform of this ungodly mess that we call immigration law.

I certainly welcome any comments, counterpoints, and respectful disagreement here. But we must remember that this issue is far more complex than the talking heads in either political party have made it out to be.