Landon Coleman's Blog, page 6

Why Are Pastors So Old Today?

Back in June, Sam Rainer posted an article titled “The Disappearance of the 30-Something and 40-Something Pastor (Here’s Why).” In that article, Rainer explained that the median age of a pastor in the United States is nearing 60 years old. This increase has outpaced the median age of the US population, which has increased from 28.1 in 1970 to 38.8 in 2021 – that’s an increase of 10.7 years over a 51 year period. By comparison, the average age of a pastor in the US was 44 in 1992, and it was north of 57 in 2021 – that’s an increase of 13 years over a 29 year period. Two years later, this number has moved closer to 60.

What Rainer reports statistically is confirmed anecdotally. There are regions and communities all across the US where pastorless churches outnumber pastored churches, and those churches without a pastor are struggling to find young, qualified candidates who are interested in pastoring established churches. In my own region and community (the Permian Basin in west Texas), we have many churches struggling to find young, qualified candidates who are willing to move to our area and pastor churches in our area. Again, this is anecdotal information, but many churches in the Permian Basin have pastors who are well past retirement age. These are faithful, godly men, but they are pastoring well into their seventies, eighties, and even nineties!

How did we get to this point? Why is the average age of pastor in the US quickly moving toward retirement age? Why are their fewer young pastors than there were in the past? I think there are several factors contributing to this crisis.

One, pollsters have consistently reported a generational decline in church attendance as you move from Boomers to Gen-X to Millennials (see this Gallup story, or this Pew story). If we have fewer Millennials in church, it should not surprise us that there are fewer Millennial pastors. These two issues are obviously related. Two, for many years, researches told us that larger churches were getting larger and smaller churches were getting smaller. There is growing evidence that this trend has shifted, and there is clear evidence that smaller churches are growing in number (even if they aren’t growing in size). However, the proliferation of mega-churches through the 80s, 90s, and 00s clearly had an impact on the church landscape in the US. If fewer people are attending church period, and several thousand are attending one particular church, that likely means small and medium sized churches suffered. This dynamic surely resulted in fewer entry-level pastoral positions as smaller churches closed because of waning attendance. Three, the last 20 years has witnessed the rise of the multi-campus model of church. Streaming technology allowed large congregations to have multiple locations that simply piped in the sermon from the main campus. Clearly, this model of church growth reduced the number of opportunities for younger men to preach and pastor as one, main preaching pastor preached to multiple locations through the miracle of the internet. Four, unbiblical and dysfunctional ecclesiology is unattractive to many younger pastors. Personally, I knew lots of young men who wanted to pastor churches during my time at seminary. Many of these qualified candidates simply passed on opportunities to pastor because they believed the ecclesiology of a particular church was equal parts unbiblical and dysfunctional. These men made the decision to not pastor over pastoring a church that they saw as a certain source of conflict.Five, finances have contributed to this crisis on both ends of the age spectrum. On the older side, many older pastors simply cannot afford to retire, so they continue serving in their roles. On the younger side, many young men simply decide they cannot afford to take a job in a small, struggling church that won’t be able to pay much and may not be able to meet budget. These two issues result in older pastors staying pastor retirement age and younger pastors passing on opportunities.Six, Sam Rainer and Josh King have argued that loneliness is a factor in many young pastors exiting pastoral ministry early in their ministry career. Rainer and King talked about this issue in a recent episode of the EST Podcast. Their observations were anecdotal rather than statistical, but they confirm what I have heard from many men who pastor small churches.

Clearly there are a number of factors that brought us to this point. The question is, what do we do now that we’re here? Collectively, how should Christians and churches proceed knowing that the average age of pastor is rapidly increasing and knowing that there are fewer young pastors coming behind the old guard? How can churches be proactive in this crisis?

First, churches should not waste time blaming the younger generation, and they should not try to pin the blame on seminaries. Instead, churches should work to train up and raise up pastors from within their own ranks. Seminaries are a helpful part of preparation for pastoral ministry. Personally, I can’t imagine doing my job without seminary. However, in the plan and the providence of God, it is the local church’s job to raise up pastors – not academic institutions.Second, church mergers can allow two or more struggling churches to come together and offer an attractive salary to a younger pastoral candidate. Pastoral ministry requires an incredible amount of time, both for full-time pastors and bi-vocational pastors. The fact of the matter is many young men are not interested in sacrificing their family and their financial future to serve a small, unhealthy, dying church that is not able to pay a reasonable salary. Mergers can allow smaller churches to reduce expenses and combine resources so that a younger pastor can be paid a reasonable salary. Third, a change in ecclesiology would have tremendous impact on the ability of small and medium sized churches to navigate this crisis. In this point, I’m mostly thinking about my own convention, the SBC. Most of the small, struggling churches in the SBC have unbiblical and dysfunctional ecclesiology. The system of a single, senior pastor who preaches via screen to multiple campuses will not result in more young men wanting to pastor. Likewise, the system of a single senior pastor struggling against an entrenched deacon board in a small, struggling church is the path to death, not life. Instead, mega churches should turn their campuses into autonomous local churches led by a team of qualified elders (pastors, overseers). Likewise, small struggling churches should embrace the biblical model of a plurality of qualified elders (pastors, overseers) leading the church. This shared model of pastoral leadership makes bi-vocational work possible, and it also reduces the idea that only one man is qualified to preach to multiple campuses via a screen.Fourth, we should be on our knees in prayer, earnestly asking the Lord of the harvest to send more laborers into the field (Luke 10:2). Perhaps we have not because we ask not (James 4:2-3). Ultimately, it is God and God alone who can call out qualified men to lead his church. May the Lord give us such men and more men to lead his church.

3 Reasons You Need Jesus and Religion and Rules

On a recent trip to the Hill Country of Texas, I saw a church sign that read “No Rules, Just Jesus.” This sign made me think of another Texas church, this one in west Texas, that refers to itself as a “Church without Religion.” I think I know what these churches are trying to communicate. I think these churches are trying to distance themselves from man-made rules and man-made-rituals that have enslaved people for centuries.

Of course, it’s possible that these churches are openly advocating for a post-modern, antinomian version of Christianity. In the year 2023, it’s entirely possible that these churches really are for generic spirituality with no moral boundaries whatsoever. However, I think these churches are trying to move away from man-made rules and man-made rituals, and I think these churches are trying to move people closer to Jesus.

Unfortunately, in a culture that is increasingly post-Christian, secular, and postmodern, these catch phrases simply are not helpful. If you’re talking inside baseball to a group of diehard church people, these catch phrases may clarify what your church is for and against. Conversely, when these catch phrases are marketed to the world-at-large, the communication is quite confusing.

Take the catch phrase “No Rules, Just Jesus.” In the twenty-first century, can a church really say they are anti-rule? Does that include the Ten Commandments and the commands (rules) issued by Jesus and the apostles? Does that include the rule of law and government and law enforcement? Does that include the ever-growing acronym of the sexual revolution? Also, is the insistence that a church is anti-rule a rule itself, or is it more of a suggestion?

Take the catch phrase “Church without Religion.” In a post-Christian culture, what would people expect from a church without religion? Would this suggest the absence of rules, dogma, norms, and expectations? Would this indicate a church that had no formal structure or official hierarchy? Would this suggest a church that doesn’t take up offerings, sing songs, preach sermons, and pray prayers? Would this indicate a church with no social programs?

Again, I think I know what a church is trying to promote when they openly speak against rules and religion, but I’m an insider, and I’m giving these churches the benefit of the doubt. All things considered, I think it would be better for churches today to be clear about their rules and their religion. I think biblical fidelity requires such clarity, and I think our witness in a post-Christian society demands such clarity. Simply put, here are three reasons I think our churches need both rules and religion:

The Ten Commandments are a fundamental list of rules for all Judeo-Christian religion. Of course, as believers living under the New Covenant, we have to use the Law of God rightly. We use the Law to learn about God’s character, to recognize our sinfulness, and to know how to honor God. No, we aren’t trying to keep the Ten Commandments as a means of earning our salvation, but that doesn’t mean the Law has no role in our lives. Jesus and the Apostles gave us commands, which in effect function as rules. Examples include the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commandment, the Great Commission, and Paul’s Epistles. (You can find a partial list of such rules in a previous article I posted, Jesus, Religion, and Rules). Again, these commands are not presented as a means of earning our way with God, but neither are they presented as optional. The church is called to participate in various religious activities. These activities involve caring the poor, evangelism and discipleship, prayer and fasting, caring for widows and orphans, teaching and preaching, and worshiping together as the gathered people of God. All of these things are religious in nature, and in a culture that is moving away from religion entirely, we need to be confident in the religiosity of our faith.

I certainly appreciate the impulse to move away from anything that smacks of man-made rules, ritual, or religion. Like the churches mentioned above, I reject any attempt to allow human traditions to supplant the authority of the Word of God. Without question I want nothing to do with rules and religious ritual as a means of earning salvation. However, Christians are religious people, and rules are an essential part of our faith. In a post-Christian, post-modern culture, we should be clear about our religion and our rules.

Who’s The Boss?

In the summer of 2023 my church (Immanuel) is talking about Jesus. We’re asking the questions, “Who is Jesus,” and, “Why does it matter?” In week one, we talked about Jesus being the Ruler of the kings on earth (Revelation 1:5). As we talked about the unrivaled sovereignty of Jesus over the cosmos, we noted that the church certainly ought to be populated with people to recognize and rejoice in the truth that Jesu sis the Ruler. To use a different New Testament metaphor, the church recognizes Jesus as the Head of the body (Ephesians 1:22).

That’s a nice, churchy idea, isn’t it? Jesus is the Head of the church. What church would openly deny this statement? To be sure, many churches reject the headship of Jesus in practice, but in word they simply redefine Jesus in their own image so that they still have someone named “Jesus” at the top of the organizational flow chart. In other words, virtually every church is going to pay lip service to the idea that Jesus is the Head of the church. The question is, how can you know if Jesus really is the Head of a particular local church?

In a round about way, I get this question often as a pastor – not from prospective members – but from children who attend my church. Over almost two decades of pastoring, I can remember many times when children asked me, “Who’s the boss here?” or, “Who’s in charge around here?” These children were wanting to know if I was the “top dog,” the man in charge. Their question is a good one, and it’s loaded with biblical, theological, and ecclesiological implications.

Who’s the boss of the church? I don’t know about you, but I’d love to be able to visit various churches and get an honest, unfiltered answer to that question. Who’s the boss of the church? Truth be told, in many churches it’s the senior pastor who calls all the shots. In other churches it’s a group of people – maybe deacons, committees, or a board of directors. In some churches it’s a wealthy member, and in others it’s a particularly influential patriarch or matriarch.

Back to the Bible … If Jesus really is the Ruler of the kings on earth, and if Jesus really is the Head of the church, surely our churches ought to joyfully submit to the sovereignty of King Jesus. Since you can’t always get a straight answer to the question, “Who’s the boss of this church,” and since most churches will at least pay lip service to the headship of someone named “Jesus,” how can you determine who the boss of a particular church really is?

Here are seven signs that Jesus is the Head of a particular local church:

1. There is lots of talking about Jesus – not just vague God-talk. If a church rarely talks about Jesus and what the Bible says about Jesus, you should question whether or not that church really believes Jesus is the Head of the body. Truth be told, if a church majors in vague, vanilla, generic God-talk and rarely talks about Jesus, you should question whether or not that particular church is Christian in any real sense.

2. There is clarity about Jesus’ sinless life and sacrificial death. It’s possible that a church would talk a lot about Jesus, but that in talking about Jesus a church might make up their own version of Jesus. At the heart of what the Bible tells us about Jesus of Nazareth is the certainty that Jesus lived a live of sinless obedience and died a sacrificial death on the cross for sinners. When Jesus is the Head of a church, these truths will be front and center in what a church says about Jesus.

3. There is submission to the Word of God – the red and black letters. Jesus told his followers that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. Jesus repeatedly pointed his opponents back to the Word of God. Jesus told his disciples that the Old Testament was a book that spoke about him, from beginning to end. When a church recognizes the Lordship of Jesus, that church will adopt Jesus’ view of the Scriptures. The Word of God will be preached and treasured.

4. There is a commitment to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. When questioned about the greatest commandment, Jesus called people to love God above all and to love neighbor as self. This is the Great Commandment. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus reminded his disciples that he had been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and on the basis of that authority Jesus sent his disciples out to make disciples of all nations. A church that recognizes the Headship of Jesus will be serious about both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

5. There is a love for children. If you read the gospels, it’s clear that Jesus loved children. He did not see them as a bother, a nuisance, an expense, or a mess. He valued them and treasured them. He made time for them. If a church is serious about submitting to Jesus as Ruler, that church will adopt Jesus’ view of children.

6. There is a healthy, functioning body that submits to the Head. The New Testament metaphor of Jesus being the Head of the church implies that the Head has a body. That idea is also expressed in the New Testament with great clarity. The church is described as the body of Christ, and Jesus wants his body to be both healthy and functioning. That means a church in submission to the headship of Christ will care more about health than buildings, bodies, and budgets. It also means a church in submission to the headship of Christ will cultivate a culture of service among God’s people.

7. There is a willingness to put our churches into biblical order. Jesus promised to be with his disciples and to guide them as they went about the task of the Great Commission. The Holy Spirit of God inspired the New Testament authors as they wrote about the growth of the church and as they wrote about God intentions for the church. Today, when a church is serious about the Headship of Jesus, that church will desire to be put into biblical order. Rather than going along with the spirit of the age, churches that recognize the Headship of Jesus will seek to joyfully submit to Jesus’ design and intention for the church.

Hope for the SBC

I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church. I served one summer as a Southern Baptist missionary. I am a two-time graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological seminary, the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention. I pastor a Southern Baptist Church. While I did not attend this Southern Baptist Convention this week, I did watch via livestream. For the most part, I am hopeful and encouraged by several developments that took place in New Orleans (2023).

The SBC affirmed its commitment to complementarianism rather than egalitarianism, and in doing so, affirmed its commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. In recent months the Executive Committee disfellowshipped two churches, Fern Creek Baptist Church and Saddleback Baptist Church. Both churches have openly argued that women should be allowed to serve as pastors (elders, overseers), a position that is clearly contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament and the Baptist Faith and Message. Having been excluded, both Fern Creek and Saddleback appealed the decision of the EC. The messengers of the SBC overwhelmingly supported the decision of the EC to disfellowship these churches (88% supported the decision on Saddleback, 91% supported the decision on Fern Creek). Additionally, the messengers of the SBC voted to amend the constitution of the convention in an attempt to clarify our commitment to complementarianism over egalitarianism. To be sure, nothing change in Southern Baptist life with these votes, but the convictions of Southern Baptists were clarified in helpful ways. The majority of Southern Baptists believe the question about who can rightly be recognized as a pastor is a biblical question rather than a cultural or methodological question. Furthermore, in these votes, Southern Baptists showed that celebrity, size, and influence will not overrule our convictions.

Some have questions about how these votes relate to the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches. The short answer is, these votes have nothing to do with the autonomy of a local church. Individual Baptist churches have every right to ordain anyone as a pastor – that’s autonomy. The Southern Baptist Convention is not telling any church what to do or not do. Rather, the Southern Baptist Convention is rightly defining the parameters of affiliation within a voluntary association of churches.

Some have questioned whether or not Southern Baptists are becoming too “creedal” in clarifying how the Baptist Faith and Message defines affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention. I would simply note that Baptists have a long, rich history of writing confessions of faith and statements of faith. These documents do not carry the authority of the Bible, but they do clarify what a voluntary association of churches believes about the Bible. In doing so, they define the parameters of cooperation.

Some have questions about where these votes leave Southern Baptists Churches that do not have females in the position of “senior” pastor, but that do have females who have been given the title of pastor as staff members (ie, “Children’s Pastor”). Some have worried that these votes will push these churches away, but that need not be the case. Instead, these churches are being invited to give consideration to the clear teaching of the New Testament and the polity of their local church.

Some have suggested that women are being banned from leadership and involvement in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is not an accurate description of the votes that took place in New Orleans this week. There was no vote to ban women from leadership, nor was there a vote to prohibit women from serving in ministry on the staff of a Baptist church. The votes this week were specifically focused on the office of pastor and who ought to be recognized with that title.

The SBC continues to send missionaries around the world, and the SBC continues to plant churches in North America, and in doing so continues to be a convention of churches committed to the Great Commission. The presentations, statistics, and commissioning services were all made possible by the continuing generosity of Southern Baptists who give to missions offerings and support the Cooperative Program. In addition to missionaries and church plants, Southern Baptists continue to show tireless devotion to disaster relief. Southern Baptist are Great Commission Baptists.The SBC supports and, in turn, is served by six, world-class theological institutions. Within SBC life, there is often friendly “competition” between our seminaries and their devotees. Historically, there are times when certain institutions are stronger, larger, and healthier, and there are obviously times when other institutions struggle. All friendly competition aside, the seminaries of the SBC are theologically conservative, and they make theological training both available and affordable for Southern Baptist. In a day when fewer men are entering the pastorate, we dare not scale back our efforts at training pastors. The messengers of the SBC recognize the importance of financial accountability. Even though there was no definitive, clear-cut course of action determined this week, it is clear that the messengers of the SBC expect the entities of the SBC to be accountable with the Cooperative Program dollars they receive and spend. Future conventions will have to determine what needs to be disclosed and what doesn’t need to be disclosed. But the messengers seem to recognize the importance of accountability and transparency from the agencies who exist because of Cooperative Program giving. Year after year, the Southern Baptist Convention highlights the remarkable unity that exists among Southern Baptists, despite what is often portrayed in popular media and on social media. The votes to uphold the actions of the Executive Committee with regard to excluded churches were overwhelming votes. Not unanimous, of course, but overwhelming. The vote to re-elect Bart Barber to a second term was decisive. Yes, an opposition candidate running and receiving 30% of the vote in a year when typically the president runs unopposed is noteworthy. But 70% of the vote is decisive. There is no question that Southern Baptists are a diverse group in many ways, and our autonomy preserves that diversity. But contrary to what you may hear, Southern Baptists are largely unified in both doctrine and mission.

The SBC Had and Has a Rick Warren Problem

[image error]

The SBC had a Rick Warren problem – had because Warren is the former pastor of Saddleback and Saddleback used to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The SBC has a Rick Warren problem – has because Warren still has a massive platform (this platform apparently includes a massive email list) and Warren is using that platform to appeal the exclusion of Saddleback from the Southern Baptist Convention.

The aim of this post is not to detail the history of recent conflict between the Southern Baptist Convention and Rick Warren. You can find plenty of online commentary on that drama. The aim of this post is simply to offer a regular pastor’s response to mega-church pastor Rick Warren’s “SBC Stand” campaign, a campaign based on ridiculous arguments, loaded rhetoric, and obfuscating statements.

What follows is Warren’s comments about SBC Stand in bold, followed by my response.

We stand on behalf of millions of SBC women whose God-given spiritual gifts and leadership skills are being wasted instead of empowered for the Great Commission. Great Commission Baptists believe Jesus authorized every woman to go, to make disciples, to baptize and to teach — just as he authorized every man. We cannot finish the task Jesus gave us with 50% of the church forced to sit on the bench. Response: Warren’s comments here assume that a person gifted for leadership is wasting their spiritual giftedness unless and until they hold the office of pastor (elder, overseer) and fulfill the function of pastor (elder, overseer). This claim would presumably apply to the millions of SBC men who are wasting their “God-given spiritual gifts and leadership skills” by working in the public square and serving as active laymen in their local church. Warren’s claim that 50% of the church (women) are being as to “sit on the bench” is also ridiculous. Again, this statement assumes that any believer not holding the office of pastor (elder, overseer) and fulfilling the function of pastor (elder, overseer) is making no contribution to the Great Commission. Apparently, Warren thinks pastors are the only Christians “in the game.” Anyone who has followed Warren knows that he has been passionate about getting believers involved in their local church – involvement that is not limited to the office and function of pastor. Thus, when Warren speaks this way, his argument appears to be manipulative and obfuscating. We stand on behalf of the hundreds of concerned SBC pastors who have female pastors serving on their staffs. These pastors are fearful and worried their congregations will also be disfellowshipped when their churches are discovered by the new SBC “inquisition.” Response: Warren rightly points out that there are Southern Baptist churches who use the title “pastor” to refer to their female staff members (ie, Children’s Pastor, Women’s Pastor, etc). Some of these churches use the title with all seriousness, believing that women can hold the office of pastor. Others use the title carelessly, not thinking about what these job titles actually communicate. The problem with Warren’s argument is that he implies these churches have only two options – either they can support SBC Stand, or they can face the latest SBC “inquisition.” First, Warren knows the historical use of the word “inquisition,” and he uses the word to scare people. There is no SBC “inquisition,” and the exclusion of Saddleback is certainly not the first act of exclusion taken by the SBC in recent years. Second, these churches have other options, including the option to leave the SBC and affiliate with other like-minded churches who support the ordination of women, or change the way they use the word “pastor” when speaking about staff members. Warren himself has admitted that most Southern Baptists do not agree with him on this issue. I think he’s right, and I’m left wondering why an enlightened person like Warren would even want to stay in a denomination that largely disagrees with his position. We stand of behalf of the dedicated International Mission Board (IMB) missionaries who recognize the historic value-added impact women in leadership offer the organization. There are many female leaders represented in the mission field who are dedicated to sharing the Gospel to all nations and in all languages. Women serve in various non-pastoral roles throughout the IMB at the director level and above on both field and staff leadership teams, including in senior leadership vice president roles. With a renewed emphasis on the restriction of women, the world will lose more godly female church planters and couples serving as pastoral teams in the mission field. Response: The notion that the SBC and the IMB do not recognize the “value-added impact” of women is preposterous! Women have historically been appointed to missionary service with the IMB, and this practice has not changed since the adoption of the BFM 2000. Additionally, the phrase “pastoral teams” is intentionally ambiguous. If this term means a pastor and his wife working as a team, fine. If this term means husbands and wives share the call to pastoral ministry, not fine. The BFM statements on ecclesiology in no way, shape, or form allow for anything like a “pastoral team” of husband and wife who share the call to pastor and the office of pastor. Elsewhere in the SBC Stand campaign, Warren tries to connect the fact that the IMB currently has fewer appointed missionaries on the field than in years past. This is a classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Warren doesn’t mention the financial woes of the IMB in previous years that led to a reduction in the missionary force. We stand on the foundational principle of the SBC that every church is autonomous. A decision this critical to the denomination’s future identity should be decided by the Messengers, not a committee, at the Annual Meeting in New Orleans in June. The Messengers must decide whether or not they want the Executive Committee to act like a Catholic magisterium. Response: Every SBC pastor I know who stands for the ordination of only qualified men to the office of pastor (elder, overseer) also believes in the autonomy of the local church. None of them are hoping to ditch congregationalism to elect a Baptist Pope. Warren is right to insight on the autonomy of the local church, but in making this one of his five pillars, he passively suggests that everyone and anyone who opposes his position is by default in favor of something akin to a “Catholic magisterium.” Again, more scare language. Warren fails to note that the SBC is a voluntary convention of churches, and as a convention of churches the SBC has the right to define the boundaries of affiliation. We’ve never allowed any and every church to affiliate with the SBC, and we’ve always had an idea of what like-minded churches would look like. Does this mean we’ve been a “Catholic magisterium” all these decades? Of course not. The convention of churches known as the SBC has every right to appoint committees and boards that will uphold the boundaries of the SBC as set forth in the BFM 2000. This is no threat to the autonomy of the local church, nor does it represent a move towards a more Catholic or Episcopalian form of ecclesiology. We stand to protect and uphold the shared values and mission of the SBC.   Our goal is to spark the thinking of Messengers regarding the future direction of the SBC. The Messengers must decide whether or not they want the Executive Committee to act like a Catholic magisterium. Response: Again, Warren’s statement here is well crafted and misleading. The statement implies that while Warren is on a mission to uphold the shared values and mission of the SBC, his opponents are simply out to accomplish some nefarious goal. Maybe that’s destroying unity? Maybe that’s imposing a “Catholic magisterium?” Whatever that horrible agenda may be, Warren wants us to be grateful for his heroic efforts to fight for the values and mission of the SBC. But what if the authors of the BFM actually believed that restricting the pastoral office to qualified males (as the New Testament clearly does) was essential to Southern Baptist churches working together in shared values for a shared mission? What if the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists actually know what a pastor is and is not, and want the future of the SBC to be faithful to the clear teaching of the New Testament? In all reality, Warren doesn’t want to uphold the shared values of the SBC. He wants to reshape them to include the idea that women can be and should be ordained to the office of pastor (elder, overseer). Currently, the concerns about women serving as pastors is a subject of intensive debate within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  As followers of Christ, we’re never going to achieve unity on doctrine, but we can achieve unity on mission. Response: It is shocking to see a man who has devoted his life to the proclamation of the gospel simply throw his hands in the air, despairing of the possibility of Southern Baptists finding any kind of doctrinal unity. If this is the case, the BFM has absolutely no role in Southern Baptist life, and all manner of “false teaching” should simply be accepted with the understanding that doctrinal unity is impossible. It’s equally shocking that Warren would think there could be some sort of missional unity in the absence of doctrinal unity. Assuming he’s right, how would we actually define the mission? How would we define success? How would we have any basis for deciding who to work with in achieving this nebulous, undefined mission. Warren knows better than this. He knows theology drives mission, and his statement here is a manipulative attempt to frame the issue in a friendly, winsome, cooperative way. Warren knows Southern Baptists are committed to the idea of cooperation, and he is now suggesting that cooperation trump doctrine in defining the nature of our association as a convention of churches.

Rick Warren is no dummy. He’s a brilliant man and a world-class communicator. These five statements (the sixth point above is a summary point taken from the SBC Stand website) are purposefully written both in what they positively say and negatively omit. Notably missing from Warren’s recent social media posts is any coherent argument regarding the New Testament passages that clearly limit the office of pastor to qualified men. Warren has offered plenty of end-run arguments from other passages, but these arguments all confuse the idea that women are called to share the gospel with the idea that women ought to hold pastoral office. His arguments also imply untrue and uncharitable things about regular pastors like myself who have not moved off of the traditional view of recognizing only qualified men as pastors.

The question is, what is Rick Warren’s real motive in making this stand and objecting to the exclusion of Saddleback? One possibility is that Warren knows the SBC will not follow him down this road, but he wants the publicity and the attention that will certainly come by dragging this process out. Maybe Warren wants to be a martyr, and he wants the watching world to see him as a victim in this whole scenario. Achieving martyrdom and victim status would be quite a feat for a man who “discipled” more men than all of our SBC seminaries combined (insert eye roll emoji).

Another possibility is that Warren actually thinks the SBC will follow him down this road and affirm that women ought to be ordained to the office of pastor (elder, overseer). This will be determined next week in New Orleans.

Motives aside, the solution to this problem is really quite simple:

The messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans should uphold the decision to exclude Saddleback.The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention needs to be clear about the parameters of cooperation set forth in the BFM 2000. Those churches that strongly disagree with the SBC’s position on ordination should withdraw their affiliation. Those churches that have been careless with the title pastor (elder, overseer) need to rethink how they use the word.

By the end of next week, I pray that Southern Baptists can say we had a Rick Warren problem.

Who Defines the Church?

Who defines the church?

Who defines the church? As you look around the landscape of churches today, you’ll find four broad answers to this question: the future, the present, the past, or the Bible.

First, the future. The biggest names in evangelicalism typically argue that the future ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the wants and desires of future generations to guide the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you want to reach the next generation?

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. I graduated from a Southern Baptist seminary. I have pastored three Southern Baptist churches. That puts my church experience squarely in “evangelicalism.” Without question, the dominant voice in evangelical culture today insists that future generations must be the ones to define the church. That is, the dominant mindset in the biggest and best known evangelical churches demands that we change the way we’ve always done things in an attempt to reach the next generation. This hamster-wheel of change leaves evangelicalism and evangelicals constantly chasing the next best thing. It results in evangelicals constantly trying to hop on the next wave of change before the church down the street all in an attempt to gain a competitive edge. The buzz-words of this movement are relevance, innovation, contemporary, modern, and change. Those who think this way are proud to be part of new kinds of churches that are nothing like your grandma’s church.

Second, the present. The loudest voices in theological liberalism typically argue that the present ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the accepted wisdom of our culture to shape the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you want to be relevant to the world as it exists today?

Many Protestant churches would reject the label of “evangelical” on doctrinal grounds. The mainstream protestant churches are often associated with theological liberalism, and they insist that culture must define the church. In appealing to culture, these churches aren’t so much thinking about architecture, programming, or music. They’re thinking more in terms of worldview, ideology, and politics. Simply put, those who embrace theological liberalism often argue that the church has to change to keep up with the times. If we want to be relevant in the decades to come, we have to get with the times and ditch our antiquated doctrines. In effect, these voices want to allow the dominant voices in the academy, in entertainment, in science, in the LGBTQ+ movement, and in politics shape the beliefs, structure, and operation of the church. Those who think this way are proud to be part of evolving churches that look and think just like the secular world of the west.

Third, the past. The most nostalgic people in church life typically argue that the past ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the accumulated wisdom and traditions of the past to guide the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you just want church like it used to be?

There is a third group to recognize in this debate about who gets to define the church. This third group appeals to tradition. These are high church voices – Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox. In thinking through the definition of the church, how a church is structured, and how a church functions, the dominant voices of this movement appeal to the past and the wisdom of previous generations. Those who think tradition should be the dominant voice in shaping the church find great comfort in rituals and liturgy that dates back centuries to previous eras of church history. Often, these people claim a lineage that goes all the way back to the earliest period of church history. It should be noted that there is a kitschy, Protestant version of the appeal to tradition. These are the old-timey Protestants who just want to experience the church of their youth – choirs, vestments, programs, Bible translations, hymnals, rituals – these people just want church to be like it was in the golden age of their youth.

Fourth, the Bible. Those who recognize the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible aim to allow the Word of God to define the church. That is, we should allow the Word of God to shape and appearance, the doctrine, and functioning of the church. After all, God has spoken, hasn’t he?

So, the question is, who defines the church? Will it be the evangelicals and their appeal to relevance in the eyes of future generations? Will it be the liberals and their call to ditch outdated doctrine? Will it be the traditionalists and their longing for history and nostalgia? Or, will it be the Word of God?

Recently at Immanuel, we preached through the book of Titus. Paul’s letter to Titus is what New Testament scholars refer to as a “Pastoral Epistle.” Alongside 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus provides us with instructions that pastors need to know as they lead the church. Titus in particular reminds us that God wants his church to be “put into order” (Titus 1:5). In other words, God has not left us to dream up our own designs and desires for the church. Rather, God has clearly spoken to us about how the church ought to be established, what the church ought to believe, and how the church ought to function in the world.

Who gets to define the church? God does, and God has revealed his desire for his church in books like Titus. As we worked through Titus, we noted several aspects of a church “put into order.”

Leadership (Titus 1:5-16). God has qualifications for the men who lead his church (elders, overseers, pastors). These qualifications do not include a charismatic personality, a high capacity for accomplishment, a commanding stage presence, or a vision for innovation. They do include character, the ability to teach, and a desire to shepherd the flock.Discipleship (Titus 2:1-10). God aims to see disciples formed by the church. This is the central command in the Great Commission, and the means of making disciples is spelled out in Titus 2 when Paul talks about the relationships between older men and younger men, older women and younger women. Multigenerational discipleship is essential in a church. Doctrine (Titus 2:11-14). The elders of a church are called to teach sound doctrine, and the teaching of sound doctrine ought to result in obedience among the people of God. Paul gets to the heart of his letter at the end of chapter two when he presents us with the actual content of sound doctrine: the gospel. The gospel must be what we teach and what we live. Good Works (Titus 3:1-15). When the elders of a church give themselves to teaching right doctrine, the gospel will produce a people who are “devoted” to “good works.” This is not legalism or Phariseeism or moralism. This is the fruit of lives who have been saved and changed by the gospel. Every aspect of our lives will bear evidence of a devotion to good works. Discipline (Titus 1:10-16, 3:9-11). A church that is put into order is a church that has right leadership teaching right doctrine resulting in right living. This kind of church will not turn a blind eye toward false teaching, unrepentant sin, or divisiveness. Rather, this kind of church will be serious about the process of church discipline.

Who gets to define the church? Some say future generations. Others say the spirit of our age. Still others say the traditions of the past. Those who desire to be part of a church put into biblical order will look to God’s Word for guidance about how we define the church.

Life Under the Sun

Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books in the Bible. It’s a challenging book to process, and if you want to make sense of any one part of Ecclesiastes, you have to read that part in light of the entire book. What I mean is, you can’t make sense of the early parts of Ecclesiastes if you haven’t read all the way to the end of Ecclesiastes. Likewise, you can’t really make sense of the end of Ecclesiastes if you haven’t read through the early chapters of Ecclesiastes.

The opening verses set the tone for the book. After introducing himself as “the Preacher,” the author poses a question in Ecclesiastes 1:3, “What can man gain for all the toil at which he toils under the sun?” The word “toil” refers to anything and everything we do in life, and “gain” is an economic term found only in Ecclesiastes. Essentially the Preacher wants to know how he might come out ahead at the end of his life. The phrase “under the sun” is important, and it refers more to a time than to a place. We mark time with the sun, and the Preacher is telling us that the moment we arrive on this earth we are “on the clock.” Life is racing by, and the Preacher wants to know how we might come out ahead when our time is up.

His answer is found in Ecclesiastes 1:2 with the word “vanity.” Some translations use the word “meaningless,” but both of those English words miss the heart of the Hebrew word used here. The word is hebel, and it literally means smoke, mist, or vapor. The Preacher wants us to know that our lives are exceedingly short. If we aren’t careful, we will come to the end of our short lives and realize that we spent our time under the sun “striving after wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:17).

To prevent us from such a tragic life and such a horrible end, the Preacher offers us wisdom for our journey. He warns us that nothing in this world can truly satisfy. He reminds us that life is a gift from God, a gift meant to be enjoyed. He assures us that while wisdom will make our lives better, it will not prevent suffering or death. He encourages us with the sovereignty of God, reminding us that God is sovereign over all of our days.

In the end, the Preacher calls us to fear God and keep his commandments because a day of judgment is coming (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). At this point, it’s worth noting that Ecclesiastes is not the first book of the Bible, nor is it the last. If you haven’t read the previous Old Testament books, Ecclesiastes will remain a mystery. More importantly, if you haven’t read the New Testament and the full revelation of the good news about Jesus Christ crucified for sinners, Ecclesiastes ends on a somber note of judgment.

If God really is going to bring my evil deeds into judgment, I’m a dead man walking under the sun. Left to myself, I will find no gain for all my toil. But, thanks be to God that Jesus Christ laid down his life for sinners like me so that when my time under the sun is over I might have eternal life. The good news about Jesus Christ builds on and reframes the message of Ecclesiastes so that sinners can joyfully say, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21) The good news about Jesus Christ fills out the message of Ecclesiastes so that Christians can rest in the truth that, “In the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:58)

If you’d like to listen to a sermon series through the book of Ecclesiastes, check out this page on the Immanuel Podbean site …

https://immanuelodessa.podbean.com/category/ecclesiastes

The Outcome of Your Faith

 

Pragmatism is a way of looking at the world that assesses the truth and the utility of an idea in terms of measurable and observable success. Without question, Americans are pragmatic, results-oriented people. We like things that “work” and “produce results.” We like diets and products that “work.” We like business plans and educational strategies that produce results. We tend to favor whatever results in measurable and observable success.

Tragically, the pragmatism of the United States has filtered into the thinking of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather than starting with the question, “Will this honor God?” too many churches begin with the question, “Will this work, and will this produce results?” There are grave consequences to this way of thinking. Immediately, God becomes just a means to a greater end. Invariably, church members begin to see themselves as consumers of a religious product, and the merits of that product are, not surprisingly, judged through the lens of pragmatism.

Examples of church members thinking like consumers include the following: parents who bring their children to church simply to try and keep their kids out of trouble, couples who attend church only in the hopes that their marriage will improve, people who make appearances at church for the social and business contacts, and individuals who come to church to bargain with God in the hope that God will fix their health problems, legal problems, and financial problems. In each of these scenarios, people are participating in church activities and hoping that Christianity will “work” for them. That is, they are looking for Jesus to “produce results” in their lives.

In contrast to this pragmatic, consumeristic approach to religion, listen to the words of the apostle Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-9.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith —more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire — may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”

Peter says believers have born again to an inheritance that is being kept in heaven. Peter says that believers are waiting for the full and final revelation of our salvation. Peter says that believers should expect to face various trials in this world, and these trials are intended to test the genuineness of their faith. Peter says believers will obtain the outcome of their faith at the return of Christ, and that outcome is the salvation of their souls.

A saving relationship with Jesus will not fix all of your problems, nor will it prevent suffering in your life. However, a saving relationship with Jesus will have a positive impact on many aspects of your life. Just remember, these positive changes are not the ultimate end of the Christian faith. Our highest aim is a relationship with the one, true God and the salvation of our souls.

The LORD of Hosts Is the God of Jacob

“God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah. There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah. Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth. He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. ‘Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!’ The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah. (Psalm 46:1-11, ESV)

Psalm 46 is a glorious psalm. The best known and most loved verse is likely verse 10 where the LORD himself speaks, saying, “Be still, and know that I am God.” To many today, Psalm 46:10 is welcoming, comforting, and encouraging. Without question, Psalm 46:10 is intended to be all of those things. However, the context of Psalm 46 frames this welcome, comfort, and encouragement in an odd way that usually gets little attention from modern readers.

Notice that Psalm 46 was written by the Sons of Korah, that is, descendants of Korah. You may remember that back in Number 16, Korah and his kin objected to God elevating Moses as the top leader in Israel. In response, the LORD caused the earth to open up and swallow Korah and his supporters. Some of Korah’s descendants survived this horrible event, and they eventually made a name for themselves as worship leaders in Israel.

Also notice that Psalm 46 begins by referencing the possibility that they earth would give way – precisely the judgment that befell Korah in Numbers 16. It was in response to this possibility that the sons of Korah sang about the presence of God being a comfort to his people (Psalm 46:4-5). This family knew that God had the ability and the right to make the kingdoms totter and the earth melt (Psalm 46:6). This family knew that God had the ability and the right to bring desolations on the rebellious, wicked nations (Psalm 46:8).

Notice that it is in this context – in a humble recognition of the power and judgment of the LORD – that the sons of Korah recorded these words from the LORD himself, “Be still, and know that I am God.” The context here is radically different than, say, Psalm 23. The emphasis in Psalm 23 is on the provision and protection of the Good Shepherd. Conversely, the emphasis in Psalm 46 is on the anger and the judgment of God – God who is the LORD of hosts.

Psalm 46 is calling us to the realization that one way or another, the LORD will be exalted among the nations (Psalm 46:10). He will either be exalted in the salvation of his people or in the judgment of his enemies, but either way, the LORD has every intention of exalting his name in the earth.

Lastly, notice the name that is twice repeated in Psalm 46 – God is the LORD of hosts, the God of Jacob (Psalm 46:7, 11). The title “LORD of hosts” is “Yahweh Sabaoth.” It’s the name we sing in Luther’s famous hymn, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” It’s a name that reminds us that the LORD commands the hosts of heaven, and as commander of the hosts of heaven, the LORD will bring judgments and desolations on his enemies. In Psalm 46, the sons of Korah are calling us to be still and recognize that God is the LORD of hosts.

However, the sons of Korah are not calling the people of God to tremble in terror before the LORD of hosts. Rather, the sons of Korah are calling the people of God to recognize that the LORD of hosts is also the God of Jacob. Do you remember Jacob from the book of Genesis? His name meant “liar” or “deceiver,” and he was a scoundrel first-class. Remarkably, Psalm 46 tells us that the LORD of hosts has also made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and, of all people, Jacob. The LORD of hosts is the God of Jacob.

This is good news for sinners. If the only thing we knew of God is the fact that he is the LORD of hosts, Yahweh Sabaoth, we would be left to tremble at the judgments and desolations that he brings against his enemies. However, when we learn that the LORD of hosts is also the God of Jacob, we find gospel hope. God isn’t looking for good people or righteous people to be on his side. The Bible is clear, there are no good people, no righteous people – no, not one (Romans 3, Psalm 14, 53).

No, the LORD of hosts isn’t looking for good or righteous people. Rather, he is looking for sinful scoundrels like Jacob who will acknowledge their sinfulness and joyfully submit to the LORD of hosts. The sons of Korah remind us that the LORD of hosts is with his people, the God of Jacob is a fortress for his people.

May the LORD of hosts, the God of Jacob make us to be these kind of people. May we be quick to acknowledge our sinfulness before the LORD of host, and may we be quick to joyfully take refuge in the God of Jacob, our fortress.

Suffering and Rejoicing with the Body of Christ

Currently, I am in the middle of a sermon series called “The Church.” In this series we are thinking about some of the metaphors the Bible uses to help us understand what it means to be part of “The Church” – metaphors like the body of Christ, the family of God, and the temple of the Holy Spirit.

When we talked about the church as “the body of Christ,” one verse in particular struck me as a unique challenge. That verse was 1 Corinthians 12:26, which says, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”

On the face of it, the verse is quite simple in calling us to do two things. One, suffer with those who suffer. Two, rejoice with those who are honored. As I thought about these two commands, I found myself wondering which of the two the body of Christ is better at doing? Suffering, or rejoicing?

I started with the assumption that suffering is less preferable than being honored – an assumption I think is largely correct. However, this assumption led me to a conclusion that I’ve come to question. Because I assumed suffering is worse than rejoicing, I concluded that suffering with the body of Christ must be harder than rejoicing with the body of Christ. However, upon further reflection and meditation, I’m not sure this is the case.

After almost two decades of pastoring, I’m convinced that the body of Christ generally does an admirable job of suffering with those who suffer – not a perfect or flawless job, but admirable. I’ve heard horror stories about how churches can be calloused and uncaring, but this hasn’t been my experience in the body of Christ – not even close. Instead, my experience has been that when believers see others suffering, they are often moved to pity and compassion. They want to help even when they don’t know how to help. They will pray, they will donate money, and they will bring food. Yes, I know that sufferers are not “helped” by people saying, “Let me know if you need anything,” but I generally believe that non-helpful offer is genuine. People are willing to suffer with other members of the body, even when they don’t know how to do that, even when they don’t do it perfectly or consistently.

After almost two decades of pastoring – and I’m speaking anecdotally and experientially here – I think it’s harder for most believers to rejoice when other parts of the body are honored than to suffer when other parts of the body are suffering. I think it’s harder for us to genuinely celebrate the victories of others than it is to enter into their suffering. I think pity and compassion and empathy come easily for most believers, so suffering with others is a bit intuitive. I also think that jealousy, envy, rivalry, bitterness, criticism, and gossip come easily for many of us, which means rejoicing with others requires some work.

Think about some of the following scenarios that might be experienced by some of the members of your church – receiving a promotion at work, buying a new house, having children who excel in academics and athletics, being the focus of special recognition for service within the church – each of these scenarios gives you an opportunity to rejoice with those who are being honored in some way. All too often, we smile with others on the outside, while on the inside we are full of dead men’s bones – jealousy, envy, rivalry, bitterness, criticism, and gossip.

In the interest of full disclosure – this same dynamic is at work among pastors. I know from experience, it’s easy to feel bad for the fellow pastor who has been chewed up and spit out by his church. It’s easy to pray for, listen to, and encourage a fellow pastor who is suffering. It’s much harder to genuinely celebrate the ministry successes of the pastor down the street. Why? Because jealousy, envy, rivalry, bitterness, criticism, and gossip come naturally to all of us.

May God make the body of Christ quick to suffer with those who suffer, and quick to rejoice with those who are honored.