Zealotism is Never Good: Why It's Important to be a Better Christ-Follower than Republican (or Democrat!)

"Zealotism" is a term that originates with a first century Jewish group who believed--essentially--that the Messiah was first and foremost a political figure who would usher in political liberation from the Romans. As such, this group was sorely dissapointed when Jesus built the Kingdom instead on service and suffering. At its most repulsive stage, the result was the selling of Jesus for a slave's wage in an attempt to force His hand at political domination. At every level, Zealotism is antithetical to the Gospel. Unfortunately, this is a fact many American Christians have forgotten.

Don't get me wrong. Followers of Jesus in a free and open society like ours have a responsibility to apply the Christian worldview to their politics, contend for righteousness in the public square, and vote their conscience under the Lordship of Jesus. To do any less in the context of a democratic republic is to abdicate one's responsibility. The problem comes when we begin to think that our "agenda" can be accomplished by buddying up to one political party, one Political Action Committee, or one candidate. Many Christians today would readily admit that the Gospel is the only ultimate answer to all that ails us. Yet far too many simultaneously make more noise (positive or negative) about the most recent topic covered on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC than they do about Jesus. Many seem more concerned about being good Republicans--or good Democrats--than good Christians.

To truly follow Jesus, one must be willing to play a prophetic role, and often that role will involve speaking against BOTH political parties. At the end of the day, both are Machiavellian to the core, and will thus say anything to their respective continuencies in order to retain power. Regrettably, Christians often assume this same power-seeking posture, functioning in a way that betrays what they truly think: that societies problems aren't solved by the Gospel, but instead by prostituting onesself out to a political party. It truly makes me wonder if we aren't assuming the same posture as those first century zealots who also believed that the answer was to simply seize political power.

To illustrate my point, I've listed several categories below . . .categories toward which Scripture speaks clearly . . .and shown how both political parties have positioned themselves against Scripture. Admittedly, many of these statements are generalized and thus do not apply to all Republicans and/or Democrats. Nevertheless, it is often the extremes of a party that best point out why such approaches are not the correct approaches in extending our Savior's Kingdom on earth.

THE ENVIRONMENT:
Democrats forget that God granted us dominion over the earth. Republicans forget that this dominion is for the purpose of cultivating and caring for a planet that belongs to someone else!

LIFE:
Democrats refuse to value unborn life. Republicans deny a societal responsibility to care for human beings after they are born.

RACE:
Republicans don't realize that race matters. Democrats don't understand the reason that race matters.

ECONOMICS:
Democrats love to punish hard work. Republicans love to reward excess, greed, and overconsumption.

MARRIAGE:
Democrats don't understand that "homosexual marriage" is a metaphysical impossibility. Republicans don't understand that "marriage" has a much deeper definition that just "a man and a woman." BOTH need to recognize that marriage is not a "right." It is a status of privilege.

CHRISTIAN IDENTITY:
Republicans need to stop calling America a "Christian nation." We never have been, never will be, and the suggestion that we are sends a perverted message of what the Gospel is to the rest of the world. I grow tired of doing missions in other nations and having to explain that the message of Jesus is not materialism and porn. Democrats, by contrast, need to deal with the fact that 1/3 of the electorate in this country is "Christian" and thus we are not a totally "secular" country either. Christians in America have had great influence.

NATIONALISM:
Democrats should actually be proud to be American. Though not perfect, our nation is a great one, and we should not be ashamed of where we are from. Republicans should acknowledge that America is not perfect, and has made its share or mistakes in history, including an occassional display of "arrogance." Nations in the Bible are both commended and condemned, including Israel, whose nationalistic tendencies did not protect it from idolatry, or keep it from God's judgment. America, like every other great empire in human history, will one day come to an end. If not before Jesus returns, then it will certainly cease to exist at that point as the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. As a Christian, my first allegiance is to that coming Kingdom.

I'm quite certain that after reading this, those committed to the left AND right will be angry with me. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus, you should examine this anger and try to determine where it is coming from. Why does it seem we are more concerned about a political party than God's Kingdom? Why does it seem that so much energy gets expended--quite naturally--debating the recent health care bill, but so little energy seems to go toward talking with equal passion about our neighbor's need for Jesus? Why do BOTH sides seem so caught up in debating the principles of a temporary kingdom instead of seeking to instill the values of an eternal Kingdom? Could it be that we have made an idol of our political ideologies? Have we cast Elephants and Donkeys in the same gold as Aaron's calf?

Glen Beck: Poster Child for Civil Religion

"Look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. . .they are code words." So said Radio and TV host Glen Beck on his March 11 radio show. Apparently, Mr. Beck has yet to familiarize himself with the actual content of the Gospels. Not only does his comment reflect a naive category confusion between political and theological issues, it betrays a perverted view of the Gospel itself mixed with a bizzare form of civil religion that Beck--and apparently millions of others--have confused with the message of Jesus.

To be sure, Glen Beck has long since established himself as a strong voice of the political right with some stout libertarian leanings thrown in. As such, it should be no surprise to anyone familiar with his show that he would be in opposition to the current administration's push toward a national health care system, or that he would highly favor extreme reforms to our country's current wellfare net. Such are political positions that Mr. Beck is entitled to. The problem comes when one becomes so committed to his or her political ideology that he or she will reinterpret even their faith in order to remain committed to that ideology. There are plenty of professing Christians in our nation more interested in being good Republicans--or good Democrats--than in following Jesus. This week, Glen Beck became their poster-child.

This is what makes "civil religion" so dangerous. Certainly as followers of Jesus, every aspect of our lives--including the political--should be examined and developed in light of the Gospel. As His disciple, how I vote should be as Biblically informed as how I choose a church family. But when my political views begin to define terms like "social justice" rather than the Bible, I've crossed the line into civil religion.

On the political right, such civil religion looks really attractive; at least on the surface. The problem is defined as a lack of prosperity and the Messiah is capitalism. My sacramental duties in this religion are to get a good education, get a good job, earn lots of money, buy a home, and consume all the good things that the economy has produced for me so as to keep the markets on an upward trend. "The American Dream" usurps the Gospel of Jesus Christ in many American homes, which is why so many like Glen Beck fail to understand the central role of social justice in the life of the Christian church.

The political left has its own corollary message. The problem as they see it is a lack of economic equity. The Messiah is a social servies/wellfare system that redistributes the wealth of the country and eventually ushers in in a utopia, and my sacramental duties include contributing my "fair share" so that the nation can evolve together. Social justice on the left is an end in itself.

The Christian faith commends a much higher view of social justice than that propogated by either the right or the left. Jesus commands mercy toward the poor, care for the widow and orphan, respect and care for the elderly. In fact, the Christian church is the reason so many hospitals, institutions of higher learning, orphanages, soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, and homeless shelters exist in this country. To be sure, followers of Christ don't see these ministries as ends in themselves. We have no delusions about ushering in a utopia. We do, however, believe that when we seek to relieve poverty we are foreshadowing a coming Kingdom where no poverty will exist. When we adopt orphans, we are reflecting the Gospel of a God who adopted alien children into His own family and made us joint-heirs with His Son Jesus Christ. When we minister to the homeless, we do so as though we are housing the Lord Himself. Ultimately, we seek social justice because we believe it foreshadows an ultimate justice which is coming. In short, we do what we do to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ with our deeds as well as with our words.

So wherever social justice is perverted or loathed, you can be sure the Gospel is not well-understood.

Frankly, Mr. Beck's own Mormon faith is of no real help here. The works-based Gospel of the Latter-Day Saints, based on a fictional picture of Jesus and the promise of self-promotion to one's own state of deity, actually makes a great religious cousin to the civil religion he seeks to promote. But the Gospel isn't about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Contrary to what many believe today, the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture.

Instead, the Gospel teaches us that we all--the whole human race, regardless of social status, race, language, or gender--are helpless. Our central problem has nothing to do with how much or little we possess, but instead our utter lack of the holiness required for fellowship with our Creator. We are natural rebels, who have broken the laws of the God who created us. Thus, our Messiah Jesus came to take our sin on Himself and be punished as our substitute, and grant us His own holiness so that we could be in a right relationship with God. With this in view, the damnable nature of the "pull youself up by your own bootstraps" Gospel should be made clear.

Its OK for Christians to agree with Glen Beck. But those who do should take care that they don't end up joining him in his worship of the golden calf called "The American Dream." Followers of Jesus have a higher calling, and such a calling can't be fulfilled when Jesus' commands to seek justice for the poor are supplanted by the worship of mammon.

My Thoughts on the GCR Task Force Report are . . .I don't have any . . .yet.

That I listened last night to the initial report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force--a group that is dillegently seeking a common road toward more effective mission work by Southern Baptists--while myself on mission with volunteers from 5 of our churches in Vancouver, B.C. is a surreal coincidence.

By my "body clock," it was 3 AM when I viewed the online report led by Dr. Ronnie Floyd, which can be found here: I figured a quick perusal of what was said would not only help me adjust my body cycles to the time zone I'm in, but would also help me anticipate questions, concerns, and comments from pastors and church leaders in my association once I return to Maryland next week.

After watching I can tell you with absolute confidence . . .I got nothin'. At least, not yet.

Like most who watched, much excited me greatly about the report. Other things were difficult to understand, and still others raised concerns in my mind. At the same time, there are some things I know:

-Whatever happens, Jesus is still Lord, and His Kingdom will still go forth.

-I know most of the folks on this task force, and their personal integrity and passion for the Great Commission gives me confidence that they are doing their best to serve us well and lead us down the right path.

-I know that ALL of the folks on the task force are sinners--just like yours truly--and that due to the fall they will not get everything right. Therefore, we must continue to pray earnestly for them, and that the Holy Spirit would guide them.

-I know that those who watched and will ponder the report and its implications--including myself--should do so prayerfully and contemplatively, not rushing to stern judgement or holding to "the way we've always done it" on the one hand because of things they may not agree with, and not "flag-waving" and calling anyone who has concerns "anti-Great Commission" or "committed to the beauacracy" on the other hand. Political rhetoric on either side of this debate at a time like this is rarely helpful, and sometimes even irresponsible. Wherever you land, be careful how you treat your brothers and sisters.

-I know that the best way to address concerns and offer perspective is to pick up the phone and talk to a GCR task force member personally. Again, these are people of integrity and I am confident they will be honest, listen to your concerns, and take the thoughts of Southern Baptists into future meetings. Whether you are a huge fan or a huge critic, at this point, the appropriate place to make your views known would be to take them directly to the task force. Blogs and social networking sites have their place, but I honestly don't think they are the best forum for discussing these issues at this time--at least not in detail.

-I know that all task force members would certainly prefer our prayers over and above our criticism. I can honestly say that I would not want to replace any of them and bear the burden I know they are bearing.

So in short, I think the best way to express my thoughts about last night's presentation is with another man's words--a man God inspired. Since by the superintention of the Holy Spirit James says it better than I or anyone else, I'll conclude with these words:

"Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person hbe quick to hear, islow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." -James 1:19-20 ESV

So far, that's my "2 cents." If you think it worth at least that much, please pass it on.

Let's keep praying and seeking God together.

The Most Important Assessment Question

Part of my work with the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware involves helping to assess candidates who seek to plant new churches with us. Yesterday was one of those days in which I spent about 8 hours with two other assessors, a candidate and his wife. Its a long day to say the least for the assessors themselves, not to mention the candidate, who I am sure often wonders when Dr. Rorshach is going to appear with his inkblots. It is a mentally and emotionally intense day, but it is neccesary, because putting the wrong man in the field damages him, his family, the community he is seeking to reach, and the reputation of Jesus.

Lots of important issues get examined in that room, including a guys capacity to cast a compelling vision, his internal motivations, his family life, his relationships with non-Christians, and how he handles and thinks about money, authority, sex, marriage, children, friendships, enemies, structures, and the Gospel. At the end of the day, we put it all together and ask a very simple question: "Do his behaviors and attitudes match those that we know are present in a successful church planter?" Modes of dress, preferred styles of worship, philosophies of church growth, and personalities vary widely among these men, but the one thing that they all must hold in common to work with us are behaviors that are commensurate with introducing people to Jesus, and then congregating those people into new churches.

To do this sort of work, an assessor has to check many of his own personal prejudices at the door. In the end, it really doeesn't matter whether I'd be personally comfortable hanging out with this guy. What really matters is whether he can connect to and succesfully pastor the people he is seeking to reach. Still, there is one thing that is very personal that each assessor should keep in mind. So yesterday during one of our breaks, I placed this one issue on my Facebook wall: "Would I allow this man to pastor my wife and children?"

After getting both public and private, positive and negative response to that status, I thought it would be a good idea to elaborate. Soundbites of the sort found on social networking pages are not the ideal way to communicate something as comprehensive as the thoughts that were in my fallen brain yesterday when I tried to express them on Facebook. Some responded negatively, thinking that I meant that his passing or failing assessment grade should be ultimately tied to whether I genuinely like him, or to how much attention my family might receive from him were we a part of his new church. Honestly, my question doesn't presume that my family and I would even be a part of his church. That is a different, though related, question. The question is one of trust: Is this a man I whose teaching I would allow my family to sit under week after week? When I ask that question, I am looking for the following:

1. His View of Jesus. If I hear a candidate continually talking about the "church" in a way that is disconnected from Jesus, then I'm hearing a guy who has a woefully inadequate ecclesiology, and is consequently more interested in building an organization than in building Christ-followers. On the other hand, if everything from the growth strategy to the structure is permeated with discussion about making Jesus known, then I can be assured I have a guy who knows, ultimately, what this thing called church planting is all about. Such is the reason why theological convictions such as the virgin birth, sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection of Christ are so neccesary. By these things, Jesus is vindicated as the Lord of His church, which He sends out to continue His work, in the power of His spirit. Candidates who don't understand this neccesary connection end up planting an organization that--blunt as it sounds--looks more like a whore than a bride. On the other hand, if a man starts with Jesus and His Gospel, and moves toward an understanding of "church" from that starting point, such is a man who will always be lifting up Jesus. That is the kind of man I want yelling at my wife and kids each and every Sunday!

2. His view of Scripture. Since Jesus is ultimately revealed in the Bible, I want a man who has a high view of the inspiration of the Biblical text. Casual observation of the best Bible teachers reveals an obvious connection: Those who teach well from the text are those who think well aboutthe text. This doesn't mean that a guy has to use all of the conservative, evangelical "buzzwords" like "inerrancy" or "infallability" with the same regularity with which he might use common conjunctions. I know many men who "believe the Bible" yet have little to no idea what it actually says. My experiences with canddiates tells me that while true "inerrantists" don't shy away from using the word, they don't speak about it nearly so much as they practice it. When conversing with a guy I would let be my family's pastor, questions, problems, objections, and guidance all start with the simple phrase "the Bible says . . ."

3. His own Family Commitment. I have a very high view of the value of family because I see an equally high view of the family in the Scriptures. Consequently, I don't want my family sitting underneath the teaching of a guy who undoes these values by mistreating his wife, being overly harsh with his children, being absent from his home too much because of "ministry," or sacrificing his family out of professional pursuits. When my wife and kids look at their pastor, I want them to see the same kind of family commitment to which I aspire.

4. His Evangelistic Practice. I am growing more certain each day of the fact that unevangelistic pastors are the primary reason for unevangelistic churches. Eventually, people will emulate what they see in their leaders. This doesn't mean I want a guy to present the "four spiritual laws" to every flight attendant, or leave a tract at every restaurant table. What I do want is a pastor who naturally shares his faith in much the same way that people in love speak of their beloved. One man we recently assessed wasn't particularly eloquent, didn't have the most winsome personality, and honestly, I've heard better preachers. But he "oozed" Jesus, and literally hundreds have come to Christ because of this. So he passed!

Obviously, there are other very important things that need to be examined when we are seeking to place the best candidates in the field to start new churches. The factors I've listed above aren't the only ones we look at. But I do believe they are the most important. For that matter, every Christian family should ask these questions of the men who are presuming to lead churches they are considering being a part of. The greatest honor any man can give another is the trust that comes with placing his family in your hands. When searching for a pastor, remember that he will watch over the souls of your family, and examine him accordingly!

Remembering Where we Came From: The Kairos Journal Gets it Right

For the past several decades debate has raged in our culture over the question of whether the United States is, or ever has been, a "Christian nation." Our current President recently spoke abroad regarding this issue, assuring muslim nations in particular that we are most assuredly not, while conservative political groups accuse him and others who share his point of view with "historical revisionism."

Christian historian David Barton refers to the multiple references to God by our nations founding fathers, their dependence on divine providence, and frequent appeals to heaven's blessing as grounds for believing that our genesis as a nation was a distinctly Christian one.

When confronted with the question "Is the US a Christian nation?" the intellectually honest believer must respond with "yes and no." On the one hand, when the plethora of theological vantagepoints held by our founding fathers is closely examined, one comes to the conclusion that if any ever intended a state religion it would not be Christianity, but instead a strange mix of Freemasonry and moralistic deism. While many who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence were genuine followers of Christ, Thomas Jefferson, who essentially authored the document, offered his daily prayers to a god who was conspicuously absent from the everyday affairs of men, seemed incapable of performing the miracles described in Scripture, and certainly bore no resemblace to the God of the Bible. As a follower of Jesus, the peculiar beliefs of some of our founding fathers make me thankful they did not establish a state church.

On the other hand, the nation's history and all the privilege that has come from it bear the unique fingerprints of a Biblical understanding of reality, knowlege and ethics. Though the first colonists sought total religious freedom, they saw Christianity as the one faith which could guarantee such freedom. Anyone taking a simple tour of the Capitol rotunda can see this fact by merely looking at the artwork hung around the room. Of the four paitings hanging in these hallowed halls, three depict revival services and the last a baptism. Admittedly, the "under God" phrase in our pledge of allegiance and the "in God we trust" phrase on our coinage and in our halls of government may have been late 20th century additions to our culture. Still, on closer examination it appears that these move to install these phrases was a reaction to forces from the other extreme that at the time were seeking to totally erase the influence of the Christian faith on the country.

On that note the editors of the Kairos Journal warn: if it ever comes to that, we may lose the privilege that comes with our legacy.

Their pamphlet "Legatees of a Great Inheritance: How the Judeo-Christian Tradition Has Shaped the West," plainly lays out the influence of our religious heritage on the founding of western ideals that continue today. Conversely, the document also notes where secularist influence is now at the point of eroding these ideals. Such has already taken place in western Europe, and the editors warn that similar societal decay and erosion of freedoms could take place in the U.S. if all--Christian or non-Christian--fail to understand, appreciate, and preserve the rights and privileges we have inherited from this worldview.

One tangible example of this can be observed in our nation's public school systems. My oldest is a fourth-grader at one of those schools. This past December, the kids spent a day each looking at the history of Hannukkah and Kwanza, but not one word was said about the coming of Jesus Christ and the Christmas season. Certainly our children should be exposed to all traditions, and I'm happy that my son is more familiar with the traditions of others--especially in the highly diverse area in which we live. But why the conspicuous absence of anything Christian?

The editors of Kairos well point out that the very freedom we have to discuss the various traditions comes from our Christian heritage. But this isn't the only advantage to our heritage. Christian ideals such as the dignity of all human beings (which springs from our understanding of humans as uniquely created in the image and likeness of God Himself) and universal human rights was ultimately responsible for the elimination of gladitorial brutality, and the promotion of racial and gender equality. Slavery no longer legally exists in the west because of Christian-conscience-driven Englishmen like William Wilberforce and a strong abolitionist movement among the northern evangelical Chrisians in America. God-willing, a day is coming where abortion won't exist either, because of these same ideals.

Our critical realist epistemology, conviction that all truth belongs to God, and belief in the value of general revelation led to the founding of public school systems and the advance of science in the modern world. Our pluralist convictions--our belief that forced conversion is in reality no conversion at all--led to ideals like freedom of conscience and religion. The arts, architecture, music and fiction have all been touched by the creativity spawned by a Biblical worldview. The Geneva Conventions are simply the practical, modern application of Augustine's Just War Theory. Believe what you want about torture. The fact is that if it weren't for Christian ideals, we wouldn't even be having that conversation.

Though the editors commend the Christian faith to all, the objective of this journal is not to convert. Rather, it is to issue a call to reconsider the way our society seems to be jettisonning our Christian heritage. "Western Civilizzation," they contend, "is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition for its notions of human dignity and human rights, its innovation in science and medicine, its habits of humanitarian charity and universal education, and its rich contribution to the arts. Though once commonplace, this claim has become increasingly controversial, challenged by the revisionists of late modernity as well as those who suffer from historical amnesia."

This is not to say that everyone in our society has to accept Chrisianity as truth. Our own faith teaches us that this won't happen. It is to say that the Christian tradition should be reinstated to its rightful place in our history. As politically incorrect as it may be to state the obvious, Hindus did not give us a belief in universal human rights, nor did the muslim world give us freedom of speech or religion. (Try planting a Christian church in the middle-east if you doubt this.)

"Legatees of a Great Inheritance" is a valuable and historically accurate compendium of the Christian influence on the west, and the editors of Kairos have given us a crucial, "Cliffs Notes" approach to a wider, deeper history, the center of which is the cross of Christ Himself. Read it, and in doing so, reacquaint yourself with the ideals that have made western society great. More importantly, acquaint yourself with the One who granted these ideals, lived them perfectly, and died to give us life abundant, in the here, and the hereafter.

Visit the Kairos Journal online here.

Back in the Saddle!

After some time away, I'm ready to enter the blog world yet again! For a little more than a year--with a couple of exceptions--I took time off from the blog in order to complete some post-doctoral work and reorganize life in general.

2010 should be an exciting year, and I look forward to sharing what God is doing in central Maryland and around the world. Additionally, another book is in the works, and I should have more information coming on that by the fall.

So to the 6 or 7 of you who still check back here from time to time, thanks for sticking with me. :) I'd appreciate it if you would go get a few others and let them know we are back online at joelrainey.net! More later.

Doing Our Part for a Great Commission Resurgence

Over the past several weeks, much noise has been made about the Great Commission Resurgence, a statement drafted by Dr. Danny Akin of Southeastern Seminary, and given wholehearted approval by a host of seminary presidents, former denominational workers, and the current and many former SBC Presidents.

Of course, any manifesto-type document will also draw the ire of contrarians, and the GCR document is no exception to this fact. In particular, it is Article IX that has drawn the greatest amount of criticism, particularly from many who are employed by the denominational system that this article originally described as "bloated." The tone of the article has since been changed, but the essence of its contention remains. Specifically, Article IX calls for the following:

"taking steps toward simplifying our convention structures in an effort to streamline our structure, clarify our institutional identity, and maximize our resources for Great Commission priorities. We should ask hard questions about every aspect of our Convention structure and priorities and pray for God’s wisdom and blessing as we pursue wise answers to those questions. We must be willing to make needed changes for the good of our churches and the spread of the gospel. We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education are three priorities around which Southern Baptists will unite. Our Convention must be examined at every level to facilitate a more effective pursuit of these priorities."

The specifics of how this will be done are not included in the article, nor have there yet been specific suggestions from anyone in Southern Baptist life on how this can be accomplished. Behind the scenes, most of the "streamlining" conversation has been aimed at state conventions and associations, which in turn has probably caused a few night-sweats on the part of some state executives and Directors of Missions
The most recent offering from California Baptist University professor Don Dunavant sends an ominous warning of an SBC in the same fiscal and directional shape as General Motors if we don't execute our future mission in concert with Article IX. But still, there are no specific actions called for and thus, no satisfying clear picture around which Southern Baptists can unite.

As I thought about the monumental task of defining these specifics, it occurred to me that if I started with my own association, I'd be doing my part. After all, as an employee of the system now under scrutiny I should, as a steward of the resources that churches send my association, be willing to take a fresh look at how we operate. After spending some time observing the lay of the land I agree that hard questions should be asked of our current structure on every level. Its one of the many reasons that mine is among the signatures added to the GCR document. But since I’m not in charge of the International Mission Board, the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware, or one of our seminaries, I should probably refrain from seeking to reform or restructure them before I've looked closer to home. In fact, I believe one of the reasons Article IX has drawn so much opposition is because there is the perception (whether legitimate or not) that various SBC entities are looking at one another, each making judgments about what the other ought to do in order to “be a good steward.” If all of us were honest, we’d admit that there are plenty of places in our own budgets where the belt could be tightened. As such, it would behoove each denominational leader—at every level—to take a good, hard look in his own backyard, and that is what I plan to do.

Additionally, some general guiding principles should direct discussion of the future. Otherwise, we are likely to end up merely re-arranging deck chairs on the fiscal Titanic! In the next few paragraphs, my hope is to suggest what some of these principles might be, as well as provide a few examples of how one Baptist association in the mid-Atlantic might choose to address the coming realities. Again, I’m not issuing a subsequent manifesto-type document, nor for that matter am I stating definitively where this association is going. Although my Executive Board is privy to this article, we have yet to discuss it in detail, and they are the ones who must make the ultimate decisions in all of this. Most of what follows is the result of a lot of introspection regarding how the association I serve can be more effective. Nevertheless, it is introspection that I think can have practical and beneficial application.

Principle Number One: Start with your own ministry. I’ve hinted at this in the above paragraph. One of the things I appreciate about Danny Akin is that he understands that the seminaries, including Southeastern, are not exempt from the scrutiny that those who drafted the GCR are calling for. My hope is that other seminary presidents hold the same sentiment, as well as the Presidents of both mission boards, and every state convention executive and Director of Missions throughout the Convention. From my perspective, for example, I should be willing to look at my own organization before attempting to critique neighboring associations, or my state convention. In fact, as I write this post, I've just finished a monthly meeting where our leadership commissioned a Futuring Team for just this purpose, and they gave me permission when building this team to stack the deck with those who will lead us into the future. Namely, young pastors.

If every denominational entity would take a good, long, hard and honest look at itself, being proactive instead of waiting around for another entity to streamline (or worse, waiting on CP dollars to continue to dwindle), the streamlining process might not take as long, or be as hard, as some fear. I shouldn’t wait on the state convention or national convention to make decisions that can be made right now. I shouldn’t wait 5-7 years for the state or national SBC to change structures that my organization can change—if needed—in a year or two. The truth is that its much easier to criticize someone else's structure than it is your own. It is also the truth that all of us are likely to find at least a little extra fat that needs trimming in our own back yards.

Principle Number Two: Denominational structures should encourage, and model, Kingdom expansion rather than perpetual dependency. For example, roughly half of my salary is generously supplied through a cooperative agreement our state convention has with NAMB. Additionally, my family’s health care is generously provided by Southern Baptists to do the catalytic work of a missionary who wins converts, raises up leaders, and helps to plant multiplying churches in my area. Such arrangements are fairly standard among Baptist associations and state conventions in regions of the country outside the south, and I am grateful for the support Southern Baptists have given me.

At the same time, this arrangement sometimes troubles me. While I love our partnership with our state convention, NAMB, and thus with Southern Baptists across the nation, my association has been in existence for 11 years now, and still continues to receive financial salary subsidies from Alpharetta. Were we a new church, this arrangement would be considered unhealthy. New churches are--rightly so--expected to eventually reach a place of being "non-dependent" on outside sources of support. Why should denominational agencies be any different? I don’t bring this up to say that all state conventions and/or associations should stop taking cooperative program dollars. I am aware of many places in the country where Baptist work would cease outright if this were the case. What I am suggesting is this; if non-dependency is possible, it should be expected. Being totally self-funded is a reachable goal for my association. And if this is the case, why should we continue to take dollars from the outside that we should be able to generate ourselves within the next five years through planting new, multiplying, and contributing Southern Baptist churches?

Prnciple Number Three: Structure According to Vision, not Money. In short, laying off staff, or closing certain ministries, or absorbing smaller denominational entities into larger ones simply to "save money" is to operate in a mode of survival. At some point, our futuring team will be given our operating documents, policy manuals, and budget statements. But the first meeting will have none of these things. I won't hold these documents back because I'm trying to hide something in the old structure, but rather, because I'm trying to focus them on creating a new one. Those who make decisions about the future should start with a vision from God, not a current budget statement produced by men. To be sure, budgetary considerations can’t be ignored. Still, the question we need to answer is how Southern Baptists can best cooperate and work together in the 21st century, and its hard to answer that question with clarity and focus with documents in front of you that were drafted in the 20th.

Principle Number Four: Visionary Local church pastors should lead the effort, not Denominational leadership. At the end of the day, the Southern Baptist Convention isn't just a two-day business meeting. It isn't mission boards and seminaries, Conventions and Associations. In the end, the Convention is the churches! It is the churches therefore, that must determine how they will cooperate best as they move into the future together. This is exactly why the Cooperative Program was established in 1925--to foster cooperation, not to maintain a bureaucracy.

I've heard the hearts of many local church pastors, including those who have distanced themselves recently from the SBC. None have expressed a desire to isolate themselves, and all have a desire to cooperate with others for more effective Kingdom expansion. Many simply aren't doing it through the SBC because they feel the current bureaucracy inhibits the cooperation to which they aspire. What would happen if these men were allowed--in a very direct way--to inform how cooperation will take place in the future, as well as transform the SBC at all levels in a way that would facilitate this kind of cooperation? When it comes to discussions of restructuring at any level, local pastors shouldn't just be "in the room." They should be leading the discussion.

Principle Number Five: Structure with the recognition that the mission field is everywhere. Since 2007, our association has more than doubled its international mission budget. In addition, we are scheduled to increase this line item by another 13% for 2010. These monies are used to seed and undergird the work of our churches abroad as they work in cooperation with our IMB missionaries in the field. We do this because I firmly believe that each local church has a unique calling to be personally involved in evangelism to the "uttermost,” and believe the local association should be a point of networking and empowerment for them to reach this goal. Over the past four years we have responded to the burdens our churches have developed for different parts of the world by extending our collective efforts from Mexico, into the Caribbean, north into Canada, across the Atlantic to India and East Asia, and Japan. There is more to come because our missionaries need the help, and our churches need to fulfill their responsibilities to the nations.

At the same time, we have also sought to keep attention--and funding--on community ministries, local evangelism, and the planting of new churches in our own area. By the end of the year, four new church planters will be on the field that were not in the field last year, and two of these planters will have launched public worship services, bringing the total number of churches affiliated with Mid-Maryland Association to 56. Our intentions here are motivated by evangelistic urgency and missiological neccesity. Within the geographic proximity of our member churches are roughly 1 million people who do not know Jesus. These souls are no less precious to the Father than those across the ocean who live in a different culture and speak a different language. And speaking of language, more than 60 of them are spoken in our area, but only 6 are represented in our local churches. In other words, we have work to do in Maryland! And because we have much work to do here, our task will be to structure ourselves more efficiently, not sacrifice local cooperation for international cooperation.

However we structure in the future, it must adequately service the new global realities that we face. The mission field is everywhere! We will continue to focus on the uttermost, but never at the exclusion of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Don Dunavant is probably right, at least in some ways, when comparing the state of our Convention with that of General Motors. But I'd like to close with what I believe to be a better parallel; one that has a much more positive outlook. I'm speaking of course about the Ford Motor Company. Today, they are the only one of the Big Three not wading through bankruptcy court or living off the American taxpayer via a government bailout. Though they certainly haven't been totally "recession-proof," they continue to perform well relative to the current market, and in fact have plans--when others are downsizing--to open a new plant in Detroit.

But this success wasn't due to a lucky reaction to the recession. Ford's current condition of fiscal health is due in many ways to actions taken more than a year prior to the beginning of our country's current financial woes. In September 2006, after five years as CEO of the company his great-grandfather started, Bill Ford voluntarily stepped aside, and the Board hired Allan Mulally as Chief Executive Officer. Mulally, formerly a top executive at Boeing, was charged with restructuring the company in a way that would maximize its performance in the future, and he was praised by his predecessor as being "ideally suited" for the job. It was a good call by the automaker, and to a large extent, Ford's willingness to do what was neccesary almost three years ago probably saved his great-grandfather’s company from facing the same fate as its counterparts at General Motors and Chrysler.

The point? At the heart of any turnaround is a willingness to face reality, coupled with God-given humility. For those of us who seek to serve the purposes of the church, we must add to this humility the capacity to ultimately look beyond ourselves and the sacred cows of our current structure, and look instead to the coming King and His Kingdom. Such humility won't come easy, not for the largest Protestant denomination in North America. But the humble are those to whom God grants grace. And when dealing with the specifics of trying to turn this denominational battleship, we all need His grace more than ever! By His grace, I pledge to do my part in our association. I hope you will do the same.

One Vice Guaranteed to Kill a New Church

Note: At times this post may seem more like a rant. Just thought you'd like to know in advance.

Planting new churches is, without a doubt, the most high-risk, difficult and precarious thing one can do in ministry. As such, doing this kind of work puts an inordinate amount of stress on anyone who dares to try and call together a body of Christ-followers from what J. Nelson Kraybill called "the alley-ways of neo-pagan Western society."

Because our association is keenly aware of these stresses, we take great care in ensuring, as best we can, that there are no vices present in a potential planter's life that could exacerbate these stresses, finish off his ministry, or even worse, his family. Because of the ease with which some will turn to the liquor bottle in times of stress, we require planters to abstain from alcohol while they are planting. Because of the propensity of any man to allow himself to succumb to sin in our over-sexualized society, we encourage--and pay for--accountability software and other tools that will guard against sexual immorality. Because we know the planter's marriage will be tested and possibly strained we require--and pay for--periodic counseling for our guys in the field and their wives.

We do all these things because: 1. We love church planters and don't want to see them hurt. 2. We love church planter families and don't want to see the wives and children hurt. 3. We love the Kingdom of God and don't want to see it hindered.

Still, in spite of these guards, vices will sometimes slip by us. But contrary to what most believe, most church plants don't fail because of major moral failure. In spite of what the media would have you believe by their constant references to men like Ted Haggard and their seeming refusal--more than twenty years later--to stop talking about Jimmy Swaggart, most men in this line of work are good men who are faithful to their wives, and genuinely love the Lord Jesus. I'm becoming convinced that most young churches don't make it for one reason only: the vice of LAZINESS!!!

Now, that's not to say that every failure we've had is the result of a lazy planter. I've seen guys work themselves nearly to death only to watch their attempts at converting and congregationalizing unbelievers fail. At the same time, I've also had plenty of expriences with aspiring planters--enough in the past few years--to recognize another, barely noticable vice that will eventually result in their personal failure, uneccesary stress on their families, and a gigantic waste of Kingdom resources. Furthermore, I've noticed that this lazy-streak in would-be church planters generally manifests itself in one of three ways:

Seeing the "full-time" option as the only option: To be sure, we fund a select number of guys on a full-time basis because the strategy, the target population, and other missiological implications demand a full-time position. But most who plant churches will do so on a bi-vocational or even "tentmaker" basis. If, for example, you are trying to plant a church among Hispanic migrant workers who work three jobs and make less than $30K, its not realistic to think that you will be able to garner $60K in salary from that congregation once it is established. I can't tell you how many guys I've talked to who simply don't get this. They think working an additional job or two will take time away from the "ministry" when it fact, the right job will put them in the midst of the real ministry for several hours per week.

While planting a church in upstate South Carolina years ago, I started a janitorial contract business, which had me cleaning toilets and scrubbing floors twice a week. Additionally, I ran a paper route during the summer months (which paid very little), taught at the local Baptist college (which paid even less), and managed to finish a doctoral degree. I did all these things because I knew church planting among the people I was trying to reach would likely never result in a full-time salary, and it was my responsibility to support my family.

I don't share all of that to brag, but instead to illustrate why I don't have a lot of patience or sympathy for a guy who thinks the ONLY way he can plant a church is if he can colect a full-time salary for doing it. Jesus died in a bloody mess on a Roman cross for you, as well as for those you are trying to reach. If you aren't willing to get a little poop under your fingernails for Him, or if you think such work is "beneath" you because you have a seminary degree, such attitudes are a sure sign of a laziness that will most likely kill your ministry, and church planting is probably not something you should be investigating.

Financial dependency on your wife: Usually during the initial interview process, I will ask a bi-vocational guy "how do you plan, outside of our financial support, to take care of your family?" If the canddiate says something like "my wife will work and pay the bills while I do the ministry," I generally find a way to end that interview quickly.

Now, I'm not saying that the wife can't work outside the home if she feels the calling and desire to do so. At the same time, if her desire is to stay home and be the caretaker of your children then you, as the head of your home, have a responsibility to do everything you can to try and make this happen. Yet entirely too many men are willing to let their wives work themselves to death in order to financially prop up the "ministry" he's involved in.

These are the guys I'd like to beat with a rubber hose, because they have allowed their laziness to infect not only their ministry, but also their own homes. In turn, they have disqualified themselves from pastoral ministry because their commitment to the church planting ministry clearly outweighs their concern for the well-being of their wife and children. What kind of example are you setting for your children--especially your sons--when you send mom out like a slave to fund your ministry while contributing little to nothing tangible to your own family? What are you communicating to your wife about your commitment to her when you use her as a tool to bankroll your "call" while you play the harlot with your church? Additionally, think about the horrible message you are sending to the other men in your church (if indeed, you have even attracted any real men to your church with this kind of attitude) about the priorties they should be setting related to their own families.

Substituting church growth gimmicks for genuine, Gospel-labor: Tele-marketing, direct mail, slick banners, attractive signs on the highway, messages that communicate to the deepest felt-needs of your target audience, and other so-called "gimmicks" can actually be useful tools in gathering and getting to know the people God has called you to reach. But relying on slick marketng methods alone and assuming quick growth because of them almost always leads to ecclesiological still-birth. Regardless of the mimistry model you employ or the focus group you target, nothing--absolutely nothing--can take the place of the hard work of building relationships and sharing the message of Jesus one-on-one.

This is especially true in rural neighborhoods, and even in "front-porch" communities in highly urbanized areas. The decade-worn belief that "door-to-door visitation is outdated" is largely a myth. If you genuinely want to reach these people, you have to get into their lives, have your kids spend time with theirs at the park, invite them to your home, accept invitations to their homes, live life with them, laugh with them, cry with them, rejoice when they come to Christ, and be willing to deal with rejection if they terminate the friendship because of your commitment to Christ.

I've seen a lot of guys spend the lion's share of their first 6 months on the field in the "office," developing kick-butt vision statements that nobody will read and designing a comprehensive marketing campaign with thousands of mailers--90% of which will end up in someone's kitchen trash-can before its even read. Then three months post-launch, they are still "in the office" trying to figure out yet another way to attract a bigger crowd so that the one they currently have--the one that has been precipitously dwindling since launch day--will have the appearance of vibrancy and spiritual health. The whole time I'm telling them "get out! Get into the neighborhoods. Get into their lives! Build relationships first, make disciples second, and then worry about congregating those disciples!"

There is a reason Jesus uses the farming metaphor so often to describe the labor of the Gospel. As anyone who has ever worked on a farm can attest, it ain't easy!

Problem is, that takes work, and some guys are just to stinkin' lazy to do the work!

I'm convinced that laziness, in one form or another, is what is killing a lot of new churches. Gentlemen, these are the front-lines of ministry. It takes blood, sweat and tears to accomplish what God is calling for in this area. It requires long hours, lots of uncertainty, tons of resilience, mountains of faith, and the tenacity of a marine battalion attempting to secure a beach-head.

So with all of this in mind, if your idea of church planting involves anything less than this--any less effort, please call someone else. There are plenty of lazy people here already among our 10,000 church members, and Mid-Maryland Association isn't interested in accumulating any more of them, especially to plant churches.

But if you are ready to play the man in a big-time way for the One who demonstrated on the cross the lengths it takes to bring salvation to the world, it would be our honor to talk to you, pray for you, fund you, coach you, stand beside you and walk with you through this spiritual battle called church planting.

Equal in Essence, Distinct In Function: A Response to Gordon Fee's Exegesis of Galatians 3:26-28

The following is an article I wrote last month in response to Gordon Fee's chapter entitled "Male and Female in the New Creation," which appeared in the collaborative work "Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy." My hope is that reader interaction would result in a humble and Scripture-centered examination of this crucial issue.

Introduction
Gordon D. Fee is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College. He is a prolific author and articulate theologian, whose exegetical skills have been frequently utilized, most notably in his contributions to the New International Commentary on the New Testament. He is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, and received his Ph.D. from the University of California.
The classic exegetical argument for egalitarians who believe all ecclesiastical offices and functions should be open to women has its foundation in Galatians 3:26-29. Based on this text, evangelical egalitarians contend that Paul is eliminating all social and ceremonial distinction within the body of Christ and therefore, is eliminating any barrier to service based on the criteria listed in the text. Since the distinction between “male and female” (v. 28) is among the barriers Paul seeks to remove, the classical egalitarian argument has been that to prohibit women from serving as pastors is tantamount to replacing the very wall of separation in Christ’s body that Paul himself sought to tear down.
Evangelical complementarians have historically responded to this rationale by affirming the soteriological implications of gender equality delineated in this passage, while simultaneously contending that the Pauline rationale behind the Galatian correspondence does not address the particular gender functions within the body of Christ. In short, the complementarian hermeneutic of this passage is that while the soteriological principles contained therein require the elimination of distinctions, Biblical principles of ecclesiology place both genders, equal in essence, into distinct functions within Christ’s body. These functions are not described in detail in Galatians because, say complementarians, the primary focus of this letter is not ecclesiological. To discover gender role distinctions in the church, the appropriate place to look is the Pastoral Epistles, which deal more particularly with church order. In short, complementarians contend that while the Galatians passage indeed makes all of humanity equal in Christ, this equality is only truly realized when men and women work within the church, within their Biblically defined roles. More succinctly, Galatians teaches equality in salvation, while the Pastoral Epistiles teach complementarity within the church.
Yet in his article entitled Male and Female in the New Creation, Fee seeks to overturn the classic complementarian argument by asserting that Galatians is in fact a primarily ecclesiological work. His own egalitarian views are in fact informed by his view that “the specifics of this passage itself indicate that this text has to do with Paul’s ecclesiology” (184). The process by which Fee arrives at this conclusion, and an exegetical response to his contentions, are the subject of the rest of this paper.
Summary
Fee begins his chapter by introducing the crux of the exegetical debate; namely whether the Galatians passage is “limited to the justifying work of Christ alone, or does it include other aspects of life in the believing community as well?” (172). With this question in view, he proceeds with an isogogical analysis of the surrounding texts as a way of making the case for his view of the primary issue Paul addressed in the letter. Galatians, according to Fee, is Paul’s response to the crisis of “Christian ‘agitators’” who “had infiltrated these Gentile churches insisting that men be circumcised . . .the crucial item of a larger agenda of Torah observance that would have included the Sabbath and food laws as well” (173). On this point evangelicals of both the complemetarian and egalitarian viewpoints agree.
The first point of contention, as Fee sees it, is the particular historical lens through which this text is received. “Traditionally,” he states, “it [the strategy for reading Paul’s response] has been to read it through the eyes of Martin Luther” (173). Fee of course is referring to Luther’s monolithic understanding of Galatians 2:16 as applied to his own 16th century historical context. To view the Galatian correspondence only in this light is, according to Fee, “a slightly skewed reading strategy” (173). While Fee sees the theological concept of justification by faith as a primary theme of the letter, he views this theme alone as insufficient to procure a correct reading of the entire epistle.
As Fee sees it, the larger issue pressed in the letter is that of bringing together Jew and Gentile as one people of God. According to Fee, the bigger crisis in Paul’s mind “has to do with whether Gentiles get in on the promise to Abraham . . .without also taking on Jewish identity; especially those marks of identity that specifically distinguished Jews from Gentiles in the Diaspora (circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws)” (174). In other words, the issue of Justification by Faith is to be viewed within the larger framework of the inclusion of non-“God-fearing” Gentiles among the people of God. To make his case, Paul argues in a two-fold way for the “temporary, thus secondary, nature of the law” (175), and then concludes his argument with the passage currently under consideration, contending that the true heirs of the Abrahamic promise are those who have become “one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28b).
After making his case for the primary purpose of Galatians, Fee then proceeds to cast what he sees as the primary issue of this letter within the larger theological motif of the “new creation.” If Jew and Gentile now relate to God on the same terms, then this reality is grounded in Paul’s own conviction “that Christ and the Spirit have ushered in God’s promised ‘new creation,’ which is now awaiting its final eschatological consummation (Gal 6:15)” (177). Fee proceeds from this point to describe new creation theology, and then moves to draw implications of this theological method for the gender issue under consideration in his article. Primarily, Fee contends that new creation theology implies that “equality” not only applies to salvation, but to the entire created order. Thus, “one must begin by taking Paul seriously with regard to ethnicity, status and gender no longer being relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation” (179). Furthermore, Fee asserts that this new order has a strong eschatological tone, which would have been “the primary way the earliest believers understood their existence” (179). Such thinking, Fee contends, is largely foreign to the Western mind, which is mostly accustomed to a culture of equality and thus, unfamiliar to a large extent with how radically counter-cultural Paul’s statements would have been to first-century readers. Fee states that the “nature of this affirmation, its counter-cultural significance, the fact that it equally disadvantages all by equally advantaging all—these stab at the very heart of a culture sustained by people’s maintaining the right position and status. But in Christ Jesus . . .all things have become new; the new era has dawned” (180) Fee then spends the next several paragraphs extrapolating from “new creation” texts (such as that found in 1 Corinthians 7) how these implications affected the Christian culture of the first century. Within the body of Christ for example, no preference is to be given for kosher meals, and no disadvantage placed because of one’s status as a slave. Such distinctions “mean nothing in the new creation” (182).
Fee then applies the aforementioned new creation principles to the relationship of male and female, and in so doing, begins moving back toward the text under consideration with this assumption. In the newly created and Christ-centered home, the wife is no longer merely a member of the husband’s home, but is “in relationship to him” (184). Because they are both members of the one body without distinction, Fee contends that husband and wife are, “first of all brother and sister in Christ” (184). Fee’s conclusion on this basis is that “either may prophesy or teach (1 cor. 14:26)—which are matters of Spirit gifting, not gender—as long as some cultural norms that distinguish male and female were maintained (1 Cor. 11:2-16)” (184). In short, Fee’s logic is that if one is not disqualified from certain church offices and functions because he is a Gentile, or because he is a slave, then neither should a woman be disqualified based merely on her gender. He concludes this chapter by asserting that “to give continuing significance to a male-authority viewpoint for men and women, whether at home or in the church, is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world” (185).
Critical Analysis of Fee’s Exegesis
Before noting the many points of disagreement with Fee, it serves to point out the many places where Fee and other egalitarians find much common ground with their complementarian counterparts. First of all, there is general agreement regarding the overall theme of the Galatian correspondence; namely, the call for understanding that the people of God, Jew or Gentile, are all “one” in Christ. Though it is an oversimplification to claim this as the central theme, Fee will find no complementarian in disagreement with the notion that because of Christ, all distinctions, social and otherwise, become of no advantage or disadvantage. Paul’s declaration that “you are all one in Christ Jesus” (v.28) emphasizes a truth found in both didactic and narrative literature throughout the entire New Testament corpus; all ground is indeed level at the foot of the cross.
Second, Fee is to be commended for his strong emphasis regarding the essential equality of male and female. In Christ, gender is “no longer . . .relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation” (179). Though the Scriptures clearly delineate functional distinctions between male and female in the home and church—distinctions which will be defined and discussed later—Fee emphasizes well that because of the Gospel, one’s gender does not add or take away dignity or value, nor is one gender rendered inferior to the other. Contrary to Fee’s assumptions, complementarian theologians gladly stand with him in this contention.
Furthermore, though he apparently (and wrongly) believes that the complementarian viewpoint is one which generically places men above women, Fee is to be commended for reminding the body of Christ that the Biblical “chain of authority” is never to be understood as all women being subject to all men. Such a contention should serve as a solemn reminder to complementarian thinkers that maleness in and of itself does not warrant authority in the church or in the home. The insipid chauvinism this writer has witnessed in a few evangelical churches is a by-product of this misunderstanding, and those within Christ’s body who subscribe to and apply such a faulty hermeneutic should be strongly rebuked.
Third, complementarians can applaud Fee’s emphasis of the first-century, counter-cultural nature of Pauline thought. “It is difficult,” states Fee, “for us to imagine the effect of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 in a culture where position and status preserved order through basically uncrossable boundaries, and where attempting to cross those boundaries brought shame instead of honor” (180). Indeed, even in the Pastoral Epistles, in the very texts where complementarians make their case for male headship, Paul insists that women “learn” and establishes a discipleship paradigm in which younger women turn to older, seasoned, and theologically-inclined women for instruction. The Gospel injected into a “male-only” culture like that of the first century gives the due respect and honor to being female, and Fee is to be commended for reminding us of this Pauline value.

Finally, Fee’s emphasis on the “new creation theology” of the New Testament and its place in the Galatian correspondence is a necessary reminder that the Gospel brings the male-female roles and relationships into the appropriate balance by redeeming each and setting it back in its intended place. The final application between Fee and complementarian thinkers is very different. Still, Fee’s emphasis on this truth reminds complementarians that the very male authority Fee rejects is given so that men can better fulfill the responsibilities he affirms, and not for the sake of male authority alone.
At the same time, an honest evaluation of Fee’s work on this passage must deal straightforwardly with several inconsistencies and errors. Primarily, Fee’s assumption that the soteriology of Galatians is secondary to its ecclesiology is simply without basis in the text, and when this hermeneutic is expanded, it leads to more error, such as the assumption that the essential equality of male and female in 3:28 predicates the inclusion of women at all levels of service to the church. To be sure, the soteriological themes of the letter naturally have application in the life of the church. At the same time, the letter is written with an almost exclusive emphasis on the restoration of the Gospel at Galatia. How this emphasis informs other issues such as social distinctions and church life are ancillary, if valid, concerns.
Beginning with verse 6 of the first chapter, Paul sets the most serious tone established in any of his letters. In observing the theme of these verses, MacArthur points out the great danger of Jews who had made only a superficial profession of faith, then quickly reverted to Judaism “and sought to make Christianity an extension of their traditional system of works righteousness” (MacArthur 1987, 13). This Judaizing contention that Gentiles must be circumcised was the worst of heresies in the mind of Paul, who cursed those who would promote such a message because it was “another Gospel” (1:6). Thus, the theme of Galatians “is that true freedom comes only through Jesus Christ” (MacArthur, 14). Likewise, the late F.F. Bruce contends that Paul’s aim in Galatians is to denounce the teaching of the Judaizers “as a perversion of the true gospel of Christ” (Bruce 1982, 19). These observations, along with a straightforward reading of the text itself, demonstrate that the main focus of the Galatian correspondence is salvation. Thus, Fee’s belief that a supposed ecclesiastical emphasis grants equal access to all offices and functions of the church to both male and female is without textual foundation.
Secondly, Fee contends that the complementarian approach to the gender issue is tantamount to full capitulation to the reality of the fall. To accept male leadership “in the home or in the church is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world” (185). This assumption is shared by other egalitarian authors like Richard Hess, who dedicates an entire chapter to the view that God’s ultimate aim is for equality in function as well as essence, and that any hierarchy is the direct result of the fall.
More specifically, Hess believes that “God’s judgment included for the woman hard work alongside her husband in addition to bearing children. She would also have a desire to rule him, though he would end up ruling her” (94). Fee shares this sentiment, believing that male leadership “usurps the work of the Spirit not only in the wife and her relationship to God but also in the church—the expression of the new order and new humanity that is already present, even while it is yet to be” (185).
Yet the history of the fall in Genesis 3 is precisely the reason for Paul’s prohibition of women from holding a position of church authority in 1 Timothy 2. Though Paul’s later comments in 2 Timothy and Titus seem to negate the possibility that he was seeking to prevent women from any and all teaching roles, Thomas Lea well notes that the “normative principle behind Paul’s directive is that the woman should not carry out the role of senior pastor” (Lea 1992, 100). Furthermore, Paul’s invocation of Jewish primogeniture to establish male leadership in the home appeals to the created order prior to the fall. Therefore, Fee’s contention that asserting male leadership is equivalent to accepting the “norms” of a fallen world is actually found to be inverse to the very logic Paul uses elsewhere in the New Testament to establish male headship in the home and church.
Similarly, Fee’s view that Paul’s instructions regarding male headship were grounded in the culture of the first century is also suspect upon closer examination. As regards male headship in the home, Fee contends that Paul’s ideal is total equality without hierarchy, yet in the same breath states that Paul was willing to concede on certain cultural issues. If indeed Paul intends to eliminate hierarchical roles in the body of Christ, one might ask why he would be willing, as Fee suggests, to “yield on certain cultural matters so as not to predicate the shame on lesser things” (181)? Furthermore, Fee’s belief that Paul capitulates in certain areas on this issue is to suggest, even if unintentionally, that Paul himself is “settling” for the norms of a fallen world rather than embracing the new creation that God intended.
In fact, the preferred and more consistent way to view texts like Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2 is to see them as their author sees them. Although Fee rightly points out that Paul “radicalizes” the household norms of the first century, he mistakenly views Paul’s establishment of household hierarchy as instruction grounded in the culture of that day. In fact, Paul’s own words put this notion to rest, and clarify that the reason for his emphasis on male headship is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Thus, Paul’s insistence on male headship in the home and church is not grounded in the culture of the first century, or even in the fall. Instead, male headship is grounded in the created order itself, and understood best through the lens of Jewish primogeniture.
Evangelical egalitarianism, unlike liberal feminism, deserves recognition for seeking to make its case under the authority of Scripture. Egalitarians of an evangelical bent have no desire to capitulate to culture merely for the sake of culture. Instead, they sincerely believe their position to be grounded in a sound hermeneutic of God’s inerrant Word. Egalitarian theologians such as Gordon Fee strongly affirm Scriptural inerrancy, the deity of Jesus Christ, the exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation, the necessity of the new birth, and the promise of the life to come. And like their complementarian counterparts, they care much about the church as God’s vehicle of redemption in the world, and forward their arguments because they firmly believe such arguments will help mold the church into a genuine “new creation” community.
With this in view, there is much on which complementarians can agree with their egalitarian counterparts. There is much that can be accomplished when these two groups work together on issues of common concern. At the same time, this debate cannot simply be treated as a tertiary theological issue tantamount to one’s eschatology or view of spiritual gifts. The issues under discussion in the gender role debate go right to the heart of the created order, and color one’s view of a wide variety of issues crucial to the life and health of God’s church. Those representing the egalitarian viewpoint in Discovering Biblical Equality, including Gordon Fee, also understand the gravity of this discussion. Hence, the forcefulness with which they each make their arguments. This writer considers it a privilege to interact with a brilliant and dedicated brother in Christ. Yet even more important is that a Biblically-sound response be given so that the church can be led as God intends, and consequently, become the community of “new creation” to which Fee aspires.





BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F.F. 1982. “The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.” The New International Greek Testament Commentary. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Garque, eds. Exeter: Paternoster Press.
Fee, Gordon D. 2005. “Male and Female in the New Creation.” Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius, eds. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne Griffin. 1992. “1, 2 Timothy and Titus.” The New American Commentary. David Dockery, ed. Nashville: Broadman Press.
Longenecker, Richard N. 1990. “Galatians.” Word Biblical Commentary. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. Dallas: Word Publishing.
MacArthur, John. 1987. “Galatians.” The MacArtuhur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute.

Some things are Just More Important

I'm currently sitting at my kitchen table, listening to my wife talk to her mother, with the faint sound of my three-year-old in the distance, playing with his grandfather. And as I sit here about to write something I've honestly thought of writing for some time now, God is confirming in my heart that what I'm about to write is probably long past-due.

It's time to take a break--a long, long break--from the blogosphere.

Honestly, I've thoroughly enjoyed being able to express my thoughts through this site for over three years. But recently, several things are coalescing in my life that confirm to me that it is time to stop blogging.

1. My Family. I have a wife and two boys that I don't deserve, and spending time here is, I am convinced, time that I've taken away from them. Next year will also be a year for limiting travel, because I have become convinced over the past few months that if I don't make these adjustments, I'm going to miss the most crucial years of my son's lives.

2. My Association. While its been great to hear from many locals in my own area, in the end, I'm not sure my writing here has done very much to help the 53 churches I am privileged to serve. Since they are my primary callling, as well as my primary means of making a living, I owe them some of the time I've spent here.

3. My Life. It just seems as though life has sped up in an almost uncontrollable way the past two years. Over the next couple of months, I'l be adding some additional study/professional development to my agenda as well as another writing project that I anticipate being ready by 2010.

With all this in view, some things simply had to go. Actually, a few things had to go, this being one of them.

The site will remain open. It just won't be very active. It's been great to meet so many wonderful people through this venue. But frankly, some things are simply more important right now. There are plenty of others out there more eloquent than I who will continue to keep the blogosphere busy, and occassionally, I'll check them out and keep myself informed. To those who have read my stuff, its an honor that you considered my words worthy of your time. God willing, as I establish some new life boundaries and "re-set" my priorities according to my gifts, He will continue to encourage and equip others through my work. There is no higher honor than this.

Thanks again for reading!

What Associations were Meant to Be

I have to confess that often I feel a bit strange in my current role as a Director of Missions. I love what I do, mind you. Its just that at one time, I considered Associations to be among the most useless institutions on planet earth...right up there with congress and those TSA guys at the airport.

In fairness, I admit that my strong bias against associations were based largely in negative experiences I had with them early in my ministry. And in truth, some of those perceptions were real, and regrettably, still are in some areas. The charge that the Association is a denominational dinosaur, and the Director is usually nothing more than a washed-out pastor is, as much as I hate to admit, true to a large extent in many areas of the country.

At the same time, two men over the past seven years have convinced me that if its done right, the Association still has the potential to produce a Kingdom synergy unparalleled anywhere else. Churches working together, leveraging their collective influence to extend the reign of Christ in our world is a wonder to watch, and I've never seen them work together with more effectiveness than when they are utilizing a lean, mean, well-oiled, Kingdom-minded Association to do it. The first of these men, Ron Davis, gave me a vision of what the association could be. The second man, my predecessor, demonstrated what it could be by building the association I now lead into a missionally-driven, local church centered entity.

Others have also been "shining lights" in this area, including Mike Day of the Mid-South Association in Memphis and Doyle Braden of Orange County Association, where Saddleback holds its associational membership.

But tonight, I want to talk about the association that I'm currenly the most familiar with; the one I am privileged to lead. While we haven't yet "arrived," I believe we are currently on a trajectory that will end with our being the kind of networking, synergistic, missional organization our churches both need and deserve. The following video was played publicly for the first time today at our annual meeting. It highlights what God has been doing in our midst, and how our association has played a role in His work. In short, this video represents our move toward what Associations were meant to be. Enjoy!

A Vision of the Young and the Old

Yesterday was one of those days that remind me why I live in Maryland, and why I do what I do. Our association, in partnership with Embrace Baltimore and several sponsor churches, helped to launch The Village, a new church in the Hampden borogh, just a few blocks from Johns Hopkins University. Between 70 and 75 people came to this inaugural service, more than half of whom were totally unchurched. The birth of a church is an exciting thing to watch.

But the celebration was more intense because of the way in which this new church came about. About two years ago, we began working through one of our churches with the Hampden Bapist Church. Hampden Baptist is an historical congregation to say the least, started in 1874. Their present facility was erected in 1890, and continues to grace the streets of Hampden with its beauty. The old church grew and ministered effectively for many years, and reached its heyday during the 1940s and 1950s, when the average attendance was greater than 800 people!

The following decades brought enormous change to the city, and the congregation, like many urban churches during this time, watched as the majority of its membership took flight to the suburbs. This decline continued precipitously, and when we began our conversations with the church two years ago, attendance hovered at about 35 people.

Through a covenant agreement, we committed ourselves to maintaining the current facility for the church, providing pastoral care and a preacher for Sundays. In the meantime, we would begin putting the pieces together for a new church to be born in Hampden. Once we were ready, the Hampden church pledged to work with us to start this church, recognizing that the future would belong, not to them, but to this new church. Their desire to leave a Gospel legacy in Hampden was the motivation for their commitment.

Several months ago, we recognized that the time had come. I called a meeting with the Hampden congregaion to tell them we were ready to start the new church. However, it would need to meet in their building at the same time that they were currently holding worship, and as such, we needed to ask them to move their services to a different time. I did all of this based on the covenant agreement that all parties signed, but I've been ministering in Baptist churches long enough to know that it doesnt matter what people sign. If they don't want to do something, it simply won't happen!

Again, the people of Hampden Baptist Church demonstrated their commitment to a legacy that would outlive them. They quickly agreed to open up their building for use by The Village during the 11:00 hour. But the moment that got to me came after our meeting had closed. A sweet lady in her 90s came up to me, leaned over her walker, pointed back at Dan Hyun, our church planter, and said "I've been praying for him for the past two years. The Lord promised me months ago while I was praying that He would let me live long enough to meet this young man and see this church started. Now that its happened, I don't know how much longer I have, but I am thanking God this morning for the future He is giving us!"

After that statement, no one will ever be able to convince me that 70, 80, and 90-year-olds don't have vision!

During the services yesterday, I approached the lone trustee to ask him what he thought. After all, the worship style is very different, and the music in particular much louder. His very direct response to me was "We were promised this more than two years ago, and its about time!"

God was at work in Baltimore yesterday, and He is using the vision of both the young and old to bring the people of this community to saving faith in Jesus! I pray He continues to move in this way in our area for His glory!

2012 Republican Ticket!

I couldn't help myself! I just had to post this because it is just too funny to resist. My friend and well-known missiological guru Ed Stetzer made a comment on Twitter a couple of nights ago that ultimately resulted in the picture above.

Scary thing is, he might just win! I can see it now; a $10,000 tax credit for anyone who plants a church! Oh yeah!

Then again, he's probably best suited for hiw current role. You can read that statement positively (as in "Ed, you are too good at what you do now to leave that role vacant.") or negatively (as in "Ed, keep your day job dude.")

Of course, Ed already has wa more executive experience than Obama! But he's also probably one of those guys who clings bitterly to his guns and religion.

Thanks for the needed laugh Ed.

Football Season and the Need for "Team Players" in the Church

In addition to the beautiful leaves and crisp air that accompany a Maryland fall, one of the things I love most about this time of year is the inauguration of football season. This season, however, hasn't started off very well. I find myself typing these words the morning after my team's humiliating opening game loss to Alabama. A 4 point favorite going in, the Clemson Tigers looked more like the Clemson Cub Scouts. For the next several weeks I am sure I will be frequently reminded of this sad example of a football game by Crimson Tide friends of mine with whom I shared a vibrant back-and-forth "whos gonna beat who" conversation before the game. Turns out, "trash talk" isn't such a great idea after all.

Anyone who watched this game would conclude that the majority of the blame for this loss is to be placed on an inexperienced offensive line. Clemson is currently picked to win their conference, have a strong defense, and the best quarterback in the ACC, but none of that mattered last night. And as I continue to think about this loss, I see a sharp and clear parallel to what is happening in many churches.

The offensive line simply failed last night, and when that happens, the effects eventually trickle over to every other area of the team. Although offensive lineman get little attention when things are going well in a game, their role is crucial. If they don't block for the QB and other ball carriers, it cripples the ability of the offense to move the chains. Consequently, their lack of blocking becomes the cause of short "3 and out" drives that move all the playing time to the defense. Over time, this wears down the defense, thereby further weakening their ablity to stop the opposing team. This is precisely the scenario that occurred last night.

As I consult with churches, particularly when they are in the pastor search phase, it becomes apparent that most feel all that ails them will be solved if they can only find "the right man to lead us." I think I've found a new term for this sentiment: "Star Quarterback syndrome." It's what Clemson had going into last night's game, and it cost them a humiliating defeat. Churches that don't wake up from this deluson will face similar and more serious defeat at the hands of the enemy.

The answer to this dillemma is for churches to realize that Billy Graham himself can't make a difference in a church where, as Paul would put it, all the parts of the body aren't working together. (1 Corinthians 12:11-13) Having a "star quarterback" in the pulpit will not help the church if the linemen, defensive ends, special teams, and even the managers and trainers are not functioning within their roles in the way God intended. Such is the reason we encourage churches to utilize the interim period to shore up in weak areas before they install a new pastor.

Sometimes, the best thing you can do with a game such as that played last night is simply forget about it. Other times, its good to learn from it. Cullen Harper can't win a football game without the rest of his team, and a "star" pastor can't fix a dysfunctional church all by himself. The members of the body have to take responsibility for their own dysfuncation, repent, and begin to function as the body Christ has called them to be.

I hope Clemson can pull themselves together and have a good season. But more than this, I pray that our churches will truly be the local body of Christ so that others will see Jesus in them.

God and Gustav: A Guest Blog

It was exactly three years ago today when Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast and left horrible destruction in her wake. Via a partnership our churches have with the Gulf Coast Association, we continue helping the people of Mississippi rebuild, and now it appears that yet another strong hurricane may very well hit that same area.

Of course,a lot can happen between now and 2 PM Monday. But at its current course, it will make a dead hit at Gulfport Mississippi and travel straight up Highway 49. Lot's of people are, understandably, upset and on edge, and regardless of how strongly you believe in Providence, such convictions are very difficult to apply in these kinds of situations. But I have a friend who seems to be doing a pretty good job at laughing in the face of Gustav, even if he does so with a lump in his own throat.

Unlike most of us who merely watched Katrina from afar, my friend Jack Allen actually lived through it. As such, when he speaks of God's sovereingty and goodness, he's not just waxing eloquent. He has applied such teaching in a very real way in the past. Jack teaches missions at New Orleans Seminary. He is a dear friend, and I asked his permission to share his latest thoughts with you.

As you are reading, pray for the people who live along the Gulf Coast. But more than anything else, pray that the faith of which you read in Jack's post will be present in even more people as this storm moves toward its mainland destination.

Can Gustav Get er Done? (Dr. Jack Allen)
8/27/08
I spent most of this morning doing a hurricane continuance plan for my students. I did this little marvel of strategic planning for several reasons.

(1) Because I love my students and I know that even if they are evacuated in the middle of the night to unknown shores because a terrifying storm is bearing down on their behinds, they will want to know what to read in their course textbooks.

(2) My students will need something to keep them busy so that their minds do not drift to thoughts of The Killer Storm, The Surge, The Flood, The Looting, or The Drowned Furniture (those all sound like great punk rock bands, don’t they?).

(3) The academic boss of bosses around here--Dr. Dallas Cowboy Lemke--told me to do it, and I want to be a joy to lead.

All that academic strategery aside, there are several people around here who confide in me that THEY ARE SCARED. Those of you who know me, I want you to imagine what level of terror might prompt someone to tell me that he or she is scared of the possibility of another hurricane hitting New Orleans. Was the counseling office closed? Maybe so, maybe they left town! I would sooner go to the checkout lady at Walgreens for a shoulder on which to whine than come to me. But, there they are, all five of them (now six) Facebooking, emailing, stopping me at the coffee shop, calling me for advice. My advice? GET OUT NOW! (Not really.)

It’s curious though. If that many people are asking me what to do, where to go, and if there can be any hope, it probably means that literally tens more are thinking of ending it all and moving to Jackson. Oh please, Lord, bring them to their senses.

Dude, I know you’re scared. Your wife admits, but you’re a Southern boy and think you’ll turn gay the instant you admit fear. You won’t. I’m a little bit scared, and I wear hardly any makeup at all.

You’d be a fool not to be a little scared. I went through Katrina. I lived apart from my students for a year, then apart from my wife and daughter for another year. I do not wish the loss of family time or grandmother’s antiques on anyone.

We prayed and prayed, for that storm to hit someplace it wouldn’t matter, like Lake Charles, but God had other plans. It was our turn to suffer, and we lived through it. In fact, for many of us, our faith grew more in the year or two after Katrina than it did the ten before. I see benefits from Katrina. I got new clothes and new furniture! I am significantly less tolerant of peoples’ junk than I was before the storm. Maybe that’s good. I am significantly more grateful for my wife than I was before the storm (she denies the last statement, but I know the truth), and that is very good. In many ways I am a better instructor now than I was before the storm.

So, I have a counterintuitive plan. I am challenging Gustav to finish what Katrina could not. Come on in brothah! I dare you. Bow up to Cat 5 and waltz right up the Mississippi. I do not care. You, Mr. Hurricane, cannot touch me, this city, or anyone in it without the express permission of your Creator. If He says to have a go at New Orleans, then fine. Otherwise, stop making people scared. We have better things to do with our time.