The Gospel Coalition

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, the nation’s largest breast cancer charity, has  cut its funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. The move by Komen has enraged pro-abortion advocates and sparked a renewed debate about what Planned Parenthood actually does.

Setting aside the undercover operations and insider testimonies which have revealed that Planned Parenthood at its worst is an aggressive promoter of abortion that turns a blind eye to sex trafficking and abuse, let’s simply examine the oft repeated claim that abortions only account for 3% of Planned Parenthood services. The chart reproduced by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein seems to settle the matter. Abortion is only a tiny sliver of Planned Parenthood’s overall  program. Most of what they do focuses on testing, contraception, and prevention. Right?

As if often the case with statistics, the devil is in the details. Klein’s chart comes directly from numbers furnished by Planned Parenthood itself. You’ll notice that Planned Parenthood lists 11 million total services, of which more than 300,000 were abortions, roughly 3 percent. But earlier in the report we read that these 11 million services were performed for not quite 3 million people. That means most people coming to Planned Parenthood received multiple services. A woman might come in for a pregnancy test, get tested for an STD, have abortion, and leave with contraceptives. Four services, one abortion.  A closer look at the numbers, then, reveals that 1 in 9 people serviced by Planned Parenthood received an abortion. And no doubt the number is much higher if you were to look simply at those women who came in pregnant looking for help.

Just looking at their own numbers, there are more reasons to take the 3 percent claim with a generous grain of salt.

• Planned Parentood provided almost 1.5 million “emergency contraceptive kits.” This is a euphemism for the morning after pill, which works, in part, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
• With more than 300,000 abortions in 2010, Planned Parenthood accounted for 25% of abortions in the U.S., hardly a minor player in the abortion industry.
• In 2010 Planned Parenthood reported performing 329,445 abortions. Only 3% of total services, as everyone seems to know. But compare that number with the other options one might offer pregnant women. In that same year Planned Parenthood listed only 31,098 “prenatal services” and a meager 841 “adoption referals to other agencies.” Which means that if you walk into Planned Parenthood with an unborn baby you are 10 times more likely to get an abortion than prenatal screening and almost 400 times more likely to be offered an abortion than given an adoption referral. So a different pie chart might look like this.

So for whatever useful purposes they may serve on ocassion, I’m not ashamed to admit that of all the things I don’t trust in the world two of them at the top of the list are statistics and Planned Parenthood.

I like the new Brady Bunch format for these T4G video shoots.

Also, the new approach to the panels should be great.

Panels: The New T4G Format from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Richard Swenson:

The best thing to remember about time-saving technologies is that they don’t. Instead, they consume, compress, and devour time. All the countries with the most time-saving technologies are the most stressed-out countries–an assertion that is easy to prove.

One Christian executive reports that he receives 1800 e-mails each day, while a Pentagon leader told me he had to do sixteen hours of e-mails every Saturday from home.

While standing at the hospital bed of a dying man, a pastor interrupted his prayer to answer his cell phone.

A youth pastor reported that he loved his job and tolerated long hours well–until he got home and routinely saw the answering machine blinking 9 messages. The escalating use of accessible technologies MUST be controlled, for the sake of your spirit and your sanity. (Margin, 124).

I know, easier said than done. But just reading about a pastor answering his cell phone at the death bed is enough to scare me straight. We need it.

The second round of the Elephant Room has come and gone. But as avid blog readers know, the debate surrounding the wisdom or folly of the event continues. This one may have bigger ramifications that most quick-a-minute Christian controversies.

I won’t recap all the posts out there. Justin Taylor, as usual, has a good round up of the events and a sharp analysis. Thabiti’s post from several months ago was courageous and worth reading again, as is Voddie’s piece from a few days ago. D.A. Carson is working on some reflections for later this week. Be sure to look for those too.

Hesitations

I have hesitated to write about the Elephant Room for several reasons: (1) I know James MacDonald and have always had good interactions withhim in the past. Until recently, we were both TGC council members. (2) Many others have already commented on the event and more commentary continues to pour out. I don’t need to say something about everything. (3) I have not been eager to keep this controversy going. Like many others, I was hoping this would blow over, like yesterday.

But it hasn’t. Perhaps, then, yet another set of reflections is warranted. I’m not writing to pile on. I’m not writing because controversy is fun. I don’t think I’ve ever dared to be critical just for kicks. In every instance over the past years when I’ve weighed in on some book or blog post or poem or doctrine, it’s been because people around me are struggling with or are confused about these things. As someone who has entered into the fray from time to time I now worry that my silence on any particular controversy says to some people that I have no problem with whatever the latest problem is. The reality is I simply don’t have time to write on everything, nor do I even know about all the issues out there. And if I did, it would not be good for my soul or yours if I commented on every one of them. I skip over most things and only weigh in when it seems like people I know would be helped to hear from me or if my position suggests that I should.

I believe the Elephant Room fits into that second category. As you can imagine, this has been a difficult situation for TGC. As one of their bloggers and as a council member I think saying nothing at this point makes things worse instead of better. It can give the impression of tacit consent or fumbling acquiescence.

So here are my thoughts on ER2, in no particular order and with no particular effort to be original.

Reflections

1. The event was not framed in the right way. There have been several iterations of the event’s stated purpose, but at various stages the Elephant Room was described as brothers getting together in a spirit of unity. It was originally billed as an opportunity for Christian leaders who agree on the gospel to get in the same room and talk about the things that threaten to divide us. I think it’s fair to say one of the aims all along has been to show how Christians are too quick to separate and too slow to listen to each other and learn from each other. The set up from the get go presumed a certain level of agreement and camaraderie that seemed unwise to many of us. If the conference had been pitched as religious leaders talking about hard questions, that would have been great. Bring in Mormons and Muslims and Liberals and everyone else. But that’s not the train that left the station several months ago.

2. Private discussion would have been better than public. I don’t have any problem with conservative Christians befriending those outside our circles. We ought to do it more often. Go share a meal. Pick up the phone. Try to learn. Try to influence. That’s fantastic. We should all hope that Jakes is won over to better and deeper theology. We should be thankful for all the private conversations that may proliferate as a result of this get together. I sympathize with those who want face-to-face conversation, unity in the church, and the allowance for people to change. But this doesn’t mean a hyped-up conference was the best way to kick things off. The discussion didn’t have to begin under the bright lights with promo videos and registration fees and all the rest. I think the intent was honorable, but prudence was lacking.

3.  Why didn’t anybody talk to T.D. Jakes about his prosperity gospel? His views on the subject are well known. You can find them with little trouble by picking up his books or watching his sermons on You Tube. I know people can point to good things Jakes has done-almost everyone has done some good things. But the health-wealth-blessing theology is unbiblical and anti-gospel. It has deceived many. True, in starting a relationship with someone you probably won’t venture into the most controversial topics at the first meeting. But then the first meeting (or close to the first) shouldn’t have been hosted in this way. The failure to bring up this critical issue undermined the whole stated purpose of the event. And if the topic was too sensitive to bring up when you are still building the relationship, then that relationship wasn’t ready to be advertised and televised for the public to see. Again, working up to that in private would be wise. Avoiding the topic in a public forum like this was a big misfire.

4. The questions on the Trinity were not strong enough or careful enough. People can continue to debate whether Jakes is or is not a Modalist, but the fact that we don’t know what he now believes underscores the problem. He was not pressed to make his language and commitments precise. On the one hand, we should not assume the worst about people, even about their theology. On the other hand, surely those of us who rightly care about robust orthodoxy are interested in more than checking off the right boxes. I’m not at all convinced Jakes understands or affirms orthodox Trinitarianism. But even if he meant to do so at the Elephant Room, the issue was not pressed far enough. Saying yes to the right formulations is one thing, but on something as fundamental as the Trinity, we ought to be concerned that a pastor celebrates and promotes the doctrine with passion and joy. We want to know that these core doctrines animate, infuse, and inform our pastoral ministry. We want to see that brothers understand the negation of what they affirm and are willing to guard the flock against these errors. And if someone is espousing a new position or a fuller understanding of the truth, it’s fair to know how they intend to correct previous mistakes and how their ministry will change as a result. These aren’t egghead, nitpicking questions. They get to the heart of the Christian faith and the essence of pastoral ministry.

5. While the efforts of James and the others may have been to correct Jakes or draw him out, I fear that the result of his participation is to make his ministry seem safer than it is. For those who think we need more of the preaching and theology and influence of T.D. Jakes, you will simply disagree with this point. But for those who believe his influence has been detrimental to the church, we should not want to give the impression that Jakes is basically pretty solid. If he’s changed his approach and his theology on a whole bunch of things, or if he can be influenced for good, then let’s wait and see if the gold pans out. Surely caution is in order. Though the desire to build a relationship is good, we underestimate the effect that celebrating this event, and Jakes’ contribution in it, has in giving an implicit “all clear” to someone whose influence until now has been far from salutary.

6. There is a painful racial dimension to the Jakes controversy that is difficult to untangle. I’m not going to wade into all the discussion of motivation and what perspective more closely represents the African American church. But I will say this, and with deep regret: I was taken aback when one African American brother graciously pointed out to me, and a number of other whites, that he was sad to see so many of us quick to criticize Rob Bell (and rightly so he said) but silent on the devastating ministry of T.D. Jakes. It felt like a lack of concern for the many African American brothers who—out of love for the gospel and for the Lord Jesus—are laboring faithfully to lay a better theological foundation in the black church than men like T.D. Jakes have given. My friend was right. I wrote about Rob Bell because literally almost every person I knew was asking about it (which wouldn’t be true in an African American context). I didn’t think to talk about Jakes because I don’t know people in my circles who pay him any attention. Looking back, I regret that I did not do more to speak more directly about the Elephant Room and the serious mistake in inviting T.D Jakes to share the platform in this way. Granted, the situation was more complicated because James was hosting it and I consider him a friend and a brother on the same team. The situation seemed to call for private conversations more than public statements. There were many of the former, which was right and proper. But I see now more of the latter were also necessary.

7. We need a more careful theology of criticism. There are several observations all Christians should be able to agree on, even if they sometimes pull us in opposite directions. (1) Let’s not assume the worst about people. (2) Let’s not shame those who aren’t immediately credulous when someone with a history of bad thinking says something that could be construed as maybe okay. (3) Let’s be very cautious in assigning motive. (4) Let’s not take everything personally or make everything personal. (5) Let’s not get our kicks from criticizing others and mucking around in controversy. (6) Let’s avoid facile condemnations of all criticism, realizing that the statement itself is a criticism and the Bible is full of heroes who had a lot of bones to pick. (7) Let’s accept that in this fallen world only the Lord can fully sort some things out and we don’t have go twelve rounds in every conflict.

So praise Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God in three persons—for loving me despite so many mistakes, for loving the glory of his name above all things, and for loving the church even more than we do. Let’s pray he brings good out of these hard times.

It’s February 10-11 at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. You should think about coming.

1. Bob Kauflin is our speaker. He’s really good. A godly man who leads in music with excellence and is among the most insightful voices on worship today. He’ll be leading in worship and giving four sessions on worship. Bob will also be preaching Sunday morning at URC.

2.The conference is put together by several churches with the involvement of several pastors. We have Baptists, Sovereign Gracers, Presbyterians, and the Reformed all working on this in friendly cooperation.

3. Smallish in size. I benefit from really big conferences. But small conferences provide a unique atmosphere of intimacy and comradery. We will have a few hundred at Magnify.

4. Affordable in cost. The conference is only $25. Come on, you can’t go to Applebees for that price. We keep our expenses low and subsidize some of the cost so price doesn’t have to be an obstacle.

5. Worship. What is more important than worship? This isn’t just for pastors and worship leaders. This is a conference for everyone who loves to worship our gracious and glorious God.

Think about coming. More information is at the conference website.

I’ve heard it from both sides, if not always so forthrightly.

“How many people now go to that church? It’s huge! It must be the music. Or maybe they have lasers and a smoke machine. I hope we never sell out like that.”

Or,

“How many people even go to that church? It’s so small! They haven’t baptized a believer in years. Their influence and importance is basically nil. I hope we are never irrelevant like that.”

I realize people rarely state their opinions so candidly, but the sentiments are out there. And both sides have a point. Some big churches are more show than substance. They may have thousands of people, but they sacrificed maturity, depth, truth-driven preaching, biblical ecclesiology, and maybe even the gospel to get there. On the other hand, some small churches are backward and insulated. They may talk a big game about standing for truth, but their small size is less about gospel courage than the fact that they are hyper-critical, dated in the worst ways, and unconcerned about the lost.

Churches can be big or small for all the right reasons. Or for all the wrong reasons. We simply should not conclude that bigger is better or smaller is more sanctified. In God’s eyes, the success of your church and your pastor are measured by criteria more important than weekend attendance. While we must not be scared of bigger numbers or automatically skeptical of them–numbers in the best cases represent people after all, people who are hearing the gospel and bearing fruit–neither should we fixate on numbers. Every church is different, with varying locations, gifts, opportunities, abilities, facilities, people, and cultural contexts that we can’t possibly be so crass as to think big churches are always doing things better than small churches. Surely, the emphasis must be on faithfulness.

If a blessed forgetfulness about numbers seems anti-missional, we should listen to Leslie Newbigin, still one of the most seminal theologians in missional circles as he summarizes the New Testament approach to numbers:

Reviewing, then, the teaching of the New Testament, one would have to say that, on the one hand, there is joy in the rapid growth of the church in its earliest days, but that, on the other hand, there is no evidence that the numerical growth of the church is a matter of primary concern.

There is no shred of evidence in Paul’s letters to suggest that he judged the churches by the measure of their success in rapid numerical growth, nor is there anything comparable to the strident cries of some contemporary evangelists that the salvation of the world depends upon the multiplication of believers.

There is an incomparable sense of seriousness and urgency as the apostle contemplates the fact that he and all people “must appear before the judgment seat of Christ” and as he acknowledges the constraint of Jesus’ love and the ministry of reconciliation that he has received (2 Cor. 5:10-21). But this nowhere appears as either an anxiety or an enthusiasm about the numerical growth of the church. (The Open Secret, 126).

Wise words. We love to see more people loving Jesus and living in greater accordance to his commands, but we should not think church size, when judged by the only Judge that really matters, is a reliable measure of a church’s success or a pastor’s faithfulness.

Surely, the line around 1:20 can be used in someone’s campaign commercial.

UPDATE: How embarrassing. I didn’t realize this post went live. I hadn’t finished it yet. Now I have. Sorry for the mix up.

My whole life I’ve gone to church Sunday morning and Sunday evening. My parents took us to church and Sunday school on Sunday morning and they always took us back on Sunday evening. The crowd was much smaller, but there were always people eager to be there. Over the years, the evening service felt less like a “real” service. We’d watch a video for a month or combine with another church for the summer or try small groups. I have nothing against videos (in their proper place), joint services, or small groups. But at the time they all seemed like efforts to keep up the tradition of the evening service without putting forth much effort.

In college I went to a Baptist church with strong preaching. My friends and I went Sunday morning and came back hours later to their well-attended evening service. While at seminary, I attended an great OPC congregation. The attendance could be sparse on Sunday night, but I made a point to come (and even met my wife there).

My first pastoral charge was at a large church in Iowa. As the associate pastor I would often preach on Sunday evening. We had around 900 people in the morning and about half that in the evening. I was glad to be there for two services.

When I came University Reformed Church in 2004 the long-standing tradition of evening services had just about disappeared. I don’t think the interim pastor had much interest in them and the attendance had dwindled to a few dozen. I told the search committee that I was committed trying to resurrect the evening service. Over the years, the service has grown to a strong core–around 125 during the school year, or about 1/4 of our Sunday morning attendance.

Every church I’ve ever been a part of has had a Sunday evening service. I’ve always gone. It’s what I grew up with. It’s part of my rhythm as a Christian and I am immensely grateful for it. I hope this brief blog post will encourage other Christians and other churches to consider making an evening service a part of your Christian walk and worship.

Saying Enough, But Not Too Much

Before I say anything else, let me make clear that I don’t think Scripture absolutely requires an evening service, nor do I think a church member is necessarily disobedient if they don’t attend their church’s evening service. I know some good Reformed folks will argue that the evening service is a matter of biblical obedience. I just can’t make the case that definitively. Some churches may be in cultures that make a second service on Sunday evening prohibitively difficult. Some congregations may be really committed to home groups on Sunday nights. Other congregations may have repeat services that stretch into the afternoon, or they may do the same Sunday morning service on Sunday evening. Many churches have never had an evening service. It’s just not in their DNA. I sympathize with the difficulty they may have in even considering an evening service. Other churches may find it difficult to pull together a second quality service because their resources and personnel are stretched thin. Many smaller churches or church plants may be in this situation.

And then there are the individual church members who may have a hard time getting back to the evening service because they live an hour away. Or the person who has to work on Sunday evening or at 4am on Monday morning. Or the family with very young children that need to be in bed before the evening service will be over.

I know there are many reasons why having, starting, keeping, or going to the evening service may be difficult. I do not want to require more than Scripture requires.

What Is Still Worth Saying

Having said all that, let me give you several reasons why I’m thankful for our evening service and why I hope you’ll consider keeping yours, going to yours, or even starting one at your church.

1. Starting and ending the Lord’s Day with corporate worship fits the pattern of morning and evening sacrifices. I don’t think this is a slam dunk argument for evening worship, but it corresponds to a good pattern that the day would begin and end with worship.

2. If the sermon and the sacraments are truly means of grace, let’s give people the opportunity to experience this grace and take advantage of the opportunities when they are there.

3. Having an evening service keeps the Lord’s Day the Lord’s Day. Without the evening service I find it too easy to treat Sunday worship like an hour to get done at the beginning of the day. The temptation to squeeze worship into the margins of life is even more pronounced when we finish our worship “requirement” by 8pm on Saturday evening.

4. Martyn Lloyd-Jones supported the practice of evening worship because he believed there should be a hunger for the preaching of the word–a hunger that desires a second time to feast on the Bible.

5. The evening service is a lot of work, but it is good work. It can allow more teaching opportunities for others in the church. It should force the pastor to spend more time in the word, which is a good thing too.

6. Our evening service is a great time for extra fellowship and extra prayer. We can do somethings with meals, small group prayer, and lingering conversations that are more difficult on a cramped Sunday morning.

7. The tradition of the church should not be easily overturned, especially by those who want to lay claim to the Reformed-Puritan mantle.

Just to reiterate: I don’t believe the evening service is mandated by Scripture. But I am saddened that so many churches have moved away from the evening service. There are good reasons to keep at it or consider adding it to the life of your church.

Like many pastors and most everyone else I know, I struggle to manage my time. We are all busy, busy, so dreadfully busy. There are many reasons for this busyness, many spiritual realities that can be both symptoms and causes of our crazy lives. Maybe I’ll explore some of them later (when I’m not so busy!). But for today just some good old commonsense from Peter Drucker. He’s writing about “the effective executive” but what he says about time applies to us all:

Time is also a unique resource. Of the other major resources, money is actually quite plentiful. We long ago should have learned that it is the demand for capital, rather than the supply thereof, which sets the limit to economic growth and activity. People—the third limiting resource—one can hire, though one can rarely hire enough good people. But one cannot rent, hire, buy, or otherwise obtain more time.

The supply of time is totally inelastic. No matter how high the demand, the supply will not go up. There is no price for it and no marginal utility curve for it. Moreover, time is totally perishable and cannot be stored. Yesterday’s time is gone forever and will never come back. Time is, therefore, always in exceedingly short supply.

Time is totally irreplaceable. Within limits we can substitute one resource for another, copper for aluminum, for instance. We can substitute capital for human labor. We can use more knowledge or more brawn. But there is no substitute for time.

Everything requires time. It is the one truly universal condition. All work takes place in time and uses up time. Yet most people take for granted this unique, irreplaceable, and necessary resource. Nothing else, perhaps, distinguishes effective executive as much as their tender loving care of time. (The Effective Executive, 26)

So what do you think? Could you use more of Drucker’s prescribed TLC with your time? Personally, I’d like to explore this topic of busyness in more in depth. It would be good for my soul and perhaps for yours too. If only I could find the time.

William Wilberforce was born in Hull, England into a well-to-do family on August 24, 1759.  Like almost all Englishman of his day, he grew up with at least a veneer of Christianity. But Wilberforce was not a Christian.  Early in life, while staying with his godly Uncle William and Aunt Hannah, he grew attracted to Methodism and its evangelical piety.  But by the time he entered college, that attraction had faded and Wilberforce was, as he said later, “as thoughtless as the rest of them.”  He was proud, pompous, sarcastic, and cynical like most young men from the upper class.

By 1785, Wilberforce, now having been in Parliament for several years, had a spiritual crisis.  He felt immensely convicted of sin and ingratitude and mourned for his misspent life. He had wasted his privileges, his time, his talent, and his opportunities.  He prayed to “that Saviour who died upon the Cross” to atone for his sins and to warm his dull heart.  Wilberforce had been converted.

Almost the first person he confided in as a born again Christian was the slave trader captain turned Christian turned hymn writer, John Newton.  Wilberforce had heard Newton preach years ago when he lived with his aunt and uncle.  From 1785 on, Newton would be his spiritual mentor.  On Good Friday, April 14, 1786, Wilberforce received communion for the first time.  He was a changed man.

In 1787, Wilberforce, now an evangelical Christian, made his first public declaration of his willingness to take up the cause of abolishing the slave trade.  Over the next decade, Wilberforce made countless speeches, served on committees, and introduced legislation tirelessly. For years his minor successes were met with greater setbacks.  The cause of abolition was not going to succeed.  In 1796, he wrote a letter to Newton explaining that he wanted to retire from public life.  Newton, always the wise mentor, told Wilberforce to stay in Parliament:

Some of [God's] people may be emphatically said not to live to themselves.  May it not be said of you?…You meet with many things which weary and disgust you…but then they are inseparably connected with your path of duty; and though you cannot do all the good you wish for, some good is done…

So Wilberforce continued to labor in Parliament.  Every year, from 1797-1803, he suffered setbacks.  From 1797-99 his annual motion for abolition was defeated.  Then his motions were postponed by the conflict with France.  But all the while, even as Wilberforce suffered defeat after defeat, the tide was turning in Britain.  By his relentless pursuit of Christian principles and his living out of Christian virtue, Wilberforce had made, as it was said later, goodness fashionable.  Which was making the slave trade, and later slavery itself, unfashionable.

In 1807, Wilberforce once again made a motion to abolish the slave trade.  Nearly everyone who spoke was in support of the motion and personally applauded Wilberforce.  At four in the morning on February 24, the Commons voted to abolish the slave trade 283 to 16.  They all stood and gave three hurrahs to Wilberforce while he sat in his seat with his head bowed and wept.  It took twenty years and Wilberforce’s leading and Newton’s mentoring to abolish the slave trade in the British empire, and it would take more years to work for the emancipation of the slaves.  John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States remarked “Wilberforce is one of the party called in derision the Saints…who under sanctified visors pursue worldly objects with the ardor and perseverance of saints.”

In Revelation 13 John warns of a terrible beast who is allowed to make war on God’s people. Saints will be taken captive and destroyed. That’s the reality John outlines in verse 10. But the response to such antagonism is not to retreat but to entrench. “Here is a call for the endurance and the faith of the saints.” Some of us may be called to accomplish great things in the cause of Christ like Wilberforce.  Others will be called to endure great trials and suffering and even persecution on account of Christ.  All of us, in a world often unfriendly and unsympathetic to genuine Christian faith, are called to perseverance and faithfulness. There is no hope, no holiness, and no influence without it.