“We don’t have bulletins”, said the pastor quite proudly.

“Why not?”, inquires a sheepish visitor.

The pastor confidently answers, “We want to give the Spirit freedom to work and move in our worship services. We do not want to be shackled and confined by some order of service”.

–

That is a real conversation I overheard in a church that I was visiting. At the time I was giving the pastor a thumbs up. I grew up in a Baptist church where the only time you shouted or raised your hands was if somebody elbowed you in the kidney when you nodded off during the pastors sermon. Therefore, this new found freedom of worship was something I was really digging.

Then it got weird.

Nothing like holding snakes or clucking down the aisle like a chicken. But it just got weird. I never knew what to expect from one Sunday to the next. Would we enter into a building with no chairs and start roasting marshmallows while singing Chris Tomlin songs? Would we see a live goat sacrificed as an illustration for the one week sermon series on Leviticus? Would I be called on stage and exposed for something? How long would this meeting last? Who would be speaking?

I never knew the answer to those questions. And eventually I stopped coming because of that. I started believing that it was less about the Spirit and his activity and more about the ideas that this pastor dude got at 2am after a night of indulging in a Chinese buffet. So I went to a church with a little more order.

Some might say that I was simply uncomfortable with the Spirit’s moving. If I really wanted to be in a spiritual church then I wouldn’t need a crazy church bulletin. Maybe, that’s true. But I kind of think the apostle Paul agrees with me.

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace…But all things should be done decently and in order.

According to Paul one mark of a truly spiritual church is a godly order that intends to build up the congregation. It’s the exact opposite of we-don’t-have-bulletins-because-we-have-the-Spirit dude. I’m not saying that bulletins are necessary. In some instances they are just a waste of paper. But order is necessary. The Spirit works in the midst of order not against it.

So the next time some dude invites you to his church that is really spiritual because they just do as the Spirit leads, you might consider 1 Corinthians 14 before signing up.

–

You can follow Mike on Twitter (@mikeleake), his personal blog, or by building a secret tree house in the tall trees behind his house.

Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.

Preaching on the Ministry of the Spirit this Sunday for Pentecost and I picked up the massive and exhaustive God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul by Gordon D. Fee. He talks about a “Theology of the Spirit” and makes a great observation about how Paul did theology and how we are to similarly do theology each and every day in all circumstances. Sometimes, when we think about “theology” we think of learned academicians sitting in a dusty study pouring over obscure works and pontificating on things that do not really have relevance for daily life. But, true theological work simply deals with what we think about God and His interaction with the world He creating, including us and our place in His plan.

Fee says,

“Yet theology is what Paul is doing all the time. But it is seldom the reflective theology of the academy, dealing with how the various matters we believe about God and God’s ways can be put into some kind of coherent whole. Rather, it is what has been called ‘task theology,’ the theologizing that takes place in the marketplace, where belief and the experience of God run head-on into the thought systems, religions, and everyday life of people in the Greco-Roman world at the beginning of the second half of the first century CE. Such ‘task theology’ is the more complex because it takes place in an extremely heterogenous environment. In part, therefore, the issues raised for Paul have to do with what the God of the Jews (the one and only God) was doing in history through Christ and the Spirit, for him within a particularly Gentile context.

“Into this kind of setting Paul came preaching, experiencing, rethinking, and re-articulating old and new truths, as he wrestled with what it meant for Jew and Gentile together to be the one people of God at the turning of the ages ushered in by Christ’s resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. In the process he was continually ‘doing theology,’ grappling with how the gospel works – and works out – in this new context that was so radically different from that in which it first appeared in history.”

Fee is saying essentially that the mind of Paul and the early Christians was fully consumed with what God wsa doing in the world and that all of their interactions with the Greco-Roman culture of their day was influenced by God’s plan and their part in it. There participation in God’s plan and their reconcilation to God through Christ was by the Spirit of God and it is the Holy Spirit that empowered and animated their experience together.

Fee continues along these lines:

“Here was how the early church came to appropriate the salvation that Christ has brought; and here was how believers came to understand their own existence as essentially eschatological, with the Spirit as both the evidence that God’s great future for the people of God had already made its way into the present and the guarantee that God would conclude what he had begun in Christ. Thus the Spirit is absolutely presuppositional to their entire experience and understanding of their present life in Christ; and as often happens with such presuppositional matters, one rarely looks at them reflectively. They are simply part of the ‘stuff’ of ongoing life; and what one says about such matters is often off-handed, matter-of-fact, and without considered articulation.”

Fee is saying that the work of the Spirit in the life of the Christian, the church, and the world was a given for Paul and thus, it should also be a given for us. God is always working. Our understanding of the world and our place in it should begin and be based in the work of God in bringing salvation and reconciliation to creation and in calling us to participate with Him in His great restoration of all things though Christ. In trying to understand who God is and what He is doing in the world by His Spirit, we are all doing theology all the time and are all, thus, theologians of one kind or another.

Worth thinking about today and we go through our daily ups and downs and routines. As Christians, what kind of theologians are we and what kind of theology are we doing?

At its formation in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention was consecrated to the cause of “the propagation of the gospel.” The convention existed to enable local churches to expand their common reach in the tasks of calling sinners to repentance and organizing new congregations of disciples. “We can do more together than we can do separately” is not just a Southern Baptist slogan; it is the Southern Baptist raison d’être.

Dare I suggest that the health and value of the Southern Baptist Convention must be calculated along these same lines? Dare I opine further that the Southern Baptist Convention—with its history of scandals and schisms not hidden from view but laid bare to the world’s eyes and amply considered, with the lugubrious pre-obituaries some have published near and far for it notwithstanding, with the changing fads and fashions of ministry given their full accounting—nevertheless remains a healthy and effective part of a Great Commission strategy for local churches? Should I enumerate the specifics, not only why our convention’s strengths empower it but also why its weaknesses do not successfully overcome its strengths? I think so.

1. The Southern Baptist Convention is in the top tier of unifying forces within Christianity. I can hear the guffaws from here, but I’m entirely serious: The level of Christian unity in the Southern Baptist Convention is remarkable and encouraging. Southern Baptists exemplify Christian unity:

   1. Soteriologically: Yes, we probably argue more about soteriology than most other denominations, but have you ever considered that this might be an indication of the degree to which we bring together people of diverse soteriologies? There’s not nearly so much room in a Presbyterian denominational meeting to contend with one another about the nature of election, nor in an Assemblies of God conference to debate the extent of the atonement. How many other denominations of Christianity could count within their ranks as members in good standing both Tom Ascol and Eric Hankins? The Southern Baptist Convention is a place where both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (except for those Arminians who reject eternal security) can cooperate with one another for the propagation of the gospel.

      Because of the unity that many Southern Baptists feel with one another across various soteriological lines, the Southern Baptist Convention has better discussions about soteriology than nearly any other forum. By “better” I mean to appraise both the intellectual quality of our conversations and the Christian spirit in which they are conducted. Like whatever you will about T4G; it is not the place to go to hear the biblical arguments against Calvinism presented in their strongest way by their ablest proponents. Likewise if you’re hoping to hear about the weaknesses of Arminian Pragmatism at the Creative Church Conference. But within the family of the Southern Baptist Convention, each of us has an opportunity both to witness and to participate in the best and fullest discussions about soteriology ongoing anywhere in the world today.

      Even if Dave Miller keeps shutting down the comments.

   2. Racially: The history of the Southern Baptist Convention on the subject matter of race is an embarrassment and a sin. The progress within the Southern Baptist Convention toward racial unity is not nearly enough. Nevertheless, I am excited about the project of racial unity that lies before the Southern Baptist Convention. We are attempting to do something that is rare indeed: Southern Baptists are attempting to create a racially diverse fellowship of Christians who are unswervingly committed to biblical inerrancy and gospel fidelity. There may be denominations that are more racially diverse than the SBC, but the preponderance of them are significantly—dare I say terminally?—infected by theological liberalism. There are denominations that feature a greater percentage than the SBC does with regard to black leadership, hispanic leadership, asian leadership, or other ethnic leadership, but the preponderance of them are actually LESS, not more, racially diverse than is the SBC (i.e., they feature EXCLUSIVELY black leadership, hispanic leadership, etc.)

      I’m not alleging that there are no other denominations that have successfully combined racial diversity with theological integrity, nor am I denying that there may be denominations who do a better job at both of them than we do. Rather, I’m simply pointing out the fact that, considering the broad swath of Christianity, the Southern Baptist Convention is in the top tier of these efforts.

      What’s more, through the careful attention and deliberate efforts of our leaders, the SBC is continually improving in our racial diversity without diminishing our commitment to God’s truth revealed to us in scripture. We’ve all lived to see the first black president of the SBC. Most of us reading this will live to see the second, will live to see the first entity head who is not white, will live to see greater participation by other ethnicities as well. I’m thankful for the leadership of Terry Turner, president of the SBTC, who has called for our state convention not to live as though black and white were the only ethnicities within our fellowship, but to engage in multilateral efforts to unite the panoply of races, tribes, and tongues in the worship of the God who created us in such complementary beauty. The future of the Southern Baptist Convention is one of improving racial unity anchored in the truth. A full 20% of SBC congregations are ethnically other than white.

      Frankly, I don’t know where a biblical inerrantist would go to find a brighter future of racial unity.

   3. Methodologically: Occasionally someone will complain that the Southern Baptist Convention is too methodologically monolithic. And yet my personal observation is that some of the people who complain are happy to participate in organizations that are far less methodologically diverse than the SBC is. Try wearing a suit and tie to Catalyst. Try to post a how-to guide on the multi-site movement on fundamental.org. Whatever you’re wearing, whatever you’re singing, whatever you’re doing in your church (within relatively broad boundaries), you can probably go to the SBC Annual Meeting and (pretty easily) find a way to sit next to somebody who is a whole lot like you. There may be somebody there who is different enough to make you uncomfortable, but monolithic we are not.

   Now, keep this in mind, please: Unity per se is not the mission of the SBC nor is unity in the SBC the way that we ought to measure the SBC’s effectiveness. There have been, in the history of mankind, groups harmoniously united in the accomplishment of nothing—or of nothing worthwhile. The objective of the SBC is the propagation of the gospel, not fellowship. And yet, the more people we can find who affirm our core principles and will unite with us in the propagation of the gospel, the more propagation of the gospel we will accomplish. Unity, therefore, is one factor enabling our effectiveness.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention is among the denominations most open to your ideas. The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest open democratic meeting of its kind in the world. The only thing keeping you from walking up to a microphone and sharing your opinion is you. But not only can you articulate your viewpoint within the Southern Baptist Convention, you can also have influence here.

   Not that I’m saying it is always easy to influence the SBC or that the way to do so is always intuitive. I first got involved in the mechanisms of the SBC back in 2006. Whatever can be done wrong, I’ve done it. I’ve been voted down on the floor of the SBC. Twice. In the same year. On the same question. I’ve had the entire institutional apparatus of entire SBC entities and of state conventions along with hungry hoards of bloggers ravenously looking for me while I was vacationing in the Ozarks because of something foolish and offensive that I wrote. I’ve prognosticated and vituperated and confabulated and masticated for hours on end with fellow Southern Baptists. Just maybe, I’ve made more mistakes than you have. And along the way, I think maybe I finally made enough mistakes to have learned a thing or two—at least, there are ideas I once had about the SBC that I have no longer. And so, I give you a few of my own thoughts about how the SBC works.

   1. The SBC works chaotically. It is easy for people to think that the SBC is some sort of marionette dance, with a highly organized cabal of puppeteers pulling the strings. Friends, that’s just not the case. Since 2006 I’ve had the opportunity to meet most of the so-called “power brokers” of the SBC, and I’ve lost count of the number of them who have expressed frustration at least to some minor degree about what they are NOT able to get done in our convention. We are a convention of many different (sometimes competing) interests, all of which have some influence in the operations of the convention’s ministries. The way it all eventually works out is often a matter of surprise and happenstance. Perhaps it is nostalgia rather than good history, but I’ve got to think that there was a time when Southern Baptists were better organized, in an informal sense. My experience has been that there is a good bit of chaos.

      And so, if you want to influence the Southern Baptist Convention, you’ve got to be patient enough to take two steps forward and then one step back. You’ve got to be flexible enough to work through partnerships and coalitions with people who may not share every last one of your interests. You’ve got to be someone who doesn’t turn in his jersey the first time he strikes out at the plate.

   2. The SBC works person-to-person. Even in this day of blogs and email and Twitter, people get persuaded in our convention mostly face-to-face (or, at the very least, voice-to-voice). If you want to change the SBC, you have to get people to vote in support of your proposals. If you want to get people to vote in support of your proposals, there is no better way than for you to talk to people about your ideas. Make friends. Be winsome. Invest in other people. This is, by the way, the reason why denominational employees have a tremendous advantage over people working in local churches when it comes to these matters. Denominational employees are, very many of them, getting paid to do the very thing that builds influence in the SBC: spending time with the Southern Baptists who cast the votes.

      If you don’t like the way an entity does something, going to microphone 4 in Houston is not a good first step. It may be just the right LAST step, but the best first step probably involves sitting down calmly with an entity head, and perhaps later a trustee chairman, and winsomely articulating your point of view. After you air your grievance on the floor of the convention (or all over the Internet on a blog post), the cordial discussion with trustees suddenly becomes much more difficult to accomplish.

      There’s nothing sinister about speaking with people face-to-face before taking up your cause in front of 9,000 of your closest friends. I’m not talking about smoke-filled rooms or “illegal caucuses.” I’m also not saying that a private conversation will always solve everything—you might indeed have to go to the floor of the convention, and even that measure might not work in the end. Rather, I’m simply saying that even in this electronic age a winsome personality and a corporeal encounter remain the most powerful way to influence people in the Southern Baptist Convention.

      The great news about the Southern Baptist Convention is that these encounters are relatively easy to accomplish. I’ve never had a one-on-one conversation with Fred Luter, Frank Page, or Tom Eliff, but I bet that I could have one inside of a week, not because of who I am but because of who they are. Our leaders are, to the last one of them, humble and accessible people who will gladly speak with you. Yes, they’re busy. No, you shouldn’t waste their time. But if you have something important on your heart (and by that, I simply mean something important to you), they will hear you out.

      Go ask your local priest what it would take for him to get an audience with the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. In smaller denominations this level of access is probably customary, but for an organization as large as it is, the level of access that we have to Southern Baptist leaders is something that ought to delight us and in which we ought to take some measure of satisfaction.

      Of course, I suspect that if you make an incorrigible pest of yourself, it is possible that your appointments may become more difficult to schedule. Don’t do that. Be respectful of our leaders and be considerate of their time. But don’t be afraid, if you have something positive to contribute to our work, to take your ideas before those who can make them happen.

   3. The SBC works convictionally. If you’re trying to push something contrary to the core convictions of the convention’s churches, then you’ll have to work in the shadows and be resigned to the fact that eventually, someday, the churches will overturn what you’ve done. Real change in the SBC cannot consist of something you can merely move, second, or aye—if you can’t preach it, and preach it with conviction, then you probably cannot harness the convictional passion of the convention behind it.

      If you’re the guy who wants the SBC to approve of gay marriage, then you’re going to fail. If you want the SBC to endorse women as pastors, then unless you are a masochist you probably ought to move on. There are things that are already in our statement of faith, questions that have already been addressed within our polity, matters that arise out of the plain reading of scripture for which you will not be able to turn the tide of Southern Baptist opinion.

   4. The SBC works slowly. Not that I haven’t seen people ramrod things through in a hurry. That does happen sometimes. It’s just that, in my experience, those high-pressure initiatives, even when they pass, rarely actually achieve their objectives—rarely actually change the SBC. Instead, they become flash-in-the-pan initiatives. Everyone is talking about them this year; everyone has forgotten about them next year.

      Movements like the Conservative Resurgence make a lasting impact. They create and sustain enduring themes that change not just the organizational accoutrements of the convention but reach deeper and alter the culture of the convention. Lots of people could accomplish that; few will want to. It requires years of hard work. But you’re fooling yourself if you don’t believe that the same is true of any organization that you would seek to influence.

   In more hierarchical denominations (which would include both the more episcopal denominations and the more entrepreneurial ones), having real influence upon the denomination usually involves having to come into the employ of the denomination, and at a high level of administration at that. The Southern Baptist Convention, on the other hand, gives amazing opportunities to pastors and laypeople alike to make a difference in the convention’s work.

   Of course, other people are trying to influence the convention at the same time as you are. Having influence over the work of the convention is both a privilege and a responsibility. Be sure, if you try to exert influence over the convention, that you are doing so not for self-aggrandizement nor for baser motivations. Our convention operates as it does for the sake of the propagation of the gospel. Seek the aggrandizement of Christ (the real Christ, as found in the New Testament) and the magnification of our common gospel ministry and your ideas will do good service for the Master in the SBC.

Something tells me that perhaps I’ve written enough for a first installment. More to come in a subsequent post…

I’ve been in fulltime Christian ministry for over 30 years. I’ve had some good times. I’ve also had some moments when I stood there looking like a complete idiot. I’ve done some dumb things. I will bet that you have as well, if you are willing to admit it.

So, tell us your story. What was your most embarrassing moment as a minister?

Rules:

1) It has to be true.

2) It has to be embarrassing to you. Don’t tell stories that will embarrass another. This is confession time, guys.

3) Try to maintain some small measure of good taste.

I will start the ball rolling with two stories – hard to pick one over the other. Both actually could be entitled “Sermon Illustrations Gone Bad.” Strangely, both were making essentially the same point.

First Embarrassing Story

I was speaking of the importance of being grounded in the Word of God. I was a SCUBA diver in college and used to dive a place called “The Wrecks” off Palm Beach. On my first dive there, my ears would not equalize (pressure). My dive instructor came over and yanked my mask off. I put it back on and cleared it. (This is the crux of the story – to clear a mask underwater, you put it on, put pressure on the top of the mask, and blow through your nose. The air from the nose blows the water out of the mask and clears it.) When I cleared the mask, my ears equalized and I headed to the ocean floor (60 feet down). The whole time I was down there, my mask was filling with this thick green fluid which looked like algae. I couldn’t figure out how algae was getting in my mask, but I kept clearing my mask and it kept refilling. My air was gone, so I headed to the surface. As I got about 10 feet from the surface, I remembered that the first color you lose in water is red. I had a nosebleed the whole time I was down there. In shark infested waters I was putting blood out there the whole time.

THE POINT: When we are not grounded in the Word, we are shark bait, like I was that day.

THE PROBLEM: When I tried to illustrate the process of cleaning the mask to the church, I forgot I had a cold. I pushed on the top of my imaginary mask and I blew through my nose to clear the mask – and I blew snot all over my face.

THE LESSON: When you blow snot all over your face in front of your congregation, your sermon is over. Yes, you can keep preaching, but your ability to communicate anything significant to them is over.

Second Embarrassing Story

We had a 15 passenger van which we took on vacations to Florida. Good times. But on one of those trips, we evidently got some gasoline with water in it – it was not helpful to the operation of “Sherman” – our tank. Made the thing run really awful.

THE POINT: We must be careful to fuel ourselves well. Christians only function well when they get the good fuel – the Word of God.

THE PROBLEM: Here is what I said. “You cannot live well as a Christian if you are not fueling yourself regularly with the deep things of the Word of God. The problem with a lot of you folks is that you are full of bad gas.”  Yes, I said it. Unfortunately, my congregation was not of the forgiving sort that would simply ignore my faux pas and move on.

THE LESSON: Don’t accuse your people of being offensively flatulent!

A link came across my Facebook page today to a scathing article written by one of the Reformed watchbloggers lambasting Mark Driscoll for a video he did at his “Resurgence” conference this year. So, I watched the 21 minute video. It was typical Driscoll – everything some love and others hate about him. He made a lot of sense and his tone was often cloying at the same time. I will put a link to the video below, so you can watch it if you wish.

WARNING: I’m talking about Driscoll just to set up the post today. This is NOT about him and comments that are made about him – pro or con – will be put up against a wall and summarily executed by firing squad. I’m not interested in restarting that foodfight. I’m focusing on the topic he addressed and thought I should explain why I am addressing it. I find some of the things Driscoll does to be alarming, even inexcusable. On the other hand, when he speaks, I find that he makes a lot of sense sometimes. That is what struck me here. I am not endorsing Driscoll in any way, but his video started me thinking about a topic I think we need to address. Hence, I am addressing it – the topic, not Driscoll.

The video was about the tribalism in the modern America church. His thesis is that we have divided into tribes, with tribal chiefs, tribal markers, and an unhealthy dose of tribal warfare! That part seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Most of our tribes are based on our beliefs in 4 major areas, he says.

1) Reformed.   2) Arminian

3) Complementarian  4) Egalitarian

5) Charismatic  6) Cessationist

7) Missional  8) Fundamentalist

He then ticked off some of the tribes.  A 2-4-5 is a classic Arminian. A 1-3 would describe the Gospel Coalition tribe. 1-3-5 is Sovereign Grace while 1-3-7 is the Tim Keller tribe. The Calvary Chapel tribe could be described as a 2-3-5-7. He describes several more in the video, which you may watch if you wish.

Observations:

1) The obvious flaw here is that these differentiations are more continuum than fixed points. The world is not made of of Reformed folks and Arminians. Most Christians fall in between those two options in some way. I live in the middle between cessationism and being a Charismatic.

2) The tribes of the SBC follow these general guidelines in some ways, but we represent a more limited continuum. We have few outright charismatics, nor are there many among us who embrace the term Arminian.

3) The last differentiation, Missional and Fundamentalist, is pejorative and unhelpful. What he is talking about is philosophy of social engagement. Missional seems to have a different connotation outside the Baptist world sometimes. Missional is used to refer to those who seek cultural relevance. Fundamental describes those who confront or withdraw from culture. Obviously, Driscoll favors the missional side and the fundamental side is held in low esteem. A better set of descriptors needs to be devised.

Baptist Tribes

Still, I think he is on to something here. These are the issues we argue about to a large degree. I would describe our tribes in this way. If you feel like I am being pejorative, it is not my intent. I’m trying to be descriptive and informative here – thinking through what I have gleaned from observing Baptist life.

1)Reformed to Modified Arminian.

There are so few full Arminians in the SBC (especially those who believe in apostasy) that it hardly bears mention. There are a few modified Arminians out there on one end and a sizeable minority of Reformed Baptists on the other.  Most of us describe ourselves between those 2 poles. Traditionalists-other non-Calvinists-Molinists-Antinomists – 3 and 4 pointers.

My sense is that there is a smaller (size is obviously in the eye of the beholder) group on both ends – primarily for 5-pointers and for some Traditionalists – for which this is the only key tribal issue. They are either in the Reformed Tribe or the Traditionalist Tribe and little else matters. For most of us in the in-between groups, Reformed vs. Traditionalist is not the be-all, end-all of tribal identity. We see the Calvinism Wars as pointless, fruitless and a distraction. Those passionately in the Traditionalist Tribe or the Reformed Tribe do not always agree. For them, either promoting Calvinism or stopping its threat is a first-order, watershed issue. I’ve had people on both sides of this tell me I am naive for saying this is not a huge issue. To me, it is not. To others, it is.

2) Complementarian to Egalitarian.

This is one of the more clearly defined issues.  While there are certainly levels of complementarianism – from almost patriarchal views to more centrist positions – you can’t really be in-between on this. Either the husband is meant to be head of the home and the wife is meant to walk in equality of person with a complementary role, or the wife’s value as a person is determined by equality of role and responsibility. You are either complementarian or egalitarian – there is precious little wiggle room here.

3) Continuationist to Cessationist. 

Continuationists believe that much of the gifting/manifesting work of the Holy Spirit continued after the Apostolic era. The Cessationist believes such is not the case, that tongues, prophetic words and such “miraculous” gifts passed away at either the closing of the canon or the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This one is more easily described. It is also a key Southern Baptist differentiation. While there are plenty of cessationists across the spectrum, one of the key points of conflict  between the Reformed Tribe and other groups has been the extent of the role of the Holy Spirit. Much of what many of us think of as normal Christian living is disdained by those in the Cessationist Tribe, especially those of the Reformed Cessationist Tribe. It becomes a major point of conflict.

4) Cooperationists to Confrontationalists

How should Christians engage culture? This is my attempt to improve on Driscoll’s wording  - missional and fundamental. Maybe you can come up with better nomenclature. The Cooperationist looks at our culture and tries to engage it in a relevant way. The Confrontationalist looks at the culture as sinful and wicked and approaches it more suspiciously.

I don’t want to get too personal here, but let me use an example. Jared Moore wrote a Bible Study  book based on the Harry Potter series. Those of you who thought that was brilliant cultural engagement would likely be Cooperationists. We cooperate with elements of the culture to shine the light of Christ and to transform lives. Those of you who thought it was a horribly bad idea to use Rowling’s book series as the basis for a Bible study would tend toward the Confrontationalist Tribe.

5) Yessies to NoNos.

This is one I’m adding just for us Southern Baptists. It is an outflow of the Cooperation/Confrontation conundrum, but it is different enough that it deserves separate billing. Many of our most intense battles in blogging have been battles between the Yessie Tribe and the NoNo tribe. I would direct you to a previous article of mine that examined Romans 14 and the meat sacrificed to idols issue in the early church. To (over?)simplify, Yessies believe that if something is not specifically forbidden in Scripture, it is permitted to the follower of Jesus Christ, if he does it with a clear conscience and a sense of Christ’s Lordship. The NoNoes believe that there are many things that should not be done by Christians even though they may not be specifically prohibited. Read the linked article for a fuller and hopefully more nuanced explanation.

We would often use the terms legalists and antinomians to describe these ends of the spectrum, but those are the kind of pejorative terms I’m trying to stay away from.

Final Thoughts

This was meant to be much briefer than it has turned out to be. Let me close with some conclusions.

1) Tribalism is a normal human reaction. Just look at how we cheer for sports.

2) Tribalism is not de facto sinful. There’s nothing wrong with me enjoying the company of like-minded people.

3) Tribalism can become destructive when we isolate from one another, when we start viewing the other Baptist tribes as our enemies, or worse, the enemies of Christ and the gospel.

4) One of our problems is that we a lot of time talking about one another. I’m discouraged at the way members of one tribe ridicule or denigrate those in the other tribe. It is sad, and yes, I’m going to say it – it often becomes sin! We need to engage one another with godly grace, brotherly kindness and proper honor.

Should I tell you which of the tribes is the biblically correct one? Perhaps that would be counterproductive.

Here is Driscoll’s video if you are interested in watching it.

I have been a life long Southern Baptist, and have heard my whole life about how simple and easy Salvation is. A decision, a quick prayer and the deed is done. You get dunked later on and you get to eat the cracker and drink grape juice from a little thimble looking cup. It’s easy and simple, yet as I look at the words of Jesus, I see some things that scare me, some things that make me think we are doing things the wrong way.

In Luke 9, Jesus shares the cost of being a follower, He said that “no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (vs 62). Jesus told us the road to Salvation is narrow, few find it. That only 1 in 4 seeds bear fruit. In Luke 9:23-25 Jesus tells us to be a disciple, we must take up our cross and follow, losing life to gain it. This seems like it’s not as easy as we have tried to pretend it is.  Jesus shared with His disciples that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. We live in one of the richest nations on earth. Jesus tells us that Salvation isn’t easy.

We have also seemed to miss the requirement of the word we use so frequently. We say “make Jesus your Lord”, but we don’t tell people to make Him Lord. We say “confess Him as Lord”, and act like it means if we just say “oh ya, He’s Lord” but don’t make Him Lord it’s ok. Lord means boss, chief, master, ruler, guy in charge. It means we give up anything, everything, we change our lives, our actions. Sure, it happens gradually as sanctification happens, but it happens. We don’t see it happening in scripture someday or eventually. Fishermen left nets, tax collectors came out of trees and gave stuff away, Gentiles spoke in tongues and lives demonstrated the power of God’s transformation. It didn’t take months and years, transformation started immediately.

Now of course there are plenty who figure out how to fake it for a while. Many said the right words, but Jesus was never Lord. 1 John 2:19 talks about those who were with us but not of us because the walked away. They walked away to show who they really were.  How many of our weekend prayer reciters walk away? I will admit that I have led many in prayer and never saw them again. Maybe they moved or found another church, or maybe they went out to show who they are.

It gets even more complicated because Jesus said that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” gets into Heaven. If they said Lord, isn’t that confessing Jesus as Lord? Isn’t that our prerequisite? Jesus said that saying it doesn’t equate to doing it. Even worse, these people did some stuff after confessing. The preached (prophesied) and did ministry (cast out demons) in the name of Christ. They talked to people about God and stood up in front of people and did ministry, these were not Sunday-go-to-meeting people, these were leaders. They are pastors, elders, deacons and they will spend eternity in hell. Why?  Because they don’t know Jesus as Lord, they only know Him as guy they do stuff for. Sure, they can get excited and yell and scream, but so can a Muslim. They blow themselves up for their God, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Jesus tells us it’s hard, the road is hard, the gate is narrow, few find it. The soil is often hard or rocky or full of thorns, and it’s really hard for rich people to get too. On top of that, if you won’t give up everything, don’t even bother. If you are gonna look back, just stay home.  This doesn’t sound like what I hear on a Sunday Morning.  Jesus said if you are gonna be a disciple, you should count the cost. Shouldn’t we be honest with people, tell them the cost, or are we trying to sell them a used car? Just a thought.

Sorry, kids.  I really am.  I didn’t see this coming.

When your mom and I embarked on this missions adventure, there was only one of you.  Offspring #1, you were just 53 weeks old when we swiped you from your Granny’s arms and flashed your new passport at the nice ticket agent.  Your mom scooped you up, heading through the jetway and down the aisle, casually leaving a car seat, diaper bag, rolling bag, a duffel bag, and a backpack for me to carry.  I’ve never been so thankful for pre-seating for families with infants; I whacked every single empty seat with that car seat.

We returned to the US when you were nearly three and your brother’s arrival was impending.  By the time we waded through the bad early days of post-9/11 security (pre-TSA guys frisked you, a four-year old) and “zoo-zoomed in the sky” to Venezuela, you were four and Offspring #2 was about 13 months old.

To that point, what had our calling cost us?  A church home, access to family at Christmas time, sales at Walmart. We gave up the independence and rights that the American deaf community had come to enjoy.  We sold our home and car.  The dogs went to other owners; my table saw and other tools went to Grandpa’s house.

It really had not, to that point, cost you kids much of anything.  Well, the grandparents were no longer around, but at such a tender age, you had no idea what you were missing by being so far from the older generation.  You were content with Mommy and Daddy and sippy cups and chocolate.

A lot of passport stamps have faded since those days.

Much has been made in the last decade or so about the need to balance work and family.  Too many fathers have sacrificed their kids on the altar of ministry, and I have long feared doing the same to you.  These years are too valuable to be frittered away by chasing every opportunity and community event at the expense of raising you.  I’ve tried to make sure that my evening visits with locals and my weekends out of town don’t rob you of Daddy.  It’s our calling, after all, mine and your mother’s, and we’ve got no business demanding that you make too many sacrifices.  Amen?

I’ve begun to wonder, though, whose calling it really is.

Any time Christian parents determine to raise their kids in obedience to God’s usual, average, every day calling, everyone in the family sacrifices.  Convicted about no movies with an R rating?  Parents and kids set those aside.  Convinced alcohol is a sin against a holy God?  The entire family complies with the ban.  And so on, and so on.

So this missionary calling, this drive simply to obey the requirement that we head in to all the world?  I’m beginning to wonder if maybe I’ve been a little misguided.

This is, perhaps, just as much your calling as it is ours.

I’ll be blunt: I tire of some of your sacrifices.  I get upset when I realize you guys are going to have to pick a college without ever having seen a university campus in your lives.  I’m heart-broken when I discover I was absent when one of you kids had a meltdown.  I hate having to console yet another child who just can’t stand to say good-bye to another friend.  I dread the day one of my babies sends a forlorn email from college – homesick and lonely in North America while I’m off in who-knows-where doing heaven-only-knows-what with nationals who aren’t my kids.

And I’m helpless to do anything about it.  I cannot disobey my Lord, my God, the One who gave all for me and expects nothing less in return.  Neither can I accomplish the task before me in a way that avoids all potential sacrifices for the family.

My response to many of these is to stomp my foot and say, “Not fair!  God called me; He didn’t call my kids.  This missionary thing is getting too hard for them.  For me?  Naw…I knew what I was getting into when I signed on.  Them?  No….this isn’t right.”

What I’ve come to realize is part of managing our household in a godly fashion is requiring you kids to sacrifice whether you want them to or not.  It matters not whether the sacrifice in question is an inappropriate movie, ungodly friends, or residency in the land of hamburgers, football, and Dr. Pepper.  Being “godly” for your mom and I has come to mean adapting our family to all the sacrifices I listed earlier, plus 1,000 more I haven’t mentioned.

Sure, God called the two of us.  We obeyed.  We’ve worked to form a family that obeys and worships and honors the Lord.  Worship generally requires a sacrifice of some sort; obedience and honor usually follow in worship’s footsteps.  We’ll do it, sacrifices and all, because it is right.  In requiring you kids to join us in our sacrifices, we’re leading you to worship Him.

And surely that’s a good thing.

A couple years ago I was dealing with a bout of deep discouragement. Actually that’s the sanitized wording for it. The more accurate description would be “wounded pride”. I had been working my tail off in blogging and writing and I was still barely getting traffic.

I whined to my wife. “I don’t think anybody is even reading my stuff. Is it even worth my time and effort?”

Those are good questions to ask. But my wife knows me and she knows my passion for writing. She knew that this was not a reasoned assessment of whether or not my time was being wasted on writing. She was able to see through the facade and I believe hear the hellish voice of pride.

Her response was both comforting and painful at the same moment:

“The most important Person in the universe reads your blog every day”.

With this one sentence she confronted my pride and begged my soul to ask a very shaping question; would the audience of Yahweh be enough? Am I writing for the Lord’s fame or am I writing to try to establish my own?

If I’m writing to establish my own fame then I get wounded whenever I write an article that disappears into the ether. If I am writing for the Lord’s fame then I am able to rest in His sovereign goodness and hope that when He read my article it was pleasing in His sight. His smile is enough.

For those feeling the allure of fame the smile of God seems like a second place prize. Blog traffic is similar to money. How much blog traffic do you need? Just as with money for those battling greed, the answer is always, “More!”

At this point I want to encourage those like myself that are laboring for a smaller audience. Actually, no matter how “famous” your blog is, you’re never satisfied unless you are satisfied in the Lord. Even if you receive 2 million hits per day the most important “visitor” to your blog is the Lord Jesus. My wife’s counsel is for all of us, no matter where we land on the scale of fame. Do you pursue His fame or your own? Do you rest in His smile or are you always craving more?

I appreciate my wife’s gentle correction on that day. I still battle resting in the Lord’s smile, but at least my eyes are open now to the fight that needs to take place every day.

If any man on earth deserves the death penalty, it is convicted murderer “Dr.” (I put that in parentheses for a reason) Kermit Gosnell. He murdered babies born alive after failed abortions in the most gruesome and heinous way.

Critics of the death penalty say that violence begets violence, that state sanctioned killing is no better than the atrocities perpetrated by Dr. Gosnell

That is not true according to scripture. Both the OT and the NT approve of the death penalty when administered justly by the government.

It can be argued that the death penalty in America is anything but just – that is a valid argument. It has been pretty well demonstrated that black men are much more likely to receive the death penalty than white men guilty of similar crimes. Abuse of process by some law enforcement officers more concerned with getting a conviction than properly investigating and prosecuting crimes cannot be denied. DNA tests by the Innocence Project and others have made that clear – they have exonerated over 300 falsely convicted people.

But the idea that a consistent pro-life ethic demands a rejection of the death penalty is not accurate. The establishment of the death penalty came in Genesis 9:5-6.

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”

Human life is precious and holy to God. In fact, it is so precious and holy to God that when you take a human life unjustly, your life is forfeit. Human life is so valuable that the penalty for taking it is extreme – death. God requires such a “reckoning” and authorizes human government to enforce that reckoning.

Dr. Gosnell took the most innocent of human lives – newborn babies – in such ways that I will not describe it here, nor add pictures. He will one stand give account to God for that unspeakable sin. Hopefully, he will repent before that day and find God’s amazing grace.

But it is wholly right and just that he should answer for the taking of these lives with his own.