A Word about Youth and Youth Pastors

On average, about once every six weeks a youth pastor comes into my office and threatens to quit his job.  Now, I oversee missions for roughly 60 churches, and very few of these guys actually follow through with their threats, so thankfully most of these meetings end up simply being a "venting session" for a guy who might otherwise try to find his jugular with a fork.

Here's the thing:  Most of the time, it isn't the youth who frustrate him. Its their parents!

The Scriptures from both Old and New Testaments put the responsibility for a child's spiritual development primarily in the hands of his or her parents.  And many parents who take their kids to church demonstrate by their ambivilance that they don't take that calling seriously.  The result is a youth pastor's worst nightmare.

In light of all this, I thought you should know what kind of counsel THIS denominational leader gives to these guys and gals who are too often simply treated like glorified babysitters:

1. I tell them to invest in the minority.  The conversation usually goes like this.  THEM:  "Youth ministry is driving me crazy.  I don't feel like I'm able to get them to grow spiritually at all, and too many times their parents seem to actually be working against me by putting academics or athletics before their teenager's spiritual development."  ME:  "Do you have at least 10% of the total number of that group who are actually growing and want to continue to grow?"  THEM: "Oh yeah, I think I have more than that actually."  ME:"  Well then, spend 10% of your time with the 90% of slackers so that you don't lose your job, but invest 90% of your time in those who are worthy of your investment."

Yep, you just heard me say that I advise youth pastors all the time to essentially dump 90% of their youth group and invest in the 10% who actually care about moving closer to Jesus.  Why would I do that?  For one thing, its what both Jesus and Paul command.  Jesus warns us "Do not give dogs what is sacred, and do not throw your pearls to pigs."  (Matthew 7:6)  Bottom line:  You have a limited amount of time and a limited amount of resources to invest in people, and Jesus is going to hold you responsible for how you steward those investments.  Paul likewise commanded Timothy to "entrust to faithful men, who will be able to pass them on to others."  This doesn't mean that a youth pastor should totally ignore or "write off" teenagers who are unfaithful, or whose commitment to Jesus remains in a constant state of vacillation.  It does mean that the lion's share of investment should be in those who exhibit a genuine desire for growth.  So if you are a parent who uses your church's youth ministry as a "backup plan" when there are no standardize tests to study for or county sports leagues in which to play, don't be offended when the youth leader politely but clearly limits the amount of time and effort he or she puts into your child.

2. I tell them to challenge the parents.  Too many parents want authority without responsibility when it comes to the spiritual development of their kids.  Mom and Dad, when your child sees you skip church at the drop of a hat, rarely open your Bible, and utter prefabricated prayers at the dinner table, you shouldn't expect that they will catch a better spirituality from a youth pastor.

Honestly, I've seen this same ridiculous phenomenon in our public school system.  My kids have some fantastic teachers and counselors who all too often have to deal with parents who put higher expectations on the school system than they do themselves.  Essentially, they bring their child to the school counselor and say "fix her," or "straighten him out."  But when a teacher has had that child for 16 weeks, and you Mom  and Dad have had that same child for 16 years, the blame for their behavior can hardly be laid at the feet of the teacher.  The same is true of youth pastors.  If teenagers don't see a love for Jesus at home, it is highly unlikely they will choose to emulate their youth pastor rather than Mom and Dad.  So when your youth leaders challenge you in your responsibility as a parent, don't retch in offence because you are being "called out."  Instead, you need to repent, and model for your teenager what it means to walk the narrow road.

3. I tell them to focus on faithful families.  Ultimately, it isn't (or shouldn't) be the job of the youth pastor to develop spiritually mature teenagers.  Instead, it is his/her job to better equip moms and dads to deal with their kids during this tumultuous time in his or her development.  Youth Pastors can be great partners with parents in keeping a kid on the straight and narrow.  They can give guidance to parents about this developmental stage of life, and they can also get in a kid's face and defend the authority of Mom and Dad.  But that partnership is a two-way street.

Youth pastors can be a most valuable resource to the church, and to the parents who are part of that church.  Unfortunately, too many of them are overworked, under-appreciated, and frustrated to the point of quitting. In the end, I don't think this is because the church expects too much from youth pastors, but I do believe it is because many churches expect the wrong things.  Parents, know what to rightfully expect from the youth ministry at your church, and know what should be expected of you as well.  One day in the distant future, when you don't seem nearly as stupid as you do now, your teenager will thank you for it!

What Do We Need to Learn from the African Church?

Last night I spent an encouraging hour with a Nigerian Pastor who will be starting a church in our Association this fall to reach immigrants from his home country. To be honest, I've never left a meeting with an African Pastor without being highly encouraged by what God is doing on that continent, and through those from there who now minister on THIS continent!

Alan Hirsch has astutely observed that "the 21st century face of the evangelical church is not the European man, but the African woman." This is a true statement, and there is a reason for that. And my own limited interactions with African Christians to date has convinced me that there are several things we in the west need to learn from our brothers and sisters on that continent. Why is it that the African church leads the 2/3 world in the explosive growth of the church and the expansion of God's Kingdom?

1. Their Commitment to Biblical Authority. Just ask American Episcopalians who have struggled for years between their commitment to their denominational tradition and their conviction that the Scriptures were being violated from Canterbury. It was in that environment that Bible believing Episcopalians received an open invitation from The African Anglican Church to leave their affiliation with the Church of England and join with Anglicans who still hold to Biblical truth.

In the west, much of the church is mired in discussion about everything from just war to sexual ethics. These conversations are necessary, given the environment in which we find ourselves. But even within many evangelical churches, there seems to be an ignorance of the fact that all these issues are ultimately about whether the Scriptures are our final authority in all matters of belief and practice.

Our African brothers and sisters naturally default to this position. As such, I've often found when discussing these issues that their eyes will glaze in disbelief that those who would dare question the right and wrong of such issues could even call themselves Christian. These precious people hold unquestioningly to the Scriptures. They aren't jerks about what they believe, and they don't hate those who disagree. They just sincerely, from the heart, declare the Word of God with authority. The growth we see among African Christians is simply the inevitable result.

2. Their Prayerful Dependence. I find that even the smallest consideration is met with the statement "let me spend a few days talking to the Lord about it, and I'll let you know." These men and women walk with God in a way that embodies 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18. Unlike we in the west, with our propensity to "bookend" meetings filled with our own agendas with prayer asking God to bless what WE have decided to do, our African counterparts walk in constant prayerful dependence, seeking above all else to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

3. Their Patience. We in the west almost idolize the fast-growing and the "quick start" church plants that run hundreds in just a couple of years. To be sure, we should thank God when He chooses to work in such ways rather than giving in to the sin of pastoral jealousy. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of pastors who will never be granted that kind of an environment should sit for a while at the feet of the soon-to-be church planter I spoke with last night. Six years ago he immigrated to the United States, confident that God had called him as an evangelist to help reach the United States with the Gospel. In that time he has personally shared the Gospel, and led many to Christ. But only now, six years later, does he sense God bringing all the pieces together in a way that will finally allow him to plant a church. Most American dudes would have long-since given up. The patient perseverance of our African colleagues is a great model we need to emulate.

4. Their Spiritual Awareness. Simply put, Africans believe in spiritual warfare, because most of them have lived it! Western missionaries and church planters too often neglect to sense the spiritual battle that is going on behind the scenes. But those demonic forces are very, very real, and we ignore their presence, power, and hostility toward our ministry at our own peril. Africans don't ignore it. They freely speak of the reality of demon possession, the angelic, and the power of the Gospel through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. When discussing the hardships of ministry, their conversation naturally gravitates toward the ministry of the Holy Spirit to heal sickness, cast out demons, and regenerate hearts toward God and the Gospel. If you want to know why the African church seems to grow with such power, just observe the power source into which they are openly plugged!

Yep, I'm very thankful that God has sent African brothers and sisters here to the states to help us reach this continent afresh for Jesus. Their attention to areas where we have blind spots is proof enough of our need for them, and I look forward to seeing our Association of churches partner with them.

Pastors Who Enable

The role of pastors is clear in Scripture: “Equip the saints for the work of the ministry.” But unfortunately, some pastors confuse equipping for enablement.

Primarily, this is caused by fear on the part of the pastor. Proverbs 29:25 warns us that “the fear of man is a snare." But often, that fear doesn’t look like fear. Sometimes it looks quite courageous. Sometimes it appears as though the pastor is working himself to death in service to the church, when in reality he is doing all the work because he fears a lack of control. Sometimes it appears the Word is proclaimed in an uncompromising way, when in reality the pastor is just throwing red meat to the crowd. What follows are some ways I’ve seen pastors enable dysfunction in their churches.

11Throwing the Crowd Red meat rather than giving the congregation a steady diet of God’s Word. Let’s face it. Most of us who preach know where our “Amen corners” are, and we know what to say to make them noisy. Homeschool Nazis love it when you attack the public school system. Prophecy addicts long for you to spend every Sunday expounding on some cryptic passage from Revelation. Hyper-Calvinists can’t get enough discussion about “historic Baptist thought.” Conversely, those who think Calvinism is the doctrine of antichrist shout loudly in response to a pastor who dismisses the whole discussion with a single, broad-brushed reference to John 3:16.

The issue here is that our people all have their pet subjects, and if we want to stay on their “good side,” all we really need to do is discover what those passions are and focus on them when we are in the pulpit. Problem is, this approach never produces genuine disciples, because when you give inordinate focus to a few subjects, you fail in your duty to teach “the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27)

Another issue that arises from using the pulpit to simply throw out “red meat” for the crowd is that, strangely enough, you never seem to get around to actually preaching to the people who are in the room. It’s always what’s going on “out there,” or “those people” who are the cause of the problem. In the process, our people are reinforced in their own pride and never move significantly forward in the process of becoming more like Jesus.

To be sure, I’m not suggesting that you should never speak of how your people should educate their children, or how Biblical prophecy should affect our Christian walk. I’m simply suggesting that it takes absolutely no courage to stand in a room full of conservative, heterosexual, “red state” attendees and blame the homosexual community for all that is wrong with our culture. It takes very little temerity to appeal to surface-level exegesis in the attempt to get your people all bent out of shape over those evil Calvinists. And to stand in the pulpit, week after week, and do nothing but condemn the people “out there” is more like Phariseeism, and less like a New Testament pastor who follows Jesus by getting to the heart of the real issues. Judgment, the Apostle Peter says, begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). If you genuinely preach the whole counsel of God, what you feed your people won’t always taste good to them.

2. Hiding from Hard Subjects. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it 100 times from a pastor. “We don’t address THAT, because THAT would get us off mission.” On the surface, I understand the sentiment. Our preaching and teaching can easily become unbalanced if we focus too much on what we might think are “secondary issues.” Still, too many pastors simply avoid hard subjects altogether. What this teaches our people is that when the pressure is on, its OK to take the easy way out.

But Struggle is part of the Christian experience. When a baby dies, when a spouse is diagnosed with a terminal disease, or when some other unspeakable tragedy occurs, people need to be already armed with a solid understanding of providence and sovereignty. They need to have already wrestled with the tension between divine providence and human freedom in a way that brings them toward greater intimacy with God BEFORE these things happen in their lives. If that means the pastor has to occasionally “go deep” on a subject like providence, so be it! Likewise, when a child struggling with homosexuality “comes out” or a businessman is faced with the choice between keeping his integrity or keeping his job, the truth of God’s Word from the pulpit should be in the minds of all who are involved so that hard issues can be faced in a way that honors Jesus.

Too often, pastors avoid these subjects, or worse, they oversimplify them in a way that ignores the difficulties of applying one’s faith during hard times. Enabling your people in this way is a treasonous act of denying them the tools necessary to think and act for themselves in a way that brings glory to God. Sure, there are more “practical matters” to attend to, and those should be addressed as well. Additionally, every subject that is dealt with by a pastor should be connected to the larger purpose of lifting up Jesus as the center and circumference of Scripture and our faith. But if God’s Word addresses it, then we are bound by our calling to address it as well.

3. Doing the work rather than sharing the work. Maybe its motivated by guilt. Or maybe its motivated by a desire to control every ministry. Whatever the motivation, workaholism on the part of the pastor steals time from his family, and steals opportunities for service from his people. Doing anything (or worse, having your wife do anything) simply because ‘no one else will do it’ enables the church in its current state of laziness and consumer-driven sin. Furthermore, answering every phone call, making every visit and personally responding to every need means you never equip the church to do these things and are personally worn to the point where you eventually do nothing well. The late Adrian Rodgers said it best: “The pastor who is always available is rarely worth anything when he is available.”

4. Making the church about you. This is, by far, the hardest statement in this post, but its true. Pastor, the church is not about you! Its about the body of Christ, and your validity in holding the pastoral office is tied inextricably to how well you serve the people God has put under your charge. When you act, you should do so with their best interests in mind.

In too many evangelical traditions including my own, the “celebrity culture” has produced many men who believe the church is there so that they can advance themselves. Regrettably, I’ve encountered a few pastors who make decisions that affect the entire church based solely on how they will personally be affected. In the worst cases, this behavior manifests itself in a pastor who uses the pulpit to get out all of his pent-up frustrations, which is the pastor-congregation equivalent of spousal abuse. Pastor, you serve the bride of Christ, and one day, you and I will stand in front of Him and answer for how we have treated His wife while she was in our care!

I’m convinced that codependency is a real issue with many pastors and churches. Rather than empower and bless each other, they use each other in a way that spreads dysfunction throughout the body, and destroys any hope of that local church being faithful to her call. When a pastor simply gives the people whatever they want whenever they want in an attempt to keep his job, or be complimented, or to advance himself, such behavior is not service. It is enablement. To be sure, pastors by themselves cannot change this scenario. But men, we can, and we must, resist the temptation to confuse equipping with enablement.

The fear of man is a snare. Resist it, and serve your people well as a result.

Evangelicals and the Gay Marriage Debate

As I write these words, the majority in the Maryland House of Delegates is still celebrating over their recent vote to legitimize marriage between members of the same gender. Predictions are that the Senate also has the votes necessary to send this bill—which effectively legalizes homosexual marriage in my state—to the desk of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who has said he will sign it into law. By this summer, Maryland will become the 8th state in the Union to legalize marriage between homosexual partners.

At the same time, evangelicals lost this issue a long time ago. In a recent USA Today article, Tom Krattenmaker astutely compares the current situation to the closing moments of a football game when the opposing team is so far out in front that there is no hope of recovery before the final seconds tick off the clock. Though I disagree with Krattenmaker’s proposal for evangelicals to simply “back off,” he is correct about one thing: Even with the Governor’s signature not already affixed to the bill, we have lost this ball game!

So the question going forward is simple: how did we arrive at this place? And is there a way to return our culture to previous thoughts about this issue when the playing field of dialogue is now so uneven? It is admittedly difficult—perhaps even impossible—to adequately respond in a 5-minute sound bite to why you would oppose two people who love each other being granted the same rights, recognition, and tax breaks as any other married couple.

Further complicating matters is the fact that many of us have friends in the homosexual community whom we care about deeply, and on the surface, it just seems heartless to deny them the opportunities available to heterosexual couples. If you are in favor of homosexual marriage and just read that last paragraph, you might think I’m sympathetic to the plight of a persecuted minority in our country. If you are an evangelical who just read it who thinks I’ve lost my mind, and you are wondering how on earth we ever arrived at this place, then you have stumbled onto my point.

What mistakes did we make that have resulted in the current climate?

1. Our Early Treatment of the Homosexual Community. I’m speaking here of two things primarily: mistreatment and stereotyping. Let’s face it. For many decades the sum total of the evangelical church’s response to the homosexual community was “AIDS is God’s judgment on you!” Though we claim our authority is the Bible, we largely ignored what it says about all human beings being created in the image and likeness of God where homosexuals are concerned.

As a result, an evangelical church—the one place where a homosexual struggling with his or her sin should have been welcomed—was the one place they avoided like the plague. We looked the other way when homosexuals were denied housing or employment or worse, when they were beaten and killed. We should have been the first to denounce such horrific acts of violence against any human being created in God’s image. Instead, we were largely silent.

Additionally, we tended to stereotype this part of our population as an aggressive minority intent on subjugating our children to sexual perversion of every sort and kind. To be sure, there is an identifiable group among homosexual ranks that walk around naked at parades, seek to radicalize school curriculum, and give support to organizations like NAMBLA. But this group represents less than 10 percent of the homosexual community.

Another 20% of this population is represented by men and women who are genuinely struggling with their sexual orientation, believe it is sin, and want to find a way out. The majority in the middle are convinced that they are doing nothing wrong, but have no desire to do anything except live their lives and be left alone. Our problem is that we have treated the entire homosexual population as if they all belonged to category number 1.

These two issues illustrate a sub-human treatment of men and women for whom Jesus died. I understand that this sin begins with “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18), but given the way we have communicated our message, is it any wonder they don’t want to listen to us?

2. Our Own Perversion of Marriage: Homosexuals may very well help our society finish off marriage, but they can’t be held responsible for starting this downward slide. That began decades ago, and continues into the present. Within the evangelical church, divorce rates are actually higher than outside Christendom. In addition, our refusal to practice church discipline and uphold the standards of righteousness expected of any follower of Jesus has resulted in rampant and unrepentant fornication and adultery within our own ranks.

The Bible is clear regarding sexual sin, but our ambivalence within the church toward heterosexual sin betrays the absence of any moral authority to speak to this issue. Until we start treating heterosexual sin in all its forms within the church the same way we view homosexual sin outside the church, we can never presume the moral high ground. Judgment, the Apostle Peter says, begins at the house of God. (1 Peter 4:17)

3. Our Capitulation to the Idea of Marriage as a “Right.” The homosexual community has been largely successful in couching their agenda in the verbiage of “civil rights,” and the current marriage debate is also housed within this concept. If interracial marriage is permitted, for example, then what is wrong with two men or two women being wed to each other? I appreciate the response to this issue that has been made by my African-American brothers in ministry. They have spoken eloquently to the marked difference that should be noted between skin tone and behavior.

At the same time, when discussing marriage, evangelicals have failed to point out that this institution isn’t about “civil rights,” and in fact isn’t about “rights” at all. Yet at some point, we allowed the other side to co-opt the idea that marriage is a right. Rather than speaking to who does and does not have a “right” to marry, evangelicals should point out that in fact, no one has a “right” to marital union--not even a heterosexual couple.

Marriage has historically been viewed as a status of privilege, and this truth is functionally proven by the fact that although a clerk of court may be forced by law to issue a license, no public official—minister, notary public, or judge—is required to perform the ceremony.

A so-called “right to marriage” does not currently exist, even for heterosexual couples, and is not necessary for equality. If evangelicals want to turn opinion on this issue, this point must be made clear.

4. We allowed “tolerance” to be confused with “affirmation.” Tolerance, simply defined, is the power that keeps adherents to various points of view from killing each other. It is rooted in the idea that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and describes the endorsement of the ideal of treating each other with dignity and respect, regardless of our differences with each other.

But toleration is not the same as affirmation. It is one thing, for example, for our society to “tolerate” an alcoholic by not killing him, getting him treatment when he seeks it, and in general treating him like a human being. But if we were to suddenly hold him up as an example of something healthy in our society, such action would not represent “tolerance.” but “affirmation.”

I’ve been pleased to see legislative and judicial moves away from punitive results for homosexual behavior. Aside from the fact that I think our government has better things to do with its time than lock up consenting adults, the sodomy laws in our country set up a defacto hierarchy of sin whereby heterosexual misconduct was winked at while homosexual sin was viewed as worthy of attention by our penal code.

Similarly, sexual behavior should, generally speaking, not be an employment issue. Ministerial employment notwithstanding, a homosexual should not be released from his or her employment for their sexual behavior any more than an adulterous husband should be fired for his last out-of-town tryst. Such a posture truly treats all sin equally and does not single out any particular group to be stigmatized. I’m thankful for evangelicals like Rick Warren, who have spoken to this issue with passion not only in our own country, but in other places like Uganda.

But a license to marry is not an extension of “tolerance.” It is instead the granting of societal affirmation. Our culture has historically affirmed marriage between a man and woman because of the inherent benefits this institution provides our society. The economic stability, emotional support, vehicle of sexual expression and ideal environment for childrearing that this institution has observably produced in our culture has resulted in our nation granting it a status of privilege. When a marriage license is issued, our society is in effect saying “we affirm this union because of the betterment of our society that we know will result.”

So when the homosexual community asks for the “right” to marry, they are asking for much more than tolerance. They are asking for the societal endorsement of their lifestyle. Regardless of whether you believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, the simple fact is that homosexual marriage is without a strong historical precedent and thus, its institutionalization by our government represents a radical approach to social engineering, the results of which will not be tangibly known or experienced for many decades. The “five-minute sound-bite” approach to this issue may make it seem as though the evangelical church is backed into a philosophical corner, but the truth is that the burden of legitimizing the radical redefinition of marriage to include two men or two women rests on those who would like to see homosexual marriage codified into our system of law. Tolerance is one thing. What the homosexual community is asking for is a quite different matter.

Evangelical Christians once spoke to the issue of homosexuality in a world that shared our opinion of the issue. Recent developments have proven that this world is now gone. The question now is how Christians can speak the truth in love in this new environemt. Admittedly, we did not use our cultural influence well when we had it, and our understanding of how to interact with the homosexual community has thankfully evolved. Our understanding of homosexual behavior as sinful must not change, but the way we communicate this truth and encourage dialogue must simultaneously demonstrate a clear compassion, and if neccesary, the willingness to be persecuted ourselves for the sake of those we strongly believe need the Gospel.

We need clear and compelling arguments combined with genuine love for our homosexual neighbors. Anything less not only substantiates the charge that we are "homophobic," but also demonstrates unfaithfulness to the Gospel we claim to preach.

Brian McLaren on Rick Santorum on Barack Obama: A Lesson in Pots and Kettles

Brian McLaren rightfully and appropriately nailed Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum yesterday for allowing his political ideology to unduly influence his approach to interpreting the Bible. In a masterfully written piece at the web site Pantheos, McLaren well-stated that there is indeed such a thing as “phony theology,” and through some of the most accurate and astute exegesis I’ve seen from him in more than 10 years, called Christians back to a sound theology of creation care.

If only Brian would use the Scriptures in this way more often.

The situation that gave rise to this article was a comment made by Santorum attacking President Obama for what he calls a “phony theology” that “takes seriously, serving the earth.” Apparently, Santorum had taken a moment on the campaign trail to take issue with some of the President’s policies on the environment. Before that conversation was over, Santorum described statements made by the President at a recent prayer breakfast as influenced by a “phony theology,” and concluded his remarks by stating that the earth was made “for man’s use.”

To be sure, there is more than one legitimate application of Scriptural teaching concerning our responsibility to care for the environment and the balance between “dominion” and “stewardship of the earth.” One can certainly care for the environment while simultaneously questioning the wisdom of certain public policy positions on the issue. But Rick Santorum went further than this, taking a single Genesis passage out of its context in order to forward what McLaren correctly identified as a “hallowed interpretive tradition of the industrial era.”

Says McLaren: “Now, many of us notice that this "dominion" is an expression of humanity being created in "the image of God." That framing seems to imply that human beings should show the same care for creation that the Creator does—respecting and conserving God-given balances and systems. As image-bearers of God, we should, for example, show foresight to conserve God-given resources to benefit future generations rather than grasping for the most profit in the least amount of time to benefit today's one-percenters. (One might even argue that this approach is more truly and deeply conservative.)”

McLaren then moves on to ground this view of creation care in a thoroughly Biblical worldview of creation itself. In particular, his approach to Genesis 2 and the language of “cultivate and keep” is a textbook example of careful exegesis that is usually governed by a conviction that Scripture should interpret Scripture. Theologians call this a “historical-grammatical” approach to Biblical interpretation. This approach assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that words have actual meaning, and that when Biblical writers used particular words under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, it was no less than God’s own intention to communicate meaning through those words.

Second, this approach assumes that the historical context of Scripture passages—which include any issues that were being addressed at the time of writing, as well as the personality and writing style of a given Biblical author—is of imminent importance in understanding what God intends to communicate through His Word. The dictum “Scripture interprets Scripture” is honored best when this approach to interpretation is employed, and in this article, McLaren does it well, concluding his argument with an application of retiring “Santorum's Industrial Era theology of dominion and exchange it for a more ancient understanding . . . and one with more foresight for the future as well.”

In an attempt to counter Presidential environmental policies with which he disagrees, Rick Santorum did violence to the very Scriptural text he claims he respects and follows. In his inaccurate invocation of God’s name, he essentially ignored half of the creation mandate. Regardless of what one thinks about Obama’s environmental policies, Santorum’s brief wade into the theological aspects of this issue demonstrate how so often, people are much better Republicans (or Democrats) than they are Christians. In this, McLaren deserves credit for calling the body of Christ back toward a more holistic and Scripture-centered view of Scripture.

Problem is, in order to write this article, McLaren had to violate some of his own more normative interpretive approaches. For example, moving along this exegetical continuum would naturally lead one to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal creation narrative! Yet some of McLaren’s earlier works give indication that these are antiquated ideas that must be discarded. Additionally, McLaren’s positions on everything from substitutionary atonement to homosexuality give evidence that even he only employs the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture when it suits his own agenda, as this approach to understanding Scripture on a consistent basis would quickly overturn most of McLaren’s own positions.

Bottom line: a phony theologian just called out a politician for being a phony theologian. He happened to be right, but the whole situation screams “irony.”

McLaren has an unfortunate history of such inconsistent approaches to Scripture. When the historical-grammatical approach fits his own agenda, he is happy to employ it, such as he does here with environmental issues, or previously with issues like immigration. And when he takes these positions on solid Biblical grounds, I’m happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with him.

Yet when the same interpretive approach calls for a belief in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation, McLaren has quickly abandoned this approach—along with centuries of orthodox Christian tradition—and instead insisted “that I do not believe this is the right question for a missional Christian to ask.” Likewise, when a historical-grammatical analysis of texts like Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 clearly reveal the homosexual lifestyle to be a sinful distortion of God’s intention, McLaren reverts again to an epistemological swampland by stating “Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality.”

So in the end we have two partisans; one Republican and one Democrat, both stating that Jesus is unequivocally on their side. The only difference between Rick Santorum's partisanship and Brian McLaren's is that Rick Santorum's should be expected. He is, after all, a politician!

I once had a wise seminary professor who, while tearing apart a long-held understanding I had of a certain Biblical text, warned me about allowing personal feelings, political positions, cultural assumptions, or anything else get in the way of understanding the otherwise clear meaning of Scripture. “You should hate it,” he said, “when anyone twists the Bible to fit their agenda, even if that person is a “conservative.’” He was right. May the church return to her prophetic role in culture. And may the first result of that return be people in those churches who are less worried about holding together an ideology, and more concerned about just being good followers of Jesus.

Beware of those who drape their theology in a partisan cloak.

When "Friendly Fire" Isn't so Friendly

About 13 years ago, Pastor Trey Rhodes was sitting in a meeting of other pastors who were considering the sponsorship of a new church. The local Baptist Association had called this meeting to discuss "concerns" that several of the pastors had relative to this new church proposal. Church planting wasn't nearly as "cool" back then as it is now, and in fact was held in high suspicion in several segments of my denomination. In particular, these guys were concerned about the theology, evangelistic philosophy, and church growth methods this young church planter under their inspection wanted to employ.

Before long, the meeting turned caustic, with accusations of heresy and being "unBaptistic" being leveled at a young guy who wasn't in the room to defend himself.

That young guy was me.

After hearing several very negative comments about me, Pastor Trey obtained my phone number and called me directly. Over the next several months as we got to know each other and he came to understand who I really was and what I wanted to see accomplished through planting new churches, he became a fan, and later on, a very dear friend. Two years after this, our new church had the opportunity to play a small role in helping Trey launch out himself to start a new church.

Such was the Kingdom advance that resulted from the decision to make a single phone call, and actually get to know someone. It's a shame that doesn't happen more often.

As a guy who spends most of his time working with pastors and seeking to bring the churches they lead to greater missional cooperation, I've spent more time than I want trying to de-fuse misconceptions and get past misunderstandings, and toward the commonalities I know are present for us to be on mission together. To be sure, I'm convinced I serve with some of the finest pastors in the country. I'm thankful that in the northeast, we don't have the luxury of so easily dividing over silly issues and gross mischaracterizations of each other. When you represent less than .01% of the total population, you simply cannot afford to divide on too many things! Nevertheless, even in an area like ours the propensity exists to hold fellow pastors in suspicion, merely on the word from a third party, and without talking to them directly.

We who dare to pastor churches should know better! We preach from a Bible that clearly instructs us to refrain from making judgements on fallacious grounds, and we serve a Lord who was crucified precisely because of the same kind of rumor-mongering, slander, and character assassination that, regrettably, some in pastoral leadership sometimes commit without thinking.

This scenario happens every time we say of one of our fellow pastors "I heard he is a Calvinist! He must not believe in sharing Jesus," or "with the way his church is growing, he MUST be compromising something!" or "I'm not so sure he is 'one of us'."

It continues with assignment of motive without any basis in reality. If he employs a church growth tactic we don't agree with we assume he is "all about the numbers." If he hosts a Super Bowl party on a Sunday night we assume he is "bowing to the idol of professional football." If he engages a segment of his culture in a way we think goes too far, we declare that he has "sold out."

When such claims are thoughtlessly made without so much as a shred of evidence, or without actually trying to get to know someone, those actions say more about us than those we are accusing. To be sure, putting someone else down often makes us appear better, more holy, and closer to God in our own minds, but it does nothing to help the reputation of our Lord Jesus or the advance of His Kingdom.

Making matters worse, too many pastors don't go right to the source, but instead rely on so-called "discernment ministries," organizations who make it their life's work to destroy the ministry of anyone they deem heretical. Funny thing is that many of these so-called ministries are themselves guilty of malpractice, since the overwhelming majority are not directly accountable to any local church, and that should tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Pastors have the intelligence and ability to seek out accurate answers about a fellow pastor simply by reading original source material. When it comes to the "big name" guys, make sure you have read their books before you say anything publicly so that whatever you say you can say with accuracy.

Oh, and when it comes to the pastor across town, the solution is easier still. Don't say a word about him from your pulpit until you have sat down with him personally.

Am I suggesting that pastors should not warn their people when they believe false teaching is present? Not at all! Paul warned us that wolves abound who look like sheep, and part of our role includes the protection of our flocks. But I am suggesting that our current practice of third-party sources and hearsay means we "cry wolf" way too often, and lose the respect and attention of our people in the process, thereby opening them up to REAL attacks from REAL false prophets.

We are not politicians in competition with one another for the "party nomination." We are a band of brothers on the same side of the battlefield, and who need to ensure that, in the midst of all the casualties that already result from the degree of spiritual battle in which we are involved, "friendly fire" isn't the cause of those casualties.

We rightly lament the rampant gossip, backbiting, slander, and character assassination that so often takes place in our churches. We wonder to ourselves how on earth people who are supposed to know and walk with Jesus can act in such ways.

Gentlemen, the sad truth is that many times, they act in such ways because they are following our example! We need to set a better one!

The pastorate needs more good men like Pastor Trey Rhodes. And the evangelical church needs its present leadership to commit to better discernment that is guided by actually getting to know other people. Stopping this kind of ungodly behavior in our churches begins with us.

What T.D. Jakes is Teaching Us about Orthodoxy, Heresy, and Unity

I really wasn't looking forward to yesterdays Elephant Room discussion. For one thing, my schedule simply did not allow me to dedicate an entire day to the event. Furthermore, I was honestly skeptical of the content, and the outcome.

My primary reason for this skepticism? One of those invited to participate in the discussion yesterday was T.D. Jakes, a texas pastor who founded "The Potter's House" in Dallas. It is well-known among evangelicals that Jakes spent his formative years among those called "Oneness Pentecostals," who deny the historic Christian doctrine of the trinity. Oneness Pentecostals instead confess to something called "modalism" or "Sabelianism," denying inherently the full personhood and separate consciousnesses of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yet over the past few years, Jakes had been silent about where he stood on this issue. Furthermore, he was joined on stage by the likes of Crawford Loritts, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald. I've been listening to all these guys long enough to know that they are not theological lightweights, and are not easily fooled by heresy. That fact alone should have been enough for me to wait--to expect the best in hope as commanded in 1 Corinthians 13. Still, I was skeptical.

I should have known better.

To be sure, the trinity is no small thing. In fact, in many ways, it is everything! One of the first questions one must ask when considering the Gospel is "who is God?" Obviously, if you get that one wrong, it only goes downhill from there. Furthermore, each of us owes our salvation to the trinitarian nature of the Father, who chose us before creation, the Son who paid the penalty for our sin, and the Spirit who seals us and sanctifies us in our new relationship as His adopted children. Though the Scriptures as a whole are pregnant with the concept, Ephesians 1 details in the most succinct terms how the members of the Godhead work together--as separate persons--to bring about the redemption that assures us of "every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ."

To put it bluntly, if God is not a trinity, then the Gospel is a myth! No Trinity? No Gospel!

So we are right to see the issues surrounding T.D. Jakes as no small thing. At the same time, the way many evangelicals suspiciously responded to Jakes' statements to Driscoll and MacDonald yesterday betray that while we rightfully excel at sniffing out heresy, we are slow to love, to assume the best, and to celebrate when someone who has erred realizes that error through his or her own examination of the Scripture. The mixed reaction to Jakes' statements in the Elephant Room yesterday reveal that the spirit of Ephesus is still, regrettably, alive and well (Revelation 2:2-5)

I'm grateful that, through the transcripts of Trevin Wax yesterday, I was able to read that T.D. Jakes is now a trinitarian. But more than this, I was thankful to read of his life journey which has brought him to this place. He spoke of how he had embraced modalism because, well, that is the tradition in which he grew up!

According to Wax's account, Jakes elaborated on his background in this way:

They [Oneness Pentecostals] believe in Jesus Christ, he died and raised again. But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel. I was in that church and raised in that church a number of years. I started preaching from that pulpit. But I’m also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience. I ended up Metho-Bapti-Costal. I’m a mixed breed. It is easy to throw rocks at people who you do not know, but when you see the work of Christ in their lives, you try to build bridges. So even though I moved away from what that church’s teaching, I didn’t want to throw rocks. Much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called to reconcile wherever possible. My struggle was that in some passages, the doctrine fits and in other places it doesn’t. I don’t want to force my theology to fit my denomination. . . The Bible made me rethink my ideas and I got quiet about it for a while. There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives. I’m very comfortable with that.

Jakes goes on to then confess an orthodox understanding of trinitarian Christianity, while admittedly pushing back a bit on language choice, for Biblical reasons:

I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you.

So here we have a guy who was raised in a tradition that he, over time and through his study of the Scriptures, realized contained error. He studied and prayed his way through some things that were fuzzy to him, and as they became clear, he landed squarely within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy. What's not to celebrate?

And by the way, this is not the first time this has happened. The early church took three and a half centuries before what we today call "orthodoxy" was established. Are we to believe that no one was orthodox before the Council of Constantinople? Of course not! First, second, and third century followers of Jesus spread His message, organized themselves into churches, submitted to Biblically qualified leaders, observed baptism and the Lord's Supper, and lived the message of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in front of an unbelieving world.

Throughout those three centuries, much was discussed about the nature of God. During this time the early church had to hunch and feel its way through a myriad of issues, returning time after time to the text of Scripture and thereby avoiding the theological "off-ramps" of Nestorianism, Arianism, Monarchianism, and a host of other heretical streams before finally being able to articulate what we now call an orthodox understanding of the triune God, codified in a revised Nicene Creed in 381 A.D.

My point is that seventeen centuries later, individuals sometimes take this same journey, and its a journey that is often complicated by an error-filled tradition to which they were exposed at a young age.

Does that mean Jakes' earlier error was "no big deal?" Not at all! But ff T.D. Jakes' testimony yesterday teaches us anything, it teaches us that while Christian faith may exist in a personally "pre-Nicean" form, if it is real, eventually it will emerge as a decidedly "post-Nicean" faith. I believe that's what happened to T.D. Jakes, and I rejoice in this.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be good enough for many in the evangelical church. In some sense, this should be expected. As the heirs of the Protestant Reformers, we can be a cantankerous bunch and we can critique ourselves to death. Its in our family history! The Reformation began as critique. It was neccesary critique. It was purifying critique. It was a critique that led to the recovery of the Gospel, AND the recovery of the church!

Problem is, as the Protestant movement grew and established itself, it tended toward maintaining its posture of critique as opposed to mounting an offensive and aggressive movement forward to accomplish the Great Commission. Possibly the only legitimate criticism that Erasmus of Rotterdam leveled toward Martin Luther was when he contended that the Protestants couldn't possibly represent the "true church" because, in Erasmus' words, "you have no missionaries."

These are our theological ancestors, and we would do well to cling to the faithful teaching they left us while simultaneously realizing--and rejecting--the hyper-critical nature of our history so that the sins of the fathers are not visited on the sons any longer.

So how do we do this? Do we jettison concern for sound doctrine? Anyone paying attention at yesterday's Elephant Room should know that isn't happening. At the same time, when someone formerly in error confesses Christian orthodoxy to me, my response shouldn't be cynicism, suspicion, or on T.D. Jakes' case, the desire to know "how trinitarian" he really is.

To be sure, I differ with Bishop Jakes on quite a bit, and his former modalist views are not the only areas where I would personally have concerns. But yesterday's conversation between Jakes, Driscoll and MacDonald have put my concerns about trinitarian orthodoxy to rest, and in fact, have left me with a renewed confidence in the power of the Scriptures to transform our fallen minds and understandings.

Others may want to continue to critique and find fault. But I love my brother in Christ, and as a result will bear, believe, hope, and endure with him as he continues to walk in a right understanding of God.

As for me, I'm rejoicing that I have a brother in Dallas!

When it Comes to Our Relationships, Are we Labeling, or Listening?

I’m not sure if its because we are in an election season, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about labels; how they are used, and how they are misused. Watching the Presidential debate in New Hampshire last week, I was struck by the way labels were used in the attempt of some candidates to pigeonhole other candidates. And after 20 years in ministry, I’ve come to the conclusion that the church participates in this same destructive exercise.

Now, I’m not against using labels. Labels can give us a sense of where people are coming from. They help us understand the philosophical rationale for decisions made, commitments kept, and why people care about the things they care about. But at the end of the day, a label doesn’t mean much unless it is understood in light of a person and that person’s context.

A personal example will illustrate this. I’m an evangelical Christian who believes in an inerrant Bible, a literal Adam and Eve, and the virgin birth, substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’m also a complimentarian that believes the Scriptures commend male pastoral leadership in the home and in the church.

But although I believe in a literal creation, I plant no flags in the ground regarding exactly when God spoke the created order into existence. I’ve read those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and I’ve read those who believe the earth is tens of millions of years old. My position is that, since I wasn’t there, I’m just going to say “I have no idea.”

Additionally, although I am a complimentarian, I believe women are called to every manner of ministry in the church, including the teaching ministry. I find nothing in the text that prevents a woman—under the guidance of her pastor—from teaching the Bible, planning missions strategy, leading ministry efforts in the church, or teaching in a seminary or other institution of higher learning.

I could go on, but these two issues alone are enough for some people to say that the phrase “evangelical” doesn’t fit me. On one occasion about ten years ago, someone actually referred to me as a “liberal.” That was a first!

A few other examples of labels are:

Baptist: There has been much discussion over the last couple of years about what it means to “truly” be Baptist. But which kind of Baptist are we speaking of? Paul Tillich was an existentialist theologian who eventually denied the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet he called himself “Baptist.” Jack Hyles taught that women should always wear dresses and never cut their hair, and he called himself “Baptist.” Westboro "Church" (using that term loosely, I know)in Kansas promulgates a message of hatred for homosexuals, soldiers, and the United States as a whole, and they call themselves “Baptist.”

Living in Maryland, when I identify myself as “Baptist” it is likely that the person I’m talking to might invoke any one of the above expressions. I don’t live in the south where even the dogs and cats are members in good standing of the local Baptist Church. I live in a place where we are about as numerous as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and viewed with essentially the same degree of suspicion. So the only way for someone to really know what I mean when I apply the label to myself is to get to know me.

Liberal. This is a word that often gets tossed around carelessly, especially if your goal is to make someone else look bad. Problem is, not all forms of liberalism are bad! Most of the “liberal arts” universities in America were started by Bible believing Christian groups. Furthermore, the domain of society this term is applied to makes all the difference in the world. Are we talking about political liberalism? Theological liberalism? Social liberalism? Educational liberalism? Each of these terms has an historical definition that separates many of them out from the usual perception of the “left-right” spectrum.

Muslim. Over the past year, God has opened the door for me to interact with many new friends in the Muslim community. In that time, I’ve learned much about the lives and faith of these precious people, and when I watch FOX News, the Islam I hear described bears little resemblance to that practiced by the people I’ve come to know and love.

To be sure, Muslims of the sort described on our nightly news programs do exist. But Islam is a global, and thus diverse, faith. It is practiced through Sunni, Shi’ite, and Sufi expressions in dozens of countries around the world, and among 1.6 billion people worldwide. Consequently, a Muslim living in Instanbul, Turkey is probably very different from a Muslim living in rural Afghanistan, the North African desert, or among the immigrant communities that now live in various major cities throughout Europe and the United States. Think about the difference between an Eastern Orthodox Priest in the Balkan region of southern Europe and a Pentecostal preacher in south Alabama. Both are “Christian.” That same sort of variety exists in the Islamic world as well.

Calvinist: Again, which kind are we talking about? Guys who don’t believe in evangelism? John MacArthur students committed to sound exposition? Those who minister in the tradition of Spurgeon? Dortians? Amyraldians? “Whiskey Baptists?” Those labels too can be highly confusing and polarizing.

Conservative. The present forward movement of the Republican primary season ensures that this term gets worn slick. What exactly is a “true conservative” or a “strong conservative” anyway? By the standards of some, William F. Buckley, who is arguably considered the father of modern political conservatism, would be considered a moderate today. And if ever there was a term that meant so many things that it means nothing, it’s the term “moderate.”

Is it possible to be theologically conservative yet educationally liberal? History proves that it is.

So where am I going with all this? Here is my big idea: If the labels we use to categorize others can themselves have so many different expressions, then the only way I can truly get to know another human being is to spend time with them and build a relationship. Investing part of your life in a venture as risky as getting to know another human being can sometimes be messy. Sure, its easier to simply label people and move on. But in the end, that approach cheats us out of the tremendous blessing of sharing life, and for Christians, sharing our faith.

For Christians, this is an imminently important issue. We have, to a large extent, capitulated to the cultural propensity to use labels as a device to pigeonhole people and isolate ourselves from them. Then we wonder why we have such a difficult time connecting with our communities and the world. If we don’t build bridges, we will never share Jesus. And you can’t build bridges to culture without building relationships with human beings from every walk of life.

Use labels as reference points. Use them to understand someone’s personal background. But get to know people. All the labeling in the world is no substitute for sitting down with another human being and hearing from them directly. Plus, it’s the only way we can substantively engage the world Jesus died to save.

My Favorite Half of Romans 14*

One of the most annoying experiences of ministry often comes, interestingly enough, after I've preached a message. It's that moment when I'm standing in the back of the church shaking hands, and someone comes up and says "great message Dr. Rainey. I wish _________ could have been here to hear it. They need it!"

Honestly, it's hard in moments like that to keep my temper at bay. I want to ask, in righteous indignation, "don't you need it too? What's wrong with you that you see faults in others before you see them in yourself? Haven't you read Matthew 7:1-5?? Are you an idiot?? . . . .

. . .but just before exploding, the Spirit reminds me that often, I too, am an idiot.

For example, many folks on my wife's side of the family come out of a Holiness background. Because of this, they hold strong convictions that I don't hold. I remember early in our dating life when Amy would say "don't talk about movies we have seen around the relatives. They believe going to the theater is sinful."

Of course, my instant reaction was to appeal to Romans 14. After all, Paul has given us clear instruction regarding how to relate to each other on "debatable" matters. There is nothing . . .absolutely NOTHING in Scripture that forbids me from seeing a good movie, especially one in which there is lots of gunplay, fast cars, and buildings blowing up in a hopelessly gratuitous fashion. There is liberty in Christ, and where "movies for guys who like movies" are concerned, I aim to exercise my liberty!!

Furthermore, those who would object to my affinity for fast cars and bullets on the silver screen should consider carefully the following verses from Romans 14:" . . .and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." v.3b"Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another?" v.4"Why do you pass judgement on your brother?" v.10"Therefore, let us not pass judgement on one another any longer." v.13a

Wow, if only my "weaker brother" were here to read these verses. He sure needs it!

Problem is, in quoting my preferred half of this text, I've totally ignored (i.e. violated) the parts that are addressed to me in an effort to point out those parts that are addressed to my weaker brother. Talk about irony!

As a "stronger brother" in this regard, I should instead be looking at the following passages:"Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains. . ." v.3a". . .but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." v.13b"For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." v.15"It is not good to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." v.21

Do such texts mean that I should totally abstain from seeing the movie "Contraband" this weekend? Not necessarily. At the same time, it probably means I should keep quiet about it around certain folks out of deference for their convictions. OF course, they have their responsibilities as well. But I'm not responsible to fulfill my weaker brother's responsibilities. I'm responsible to fulfill mine.

The same is true for any other debatable issue. My denomination, for example, has, on the whole, very strong convictions about alcohol consumption . . .convictions that I share to a large extent. So when it comes to beer, I switch teams. I'm no longer a "strong" brother. Now, I'm a "weaker" one. And within our churches, I’ve noticed a strange phenomenon: almost anytime a debatable issue divides the strong and weak, the weak come out on top in the form of additional rules. The strong are often warned against causing others to stumble. The weak are rarely called out for judging their stronger brothers.

Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why there are so many evangelical churches that are culturally unengaged—bordering on the isolationist. To be sure, some of my more aggressively evangelistic brothers sometimes do things, and go to lengths, that give me pause. But when comparing those I believe sometimes go too far with the multitude majority who don’t go far enough, I think we need more of the former!

The thing that interests me about any debatable issue is that most folks are just like me . . .they have a propensity to appeal to those verses in Romans 14 that are addressed to their opponents. The problem with this approach is that it not only ignores those texts most applicable to you, but it also violates the spirit of the very texts to which we appeal; a spirit that is best summarized by Paul's contention that "the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

"Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (vv.17-18)

Appealing to my "preferred half" of Romans 14 is never conducive to the kind of peace and Kingdom thinking that Paul describes. To pursue peace, I have to appropriate the other half . . .the half that describes my responsibilities when it comes to debatable issues.

With this in mind, maybe I don't need to judge my brother who participates in activities I find I can't participate in without sinning. Conversely, perhaps I need to resist colorful descriptions of "Ironman" in front of certain family members.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all practiced such things, righteousness and peace and joy would be seen more clearly in us by those who need to know Jesus. Just maybe, this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 14.

*Adapted from a 2008 post on this blog.

Why this Evangelical is Voting for Ron Paul

I rarely write on issues that are solely political in nature. As a follower of Jesus and a regional leader of global missions, I frankly have more important things to write about, and understand that no eartthly kingdom compares to the eternal Kingdom of God I'm called to proclaim.

Furthermore, I want my primary message to always be that of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and entering exlusively into prolonged political conversation inevitably dilutes that message. For these reasons, this will be my one and only public political endorsement this year. But before I make it, a couple of qualifications are neccesary.

First, I'm making this endorsement as a private citizen, and posting it on a privately-owned website that is in no way funded by the organization that employs me. When I speak as Director of Missions, I represent 12,000 Baptists in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area, and when it comes to the political, we are a diverse bunch, so I don't in any way want to give the impression that I am speaking for them, for the churches they attend, or for the Association I'm privileged to serve. Additionally, there is always an irrational fear--usually from the political left--that in making an endorsement I'm somehow violating Constitutional law. I wouldn't want Rev. Barry Lynn and "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," the ACLU, or any other loony-left group of people who have yet to find a real job to have any reason to think that someone's "rights" are being violated by what I say here.

Second, the nature of this endorsement is likely to trouble some of my ministry colleagues, who have already expressed suprise at my personal choice for President this year. While there is no candidate in the race with whom I am in 100% agreement, I hope this post will clarify why a conservative evangelical Christian is not only able to vote for someone who is not "far right" on every issue, but sometimes SHOULD cast such a vote.

With that said, I'd like to list here the primary reasons I believe Ron Paul Should be the next President of the United States, and then address some concerns that I often hear about some of Ron Paul's views.

1. Ron Paul is the true "Champion of the Constitution." Name the issue: Whether it is fiscal policy, foreign relations, national security, or social issues, Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field who consistently appeals to the Constitution of the United States. When the left appeals to emotion when arguing for continued funding of unsustainable government programs, Ron Paul answers with our founding documents. When the right appeals to fear when arguing for stronger "security measures" that steal individual liberty, Ron Paul answers with our founding documents. Ron Paul's views, compared with other candidates, reveal him to be the only one who truly believes that we are a nation of law and not of men. In contrast to Gingrich, who has publicly stated he would purposefully go around Constitutional law if he thought it neccesary to "protect us," Ron Paul believes that no one individual is above the Constitution, including the President.

As a result, Congressman Paul has been the lone voice opposing the Federal Reserve, insisting on closing any federal department not expressly authorized by the Constitution, and sounding the alarm about how the so-called "Patriot Act" and sections of the most recent version of NDAA blatantly violate habeus corpus and our fourth ammendment rights.

Over a decade ago, former President George W. Bush suggested that the right saw the Constitution as an authoritative document to be followed, while the left saw it as a "living, breathing document" subject to interpretations not dependent on the intent of the founders. Since that day, I have come to realize that both Republicans and Democrats treat the Constitution with disdain. They just disagree about which parts of it they want to ignore. I'm weary of Presidential candidates with little respect for our body of law. I want a President who understands that no one is above that law, especially the Chief Executive. Among all the candidates in the current field, Ron Paul is the only one who seems to understand this.

2. Ron Paul tells it like he sees it. Admittedly the 76-year-old candidate isn't the most eloquent speaker in this group. Frequent verbal bridges and blunt remarks that could be better expressed sometimes get in the way of the message. This is especially true when Paul is onstage alongside such magnanimous speakers as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Furthermore, there have been many verbal gaffes in this campaign that have left him misunderstood. But if one only takes the time to look past the delivery to the actual message, one observes something that I don't believe is evident in any other candidates' platform: the unvarnished truth unaccosted by nuances that appeal to the "party line."

All the candidates speak about a prosperous America. All the candidates speak about a strong and secure America. Only Ron Paul has spoken in detail, and substantively, about how he would seek to bring this about. Some of his ideas are controversial, and still others highly unpopular (I would say it is because they are misunderstood, and will explain more below). But among the current slate of candidates, when asked a direct question, Ron Paul is the only one who provides a direct answer.

To be sure, there are much more eloquent candidates in the field. Indeed, there are many on that platform that appear more "Presidential" (whatever that means) than Ron Paul. But we elected our current incumbent largely due to his silver tongue, in spite of the fact that he had never run a business, met a payroll, or served in any executive capacity whatsoever. I think we've had enough eloquent speech. What we need now is plain, straight-talk.

3. Ron Paul has the only sane fiscal policy. The "bloody ram's head" that sits conspicuously on our nation's table right now is that we cannot continue to sustain a budget that created a $15 trillion debt. But there are two hard truths that must be faced in order to solve this problem that neither major political party, as a whole, wants to face. Defense and Entitlements are the two largest portions of the federal budget, and in order to get our fiscal house in order, both must be cut substantially. But Republicans won't agree to cut the former, and Democrats refuse to cut the latter. Ron Paul is the only candidate who states the unpopular but plain truth that both must be cut, and that both CAN be cut without dismantling our ability to defend ourselves or sending millions into poverty.

Additionally, Congressman Paul has consistently opposed the existence of the Federal Reserve. It was Ronald Reagan who once said "Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem." If ever there was a government entity that tangibly proved this statement true it is the Federal Reserve System. Those on the right and left have differing views on what to do with the Fed in order to improve our economy, but neither considers that the Fed itself--with the way it has kept interest rates artificially low while simultaneously destroying our money supply with inflationary practices--might be the source of the problem.

4. Ron Paul may be the only candidate who knows the meaning of "liberty." Many examples could be given to prove this, but the most recent and obvious would be the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Normally a benign bill annually passed to fund the Pentagon's defense budget and the military, the current version of NDAA contains two "poison pills" that allow the incarcertaion and indefinite detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS, without due process, by the American military. This blatant violation of Posse Comitatis sets the stage for a future in which political opponents who are able to be "linked" in any way with suspected terrorist organizations could simply be locked up and silenced indefintely.

But perhaps the greatest tragedy of this piece of legislation is the way in which it could change the perception of our military. My kids are learning to honor those who serve in our military as heroes who protect our freedom, and who are on our side. The newest version of NDAA creates an environment where my kids could have their homes invaded and their parents arrested and held indefinitely by those same military personnel.

What is horrifyingly strange about all this is that no political candidate is sounding the alarm about this gross violation of the law by our current Congress, and our current President who signed it into law. Since 9/11, American's have had their right to privacy violated in every place from the internet to airports. We have been forced to succomb to an emerging and growing "police state" in which it now appears the military may even become a part of that police force. More recently, American citizens have been targeted abroad for assassination, without due process. Not a single candidate for President is saying anything about this--except Ron Paul.

There are other reasons I support Congressman Paul's candidacy, but I also realize that there are grave concerns about his positions on a number of other issues, so I'd like to address those now, as well as address how this evangelical can, in good conscience, vote for him and support him publicly:

Isn't Ron Paul "Pro-Choice?" The short answer to this question is "no." As a practicing obstetrician for many decades, Dr. Paul has publicly stated his pro-life views. This is of particular importance to me. I strongly believe respect for all human life is foundational to continued liberty, and therefore have never, and will never vote for any candidate who believes it is permissible to murder a child in the womb. Congressman Paul has also stated his opposition to abortion.

The sticky part of this argument lies in what the Congressman would do legislatively and otherwise related to this issue. Although he is pro-life, he has stated that he would appeal to the 10th ammendment on this issue, meaning that he believes it should be totally within the power of the 50 state governments to regulate and/or outlaw the practice as they see fit. For many of my fellow social conservatives, this doesn't go far enough. As one who favors a human life ammendment to the Constitution, I too believe the Congressman should go much further on this issue. But what many are forgetting is that for Ron Paul's vision of "state regulation" of abortion to be realized, "Roe-v. Wade" would need to be overturned, which is what ALL social conservatives would love to see happen.

Since "Roe" was decided in 1973, the majority of Supreme Court justices appointed have been by "pro-life" Presidents, yet we still have a Court that respects stare decisis more than innocent human life. Knowing his views on Constitutional law, I am convinced that President Paul would not compromise, as other pro-life Presidents have, when it comes to his judicial appointments. In short, I believe Ron Paul would do more do end abortion than the five pro-life Presidents combined who have come before him since the "Roe" decision.

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy views scare me. "Ron Paul wants to dismantle the military." "Ron Paul would leave us wide open to attack." Such rhetoric is stirring, concerning, and TOTALLY untrue.

Though he has been called an "isolationist," Congressman Paul's views are actually those of a "non-interventionist." In short, Paul is a consistent believer in national sovereignty. But he doesn't believe that only the United States is sovereign. He believes ALL nations are sovereign, and that the U.S. has, over the years, intervened in the affairs of other nations that should not have concerned us.

Still, the charge that Paul would leave us open to terrorist attack seems very convincing, at least to those who have never actually looked at his voting record. He voted in favor of authorizing President Bush to use force in Afghanistan after 9/11, in retaliation for the attacks on New York and Washington. Additionally, and contrary to the claims of many on the right, Ron Paul believes in a strong, impenetrable national defense. He believes the job of the military is spelled out in the Constitution, and that job consists of defending our own borders, not policing the world.

There was a time when such was the official doctrine of the Republican party. But 9/11 created a national paranoia that the far-right has exploited over the past decade that led us into a prolonged war in Iraq, a military force that is stretched thin, and a total reversal of a previous belief in "non-intervention" by the so-called "Bush doctrine." Ron Paul wants to see this trend reversed, and so do I. That said, I will say that I'm not in total agreement with the Congressman on this issue. I don't believe a doctrine of non-intervention calls for the closing of every military base we have around the world. Additionally, I believe Paul to be "common sense" enough to adjust his particular views if reality dictates. I'm sure there is something about a new President receiving his first 2 or 3 intelligence briefings that tempers one's ideology. (remember President Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo?)

But I agree with him that in many ways, our intervention has probably caused more problems than it has solved. Those of us opposed to U.S. participation in the United Nations are the first to cry "national sovereignty" when the U.N. presumes to tell Americans what to do. We should offer the same level of respect and understanding to other nations.

Don't you think Ron Paul's view that we should legalize heroin is extreme? Yes I do. However, I agree with Congressman Paul's overall view that the "war on drugs" has solved nothing. I am not pro-drug use. But like prohibition that preceeded it, the war on drugs has done little to stop or even slow down the abuse of illegal (or legal, for that matter) substances in our nation. It has, however, resulted in deficit spending, prisons overcrowded with non-violent offenders and lots and lots of dead police officers. On the more general note, Ron Paul is right: We MUST have a new approach to this issue.

I've heard strong rumors that Ron Paul is anti-semitic. These rumors are blatantly false, to the extent that they are laughable. If "anti-semitic" means you aren't a Zionist, then I suppose you could call Ron Paul anti-semitic, along with the overwhelming majority of non-dispensationalist Christians, and secular Jews around the world. Referring to certain Jews as themselves being "anti-semitic" seems a bit absurd, no?

Unfortunately for those who are trying to push this rumor, the phrase "anti-semitic" has an actual definition. If you believe we should support Israel no matter what--even if they should decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Turkey--or if you believe the U.S. should continue sending foreign aid to Israel, you will disagree with Ron Paul. That doesn't make Ron Paul anti-semitic.

Contrary to the claims of many, Ron Paul is more pro-Israel than any other Republican nominee, for the simple reason that he doesn't believe Israel should have to ask the permission of the United States before it makes a decision, including a decision to defend itself. His desire to suspend foreign aid to Israel is bundled with his position that U.S. foreign aid worldwide should come to an end. And he is right, by the way. The Israelis are more than capable of defending themselves. Come to think of it, I'd be afraid to pit our Air Force against theirs. Even Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that Israel does not need the help--or the permission--of the United States to do what it believes is in its own national self-interest.

So there you have it. I want my country to stay free, to be prosperous again, and to return to its Constitutional roots. For these reasons, Congressman Ron Paul gets my vote for President.

For more information, watch this 15 minute interview conducted by CNN's Pierce Morgan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haceEBNxCG4

Waiting for Christmas*

All of us find that certain Biblical commands are easier to obey than others. Personally, I have never struggled with the "active" commands of Scripture . . . ."GO" "TEACH" "BAPTIZE" "PREACH" are divine calls to which I almost always respond in the right way.

But recently, I have been struggling in my efforts to obey the more "passive" commands of Scripture. God created me with a high-D personality and leadership style hard-wired into my consciousness. As such, commands like "WAIT" "BE QUIET" and "BE STILL" are more difficult for me. But this week, I have found a model for such patience in Luke 2.

The story of Simeon is one of those tales that, if televised, would likely be relegated to the Hallmark Channel and never seen as a "Christmas classic." While most pastors will spend the perfunctory amount of time in the first part of Luke 2 this Christmas, this second part of the chapter is often overlooked. Still, Simeon's ability to wait on God amazes me. Verse 25 states that he was "righteous" and "devout," and that this righteous devotion was manifest in the way that he waited. His life really matched what he professed to believe. God had told him years earlier that he would not die before bearing witness to the Messiah with his own eyes, and with strong faith, Simeon clings to this promise . . . .by waiting!

Within one month of Jesus' birth, Simeon experiences God's fulfilled promise. Joseph and Mary, two blue-collar, lower-middle-class parents, bring their newborn son into the temple in Jerusalem according to the custom of the law. At this point, Simeon has been waiting for decades, and his excitement over being able to finally see the Christ-child is evident to anyone in the temple that day. As he takes the infant in his arms, he exclaims: "Now Master, You can dismiss your slave in peace according to your Word. For my eyes have seen your salvation." (Luke 2:29-20 HCSB)

This was the last thing Simeon was waiting for before his death, and throughout decades of waiting, he never gave up. God loves faith like that . . . .faith that hangs on . . . .faith that is willing to wait.

But we aren't part of a culture that sees value in waiting. We want instant gratification. In a society dominated by drive-thru lanes, microwaves, TiVO, and 24-hour service, waiting isn't a virtue, its a weakness! If you are waiting, its because you weren't assertive enough, or didn't demand enough.

Perhaps this is why it is such a struggle for guys like me to submit to God in this way. But if I am able to wait, I learn that God keeps His promises. Simeon waited for decades. But in truth, Simeon's people had been waiting for several millenia! The promise Simeon saw was made as early as Genesis 3:15, and restated in Genesis 12, Genesis 17, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 53, Zechariah . . . .you get the picture. God allowed centuries to pass before making good on His promise. But in the end, He always keeps them.

But waiting on the fulfillment of God's promise isn't something we do naturally, which is why Luke emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in Simeon's life no less than three times in this passage. The Holy Spirit was on him. The Holy Spirit revealed truth to him. The Holy Spirit guided him. And the Holy Spirit helped him to wait.

Without the Holy Spirit, we can't wait. We will jump the gun. We will try to get ahead of where God is working. And we will fail. The Old Testament is full of accounts of men who would not wait on God's promises and failed. For Abraham, it was the conception of Ishmael by Hagar. For Saul, it was the consulting of a medium. For Moses, it was simply striking a rock in anger. But the result of refusing to wait is always the same: sin, shame, hurt, and devastation.

But there are others who did wait on God: Elisha, Job, Nehemiah, Paul, and others. Elisha was protected by an unseen yet innumerable army (2 Kings 6), but not before being faced with the army of Aram. Job was given back double what was taken from him (Job 42), but not before he lost everything most precious to him. Nehemiah saw the completion of the walls around Jerusalem, but not before facing strong opposition from the Samaritans. Paul was able to witness the spread of the Gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire, but was also forbidden by God from entering Asia.

Life doesn't give us a lot of green lights. More often than not, God doesn't say "you can have it now." Most often, he says "you must wait," and then uses the process of waiting to make us into the kind of people He wants us to be . . . .and this drives me crazy! I'm an active guy. I like to move. I like to work. I like to play. And I like doing all of these things with intensity. Waiting has never been on my list of favorite things to do. But this Christmas, God is working on me by having me wait.

Perhaps this is true for some who are reading as well. If so, know that if you give up, you will never know how truly close you were to seeing the fulfillment of His promises to you. Picture Simeon getting up on the morning of Jesus' dedication, murmuring to himself "I've been waiting on this for 40 years. Is it ever going to happen?" Meanwhile, the Messiah is in town, and his parents are on their way to see Simeon at this very moment.

God's promises and God's answers are closer than you think, because God is closer than you think. If you refuse to wait on Him, you might very well forfeit everything. So this Christmas, be still, be quiet, and wait on the Lord. You won't be sorry!

*This post was originally published December 12, 2006