Landon Coleman's Blog, page 5

Southern Baptists Must Not and Can Not “Agree to Disagree” about Women Pastors (Elders, Overseers)

There is a simmering debate taking place among Southern Baptists. The debate centers on the question of whether to not women can hold the office, title, and-or function of pastor (elder, overseer).

At the national level, in the summer of 2023, the Southern Baptist Convention overwhelmingly voted to disfellowship several churches (most notably, Saddleback, formerly pastored by Rick Warren) for recognizing women as pastors (elders, overseers).

At the state level, the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention (of which my church, Immanuel, is a part) overwhelmingly passed a motion to interpret the SBTC’s constitutional affiliation requirement that the “office of pastor be limited to men” to apply “not only to the titles of senior pastor or lead pastor, but to any role designated by the noun ‘pastor.’” This vote took place in 2022. Surprisingly, the implementation of this motion was delayed at the 2023 annual meeting.

Some of those who supported this delay justified their decision by appealing to the pending business that will take place at the annual meeting of the SBC in the summer of 2024. The hope of these folks seemed to be that the SBC would make a decision that the SBTC could simply follow. Others justified their decision to support this delay with reasoning that sounded remarkably similar to the arguments made by Rick Warren and his supporters.

The issue of female pastors has proved incredibly division within the SBC, and I don’t think the divisiveness is going away any time soon. There are multiple perspectives, opinions, and voices in this debate – but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll mention the three most common positions.

First, there are voices arguing that Southern Baptists should insist on “senior” pastors being male, while also arguing that any other “staff” pastor can be male or female. Thus, we would only have male senior pastors, but any female staff members could be recognized with the title “pastor” (elder, overseer).Second, there are voices arguing that pastor, elder, overseer are not up for debate, and anyone who is given one of these titles must be a biblically qualified male. This would be the consistently complementarian position, one that insists there is no biblical distinction between “senior” pastors and “staff” pastors. A pastor is a pastor (elder, overseer).Third, there are voices arguing for a “third way.” These voices want Southern Baptists to unite around missions and evangelism, even while we disagree about the question of female pastors (elders, overseers). These voices are calling us to missiological unity and urging us to let each local church make its own decision about whether or not female staff members can be recognized as pastors (elders, overseers).

My point in this post is simple. A “third way” where Southern Baptists unite around missions and evangelism while “agreeing to disagree” on the question of female pastors is simply not possible. Consider the following realities.

Those arguing for the autonomy of the local church are missing the point entirely. Some of the most strident voices are appalled that the SBC or any state convention would dare to tell a local church how to operate or what to believe. We’re Baptists, after all, and we believe that each local church is autonomous! On the point of autonomy, I issue a hearty, amen! However, the voices raising this objection are missing the point. No convention is telling its member churches what to do or how to operate. The SBC and various state conventions are simply and rightly defining the bounds of cooperation. The IMB has done this with respect to charismatic gifts. The SBC has always done this with the question of baptism, not allowing paedo-baptism. More recently, Southern Baptists have made the handling a sexual abuse a standard for cooperation. None of these examples are violations of autonomy. Churches are free to operate and believe as they see fit, and the conventions are free to define the parameters of cooperation. The words pastor, elder, and overseer are used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to the group of called, qualified men who lead a local church (see the graphic below). The New Testament does not attempt to parse out title, office, and function, nor does the New Testament distinguish between “senior” pastors and “staff” pastors. Southern Baptists have long favored the western, corporate model that sets a “senior” pastor at the top of an organizational flow chart. This is a corporate model of leadership – not a biblical model. If Southern Baptist churches need to revisit their organizational flow charts, titles, and bylaws, so be it. We’ve always claimed to be people of the Book, not people beholden to western, corporate structures. We need a reformation in ecclesiology, and this reformation needs to include our thinking about pastors (elders, overseers), deacons, membership, worship, and missions.Just to be clear, no one in this debate is trying to sideline or silence women. Rick Warren tried to make this argument, and others have followed suit, subtly trying to change the debate by asking about women teaching college students, women serving on the mission field, women writing theological resources, and women doing all sorts of religious activities. Each of these issues obscures the fact that the central question before us the office, title, and function of a pastor (elder, overseer). Arguing that people want to sideline women introduces a red herring into the debate, and it misses the fundamental, biblical issue. That issue centers on a very Baptist question, “What does the Bible say about this issue, and how can we be faithful to the New Testament teaching on ecclesiology?”Missiological cooperation cannot be separated from ecclesiological agreement. If the planting of new churches is the goal of our missions efforts, we have to agree -at least on a baseline level – on what those churches are going to look like and how they are going to function. We don’t usually plant churches with Presbyterians because we disagree about what those churches are going to look like and how they are going to function. We have ecclesiological disagreement about the nature of church leadership and the proper subject of baptism. Similarly, we don’t plant churches with groups that favor an episcopacy or that recognize apostles. Again, these are questions of ecclesiology. Southern Baptists have to agree on ecclesiology if we are going to continue cooperating in missiology. The question of who can rightly be recognized as a pastor (elder, overseer) is a secondary theological issue, not a primary or a tertiary issue. To be sure, matters of ecclesiology are not primary issues pertaining to orthodoxy and salvation. However, matters of ecclesiology are secondary matters pertaining to how a church is structured and how a church operates. Baptism is one such issue, one that separates like-minded believers from planting churches together. On the other hand, tertiary issues are those where disagreement does not hinder our unity within a local church. Tertiary issues involve some questions of methodology, programming, and issues like the timing of the rapture. The voices that are insisting the question of women pastors is not a primary issue are right – this isn’t a fundamental matter of orthodoxy or salvation. At the same time, the voices insisting that the question of women pastors is a tertiary issue that need not divide us are simply wrong. There can be no lasting unity within the SBC apart from agreement on fundamental questions of ecclesiology. The “third way” being presented by some is allegedly motivated by a desire to keep Southern Baptists together in a unified group. Unfortunately, this noble motivation is just as short-sighted as those who have advocated a “third way” on the issue of homosexuality. In both cases, the third way allows for innovation to reign supreme and insists that the traditionalists simply stand down without objection. On the question of women pastors, the third way allows those who want women pastors to remain within the SBC while forcing complementarian churches to endure churches who insist on having female pastors (elders, overseers). Further, through the Cooperative Program, the third way would call on complementarian churches to financially support church plants that favor female staff members receiving the title pastor (elder, overseer). Pragmatically, I get it. National and state conventions don’t want to lose churches who insist on female pastors (elders, overseers) because losing churches means losing money. However, it’s worth noting that there is no path forward that doesn’t involve losing churches. Either conventions will take a stand for biblical fidelity on this issue, or complementarian churches will leave.The “third way” is entirely unstable as a stopping point. Some have argued that Southern Baptists have always believed that the office of “senior” pastor was reserved for qualified men, while also being open to the possibility of female “staff” pastors. I disagree with this argument, and I think the question of who could be a pastor was largely assumed in decades past. Now that the issue has been brought to the forefront, a decision must be made. For what it’s worth, this is how doctrine and false teaching always develops. A new idea arises, often one that was simply assumed by previous generations. This new idea requires a new generation to clarify what the church has always believed. These clarifications are not doctrinal innovation, nor are they changes to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead, these clarifications are how the church remains faithful to the faith once for all delivered to the saints in a world of doctrinal deviancy. Those who want to limit the office of “senior” pastor to qualified men while also allowing women to serve as “staff” pastors have created an biblical distinction and an unstable solution. The distinction between senior and staff pastors is not a New Testament distinction. Pastors (elders, overseers) are the group of qualified men called to lead a local church. A twenty-first century church deciding to use those titles in new ways does not negate the pattern set forth in the New Testament. Again, our aim must not be following bylaws or precedent or tradition, nor should our aim be defending what our culture would approve of. Rather, our aim must be biblical faithfulness.

Jesus in the Psalms

Since August I have been preaching through Psalm 119. This longest chapter of the Bible clocks in at an impressive 176 verses. Almost every one of these 176 verses makes a direct reference to the written Word of God. A variety of terms are used, and they are mostly used interchangeably – law, testimonies, ways, precepts, statutes, commandments, rules, word, and promise. All in all, it’s clear that the longest chapter in the Bible is about the Bible itself, the written Word of God.

I planned this 22-week sermon series back in 2022. Last year, as I laid out my preaching plan for the upcoming year, I decided to place Psalm 119 at the back half of this year, 2023. Starting in August and ending on Sunday, December 31, we set out to work through each of the 22 stanzas of Psalm 119, one stanza a week. This schedule has prevented us from pausing for a special Christmas sermon series. However, that doesn’t mean we have ignored the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, even as we have continued to work through Psalm 119. In many ways, the Psalms prepare us for the birth, the ministry, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus.

At the outset of his ministry, Jesus made it clear that he had not come to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). After his death and resurrection, Jesus assured his disciples that everything written in the Old Testament – the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms – it all pointed to Jesus (Luke 24:44). The apostle Paul described the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as perfectly in line with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

What is true broadly of the Old Testament is also true narrowly of the book of Psalms. The Psalms all reflect an immediate circumstance in the life of the author (often, David), and the Psalms all have a current application to the people of God (Christians). But most importantly, the Psalms point us to Jesus Christ.

The fact that the Psalms point to Jesus is abundantly clear in the Shin stanza of Psalm 119, which is the stanza that we will consider tomorrow on Christmas Eve at Immanuel. In Psalm 119:161-168, we read about a man who was unjustly persecuted by princes even though he had gladly and joyfully committed his life to living out God’s Word. Surely these verses make us think of David – a man who was persecuted by Saul even though he was a man after God’s heart. Surely there is a current application of these verses in the life of every Christian – we are to expect persecution even as we seek to build our lives on the Word of God.

But above all else, Psalm 119:161-168 points us to Jesus – the God-man who was persecuted by Herod the Great at his birth and by Herod Antipas in his death. Jesus – the one whose life was the true fulfillment of the Old Testament, the only one who perfectly built his life on the Word of God. Jesus – the one who was born to save us from our sins.

The SBC Needs a Reformation of Ecclesiolgy

As I see it, many of the current issues within the Southern Baptist Convention boil down to matters of ecclesiology. I’m not idealistic and naive enough to think that perfect ecclesiology fixes everything within a church, an association, a network, a convention, or a denomination. However, I’m also not foolish enough to think that bad ecclesiology has nothing to do with the pitiful state of affairs in many of our churches, as well as the division and disunity that exists within our convention.

Consider the following examples, all of which fall under the umbrella of ecclesiology, and all of which have a negative impact on our churches and our convention.

Pastors (Elders, Overseers) … The typical Southern Baptist church recognizes one senior pastor as the leader of a local church. There may be other staff, and these staff may or may not be recognized as pastors, but the senior pastor is the main leader. By way of contrast, the New Testament seems to call for churches to be led by a plurality of leaders, a group of qualified men interchangeably referred to as pastors, elders, overseers. Many of the power struggles that take place in our churches, many of the issues relating to celebrity pastors, and many of the arguments about female pastors would be resolved if we agreed that pastors (elders, overseers) are the qualified men called to lead a local church. Deacons … The typical Southern Baptist church has a group of deacons who function like a board of directors. This is somewhat understandable, as Southern Baptist pastors don’t tend to stay in any one place for any length of time. These deacon boards have assumed power in an attempt to provide stability for their church. Unfortunately, many of our churches have selected deacons based on secular criteria rather than considering the biblical qualifications. Even worse, many of our churches have abdicated all questions of leadership to an unqualified group of deacons, rather than vesting leadership in a qualified group of pastors (elders, overseers). Many of the issues faced by our smaller churches stem from the power that is wrongly wielded by an unqualified deaconate.Membership … The typical Southern Baptist church has a horribly unbiblical view of membership. People assume that membership is something they are entitled to, regardless of participation, and even when one has moved to an entirely different community. This wrong view of membership is reinforced by a total lack of church discipline. Many churches have never considered the possibility that the massive gap between their membership and their attendance is a matter worthy of church discipline. As a result, our churches are filled with unregenerate members who feel entitled to membership, not to mention positions of power and influence. Many of the issues that plague our churches could be resolved with a return to meaningful, biblical, covenant membership. Worship … The typical Southern Baptist church has given precious little thought to what the Bible says about worship. By way of contrast, the typical Southern Baptist church has given far too much thought to how they can reach younger generations with “cool” and “relevant” worship. Others have given an inordinate amount of thought to how they can hang on to their traditions and musical preferences, even when those traditions and musical preferences are horribly out of date in the twenty-first century. In all of these considerations, the typical Southern Baptist church approaches worship from the perspective of pragmatism. What will help us grow numerically? Or, what will help us hang on to the nostalgia of the past? Many of the issues that plague our churches could be resolved with a return to the regulative principle of worship. Mission … The typical Southern Baptist church is driven by questions of evangelism, missions, and church growth. This is one of the things I love about Southern Baptists. We really do want to see people impacted by the gospel message. However, in our zeal for evangelism, we have unwittingly accepted the world’s definition of success. We assume bigger is better. We want our churches to grow numerically (at all costs), and we want missionaries to report stories of mass conversions (even if there is no substance to these conversions). These are the things Southern Baptists tend to celebrate, as evidenced by the people who are platformed at annual meetings and popular conferences. Many of our struggles could be remedied by rejecting celebrity-driven ministry and returning to regular, pastoral ministry. Many of our struggles could be remedied by tethering ourselves first to God’s glory, and second to evangelism and missions.

7 Problems with Single, Senior Pastor Ecclesiology

After almost twenty years of pastoring Southern Baptist churches, I’m convinced that there are serious problems with “single, senior pastor ecclesiology.”

Admittedly, the thoughts presented here are based on my personal, anecdotal experience as a Southern Baptist pastor. I’ve pastored three small-to-medium-sized churches in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas. My observation is that the prevailing ecclesiology in Southern Baptist churches involves a single, senior pastor. By single, I don’t mean unmarried – I mean the church views only one man as “the pastor” of the church.

I’ve found this to be true in Southern Baptist churches of various sizes – small, medium, large, and mega. In my observation, this single, senior pastor may be (1) the only staff member, (2) the only staff member recognized with the title “pastor,” or (3) the only staff member with the responsibility to lead the entire congregation. In other words, even when a church has staff with “pastor” in their title (music pastor, youth pastor, children’s pastor, senior adult pastor), Southern Baptist churches tend to look at the senior pastor as “the pastor.” Everyone else tends to get lumped into the category of “staff.”

I am setting this single, senior pastor ecclesiology in contrast with an ecclesiology that recognizes a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers). Within this plurality of pastors, some may be employed by the church and some may be employed outside the church. The question at hand has nothing to do with the source of a pastor’s paycheck. Instead, the question at hand has to do with whether a church ought to be led by a single, senior pastor or a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers).

I think there are at least seven problems with the prevailing single, senior pastor ecclesiology in Southern Baptist churches.

Problem One: Southern Baptist pastors don’t tend to stay at one church for very long. This is certainly true in small to medium sized churches. Often, this regular rotation of the top leader leaves a church scrambling in the interim. These churches often turn to outsiders to lead their church during a critical time of transition. I don’t deny that an outside perspective can be helpful at times, but I also think it’s odd that so many churches don’t have anyone internal who can steer the ship during transition. Surely a healthy church ought to have someone or someones capable of leading in the absence of “the pastor.” In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), there is a built in group of shepherds who can pick up the mantle of preaching and leadership when one pastor leaves.

Problem Two: As previously noted, Southern Baptist pastors don’t tend to stay at one church for very long. In some instances, churches end up reinventing themselves every time a new pastor comes and goes. When each new pastor wants to implement his vision and programming, churches often go through dramatic changes every time a new pastor shows up. In many instances, churches tire of this repeated whiplash, and they implement policies that prevent a new pastor from implementing his vision. This, in turn, frustrates a new pastor and contributes to his desire to look for greener pastures. In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), there is a consistent group of shepherds who are responsible for the vision and programming of the church.

Problem Three: Southern Baptists are obsessed with “celebrity.” This is true of our church members who latch on to any bona-fide celebrity who says “God” in public. This is true of our pastors who idolize and imitate the pastors of mega-churches. This is true of our conventions who platform the pastors of our largest churches. In larger and / or growing churches, the cult of celebrity is particularly an issue for single, senior pastors. It’s “the pastor” who gets the majority of the credit when his church grows numerically. People talk about his preaching, his charisma, his vision, and all of this talk promotes one person to celebrity status. In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), there is more than one man responsible for the growth – or decline – of a church.

Problem Four: In Southern Baptist churches of any size, the single, senior pastor model contributes to pastoral burnout. Find a man serving as “the pastor” of his church – not your pastor, but a pastor who can be honest with you. That man will tell you, it’s a heavy weight to feel like you are the only one people want to talk to for counseling, the only one people want to perform weddings, the only one people want to make hospital visits, and the only one people want to speak at funerals. All of this, on top of the weight of preaching most Sundays. For what it’s worth, I think pastoral burnout is one reason pastors tend to move so often, and it’s possibly a reason we have fewer men entering the pastorate. What man wants to be all things to all people in a particular church? Who can carry such a weight? In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), there is a group of men who are called to bear the weight of pastoral ministry together.

Problem Five: Nature abhors a vacuum. Often, what happens in the absence of a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) is that a plurality of deacons (or a committee, or a board) take up the responsibility of leading a church. Many times, these deacons see their role as a check against the influence of a senior pastor who may want to make dramatic changes without considering the long-term impact of those changes. After all, if things go south, the pastor can leave and the deacons will be left to handle the mess. One can understand why so many deacon boards wield so much power in Southern Baptist churches, but there are two problems with this situation. One, deacons are called to serve, not wield power. Two, deacon boards in Southern Baptist churches are often filled with men who do not meet the biblical qualification for deacons. Instead, they were selected based on their willingness, eagerness, social standing, or financial influence. In this common scenario, a group of men who are not even qualified to serve as deacons end up serving as quasi-defacto-elders. In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), the deacons are free to serve and the other pastors (elders, overseers) can lead alongside and in the absence of a senior pastor.

Problem Six: The prevalent single, senior pastor ecclesiology in Southern Baptist churches prevents qualified men from serving in the role in which God has gifted them to serve. When a church prevents qualified people from serving, that church is operating at less than its potential. This was Paul’s point when he used the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ. Every part needs to play its God designed role in order for the body to function properly. Single, senior pastor ecclesiology assumes that only one man is qualified and called to lead a church. All others are told to simply sit on the bench or serve in other ways. Perhaps our crisis of aging pastors and empty pulpits is the result of our churches not raising up and discipling young men who can function as pastors (elders, overseers). In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), qualified men can be called to serve as vocational pastors, bi-vocational pastors, or lay pastors.

Problem Seven: The Bible clearly teaches us that there is wisdom in numbers. This idea is set forth in Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6. It is also on display in Acts 15, when the church leaders met at the Jerusalem council to decide a critical matter. At that meeting, one man didn’t pull rank and make a solo decision. Rather, a number of voices were heard, and a consensus was reached. Intuitively, churches know that there is wisdom in numbers. This is why Southern Baptist churches tend to have controlling deacon teams and powerful personnel committees. Certainly our deacon teams can be used as a great source of wisdom, and there is nothing unbiblical about a personnel committee. However, the biblical model seems to be that a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) are called lead the church with their collective wisdom. In a church with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), the collective wisdom of the pastors guides the church rather than the isolated thoughts of one man.

Disclaimer One: In writing this post my intent is not to “take shots” at men who find themselves serving as a single, senior pastor. I served in two churches where I led as the single, senior pastor. I know for a fact that many who serve in this way would love to have a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), but they feel like their church is not ready for or open to that change.

Disclaimer Two: In writing this post, I don’t want to raise the issue of a church having a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) to the level of orthodoxy, nor do I want to present this issue as the centerpiece of biblical faithfulness. I do think there are good biblical and pragmatic reasons for a church to be led by a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) rather than a single, senior pastor.

Disclaimer Three: In writing this post, I certainly don’t want to present the idea that a church adopting a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) will “fix” all of the problems in that church. The reality of indwelling sin in both pastors and parishioners ensures that we will have problems regardless of our ecclesiology. However, the certainty of problems in every church does not mean that certain kinds of ecclesiology don’t create unnecessary problems. My conviction is that single, senior pastor ecclesiology presents churches with a numbers of challenges and problems that they would not otherwise have to face. Certainly, our churches face enough challenges as it stands without our ecclesiology adding to those problems.

Disclaimer Four: I am well aware of the fact that those who favor single, senior pastor ecclesiology often raise the point that even when a church has a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), there will still be one, main, key leader. Almost always this ends up being the person who does the majority of the preaching from the pulpit. While I agree that even with a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) there will end up being one, main leader, I also think there are significant differences between the two models – both in the minds of the leaders and in the minds of the church members. I hold this view because I pastored two churches where I was the single, senior pastor (one where I was the only staff member, another where I was viewed as “the pastor” who also had staff). Currently, I pastor in a church that has a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers), and I am convinced there is a significant difference to the way we operate – both in the minds of our leaders and in the minds of our church members.

A Pastor Gives Thanks

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I hope the turkey was cooked just right. I hope your team won the football game. I hope the black Friday sales lined up in your favor.

I also hope you took time to thank God for the many blessings he has poured into your life. Like you, I have many reasons to give thanks – salvation, family, health. Without minimizing those blessings, I want to focus on seven things I’m thankful for as a pastor.

First, I’m thankful for the privilege of pastoring a church and preaching the gospel. Specifically, I’m thankful for the privilege – and it is a privilege, not a right – of make a living by working at Immanuel. So many faithful pastors work two or more jobs to make ends meet. I’m thankful for the opportunity to pastor as a vocation.Second, I’m thankful that the Bible has been translated into English. In recent months, I’ve been preaching through Psalm 119 at Immanuel. That longest chapter of the Bible reminds us that the Word of God is an incomparable treasure, but millions of people don’t have access to the Scriptures in their native language.Third, I’m thankful for the many faithful church in Texas and across the United States. I realize that many churches are stubbornly clinging to tradition and nostalgia. Many others have embraced entertainment and performance. Still others have been overtaken by the spirit of the age. But many are faithful to the gospel.Fourth, I’m thankful for church members who love God and love each other. Immanuel is not a perfect church – far from it. However, when we come together as a church family, there is a genuine desire to hear from God’s Word, to respond to God in heartfelt worship, and to enjoy fellowship with other believers.Fifth, I’m thankful for church members who don’t insist on a particular musical style. On Sundays we have a band. On Wednesdays we only have a piano, vocalists, and hymns. I am well aware of the fact that many people prefer one style over the other, but I’m thankful for those who prioritize worship over preference.Sixth, I’m thankful for church members who genuinely want to see the gospel change lives. These people invite people to church, send people to Kenya, give to local and foreign missions projects, give to our World Missions Offering, serve lunch at the UTPB BSM, pass out Bibles with the Gideons, and share Jesus with prisoners.Seventh, I’m thankful for people who faithfully show up to church. I know how hard it is to get up and get ready with little kids, and I know how hard it is to get up and get ready when your body is weighed down with pain and sickness. I will forever be thankful for the people who simply show up week in and week out.

“God, You’re So Good” (Part Two)

In a previous post, I wrote about the goodness of God’s character, the goodness of God to his creation, and the goodness of God’s Word. These are the truths we sing about in the simple hymn, “God, You’re So Good.” These are the truths we find in Psalm 119:68, “You are good and do good; teach my your statutes.”

In this post, I want to help you see that the people of God have always been tempted to question the goodness of God’s Word. Additionally, based on Psalm 119:68, it seems to me that this temptation has always been coupled with the temptation to question the goodness of God’s character and God’s ways, as these three issues are clearly connected in Psalm 119:68.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden. The Lord gave them every tree save one – the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When the serpent approached the woman, the temptation centered around the goodness of God and his ways and his Word. The serpent began by questioning God’s Word and ended by contradicting God’s Word. Would Adam and Eve believe that the Creator was good, that his ways were good, and that his Word was good? Or, would they view God’s plan for their lives as restrictive and limiting? Would they pursue human flourishing apart from God’s goodness and God’s Word?When the Lord called the aged patriarch Abraham to offer his son – his only son, the son he loved, Isaac – as a burnt offering on Mt Moriah, Abraham faced the same temptation Adam and Eve faced in the garden. Of course their immediate circumstances and environment were different, but fundamentally the temptation was the same. Having spent the latter years of his life learning to trust God’s character and depend on God’s Word, would Abraham accept God’s call as “good?” Or, would Abraham question the goodness of the Lord and reject the goodness of his Word?When the Lord brought Israel ought of slavery in Egypt, he brought them to the foot of Mt Sinai. Having been saved from Egypt by the Lord, the people of Israel now faced an important question. Would they order their lives according to the ten words given to Moses? Would they stop worshiping all other gods and all idols? Would they change how they used God’s name, and would they alter their Saturday plans in perpetuity? Would they stop hating, lusting, taking, lying, and coveting? Or, would they live like everyone else? These questions all centered on the goodness of God and of his Word.Some four decades later, Moses was dead and Joshua was bringing a new generation into the Promised Land. Having just lost the only leader they had ever known, the people of Israel now looked to Joshua for guidance. Standing on the banks of the Jordan with Jericho on the horizon, Joshua begged the people to build their lives on God’s Word. He reminded them that God had kept his good Word to his people, and he urged the people of Israel to accept God’s Word as good, true, right, and authoritative. Would this new generation believe in the goodness of God and of his Word?Centuries later, the weeping prophet wrote a letter to the Hebrew exiles who had been marched out of Jerusalem and marched into Babylon. Jeremiah sent this letter to the exiles to assure them that God was a good God who had a good plan to prosper his people. Jeremiah begged the exiles to listen to God’s Word and to believe that God intended to prosper them – even in exile, even under God’s hand of discipline. These exiles faced a familiar temptation. They were tempted to question the goodness of God and the goodness of his Word. They were tempted to blend in with Babylonian culture. When Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah brought back waves of exiles to the Promised Land, these returning Jews faced the very same temptation their ancestors had faced. In an incredibly moving scene, Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform and read the Law of God to the people of God. This rag-tag bunch of exiles faced an important question as they listened to Ezra read from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Would they rebuild their nation on God’s Word, or would they simply rely on the security of Nehemiah’s wall and the wisdom they had picked up in Babylon? Would they rest in the goodness of God’s Word, even when God’s Word rebuked them for marrying Gentiles and violating the Sabbath? Or would they listen to a different wisdom that affirmed them as they were?The New Testament church in Jerusalem had to face this very same question. They started off strong, committing themselves to the apostles’ teaching, which was rooted in the Old Testament. Soon, however, people were being arrested, interrogated, and threatened by the very same men who had orchestrated the murder of Jesus. These Jewish authorities insisted that the first Christians stop talking about Jesus, or else. The temptation was simple – would the church build their lives on the truth about Jesus, the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures? Or, would they abandon God’s good Word in the name of safety, security, and comfort?

It seems to me that the American church has been and is now facing the very same temptation that the people of God have always faced. This temptation runs all the way back to Eden, and it sounds like a simple, innocent question, “Did God really say?” This question is often followed by the calm, confident assertion that abandoning God’s Word will actually lead to life and flourishing and happiness rather than to death.

In the United States, we’ve tragically reduced Christian faith to a payer and a spiritual head-nod to Jesus. In exchange for this spiritual tip-of-the-cap, we offer people the hope of heaven and a get-out-of-hell-free card. We’ve tried to make it easy for people to trust in Jesus, but our efforts have changed the very offer of the gospel and ignored the calls to Christian discipleship that first issued forth from God in the garden and from Jesus in his teaching.

Conversion to Christianity involves more than a spiritual head-nod in Jesus’ direction. Conversion to Christianity involves a total, complete, wholesale worldview adjustment. That adjustment begins with the acceptance of the Bible as the very Word of God. A Christian is a person who believes that the very words of the Old and New Testaments are breathed out by God, true in every respect, sufficient for faith and practice, authoritative in all ways, and fundamentally good. The person who starts by accepting the goodness of God’s Word then has to reckon with the following questions.

Will we base our doctrine, theology, and beliefs on the good Word of God, or will we listen to culture, rely on our intuition, and accept the wisdom of the world?Will we base our worship on the good Word of God, or will we pursue coolness, relevance, edginess, performance, entertainment, and professionalism?Will we structure our marriages, families, and sexuality according to God’s good Word, or will we float along in the river of postmodern sexuality?Will we allow God’s good Word to shape our identity, or will we follow the lead of the critical theorists and play the dangerous, divisive game of intersectionality?

Simply put, will we believe in the fundamental goodness of God and his goodness to his people and the goodness of his Word? Or will we simply rely on the wisdom of this age and the whims of our culture? Do we believe that God’s Word really is good, or do we believe that Americans in the the twenty-first century have discovered a better way of ordering our lives and living in this world?

The psalmist would simply remind us that God is good, God does good, and God’s Word is good (Psalm 119:68).

“God, You’re So Good” (Part One)

Maybe you learned the following children’s song when you were young … “God, you’re so good. God, you’re so good. God, you’re so good. You’re so good to me.”

There is a mountain of biblical theology crammed into this short, simple song. In support of the idea that God is in fact “so good,” consider the words of the psalmist, “You are good and do good; teach me your statutes.” (Psalm 119:68)

I came across this verse in our current sermon series at Immanuel. Notice that the psalmist says two things about God in the first part of verse 68. First, the psalmist insists that God is good. Goodness marks God’s character. Goodness marks God’s nature. God’s goodness is both the source of goodness in the world and the standard of goodness in the world. God’s goodness is the basis of his steadfast love, his kindness, his mercy, his grace, and his faithfulness. If one denies the fundamental goodness of God, a mountain of theology will collapse. Hence, the psalmist reminds us that God is good.

Second, the psalmist insists that God does good. “You are good and do good.” (Psalm 119:68) In other words, God’s goodness is not an something that God keeps to himself. Rather, God’s goodness is an attribute that sustains the eternal relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit, and God’s goodness is an attribute that overflows from the Triune God to his creation. In his character, God is good, and in his relationship to creation, God does good.

That’s the first part of verse 68. Now consider the request found in the second part of verse 68, and notice that this request is built on the first part of verse 68. “You are good and do good; teach me your statutes.” In the mind of the psalmist, there is a direct connection between the inherent goodness of God’s nature and the way God relates to his creation – specifically, the way he relates to the creatures he created in his image. The psalmist believed that the one, true God had spoken to human beings, and the psalmist believed that God’s Word to humanity was a good word. Thus, the psalmist made a request of God. He asked God to teach him his statutes.

The context of Psalm 119 is important to the way we understand the psalmist’s request in verse 68. Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible, clocking in at an impressive 176 verses. Almost every verse in this massive acrostic poem references the Word of God. Within Psalm 119, God’s Word is referred to as God’s statutes, commandments, law, precepts, word, ways, testimonies, and rules. All of these words and verses refer to the written Word of God, the Bible.

Now step back and consider Psalm 119:68 in the broader context of Psalm 119. The psalmist insists that God is good. The psalmist insists that God does good. The psalmist has an unshakable confidence that God’s goodness is reflected in God’s Word. Thus, he asks God to help him understand his Word.

Do you share the faith of the psalmist? Do you rest in the goodness of God? Do you see the goodness of God in this world and in your life? Do you want God to help you understand his good Word? In a subsequent post, I will talk about how the people of God ought to respond to the truths of Psalm 119:68.

5 Great Books on Prayer

Prayer is a challenge for me – it always has been, and I think it always will be. As I’ve tried to grow and work on my prayer life, I’ve been greatly helped by the wisdom found in the following books.

Prayer, by Tim Keller (321 pages). Keller was a great help to many through his preaching and writing. His book on prayer is no exception. Keller covers a lot of ground in writing about prayer. Most basically, he defines prayer as “personal, communicative response to the knowledge of God.” (p. 45) Pray Big, by Alister Begg (101 pages). Begg seems to have taken on the role of the pastor’s pastor. His preaching and writing is clear, biblical, and practical. This book focuses on Paul’s prayers for the church in Ephesus, prayers found in the book of Ephesians, prayers that we can imitate. The Prayer That Turns the World Upside Down, by Albert Mohler (180 pages). This short book deals with the Lord’s Prayer as found in Matthew 6, a model prayer for beleivers. Mohler notes that the Lord’s Prayer “takes less than twenty seconds to read aloud, but it takes a lifetimes to learn.” (p. xvii)The Lord’s Prayer, by Kevin DeYoung (128 pages). Kevin DeYoung has written several helpful, clear, doctrinally sound books. His book on the Lord’s Prayer is a walk through the Lord’s Prayer that explains the structure and parts of Jesus’ model prayer. This book will help you pray rightly. Praying with Paul, by D.A. Carson (215 pages). Carson is one of my favorite authors, and his book Praying with Paul is my all-time favorite book on prayer. In the book, Carson examines Paul’s prayers for his churches, and he explains how these inspired prayers can teach us how to pray today.Pray Better, by Landon Coleman (207 pages). I don’t list my own book to put myself into the company of the above authors. I do list my own book because my study of Bible prayers convicted me about the way I prayed. By learning from prayers in the Bible, my prayer life was strengthened.

Should Church Members Have Access to Their Pastor?

Should church members have access to their pastor? Should churches members expect their pastor to be available for counseling, for advice, for discipleship, for relationship, and for ministry opportunities outside the pulpit? Are these reasonable expectations, or should church members simply be satisfied with a pastor who shows up to preach every Sunday morning?

My answers (plural) to this question are no, and it depends, and yes. Let me explain.

According to statistical means and medians, I pastor a medium sized church. This means that when folks come to my church, they are usually coming from churches that are significantly smaller than Immanuel or much larger than Immanuel. Those coming from smaller churches have typically grown accustomed to having access to “their pastor.” In a small church, this is often a single, senior pastor, and most people in a small church have reasonable access to their pastor. On the other hand, those coming from larger churches have typically grown accustomed to having little access to “their pastor.” In a large church, this is the main, preaching pastor who just doesn’t have the capacity to personally shepherd everyone in his congregation.

As the pastor of a medium sized church, I regularly visit with people coming to our church from either smaller or larger churches. Those coming from a smaller church still want to have access to their pastor (potentially, me), but in a medium sized church it’s impossible for me to personally shepherd every member. On the other hand, those coming from a larger church are excited at the idea that they may have increased access to their pastor (potentially, me). Again, while I may be more available than the mega-church pastor down the street, I simply don’t have the capacity to personally shepherd every member of my church.

Back to my original question: Should church members have access to their pastor? In light of my experience as the pastor of a medium sized church, does a person’s answer to this question determine what size of church they can join? For those who want access to their pastor, must they join a small to medium sized church? For those who want to join a larger church, must they give up the idea of having access to their pastor?

Back to my original answers (plural): no, and it depends, and yes.

No … The pastor of a church – any size of church – is not called to be everything to everyone. In a large church there are simply too many people for the pastor to personally shepherd. However, because pastors of small churches are often forced to wear so many hats, their margin is often razor thin just like the pastor of a large church. Regardless of how many people attend a particular church, pastors simply are not called to be everything to everyone in their churches. Rather, pastors are called to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12).

It depends … Specifically, it depends on what it going on in the life of the church member, in the life of the pastor, and in the life of the church. When church members face serious life crises, they are right to expect access to their pastor for counseling, advice, and comfort. Obviously there are times when the church schedule or the pastor’s personal schedule will prevent him from personally caring for his people. However, church members are right to expect these things because a pastor is a shepherd, and shepherds care for the sheep (1 Peter 5:1-5).

The reason there is tension in this question for many church members is rooted in the fact that most Americans think of the pastor as the guy in charge who preaches most of the sermons on Sunday. The availability of that one man will vary, and the size of his church will be one of the major variables. To remedy this, many larger churches have separated the roles of preaching, leading, and shepherding, assigning each of these to different staff members. Conversely, most smaller churches expect a single man to do all of the preaching, leading and shepherding. This is a burden too great to bear. The answer to all of these questions lies in the fact that the New Testament assumes a local church will be led by a plurality of men rather than a single man. These men are referred to as elders (prebuteros), overseers (episkopos), and pastors (poimen). This brings me to my final answer.

Yes … Church members are justified in expecting to have access to one of the pastors of their church. Biblically speaking, there is one office of pastor (elder, overseer), and in a particular church, more than one man is expected to fill that office. When a church of any size has a plurality of pastors (elders, overseers) in place, the members can rightly expect to have access to one of their pastors. One man is not called to bear this weight alone, and church members should not have to settle for having no access to one of the pastors of their church.

6 Things I Love to Hear in Church

Bibles Opening … The crinkling and rustling of pages means the people of God are finding a particular passage in the Word of God. This sound represents participation and engagement, and it means the people of God are about to hear from God himself. I realize that many people use phones and tablets to read the Bible, and I do not think that reading the Bible digitally is a right or wrong issue. However, the crinkling and rustling of pages is the sound of the printed Word. Unlike phones and tablets, the printed Word does not light up with Fox News alerts, fantasy football updates, or text messages from people sitting across the room. Those who are reading from the printed page are less likely to be distracted.Bible Reading … When the Word of God is read, the voice of God is heard. So many people in the modern evangelical world expect to hear the voice of God as some internal monologue that they hear in isolation from everyone else in the congregation. Others expect a human being to stand up and utter some sort of prophetic announcement directly from God himself. These are both mystical misunderstandings of how the people of God hear the voice of God. The Bible claims that the Scriptures are the very breathed out voice of God (2 Timothy 3:16), which means that the audible reading of Scripture is how the people of God hear the voice of God. It’s no wonder Paul encouraged Timothy to give himself to the public reading of God’s Word (1 Timothy 4:13). Reading Scripture makes God’s voice audible.Men Singing … Don’t get me wrong, I love hearing all people sing in a worship service. Our church has some remarkable female vocalists who help lead us in worship, and I am encouraged by the giftedness of these women. We also have a row of 3 year old children who sit on the front row during the first part of our worship service, and their singing (and dancing) is a great encouragement to me. Nevertheless, there is something particularly encouraging about hearing men sing in worship. I can remember hearing my dad and grandad sing in big church, and I remember how their example motivated me to sing even though neither of them was a particularly gifted vocalist. Show me a church where the men actively participate in congregational singing, I’ll show you a church where everyone sings. Children Being Children … Newsflash, kids make noise, even when they are in church. They speak too loudly, not realizing how easily their “outside voice” carries inside the sanctuary. They wiggle, drop things, and crumple paper. They often yawn and sigh loudly during the quietest parts of the worship service. Infants cry and fuss and get upset. There is no denying the fact that all of this noise can be terribly distracting, which is why our church offers a nursery and is working on a cry room. Still, I’m thankful for children being church in big church because that means children are in church. It also means their parents are in church even though being in church with children can involve trying to sooth and wrestle a toddler during the sermon. The next time you hear children being children in your church, rather than rolling your eyes, take a second to thank God for the blessing of that child and to pray for the future salvation of that child. Musicians Playing … With all my heart I believe the most important part of musical worship is the unified voice of God’s people singing gospel truths. Christians gathered together for corporate worship do not chant wordless mantras, nor do we rely solely on instruments being played without lyrical content. It has often been said that the most important instruments in corporate worship are not pianos or guitars or organs or drums, but the vocal chords of God’s people singing his praises. Of course, singing can take place without any musical instruments at all, and acapela singing is a wonderful thing. Still, the use of instruments in worship is a great aid to the worship of God’s people. I thank God for the instrumentalists he has gifted to play and carry tunes while the people of God sing the praises of God. Doors Opening … Particularly, I’m thinking about doors opening after church has started or before church is over. Of course, some of these opening doors are unnecessary – people getting up to take random calls or children getting up to use the bathroom for the 13th time. Most of these open doors, however, represent something far more exciting. Often, the doors that open a few minutes after church has started are opened by families who are running late or guests who didn’t realize what time church started. It’s a blessing to have these people show up to worship, even if they are slightly late. Usually, the doors that open a few minutes before church is over are opened by people who are rushing off to work. These folks could have made the decision to skip church altogether, to stay home and watch online. Instead, they showed up and worshiped with their church even if they had to cut out a few minutes early. I say let those doors open and close.