Between The Times

A Theologically-Driven Missiology (Pt. 9: Church & Missiological Issues)

Note: This series of posts deals with the relationship between doctrine and practice in general, and between theology and missiology in particular. It argues that sound theology should provide the starting point, trajectory, and parameters for missiological practice. It seeks a “theologically-driven” missiology both for the United States and international contexts.

In the previous post, we gave a summary of the basic tenets of ecclesiology for the purpose of allowing those tenets to drive our treatment of various missiological issues. Here are four of those issues, and the beginnings of a theologically-driven treatment of these issues:

Bible Study or Church?

One of the first questions that a fledgling church planter often faces is “When does a group of believers become a church?” This is another way of asking, “What are the marks of the church?” In the previous post, we affirmed the patristic and Reformation marks of a church. The patristic marks were the answer to a certain set of questions, while the Reformation marks were the answer to another set.

There is, however, yet another challenge which causes us to raise this question once again. Truly evangelical Christians will always seek to evangelize and to see churches formed. This is the case today as the IMB and other like-minded agencies seek to bring the gospel to, and plant churches among, every unreached people group in God’s creation. In an eagerness to do so, some well-intentioned missionaries have counted as churches things that were not churches. For example, Bible studies or small clusters of believers who know one another are sometimes improperly counted as churches.

So, how do we know when a group has become a church?  First, we should say that churches can be placed on certain spectrums, such as mature and immature, healthy and unhealthy, developed and undeveloped. A group of believers can be a church without being a fully developed, mature, or healthy church. Second, we must affirm certain things at a minimum in order for a group to qualify as a church. There must be a group of baptized believers, consciously committed to one another under the headship of Christ, partaking of the Lord’s Supper. They may or may not have a pastor, but at the very least must be praying for the Lord to raise up among them a pastor. Such a group may be called a church even if it is a very small group.

Church in a House?

The church is not a building; the church is the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Spirit. We do not need a temple because we are the temple. Therefore, where the people meet is of less significance, perhaps, than we tend to think. In many of the contexts in which we are seeing the gospel go forth and churches planted, conversion to Christianity is illegal and therefore the purchase of a building is also illegal. In these cases, of course, a church usually meets in a house. This raises two questions.

Does this make house church a second-rate type of church? It absolutely is not, although churches in the United States and Europe might tend to think so. A church is a church, no matter where it meets. It has the same nature, and is held to the same standards, as the church described in the last post. As mentioned in the previous post, there is precedent in the Scriptures for churches meeting in a house, and such churches are never treated as inferior. A house church is, in every sense of the word, a church.

Is house church the superior model for church? We have no grounds for making that argument either. Those who are involved in house churches are sometimes tempted to speak as if churches that meet in houses are superior in every way. This is not the case. While a church in a house might tend to better fulfill one of the ministries of the church (e.g. fellowship) it might also tend to lag behind in another ministry (e.g. teaching).

An Indigenous Church?

Much ado has been made, over the past 100+ years, about the “indigenous” church. Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson, Roland Allen, and others have argued for a church that is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating, and few Baptists would disagree, at least in principle. Based upon our doctrine of the church, especially our views on regenerate membership and congregational rule, we affirm these principles. In practice, however, we struggle to implement what we believe.

Concerning self-support, often our stateside churches subsidize overseas pastors and fund overseas churches in a way that undermines the health of those same pastors and churches. While it is certainly acceptable to take up special offerings for specified needs, we must be very careful with our well-intended financial gifts. We might very well harm the future of the very national churches we are trying to help.  (1) Supporting national pastors tends to sever accountability between the pastor and the church; and (2) supporting national churches on a regular basis can foster the mindset that an expensive building is necessary for a church to be formed. Those who think in such terms, both in America and abroad, likely will not plant multiple other churches to win their people group, because likely they will not be able to afford to financially. Short-term help, in this instance, may handicap long-term growth. It is appropriate that we lovingly allow the churches we plant to grow without being dependent on us.

Concerning self-governance, the churches we plant must submit to the leadership of Christ, who is their Head. We must not, unintentionally, set up a hierarchy with the church planter (or the mother church or the church planting agency) as the Pope. Long and Rowthorn describe the missiological context in which Roland Allen proclaimed the need for an indigenous church: “In missionary work overseas, concern for ‘traditions’ made missionaries reluctant to hand over real responsibility to indigenous leaders and often confused the Tradition of the gospel with the particular traditions of the church and society from which the missionaries came.” We must love and care for, exhort and admonish, and even hold them accountable, but we must not control the congregations that we plant.

Concerning self-propagation, we must consciously seek to plant churches who understand their responsibility to reach their own people group. We must plant sound, healthy churches that will grow over the long run and not just in the short term, and we must remove anything that unnecessarily hinders the potentially rapid growth and multiplication of the church. They must not see the Westerner as the “key” to the evangelization of their people group; they have the God-given privilege of winning their own people.

Church Planting Movements?

In recent days, much has been said about Church Planting Movements (CPM), and rightly so. David Garrison defines a church planting movement as, “a rapid multiplication of indigenous churches planting churches that sweeps through a people group or population segment.” Evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, have long been praying for and working towards the birth of CPMs among the unreached people groups of the world, and indeed, even in our own country.

But there is much work left to be done to ensure that, here in the United States and across the oceans, our methodology is driven by the Scriptures. It must be biblical theology that gives church planting methodology its starting point, trajectory, and parameters. Of the many substantial missiological issues that cluster around CPM theory, here are two that must be treated:

First, in regards to CPM as a goal: As laid out in Part Three of this series, our ultimate goal, above all others, is the increase of God’s glory. No goal that we have should subvert this goal. For this reason, we are concerned not only with rapidity, but also more importantly with the purity of the gospel and the health of the church. On the one hand, if the church multiplies rapidly, but is not healthy, the long-term picture is bleak. An inordinate emphasis on rapidity will likely lead to reductionist methods of evangelism and discipleship that will harm the church in the long term and actually curb its growth. On the other hand, if the church is “doctrinally pure,” but not seeking to multiply, the long-term picture is bleak. Or maybe it would be better to say that a church cannot be doctrinally pure without praying for, and working toward, the healthy and rapid growth of God’s church.

A final note regarding CPM as a goal: CPMs are not the only worthwhile missiological accomplishment. Sometimes, God does not grant such a thing or He does not grant it immediately. In Hebrews 11, we read of men and women of great faith whose reward was not a CPM; instead, their reward was torture, destitution, affliction, and martyrdom. Many faithful workers who labor in prayer and in deed, hoping with all that is within them to see a CPM, never see the birth of a CPM. This does not mean that their labor is in vain. If they have labored for the glory of God, then He is pleased with their efforts. (Also, it should be pointed out that the early church experienced its most explosive growth only after many years of prayer and work. See Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Early Christianity.)

Second, in relation to leadership development: The rapid reproduction of the church will lead to some challenges in leadership identification and development. If multiple churches are planted in a short period of time, the churches are faced with the question of how recent is “too recent” for a believer to be recognized as an elder. Further, in a context where the church is persecuted, how will these elders train for pastoral ministry? Also, how will they be discipled if they are not able to read? These are not hypothetical scenarios; there are multiple church planting situations, globally, that are facing these challenges at any given time. We must take seriously the biblical teaching concerning the church, discipleship, and elder qualifications and work hard to apply it in challenging situations such as the one above.

Conclusion

These are only a few of the methodological issues connected to the doctrine of the church. Not only are there many more issues, but each of the issues are raised from within numerous different civilizational, social, and cultural contexts. Further, the answers are not always clearly given in Scripture. We must do the hard work of taking biblical principles and applying them to conrete situations. However, though the challenges are many and though they are not easily met, we may conclude with J. L. Dagg that, “Church order and the ceremonials of religion, are less important than a new heart; and in the view of some, any laborious investigation of questions respecting them may appear to be needless and unprofitable. But we know, from the Holy Scriptures, that Christ gave commands on these subjects, and we cannot refuse to obey. Love prompts our obedience; and love prompts also the search which may be necessary to ascertain his will. Let us, therefore, prosecute the investigations which are before us, with a fervent prayer, that the Holy Spirit, who guides into all truth, may assist us to learn the will of him who we supremely love and adore.”

Tags: church, CPM, house church, indigenous church, Rodney Stark, Theological Education

The 21st century presents certain challenges for those who want to present a clear and faithful witness for Jesus. Things are not what they used to be.  Modernity was characterized by a belief that Truth existed and that we could discover it.  Postmodernism on the other hand is convinced (at least tentatively!) that truths (small “t” with an “s”) are socially or personally constructed and therefore subjective, relative and changing.  There is no great story, no grand meta-narrative that explains who we are, why we are here, and where we are going.  However, there is no reason to be discouraged.  The fact is while the 21st century is not a whole lot like the 20th century, it has a great deal in common with the pluralism of the 1st century and the world Paul effectively evangelized.  In Acts 17:22-34 Paul ascended Mars Hill to engage the intellectuals of the day.  In these verses we find a model for ministry to the skeptics and scoffers of our age, or for that matter, any age.  Consider Paul’s strategy as he engaged the culture of his day.

1. Start where people are.  (Vs. 22-23)
Paul initiated a point of contact by noting the fact they were religiously and spiritually minded.  This is true today as well.  Spiritual matters are inescapable because humans are incurably religious.  We should begin where people are looking for a common point of contact.

2. Hit the creation question head on.  (Vs. 24-26; cf. Romans 1)
Either God is eternal or matter is eternal.  There really is no other option.  Paul asserts that God made everything and that includes human beings.  If He is our Creator and we are His creatures, it follows that we probably have a certain obligation to seek Him, know Him and worship Him.  While He may be “THE UNKNOWN GOD” at present, He has not left Himself without a witness.  Creation and conscience scream at us, “There is a God.”

3. Appeal to conscience and our sense of right and wrong.  (Vs. 27-30; cf. Romans 2)
Paul affirms that God is actually quite near to each of us (v. 27) and points to our spiritual sensitivities as an evidence.  Interjecting the idea of repentance, he wisely draws attention to our sense of morality, something unique to humans, which sets us apart from animal creation.  We intuitively, as a properly basic belief, know that terrorist acts like 9-11-01 are wrong.  But why?  Where does that come from?  In Romans 2:15 Paul expands his answer by telling us that God’s law is written on the human heart with our conscience bearing witness.  Conscience shouts to our hearts there is a moral Creator.

4. Move to Christ, His cross, and His resurrection.  (Vs. 31-34)
Ultimately it all comes down to Jesus.  What will you do with Him?  How will you respond to this man who lived a sinless life, died on a cross for sinners and rose from the dead as proof of His deity and victory?  The offense to Christianity must never be in our methods and traditions.  If people turn away, make sure what they are saying “no” to is a cross and an empty tomb.  Some will say “no.”  Paul was mocked the day he went to Mars Hill.  But some will say “yes” as verse 34 wonderfully tells us.  Somehow, some way, we must always get people to talk and think about Jesus:  who He is and what He did.

A Concluding Story
Several years ago I was involved in a short-term mission trip to Thailand.  While I was there a Buddhist man took us on a tour of Bangkok.  While we were riding around the city I began to talk with him about spiritual matters telling him I was a Christian, a devoted follower of a 1st century Jew named Jesus.  To my astonishment he was totally unfamiliar with Jesus. I quickly began with God and creation, moved to discuss conscience and sin, and then turned to talk about our Lord, His death and resurrection.  When I told Him I believed this Jewish man named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago rose from the dead he literally stopped the car and turned around (I was in the back seat) to see if he had heard me correctly.  When I explained to him he had, he sat silently for a few moments.  Then he turned again and said words I have never forgotten, “If this Jesus truly came back to life from the dead and never died again, He would have the right to make a claim on my life and every life that no one else could.”  He did not become a Christian that day, but he certainly grasped the significance of the issue and what was at stake.  Paul said, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”  Whether it is the 1st or 21st century our message remains the same.  It is a message God will honor any time, any place and any where.  This day is a great day of evangelistic and missional opportunity.  It is our assignment to bear witness to the Truth and to pick up the pieces of broken lives, shattered dreams, and unkept promises.  Jesus has always been the answer.  He continues to be the answer today.

Tags: Apologetics, Evangelism, Mars Hill, Postmodernism

Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence is a series of articles by faculty of Southeastern Seminary that seeks to offer some definitions of what constitutes a GCR, why we believe the SBC is in need of such a movement, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life. The series will address biblical, theological, historical and practical issues related to a GCR with the hope that God will use our finite and flawed efforts for His glory and the good of the people called Southern Baptist.

No place is it more difficult to live out the implications of the gospel than in the home. No place is it more essential and needful. We proclaim to a skeptical and cynical culture that they should come to our Jesus. After all, He will forgive you of your sins, change your life, and take you to heaven when you die. Never mind the fact He will not make any difference in your marriage and family. After all we divorce at a rate close to those who are not Christian. Our homes are racked with adultery, dysfunction, rebellion and dissatisfaction just like everyone else. Of course we never say this, but our family life too often betrays our confession.

In 1998 Southern Baptists added an article to the Baptist Faith and Message that addressed the family. We received a lot of heat and criticism from the liberal church and secular media, but the statement is a faithful reflection of biblical truth. The article was added because the times necessitated it. Confusion, even in the Church of the Lord Jesus, demanded that we speak and speak clearly to what the Bible says about God’s first ordained institution. Much could be said about how the gospel and the Great Commission should impact marriage and family, but let me highlight some non-negotiables that I believe must be at the heart of biblically grounded marriages and Great Commission homes.

First, we need Christ-centered gospel saturated homes. Husbands and wives need to find their sufficiency in Christ, and love and serve their mate in His strength. Out of an overflow of love and devotion to Christ, and then one another, we must share verbally and live out consistently the implications of the gospel. Children should be taught the gospel from infancy onward as their parents pray for their conversion, and as their parents put on full display the glory of Christ in the home.

Second, we need to regain the biblical concept of marriage as a divine covenant meant for life. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 says marriage is, “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for life.” In this context we must be pastorally preventative and redemptive. With courage and conviction we must make it clear that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16) and that He has not changed His mind on the matter. Divorce is sin of a most serious sort. We should work diligently and strive mightily to prevent it at all cost. Too many pastors have avoided this difficult topic out of fear of offending those who are divorced and who attend our churches. Truth will offend. Deal with it! However, and this is where the faithful shepherd must come forward, we must be clear that divorce is neither unpardonable nor unforgivable. It almost always has painful consequences, but God’s amazing grace and forgiveness is available to every sinner who repents. No one has the ability to turn back the clock and change history. It would be nice if we could, but we can’t. Those who have suffered the pain of divorce need love and care. They need faithful, biblical ministry. They should never be treated as second class citizens in the kingdom. But, the people we preach to and teach today can be reminded of God’s expectations for marriage now and in the future. They can be reminded and consistently taught that marriage is intended to be a picture and proclamation of the gospel and the relationship that exists between Christ and His church (Eph. 5:21-33). Thus, it is to be a permanent and faithful union until separated by death. Christian marriage is to end only one way!

Third, we need to be clear that men and women equally bear the image of God (Gen. 1:26-31), but that there are distinctive roles and assignments divinely ordained by God for the home and the church. Men are given by the Lord the leadership assignment in both. Such leadership is not autocratic or dictatorial. It is shepherding and serving. It is sacrificial and it is sensitive. It is satisfying and it is specific. Men are called to love (Eph. 5:25-33; Col. 3:19) and know (1 Pet. 3:7) their wives. Women are called by God to submit to and respect their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24, 33; Col. 3:18). They follow the leadership of their husband as the Church follows Christ. First Peter 3:1-6 is remarkable in its counsel and Great Commission focus. There a saved woman is instructed to submit to an unsaved husband that, “they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear” (NKJV). It is no accident that Paul and Peter both ground their theology of marriage in the atonement! Paul, in instructing husbands, points to the sacrificial death of Christ (Eph. 5:25). Peter, in his counsel to wives, emphasizes Christ as our example (2:21). The “likewise” of First Peter 3:1 makes this connection crystal clear.

Fourth, and here I will be intentionally practical. We must affirm the value and necessity of premarital counseling and mentoring. Any church that allows a single marriage to take place on its property without requiring intensive premarital instruction should be ashamed of itself. There is simply no excuse considering all that is at stake.  We must also begin to implement in an intentional and comprehensive approach the mentoring principles taught in Titus 2:1-8. Never has there been a greater need for older, godly men to mentor younger men, and for older godly women to mentor younger women. The potential such an emphasis has for marriage, family, evangelism and discipleship is enormous, the impetus for a Great Commission Resurgence tremendous.

Fifth, we must acknowledge the gift of singleness that God gives to some (Matt. 19; 1 Cor. 7), taps into their tremendous potential for service, and stop harassing them simply because they are single. This may be God’s will and calling for them. We should not forget the significant singles of Scripture: persons like Elijah and Elisha, Daniel, Simeon, Anna, Paul, John the Baptist, and, of course Jesus. Our churches should rejoice and take advantage of what God can and will do through godly and dedicated singles.

Sixth, in a culture that seems to be going in the opposite direction, we must affirm in word and practice the gift of children as a “heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Godly parents will be disciple-makers beginning in the home. They will understand that no greater investment can be made than that they would raise a brood of godly children who will live for Jesus just like they saw in Mom, and especially Dad. Our churches must train parents to evangelize and disciple their children. Men who live out and put into practice Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 have never been more important. Both are Great Commission to the core. Both place tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of fathers.

Finally, parents should be challenged and encouraged to pray and ask God to use their child and grandchildren (!) for His greatest glory. Like our friend Al Gilbert at Calvary Baptist in Winston Salem, my wife Charlotte and I have prayed for our four sons, and now we are praying for our grandchildren, that God would call them to ministry and, if He would be so gracious, to the ministry of the mission field. Heaven and hell are real and Jesus is the only difference (John 14:6). What a blessing for any parent, any grandparent, to be used by God to raise a generation of faithful missionaries and evangelists for our King. This is what a Great Commission Resurgence might look like when the power of the gospel is unleashed in the home. I am fervently praying for such an awakening in our churches and in our homes. Would you consider joining me?!

Tags: Al Gilbert, Global mission, Great Commission Resurgence, Parenting

A Theologically-Driven Missiology (Pt. 8: Church—A Concise Exposition)

Note: This series of posts deals with the relationship between doctrine and practice in general, and between theology and missiology in particular. It argues that sound theology should provide the starting point, trajectory, and parameters for missiological practice. It seeks a “theologically-driven” missiology both for the United States and international contexts.

Missiology is inextricably intertwined with ecclesiology; one cannot be discussed properly without the other. It is probably for that reason that there are so many controversial issues at the intersection of the two disciplines. In this post, we will give a cursory overview of some of the main themes of ecclesiology. This concise biblical ecclesiology will give us a “place to stand” as the next post will speak to some significant and controversial ecclesiological issues in contemporary missiology.

Being the Church

Scripture does not give us a dictionary definition of the nature of the church. What it does instead is give us images and analogies that help us to understand the nature of the church. The church cannot be defined apart from its relationship to God, which is evident especially in the following three images.

In I Pet 2:9-10, the church is described as the people of God, which serves to remind us that we are God’s possession, and that we are a community rather than a collection of individuals. Second, Paul instructs us that we are the body of Christ. Sometimes he uses the image to refer to the church universal (Eph, Col) and sometimes to the church local (Rom, 1 Cor). This image helps us to understand that we are many members but one body (unity and diversity) and that each of us belong to the other members of the body (mutual love and interdependence). Third, we are told that the church is the temple of the Spirit. Our body is a temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19); we are living stones built into a spiritual house (1 Pet 2:5). This image not only evokes the memory of Christ who “tabernacles” with us, but also the idea of relationship. We are held together by the Spirit.

As the Fathers and the Reformers reflected upon the Scriptures, they came to identify the church with certain marks. The church fathers spoke of the church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. We are one, in that we are indwelt by the same Spirit. We are holy, in that we seek to allow as members only those who profess faith in Christ and show visible signs of regeneration. We are catholic, in that the gospel is universally available for all people, in all places, at all times. We are apostolic, in that we hold to the same gospel proclaimed by the apostles. Moreover, the Reformers noted that the church is marked by the right preaching of the gospel, the right administration of the ordinances, and a commitment to church discipline.

These marks, however, are not exhaustive. There are many ways we can describe the church. For example, as John Hammett has pointed out, the church (1) is organized and purposeful, (2) is primarily local; (3) is by nature, living and growing; (4) is centered on the gospel; and (5) is powered by the Spirit.

Hammett also correctly and persuasively argues that the church is composed of regenerate members (1 Cor 5:11), that this is the center of Baptist ecclesiology, and is directly linked to the purposes of the church. While, on this side of eternity, we will never know for sure the state of another person’s soul, we may keep diligent watch over the church, discipling and disciplining toward the goal of faithfulness and holiness.

Doing Church

The way that the church functions is a direct outworking of who the church is. Scripture gives us specific guidance as to how we are to live as the church. Among these are four.

Because the church is defined by its relation to Christ, we are actually connected to one another. Our union with Christ connects not only to God but also one to another. This is evident especially in the Eucharist and in the “one another” commands. For example, we must live in harmony with one another (Rom 12:16; 15:5), forgive and bear with one another ( Col 3:13) and must not pass judgment on one another (Rom 14:1). We must admonish and encourage one another (1 Thess 5:14) care for one another (1 Cor 12:25), and comfort one another (2 Cor 13:11). Perhaps all of the many “one another” commands could be summed up in 1 Thess 5:15: “Always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.”

These commands are given to all of the members of the church. It is not just that the leaders are responsible for the church. Rather, we are all responsible to one another, and ultimately to Christ. The church is congregational (Acts 6:3; 13:2-3; 15:22). While recognizing Christ as the ultimate divine authority, we recognize the congregation as the human authority. We follow Christ as he leads the church. This is not at odds with the appointment of pastors, to whose leadership we submit, unless for doctrinal or moral reasons their leadership is rescinded.

As to leadership, Scripture teaches that the church has two offices, that of the bishop/elder/pastor and that of the deacon. The officers are chosen by the churches (Acts 14:23). The bishop/elder/pastor much be able to administrate (bishop), teach and nurture (pastor), must be mature in the faith (elder), and must meet the requirements laid out in Scripture (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). The deacon is a servant (Acts 6:1-6) and must meet the requirements laid out in Scripture (1 Tim 3:8-13). The pastors, in particular, are to equip the saints for the work of ministry. The church’s ministries are manifold and may be summarized in five categories. Hammett points out that these five ministries may be seen together in Acts 2:42-47. Those ministries are teaching, fellowship, worship, service, and evangelism.

The Scriptures speak of churches that meet in houses (Rom 16:5) as well as house churches that were connected to one another as city churches (Acts 13:1). Further, the Scriptures speak of these churches, together, as a sort of regional church (Acts 8:1), and of the church universal (1 Cor 1:2). The universal church includes believers both living and dead, is not synonymous with any one institution, denomination, or network of churches, and is not entirely visible at any time.

Conclusion

It is difficult to overstate the significance of ecclesiology for Christians in general and for missiologists in particular. We must agree with Mark Dever, who writes in A Theology for the Church: “The enduring authority of Christ’s commands compels Christians to study the Bible’s teaching on the church. Present-day errors in the understanding and the practice of the church will, if they prevail, still further obscure the gospel. Christian proclamation might make the gospel audible, but Christians living together in local congregations make the gospel visible (see John 13:34-35). The church is the gospel made visible.” May we not obscure the gospel by neglecting the church.

Tags: church, John Hammett, Mark Dever

Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence is a series of articles by faculty of Southeastern Seminary that seeks to offer some definitions of what constitutes a GCR, why we believe the SBC is in need of such a movement, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life. The series will address biblical, theological, historical and practical issues related to a GCR with the hope that God will use our finite and flawed efforts for His glory and the good of the people called Southern Baptist.

In 1991, in the heat of the Conservative Resurgence, Paige Patterson authored an important and visionary article, in what was at the time Southern Seminary’s journal, the Review and Expositor (Vol. 88, 1991; 37-55). The title was “My Vision of the Twenty-First Century SBC.” Filled with wisdom and insight, Patterson called for theological renewal based upon complete confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, seminaries that are “breeding ponds for ardent evangelist” (39), theological parameters “which will guide convention life doctrinally” (41), missiological renewal, “innovative strategies” (42), ecclesiological renewal, socio-political renewal (e.g. a biblical response to racism, abortion, church and state, feminism and the sanctity of the home) and spiritual renewal rooted in prayer, holiness, word and witness. Patterson also challenged Southern Baptist to look and learn from other brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we might not see eye to eye on every point of doctrine. Learn from the “spontaneity and participation” of neo-charismatic friends (45), just stay away from “their experienced-oriented epistemologically defective theology and their topical and overly emotional preaching. . . .” (A good word indeed!). The vision Patterson articulated was comprehensive in scope and compelling in its attractiveness for those who love Christ, the Church, the Word and the lost. In a real sense his vision provided more than a decade and a half ago the contours and impetus for a Great Commission Resurgence that, of logical and spiritual necessity, should grow out of a Conservative Resurgence committed to the truth of Holy Scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One aspect of this vision came to fruition with the adoption of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. This was a revision of the 1963 statement. Baptists have always been marked by confessional identity. Such confessions, based upon our understanding of the Word of God, provide a witness to the world of “these things we believe.” They also provide a consensus for our coming together for cooperation in obedience to the Great Commandments (Matt. 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, like prior confessions, addressed particular theological issues with a long doctrinal history, as well as more relevant questions being debated in the current contemporary context. Thus one finds, for example, clear and unequivocal statements on the truthfulness of the Bible; the exclusivity of the gospel; penal substitution; God’s complete and total omniscience (no “open theism”); baptism by the Spirit at conversion; the sins of racism, homosexuality and pornography; the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death; and a complementarian view of the home and church. It is a point of historical interest that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 committee was appointed by Paige Patterson and chaired by Adrian Rogers.

All of us recognize that as a human confession this statement is not perfect. Furthermore, it is not exhaustive. Still, it can serve as a sufficient guide providing good, solid parameters for ecclesial and missional cooperation among Southern Baptist. It is instructive to note that all six seminaries have pledged to teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. In addition, Southeastern Seminary and Southern Seminary also teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles penned by Basil Manly Jr. in 1858. Finally, and uniquely, Southeastern Seminary also requires each and every faculty member to affirm “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” and “The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” These latter statements are in perfect harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in my judgment, and taken together, provide a healthy and robust standard of confessional identity and conviction. Thus there should be no question about what we believe or where we stand. There should be no doubt as to our vision or our mission. When other denominations are in retreat, apparently seeing how little they can confess, Southern Baptists are headed in a different direction all together. We desire to be clear and transparent in what we believe, preach and teach. There is no biblical gospel without theological content. There is no Great Commission to pursue without doctrinal conviction. This is who we are. This is where we stand. This is what we believe. This is why we go!

Tags: Abstract of Principles, Adrian Rogers, Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Confessionalism, Danvers Statement, Paige Patterson

I am convinced that the most important characteristic or qualification of a minister is personal integrity.  I address this several times every semester at Southeastern Seminary.  Paul says in 1 Tim. 3:2 that a leader in the church must be blameless or above reproach.  Personal integrity is foundational to everything else that one does in ministry.  Second, I believe compassion and love for those we serve is crucial.  Jesus said that love would be a distinguishing mark by which men would know that we are His disciples.  Therefore, a genuine love and compassion for our people is absolutely essential.  Third is biblical fidelity and conviction.  A minister of Jesus Christ should live a Bible saturated life.  If a minister does not believe in the inspiration and complete truthfulness of Scripture, in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible, in my judgement he is not qualified to be a minister of the gospel.  Our view of the Bible should be the same as that of the Lord Jesus and it is clear that He did not doubt a jot or a tittle (Matthew 5:17 & 18).  Fourth, a minister must have a passion for the souls of lost men and women, boys and girls.  Jesus came “to seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).  We, like our Lord, must be about the task of sharing the gospel, and do so as the Puritans said, “promiscuously.” 

At Southeastern Seminary we are committed to training Apostle Pauls.  We want men and women with keen minds and theological conviction balanced with a passion for missions and evangelism.  Theology and missions should never be divorced.  Indeed, each will be impoverished without the other. 

Theological preparation can assist a minister in each of these areas.  Of course it is the case that one can be competent without theological education, but theological education can take each of these four vital areas and assist the minister in his growth and development.  Is theological preparation, then, the most important qualification or even a necessary qualification?  No.  But it certainly can be a great benefit for those who take the opportunity to pursue it.

I am convinced that tremendous problems will arise in a church as a result of a lack of theological education among its leadership.  Our churches overall are grossly anemic in their basic knowledge of biblical and theological truth.  The blame for this must lay at the feet of the ministers who are responsible for preaching the Word and also for committing biblical truth to faithful men who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).  Many of our churches are vulnerable to the latest theological fad or “wind of doctrine.”  False teachings like open theism, salvific inclusivism, and even universalism can slip in unchecked if pastors are not instructing and exhorting their people in sound doctrine and refuting those who teach error (Titus 1:9).  Theological education can assist a minister in knowing both what he believes and why he believes.  It can help him understand the great theological debates throughout the history of the church (think divine sovereignty and human responsibility!) and to more readily recognize theological danger and error when it appears.  Grounding ministers in biblical and theological truth can help them do the same for their church and enable a church to stand strong for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). 

I believe the minimum requirement in terms of theological education to be the master of divinity.  Again, there are always exceptions to the case, but by and large this three year 90 hour program of study is what I would expect minimally for the minister who would pastor my church.  Of course, more education is better.  In fact, I encourage every minister that attends our Seminary to go as far in their theological education as they possibly can.  Furthermore, I tend to throw down a gauntlet, but one that I believe is true, and say to them that anyone who has the ability, calling and opportunity to go all the way to the highest level and does not do so sins against God and prostitutes the gifts that the Lord has given them.  It is a matter of Christian stewardship that we hone and refine the gifts that God has given us for His honor and His glory.  Indeed, God deserves excellence in everything we do (1 Cor. 10:31).  This includes our loving Him with our mind (Matt 22:37).

At Southeastern Seminary we seek to address the full orbed expectations of the minister of the Gospel.  We begin by laying a strong foundation in biblical and theological studies.  We continue to be committed to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, and we believe that they are absolutely essential for the faithful preaching of the Word of God.  We do not, however, want our ministers to become ivory tower theologians who are “no good” to the common people.  Therefore, we balance our curriculum with strong emphases in missions, evangelism, leadership, biblical counseling, and expository preaching.  We have developed “interim partnerships” with local churches who teach our students what they can learn only in the context of a local church.  We want to expose our students to various models and approaches to ministry, critiquing all that we examine in light of Scripture. 

Southeastern Seminary believes there is really only one valid model for preaching for an effective ministry.  That model is exposition.  We recognize that exposition can be done in different ways, however, the faithful preaching of God’s Word, book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and word by word cannot be neglected if the church is to be dynamic, vibrant and alive.

Far too many seminaries have compromised in the area of biblical and theological conviction, and as a result they have adopted a more therapeutic model when it comes to educating their ministers.  A pastoral care model or a cooperate CEO model too often dominates rather than a pastor-teacher model (Eph. 4:11) which is true to Scripture.  The good shepherd of a local church will feed and lead, preach and protect his flock (1 Pet. 5:1-4).  To do this effectively he must be convicted of biblical truth and grounded in biblical truth.  At Southeastern Seminary we place a premium emphasis on the classic disciplines of theological education, and we are convinced that this is absolutely necessary for the health and vitality of the church in the 21st century. 

The single most important reason that someone who believes that God has called them to ministry should pursue theological education is because it will enable them to be a better minister.  Billy Graham has often said that if he could add anything to his ministry, it would be a seminary education.  He believes that the ministry that God has given him would have been even more productive had he availed himself of seminary.  That is a strong word from a very well respected voice.  I believe all persons who are considering vocalional ministry would do well to heed the counsel of this great servant of God.  I don’t think they will be disappointed, and neither will the people they serve.

Tags: Seminary, Southeastern Seminary, Theological Education

This is the third post in a series dedicated to the relationship between the gospel and Baptist identity. My previous post argued that Baptists should primarily embrace a Protestant Christian identity that is nuanced by a cluster of ecclesiological distinctives that have historically been associated with the Baptist tradition. Beginning with this post, the rest of the series will address those historic Baptist distinctives.

The foundational theological distinctive among Baptist Christians is a commitment to a regenerate church membership. My colleague John Hammett goes so far as to call regenerate church membership “the Baptist mark of the church.”[1] Proponents of this position argue that a local church’s membership is to be comprised only of individuals who have been born again and placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Why Regenerate Church Membership?

It is worth asking why Baptists consider regenerate church membership to be such an important doctrine. There are at least two reasons. First, as Protestants, Baptists adhere to the Scripture principle and believe that biblical doctrine and practice trumps all religious traditions, creedal documents, and private theological opinions. This means that Baptists believe in a regenerate church membership because we honestly believe this practice is both taught and modeled in the New Testament.

But there is a second reason for our commitment to regenerate church membership. Simply put, Baptists believe that a church that practices regenerate membership is more consistent with the gospel than a church that grants any form of membership to non-Christians. Baptists believe that the local church is the community of the gospel, and as such it ought to be comprised of individual “gospel people” who have voluntarily covenanted together as a local expression of the body of Christ.

Alternatives to Regenerate Church Membership

There are several alternatives to regenerate church membership. It is worth briefly discussing two of these alternatives: pre-Christian and non-Christian membership.

A form of pre-Christian membership is practiced in many pedobaptist churches whenever an infant is sprinkled and declared to be baptized or christened. Whether the child is considered a “covenant child,” a child of the Roman Catholic Church, or the pedobaptism is considered the first step in the child’s (presumptive) regeneration, the result is the same: a membership-like status has been conferred on an individual who has not confessed personal faith in Christ.

To be fair, most pedobaptist groups employ some type of confirmation or other spiritual right-of-passage before an individual can become a full member of the church. But by “baptizing” infants and making a distinction between the spiritual status (or at least the spiritual potential) of the children of Christians versus the children of non-Christians, a quasi-membership status has been granted to an individual based upon something other than that person’s faith in Christ.

Many mainline churches practice an openly non-Christian membership. In some congregations, faith in Christ is not a prerequisite to church membership. Many liberal churches do not even affirm the concept of a personal faith in Christ, instead opting for vague concepts like following their interpretation of Christ’s ethical teachings. Some even totally jettison traditional Christianity and opt for some form of soteriological pluralism. Non-Christian membership is generally not practiced among evangelical congregations.

Baptist reject both pre-Christian and non-Christian membership. We do so because these practices both fail to reflect the New Testament pattern and undermine–and sometimes sever–the relationship between the gospel and the church. Only those who claim to embrace the gospel are to be included in the community of the gospel.

Preserving Regenerate Church Membership

Although some other Christian groups affirm a regenerate church membership in principle, Baptists argue that baptistic Christians most consistently adhere to regenerate church membership. Though we may fail at times, we honestly try to “practice what we preach” when it comes to this ecclesiological distinctive. We do this through at least three practices, two of which are discussed below (the other is discussed in the next post).

The first practice is the adoption of local church covenants. Historian Charles Deweese defines a church covenant as “a series of written pledges based on the Bible which church members voluntarily make to God and to one another regarding their basic moral and spiritual commitments and the practice of their faith.”[2]

Baptists churches have been adopting church covenants since our inception in the 17th century, having imported the practice from our English Separatist forefathers. Among Southern Baptists, most churches drafted their own covenants until the latter half of the 19th century. In the years after the Civil War, many churches simply adopted the covenant that was included in J. Newton Brown’s Church Manual of 1853 and reprinted in J. M. Pendleton’s Church Manual of 1866.

Comparatively few Southern Baptist churches placed great value on church covenants for most of the 20th century. Most churches included a covenant in their legal documents; often the Brown/Pendleton covenant. Some churches, especially newer churches, did not even bother adopting a covenant. Fortunately, in recent years many churches have reemphasized the “owning” of a church covenant as a precondition of membership and an aid in promoting meaningful church membership.

The second practice, which often accompanies the adoption of local church covenants, is the exercise of redemptive church discipline. Church discipline has received a great deal of attention in recent years among both pastors and scholars. In 2008, the SBC adopted a much-discussed Resolution on Regenerate Church Membership and Church Member Restoration at the annual meeting in Indianapolis.

According to Theron Price, church discipline is intended to help preserve three principal concerns of a local church: [3]

1. The purity of her doctrine, which is threatened by heresy
2. The holiness of her members, which is threatened by sin
3. The unity of her fellowship, which is threatened by schism

Church discipline is not intended to be punitive, but rather is meant to be redemptive. To say it another way, church discipline is intended to be a means of grace in bringing about conviction and repentance in the life of the offender. This is true of both Christians and non-Christians. Church discipline helps to convict and correct genuine believers who are promoting doctrinal error, engaging in ongoing, unrepentant sin, or undermining the unity of the church. Church discipline also helps to remove potentially unregenerate people from church membership by excommunicating incorrigible individuals, thus providing one important safeguard against non-Christian membership.

Historically, church discipline was greatly valued by Baptists; one only needs to read local church minutes or associational minutes from the 18th and 19th centuries to see that church discipline was a priority. Like church covenants, church discipline was largely ignored during the 20th century but has been reemphasized among many Southern Baptist churches over the course of the last generation.

Conclusion

Baptists believe that New Testament churches were covenanted communities of individuals who had embraced the gospel. And we believe our own churches should be as well. As the Baptist mark of the church, regenerate church membership is the central Baptist distinctive. The other historic Baptist distinctives only function correctly and consistently when churches are comprised of genuine believers. When this is not the case, the other distinctives are misunderstood, corrupted, or ignored. Many of our own contemporary problems in local churches can likely be traced to a failure to seriously maintain a regenerate church membership while practicing, at least in theory, other Baptist distinctives.

————

Notes:

[1] John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Kregel, 2005), 81.

[2] Charles W. Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants (Broadman, 1990), viii.

[3] Theron D. Price, “Discipline in the Church,” in What is the Church? A Symposium of Baptist Thought, ed. Duke K. McCall (Broadman, 1958), 164.

Tags: Baptist Identity, church covenants, church discipline, Gospel, regenerate church membership

A Theologically-Driven Missiology (Pt. 7: Salvation)

Note: This series of posts deals with the relationship between doctrine and practice in general, and between theology and missiology in particular. It argues that sound theology should provide the starting point, trajectory, and parameters for missiological practice. It seeks a “theologically-driven” missiology both for the United States and international contexts.

The doctrine of salvation receives as much attention as any of the classical loci of Christian doctrine. It is central to missiological method, and yet ironically, it seems that we have a difficult time making a “full connect” between the doctrine and our methods and strategies.

The Redemption of Man

Salvation is God’s work from beginning to end (Ps 3:8; Heb 12:2). At the beginning, we see God’s hand in election, the gracious decision by which He elects man to salvation. We see God’s hand also in His calling of man back to himself (Gen 3:9), and in calling proclaimers who are an instrument of others’ salvation (Rom 10:14-15).

God is also at work as man repents and places faith in Christ. He is converted as God regenerates him, renewing his inner man, and imparting eternal life to him. Together, conversion and regeneration shed light upon the fact that a saved man now has union with Christ. This salvation is wrought by Christ’s work on the cross, whereby man may be justified and sanctified. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

We seek to form missiological practices that recognize all aspects of God’s work of salvation. Because of the limited scope of this post, I will choose only a handful of the many facets of soteriology and give a limited exposition of their implication for missiology.

We must recognize that it is God who calls.

In the ordo salutis, we seek God drawing men unto Himself (Gen 3:9; Lk 15:1-7). While we as human beings will never have sure or final knowledge of who God is drawing unto Himself, one thing that we may do is pray that God will bring across our paths those men and women whom God is drawing unto himself. These may very well be men and women through whom He will declare his glory to an entire city or people group. We may pray for particular people, asking God to begin drawing them unto Himself.

We must call them to repentance and not merely mental assent.

We must work hard to form evangelism and discipleship practices that recognize all of the salvific process. We cannot ignore any one part (e.g. calling, belief, repentance, etc.) One of the most oft-ignored aspects of salvation is repentance. Therefore, we seek to form testimonies, and gospel presentations, and Bible-study sets that call men to repentance rather than merely to mental assent. This means that men must turn their backs on false saviors; they must repudiate tribal gods and witch doctors; they must reject their belief that the Qur’an is God’s revelation and that Muhammad is His prophet; they must cease to worship in spirit temples and ancestral shrines; and they must turn their back on the worship of sex, money, and power.

We must preach salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and do so in a way that is both faithful and meaningful.

We must work hard to preach justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. We must do so in a way that is both faithful and meaningful. By faithful, I mean that we must be true to the authorial intent of the biblical writers, to the meaning of the text of Scripture, and by meaningful I mean that we must communicate in such a way that the audience understands our message in the way we intend it. We must be very careful, as we face cross-cultural and cross-linguistic challenges, to work hard not only to rightly divide the Word, but also to clearly proclaim the Word.

We must beware of mechanical or magical understandings of salvation.

During a recent conversation with a regional leader for the International Mission Board, he mentioned that perhaps the greatest confusion for many of our good Baptist people is the tendency toward a “magical” or “mechanistic” view of salvation. We must correct the tendency to view salvation as mere mental assent, mere verbal profession of faith, or mere repetition of a prayer of salvation. If a person holds to such a reductionist view of salvation, he will have a wrong goal: the maximum number of people who have prayed a prayer or made a verbal profession. Further, he will have given false assurance of salvation to men who are not saved, and a false testimony to the church and the broader community. Finally, he will likely create methods of evangelism that are reductionist to the extreme and harmful to the progress of the gospel and the planting of healthy churches.

We must beware of both reductionism and complexification.

One who holds to a mechanical or magical understanding of salvation will likely create methods of evangelism, discipleship, leadership training, and theological education that are reductionist to the extreme, that misunderstand what we are saved from and what we are saved for. Others, however, run the opposite risk of crafting methods that are unnecessarily complex. Here, the tendency is to attempt to dump one’s historical, systematic, and philosophical theology on the new convert’s head. Instead, he needs to be taught the gospel in a manner that he is capable of understanding and reproducing. We must resist, therefore, the twin errors of reductionism and complexification.

We must make sure that our methods are grace- and gospel-centered.

We must make sure that our missiological methods are gospel-centered and therefore grace-centered. Since it is only the gospel that saves, our methods should be gospel-centered. Since salvation is by grace through faith, our methods should be centered on grace. Too often, we unwittingly teach and operate in a legalistic, works-centered manner. Further, we fail to realize that it is not only justification which comes by grace through faith, but sanctification also.

We must learn how to disciple.

We must learn to make disciples, and we must learn that discipleship is not a once-a-week Bible study.

When we teach the Scriptures, we seek to teach the whole counsel of God. Evangelism and discipleship are best accomplished by teaching the Grand Redemptive Narrative (GRN). We don’t need months or years to do this. It may be accomplished in 15 minutes, in an hour, or in a 20 lesson Bible study set. This narrative is what explains to us who God is, who we are, what salvation is, and (I would like to stress) exactly what it means that salvation comes by grace through faith.

We must also learn to do obedience-based teaching. We teach men and women to obey the commands set forth in Scripture. This encourages and equips them to begin obeying their Lord and living the Christian life from the very outset. It is best if obedience-based teaching is done in the context of GRN teaching, so that the disciple does not revert to a works-centered, legalistic view of the gospel.

We must learn that discipleship is life-on-life. Discipleship is not accomplished merely by information dissemination. It is caught just as much as it is taught. We must roll up our shirt sleeves, and get involved in people’s lives, eating with them, laughing with them and weeping with them. We must show a man what it means for him to love his wife and children, and show him what it means to carry himself with the grace and love of Christ, and show him how to remain faithful in the midst of adversity.

Conclusion

In sum, the doctrine of salvation is a most precious doctrine, displaying for us the salvation that we have found in Christ Jesus, to the glory of God the Father. It is our responsibility and high privilege to proclaim that gospel in a manner worthy of our Lord. Whatever we model, for the new believers we disciple and for the churches we plant, will likely be copied for generations to come. Nothing less than the purity of the gospel and the health of the church is at stake.

Tags: calling, discipleship, Evangelism, faith, repentance

This past week Betweenthetimes.com began a series of posts on the call for a Great Commission Resurgence with the post of Danny Akin’s “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence, Part 1: Continuity with the Conservative Resurgence.” The series will continue over the next months, typically with a new post on the topic each week. Our aim is to discuss the contours of a Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) in the Southern Baptist Convention. Others in the SBC have used the language of GCR to call the convention to renewed focus on the gospel and the kingdom among our churches and entities. We hope to offer some definition of what constitutes a GCR, why we believe the SBC is in need of such a movement, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life.

In Part 1 of this series, Danny Akin noted that at the heart of the call for a Great Commission Resurgence in SBC life is “a renewed passion for the pursuit and fulfillment of Matthew 28:16-20.” In this post I want to address the foundation upon which such a passion and pursuit rests. We must consider the theological foundation for a GCR because a GCR rests on God himself.

The triune God is the Lord who is life and love. He is Yahweh, the name by which God revealed himself to Moses, which indicates that the Creator who made covenant with Abraham and who delivered Israel from Egypt is the self-existent One. He is the “I AM”, and he is not only the “one true living God,” he is life itself. This life is shared in eternity among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the creation of this world, God existed perfectly in his triunity; God’s life is not dependent on anyone or anything.

“God is love” is one of the first confessions Christians teach their children. The eternal nature of divine love is exhibited in the prayer of Jesus: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24). It is in God’s nature to love, and divine love existed before the creation of the world within the love shared between the Father, Son, and Spirit. This love is not dependent on anyone or anything. God is the God who is not simply living, but who is life itself; God is the God who is not simply loving, but who is love itself.

God chose to share his life and love by creating a world. God did not need a world, since he exists perfectly within himself. That he chose to share life by creating the cosmos is a witness to his love. He created the world to share life and to create a people for himself, creatures made in his own image and likeness, so that they would follow the Great Commandment, to love the God who first loved them, and to give God the glory due his name.

Thus, Moses records in Gen 2:7 that Yahweh breathed life into Adam, and God put at the center of the land he prepared for man a tree called the Tree of Life (Gen 2:9). God created a woman as a companion for Adam, and they were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” God’s creatures, including the one made in his image, are to reproduce life. Man, given life by God, was made to love God and to glorify him. All creation is called to join with God himself in loving the triune God.

When Adam and Eve sinned, the life of those made in God’s image is placed in jeopardy, because sin destroys life. God, therefore, sets into motion his mission to redeem a people for himself, a people who will worship God for all eternity. The missio Dei, the “mission of God” includes the Great Commission, but it is rooted in the very being of God himself. God created a world so that his creatures could share both life and love. But in the face of the death and enmity bred by sin, it is the mission of God to restore life and love. God’s mission proceeds from God’s very essence. The church’s mission is rooted in the mission of God. The church pursues its mission because it is Christ’s church. We are being conformed to Christ’s image and we reflect his glory as we participate in the missio Dei.

The foundation upon which a Great Commission Resurgence rests is God himself. We are called by God to this mission and empowered by the Spirit of God to engage in it. As God’s redeemed, we are a people who passionately pursue the Great Commandment by fulfilling the Great Commission. When God finally restores all things, the new heavens and the new earth are centered once again on life with God – the New Jerusalem has a “river of life” (Rev 22:1) and a “tree of life” (Rev 22:19), which recall the original creation. This new heavens and new earth is the place in which God’s people will gladly fulfill the Great Commandment, adoring and worshiping the triune God for all eternity, all to the glory of God. Our call for a Great Commission Resurgence is rooted in these truths about our triune Lord.

Tags: Danny Akin, Great Commission Resurgence, Missio Dei, Mission of God

Often I am asked about how one should conduct themselves in an interview for a ministry position.  Usually the conversation is one way: the committee asks the questions and the prospective candidate responds.  This is right and fine but also incomplete.  A potential minister should also have questions he needs answers to as well.  Such questions can help in discerning is this the place God would have me serve.  Below is an extensive list of potential questions for the interview process.  The list, though long, is not exhaustive.  Further, not every question may need to be addressed for every ministry opportunity.  I believe one cannot have too much information when it comes to choosing leaders in our churches.  I believe this is true both for the church and the minster.  Hopefully these questions can guide and aid in a fruitful conversation for both parties in this crucially important process.

1. Do you have a church constitution/bylaws that I can see?
2. Do you have a church budget I can review?
3. Are you committed to reaching all people within your geographical area (regardless of race, social or cultural status)?
4. Do you believe the pastor is called to lead the church?  Does your church believe this also?
5. Who decides who fills the pulpit?
6. Who calls and hires staff?  What is the relationship of the pastor and staff?  Do you utilize/have a personnel committee?  What is their function?
7. What is the role of the deacons and their relationship to the pastor?  Do your deacons rotate?
8. To whom is the pastor accountable?  The staff?
9. For what reasons would you consider firing the pastor?  A staff person?  Has your church ever fired a pastor or staff person?  If so, when and why?
10. What were the tenures of your last pastors?  Why did they leave?
11. What is the committee structure of your church and how are they elected?
12. What expectations do you have for the pastor’s wife and family?  Staff and their spouse?
13. Would you provide for me the names and telephone numbers of your last three pastors so that I can visit with them about their ministry here?
14. What are the doctrinal essentials your church has for: a) the pastor; b) worship leaders; c) teachers; d) membership?
15. May I share with you certain doctrinal standards and emphases of my theology/ministry?
16. What is the present membership of the church?  Is it in a pattern of growth or decline?  Where do the members live in relation to the location of the church?  What is the age balance of the membership?  What is the educational level of the membership?
17. Is there a clear and complete job description of all staff positions?
18. What, if any, secretarial and other assistance will be at my disposal?
19. Has the church been successful in meeting its yearly budget?
20. What are the music/worship concepts of the church?
21. Could the community be characterized as static, transient, growing or declining?
22. Would the church be responsive to innovations in worship?  Ministry?  Programs?
23. Does the church support the Cooperative Program?  Other programs of mission outreach, both local and international?
24. What is the position of the church on race relations, homosexuality, women as pastors/elders?
25. What is the position of the church on inerrancy, baptism and communion?
26. How effectively does the church minister to its youth?  Senior adults? Families? Singles?
27. What is the salary structure of your church, the pattern and policies on future salary increases and the tangible benefits such as hospitalization, disability, retirement, housing allowance and travel expenses?  Is a house or housing allowance provided?
28. What opportunities will there be for outside engagements?  Continuing education?
29. What commitment does the church have to long-range planning?
30. May I see a video tape of recent services?
31. Is there a church policy about staff members’ involvement in weddings, funerals, etc.?
32. Is there an annual review or any standardized evaluation process of my work?
33. What are the spiritual “barometer readings” of the church?
34. What is the theological basis for this church’s existence?
35. Do you have a Confessions of Faith?

Tags: Job interview, pastoral ministry, search committee