The Gospel Coalition

Getting the most from your reading

10 Theology Books for your Beach Bag

Ed Stetzer interviews Tullian Tchividjian about Tullian’s book Unfashionable. This interview is definitely worth checking out. (And so is the book!)

5 ways that movies put forth a spiritual or moral message.

A diavlog between Justin Taylor and Russell Moore on adoption

“A mature Christian is easily edified.”

New history of Southern Seminary available.

The Washington Times reports on what the new North American Anglican province means for the Communion.

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: The Current State of the Pro-Life Movement

Think back to the most memorable sermon you have ever heard. Now think about what it was that made that sermon memorable. Chances are, it was an illustration. Some analogy or story gripped your attention.

I remember attending a youth event where the preacher delivered a message about the dangers of thinking you can control your sin. The illustration he used was so powerful and vivid that fifteen years later I still remember them both – the point of the sermon and the illustration he used to make his point.

Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die (2008, Random House) is written by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. The Heath brothers believe they know why some ideas stick and why others don’t, and they are determined to help communicators figure out how to make their ideas “sticky.”

Made to Stick is not a Christian book. Anyone entrusted with the task of communicating concepts to others can benefit from the insights here. But having read Made to Stick, I cannot help but see the practicality of these principles for preachers and teachers of God’s Word. 

According to the Heath brothers, there are six principles for “stickiness” in communication:

1. Simplicity
2. Unexpectedness
3. Concreteness
4. Credibility
5. Emotions
6. Stories

In expounding upon each of these principles, Chip and Dan provide us with a wealth of stories and examples. They show the difference between an “un-sticky” and a “sticky” idea. Most of the time, the packaging of a concept or idea is what makes it sticky, not the idea itself.

Chip and Dan also warn against some of the dangers in communication. One villain is what they call “The Curse of Knowledge.”

“This is the Curse of Knowledge. Once we know something, we find it hard to imagine what it was like not to know it. Our knowledge has ‘cursed’ us. And it becomes difficult for us to share our knowledge with others, because we can’t readily re-create our listeners’ state of mind.” (20)

Many pastors and teachers struggle here. We know the biblical text and the context, but many of our listeners do not. We must take great care to avoid the Curse of Knowledge as we preach, and Made to Stick helps us figure out ways to circumvent this natural tendency.

There is much food for thought in this book:

“An accurate but useless idea is still useless.” (57)

“Common sense is the enemy of sticky messages. When messages sound like common sense, they float gently in on ear and out the other.” (72)

Chip and Dan also tell stories of people who have succeeded at making sticky messages. I love the story about the Subway guy – the man who lost weight from eating sub sandwiches. This personal story helped boost Subway’s sales by giving them a new advertising campaign.

The Heath brothers believe we should be concrete and specific in our communication. Church leaders need to heed this challenge. As a discipleship pastor, I have seen mission statements that are hopelessly broad. Take this one for example: “We exist to make full fledged disciples of Jesus.” Sounds great, right?  But what does it mean? What does a full-fledged disciple of Jesus look like?

If we are truly passionate for seeing lives changed by the power of God’s Word, delivered through our sermons and teaching, then we should desire that our messages to be remembered. We want our teaching to “stick,” not because our teaching is our own, but because we are setting before our hearers the Word of God.

If there are ways to faithfully present the truth of God’s Word memorably, then we should benefit from them. Made to Stick is a book that helps us fulfill our calling.

Evangelicals are at the forefront of a grassroots movement of families adopting children from other countries. Christian celebrities like Steven Curtis Chapman and Clay Crosse have helped to publicize the joys and trials of adoption. Christian preachers have begun teaching others how the gospel is put on display by families who minister to orphans in this way. I personally know of a number of couples who are involved in cross-cultural adoption.

Russell Moore’s new book, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches (Crossway, 2009) provides a theological foundation for the adoption movement. In this book, Moore successfully weaves together three strands of material:

First, he tells the story of his involvement in international adoption.

Then, he sets forth a biblical theology of adoption.

Finally, he offers practical suggestions for those considering adoption or those interested in supporting others who want to adopt.

Rarely do I read a book that seeks to accomplish three different purposes and yet manages to succeed at each one. But Adopted for Life delivers what it promises at every level.

Let’s begin with the personal testimony. Russ Moore tells the story of how he and his wife, Maria, traveled to Russia to adopt two young boys, Benjamin and Timothy. He describes the emotional pain of infertility and the tragedy of miscarriage. He treats the desire for offspring as God-given, and yet he recognizes the selfishness that can take root even in this desire.

Moore exposes his own faults throughout the adoption process. His vulnerability adds weight to the narrative. He recounts careless words that he later came to regret. Moore’s authenticity helps readers see themselves in his story.

The book also contains some heart-wrenching scenes in the orphanage. Moore describes the horror of walking into a room lined with baby beds, and yet not hearing the cries of children. The children had long discovered that tears were useless. No one was coming. Moore also describes his children’s adjustment to American life:

“We knew the boys had acclimated to our home, that they trusted us, when they stopped hiding food in their high chairs. They knew there would be another meal coming, and they wouldn’t have to fight for the scraps. This was the new normal.” (44)

Later on, Moore relates how God blessed him and his wife with biological chidren as well. But readers quickly discover that the Moore household does not distinguish between biological and adopted children. Adopted is a past-tense verb, not an adjective for the present.

In addition to recounting his personal narrative, Moore sets forth a biblical theology of adoption. The theological portion of this book truly surprised me. Before picking up Adopted for Life, I thought I knew how the metaphor of adoption serves as one way of speaking of salvation. What surprised me was just how incredibly practical the doctrine of adoption is. Having been through these experiences and having reflected upon them deeply, Russ Moore is able to tease out implications from the doctrine of adoption that I had never considered.

Moore believes our churches should be more like households, and he calls the church to foster an atmosphere of adoption. The gospel truth that we are orphans, adopted by God, is put on display by churches that encourage adoption. Adoption brings us into the worldwide family of God. Jew and Gentile alike are brothers in Christ.

“Our adoption is about more than just belonging. Our adoption is about the day when the graves of this planet will be emptied, when the great assembly of Christ’s church will be gathered before the Judgment Seat. On that day, the accusing principalities and powers will probably look once more at us – former murderers and fornicators and idolaters, formerly uncircumcised in flesh or in heart – and they may ask one more time, ‘So are they brothers?’ The hope of adopted children like my sons – and like me – is that the voice that once thundered over the Jordan will respond, one last time, ‘They are now.’” (57)

Moore is not content to leave the theology of adoption at merely the level of individual salvation. He shines a spotlight upon the implications of this doctrine for the church – the community of the adopted.

“When we adopt – and when we encourage a culture of adoption in our churches and communities – we’re picturing something that’s true about our God. We, like Jesus, see what our Father is doing and do likewise. And what our Father is doing, it turns out, is fighting for orphans, making them sons and daughters.” (73)

The theological sections of this book are woven into the narrative. Do not expect narrative in one chapter and then theology in another. The narrative informs the theology, and the theology informs the narrative.

Moore also offers many practical suggestions. He gives good advice to those who are considering adoption, those facing infertility, and those who would like to be foster parents. He asks very pointed questions that go to the heart of people’s motivations for wanting to adopt. He helps parents understand how to treat their children after adoption. His insights here are valuable because he has been through the process.

The book ends by tying everything to the gospel:

“The gospel welcomes us and receives us as loved children. The gospel disciplines us and prepares us for eternity as heirs. The gospel speaks truth to us and shows us our misery in Adam and our glory in Christ. The gospel shows us that we were born into death and then shows us, by free grace, that we’re adopted for life.” (214)

Well said. Adopted for Life is one of the best books I have read this year. It combines robust theology with personal experience. It serves as a powerful pro-life apologetic, and it demonstrates the power of the gospel when acted out by a faithful community of believers.

Today, I am interviewing Scott Klusendorf, founder of Life Training Institute and author of the new book, The Case for Life. We will be talking about some recent developments in the USA that influence the abortion debate (including the murder of George Tiller, the recent polls showing pro-life gains, and President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame).

Trevin Wax: Some people who advocate abortion rights are blaming the death of Dr. Tiller on anyone who is pro-life. How should pro-life Christians respond to this development?

Scott Klusendorf: While pro-lifers should condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller, they must not shrink back from proclaiming their fundamental message—namely, that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.

Of course, our critics will say that by calling abortion killing, we are inciting violence against abortionists. This is nonsense.

As Andrew Coyne points out, suppose I’m an animal rights activist opposed to the sale of fur. If a deranged environmentalist firebombs a local clothing store, am I responsible?

Seriously, if people like Frank Schaeffer truly think that pro-life speech incites people to violence, they should step up and lead a campaign to ban all pro-life speech. Moreover, it does not follow that because a lone extremist kills an abortionist, the pro-life cause itself is unjust.

Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, used strong language to condemn the evil of racism during the 1960s. In response to his peaceful but confrontational tactics, racists unjustly blamed him for the violent unrest that sometimes followed his public demonstrations.

Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago argued that if Dr. King would stop exposing racial injustice, black people would be less likely to riot. The Mayor’s remarks were an outrage.

Are we to believe that a handful of rioters made Dr. King’s crusade for civil rights entirely unjust? In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, King rebuts this dishonest attempt to change the subject:

“In your statement you asserted that our actions, though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence….[I]t is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain…basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence….Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community…is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can be no longer ignored.”

Finally, if it’s extreme to call elective abortion killing, then abortion-choice advocates bear partial responsibility for the stabbing of Dr. Tiller.

The fact is that pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who call abortion killing. Abortionists and their supporters have been saying so themselves for years.

For example, late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of the book Abortion Practice, stated in a 1978 conference:

“We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally a supporter of abortion-rights, describes dismemberment abortion this way:

“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb. . . . The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. . . . Dr. [Leroy] Carhart [the abortionist who challenged Nebraska's partial-birth ban] has observed fetal heartbeat . . . with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” . . . and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” . . . At the conclusion of a D&E abortion . . . the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.”

Trevin Wax: Recent polls show that, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans claim the label “pro-life.” What does this mean for the pro-life movement? How do you interpret these statistics?

Scott Klusendorf: First, the bad news: I’m skeptical that there’s been much real movement toward the pro-life view. In fact, if you look at a summary of polling data over the last 30 years, the numbers really haven’t changed that much. I think pro-lifers like to pick and choose the polls they site.

True, support for late-term abortion has dropped thanks largely to the debate over partial-birth abortion, but a majority of Americans still support first-trimester abortion.

Now for the good news: Based on my experience in the field (not on any empirical data I’ve compiled), people are more willing to give us a hearing. Fifteen years ago, crowds on college campuses were more hostile, even nasty at times, but not so much now. In fact, my recent debates with Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU from the mid-1980s until last Fall) solicited insightful questions from those attending, but never nasty remarks.

Of course, you still get your occasional abortion crusader bent on shutting-up pro-lifers (rather than refuting their arguments), but they are fewer in number than they were during the late 80s and early 90s.

Thus, the objective for pro-life advocates is clear: We must become very skilled at making a gracious, yet persuasive, case for life in the public square. That is not all we must do, but it’s certainly essential if we are to win. That’s precisely why wrote my book The Case for Life.

Trevin Wax: President Obama recently made remarks at Notre Dame about abortion. What were your impressions of his speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Rhetorically, it was excellent. I also appreciated his observation that finding middle ground on abortion is difficult. He’s right about that.

Look, either you believe that each and every human being in virtue of his humanity has an equal right to life or you don’t. Sadly, the President does not believe that, as evidenced by his refusal to protect not only unborn humans, but those born alive as well.

However, what surprised me most was his complete refusal to present any argument whatsoever justifying his pro-abortion choice views. There’s not one mention of his preference for tax-funded abortions both here and abroad, his votes to keep partial-birth abortion legal, and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo virtually all limits on abortion. Indeed, many of his statements were question-begging regarding the status of the unborn.

Speaking of the abortion controversy, he used the nouns “we” and “our” when referencing our duty to understand our fellow humans but never once said whether “we” and “our” also included “them,” meaning the unborn. On embryonic stem-cell research, the President said that “those who speak out against research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardship can be relieved.”

Question: Would the President argue this way if the proposal on the table was killing two-year olds to relieve the suffering of five-year olds? Never in a million years. Only by assuming the embryos in question were not human could he argue this way.But that is precisely the point he refused to address in his speech.

If I were a thoughtful defender of abortion, Obama’s speech would leave me worried that my side had truly run out of arguments. And that, rather than inconsistent polling data, is what gives me the most hope for the future.

Trevin Wax: How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

Trevin Wax: You’ve said before there are “fascist” themes that sometimes come out in the way liberals address abortion. Did you detect any such themes in the President’s speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Possibly. I define fascism in this case as an attempt by government to shut down legitimate debate on important public policy matters.

Consider Obama’s call for a “sensible conscience clause” policy for doctors opposed to abortion. The key word, of course, is “sensible.”

We already have policies leftover from the Bush Administration that protect doctors from performing or referring for abortion procedures. All indications are that Obama does not want to revise these policies; he want to revoke them, forcing pro-life doctors to either participate in abortion or go out of business. What else is that but an attempt to silence legitimate debate on abortion?

Trevin Wax: What do you hope to accomplish with your book The Case for Life?

Scott Klusendorf: In a sentence, I hope to give pro-life Christians the tools of thought needed to make a gracious and persuasive case for their views in the marketplace of ideas.

As I state in the introduction to the book, I do not pretend to have written an exhaustive defense of the pro-life view. That’s been done already by selected authors I cite throughout the text.

My purpose is different. This book will take those sophisticated pro-life defenses and put them in a form that hopefully equips and inspires lay Christians (with or without academic sophistication) to engage the debate with friends, coworkers, and fellow believers.

Admittedly, a book about pro-life apologetics may not appeal to some lay Christians. It seems many believers would rather focus on end times rather than these times. That’s a mistake. Humans who ignore questions about truth and human value may soon learn what it really means to be left behind.

For more information about Scott Klusendorf, check out his book, The Case for Life (reviewed here) and his website.

The two disciples heard him say this and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?”
John 1:37-38

How would you answer Jesus’ question? “What are you seeking?” It’s a question so profound that it shakes us to the core. Some are seeking money, more wealth and assets. Others are seeking success and a good reputation. Some look to anything that will provide them security and comfort. Others seek for happiness, often in all the wrong places.

The disciples don’t answer Jesus’ question quite right. They don’t answer Jesus’ question by saying “what” they are seeking. They answer it by saying who they are seeking. In other words, they’re not seeking something, they’re seeking someone. They’re looking for the Messiah.

If you are seeking for the happiness that comes from success, you’re going to miss it. If you’re seeking for the happiness that comes from money, that fleeting feeling will always elude you. If you’re seeking for security, you’ll always feel afraid. If you’re seeking Jesus, then true joy will be yours.

True happiness does not come from seeking things; it comes from seeking Jesus. This means that you seek Jesus for who he is, not for what he can give you.

True disciples are those who follow Jesus because we love him for who he is.

The amazing thing we discover in this passage, though, is that the disciples aren’t the only ones who are seeking. Jesus himself is the Seeker. He’s looking for disciples. The Messiah was looking for them, even as they were looking for the messiah! It’s awesome to discover that as you go looking for Jesus, you realize that he is looking for you.

Prayer: Thank you, Lord, for seeking me and finding me and bringing me to you. Help me to love you for who you are, not for what you can give me. Amen.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Keep, O Lord, your household the Church
in your steadfast faith and love,
that through your grace
we may proclaim your truth with boldness,
and minister your justice with compassion;
for the sake of our Savior Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and forever. Amen.

“Because the world is hard, confronting it without the Lord’s power is an overwhelming prospect.”

“If we think we can operate on our own, if we do not comprehend the need for a power beyond our own, we will never get started.”

- Francis Schaeffer, The Lord’s Work in the Lord’s Way (thanks James!)

Dave Zimmerman turns the tables on all the Twitter naysayers… says that the critics can be just as narcissistic.

The Attractional versus Affectional Church

Spurgeon’s former church sees the rise of the new Calvinism as a new version of worldliness.

John Piper on the difference between hero worship and hero emulation.

Michael Spencer reflects on Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”

A 4-D ultrasound, a potential diagnosis of Down Syndrome, a recommended abortion.

Kevin DeYoung writes about the “Jesuses” in our culture today.

Al Mohler on the need for silence

Top Posts this Week at Kingdom People: My 4-Part Interview with Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary
On Akin’s Vision for Missionary Theologians
On Turning Around the SBC
On the Great Commission Resurgence
On SBC Calvinism and Evangelical Cooperation

This is the final installment of a 4-part interview with Dr. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. Click here for Parts 1, 2, and 3.

Trevin Wax: Within the SBC there is much talk about the resurgence of Reformed theology. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of this recent development?

Daniel Akin: The strength in Reformed theology is the healthy biblical perspective on the sovereignty of God. Reformed theology has a high view of the glory of God as the driving principle of all things.

Take the Westminster Catechism, the shorter version: the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Within the Reformed tradition, there tends to be a strong emphasis on confessional theology and understanding what you believe.

The Reformed tradition also has had, historically, a strong focus upon biblical doctrinal preaching. Of course, I would prefer it to be of an expository nature. But it has always had a strong emphasis on biblical and doctrinal preaching.

In its healthier strand, Reformed theology gave way to the modern missionary movement. I don’t hesitate to point out that the father of the modern missionary movement was William Carey, who happened to be a 5-point Calvinist. The father of Baptist missions in America was Adoniram Judson. He was a 5-point Calvinist. You can trace both Carey and Judson’s inspiration for missions back to David Brainerd, who was a 5-point Calvinist. And of course, the most famous Baptist preacher ever, in any context, was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a wonderful gospel preacher who built the largest church in the world at the particular time that he was alive. All of that is something that should be applauded.

What’s the negative? The negative is that there has always been in Reformed theology a strand that unfortunately moves toward fatalism. It also sometimes moves toward antinomianism.

But I’m more concerned about the fatalism strand, because that particular strand then unfortunately devolves into being anti-missionary and anti-evangelistic.

Even today before we talked, I was talking to a friend about two different churches that were looking for student ministers. One church interviewed two young men, and the other interviewed one – all three of whom made it very clear in their interview that they held to Reformed theology.

In one instance, the young man basically said that he did not believe that it would be his responsibility to either teach his student to do evangelism, nor would it be his responsibility to seek to evangelize lost teens and lost young adults. He said that bringing the lost into the body of Christ had at times, in his experience, been problematic and even detrimental. The other two basically just said, “Well, you know evangelism is not a high priority for what we believe we need to be doing in terms of doing student ministry.”

Trevin, not only would I not hire any of the three, to be honest with you, I don’t think any of the three are qualified to be in ministry.

I don’t see how you can have the heart of Jesus who said, “I came to seek and to save that which is lost.” I don’t see how you can have the heart of Jesus who in his final word to his disciples gave his Great Commission found in Matthew 28 and Acts 1. I just find that mindset insane.

So I do recognize that there is that strand within Calvinism that can be very detrimental to the propagation of the gospel.

In fact, when I was at Southern and Jimmy Scroggins was teaching over at Boyce, Jimmy had some students in his personal evangelism class who said they would not fulfill the class assignment of seeking out ways to share their faith on a weekly basis during the semester because, somehow, in their warped way of thinking, they found this to be inconsistent and incompatible with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. To which Dr. Scroggins said, “That is fine. Just recognize that you will fail the class.”

That’s just crazy. That’s Calvinism run amuck. That is really not worth the name of Calvinism. There is that strand within Reformed theology that has been detrimental.

I will quote Dr. Mohler here who says, I never met personally a hyper-Calvinist but I have met some Calvinist who are hyper, and they are more interested in evangelizing for Calvinism than they are the gospel. Those persons tend to not be of much good to anybody.

Trevin Wax: How do you see the relationship between the Southern Baptist Convention and the wider world of evangelicalism?

Daniel Akin: Contentious.

Unfortunately, I fear that the greater world of evangelicalism is shifting and drifting to the left.

I give one example of this. Greg Beale’s most recent book, The Erosion of Inerrancy is basically a critique of those who still claim to be Inerrantists but who, through hermeneutical gymnastics, have basically explained the word away and emptied it of its meaning.

I am gravely concerned about what I see happening in the greater evangelical world. Because Southern Baptists have staked out their claim as to where they are, there is a sense in which we are in a contentious kind of relationship with one aspect of evangelicalism.

On the other hand, do I feel good about the fact that Southern Baptist can participate with and engage movements and conferences like Together for the Gospel? Yes, I think that’s a good thing.

Do I think it is good to have interaction and dialogue with the Resurgence and Acts 29? I’m speaking for this Southern Baptist. Yes, I do.

Some people think this interaction is just horrible. There is still a strand of Southern Baptists that is very parochial and very narrow, a strand that says we need to just bunker down and realize that we don’t need anybody else. We don’t need to interact with anybody else. I think that is an unhealthy strand of SBC life.

I do not think we have to, in any way, surrender our Baptist distinctives, to which I am adamantly committed. I do not think we have to surrender those at all while we engage with like-minded evangelicals who are with us on the gospel, who are with us on penal substitution, who are with us on inerrancy, who are with us on exclusivity.

I received a lot of criticism for my friendship with Mark Driscoll, and for inviting him onto our campus. Do I endorse everything that Mark does? No.

Picking up from his past, would I affirm or applaud the use of profanity in the pulpit? Absolutely not. There is no place for profanity or coarse jesting or crude language in the pulpit. I would never affirm or support that.

I still hold very strongly to total abstinence when it comes to the use of alcohol. I cannot say that alcohol use is a sin, but I can build a pretty good argument in a 21st century American context for the lack of wisdom in supporting an industry that has brought so much sorrow and pain and heartache to so many people. So I do not agree with Mark on that issue.

But am I grateful that Mark has a passion for church planting in the hard places of America? Yes.

Am I grateful for his commitment to inerrancy? Yes.

Penal substitution? Yes.

Exclusivity of the gospel? Yes.

Complimentarianism in terms of gender role and assignment? Yes.

I can think of a number of other persons. People from a Presbyterian background. Others in the Evangelical Free church. Northern evangelicals like John Piper, who is a Baptist though not a Southern Baptist. These are people that I can learn from and be influenced by. So I am grateful for the partnerships that we can have with those individuals.

Even though I am just one Southern Baptist, I believe I represent a fairly large and healthy number, especially generationally.

How much criticism did I get for having Mark Driscoll on my campus from those 40 and under? Almost none.

How much criticism did I get from those 50 and over? Quite a bit.

So some of the controversy might be generational. Again, that does not mean that the older men were wrong, because I do think those that contacted me raised some legitimate concerns. It does not mean that the younger guys are always right, because youthful exuberance just by its very nature lacks a track record of experience and growth and wisdom that comes from living life.

I am not trying to make a value judgment as to who was right or who was wrong. I am just making an empirical observation that most of the younger men are very enthusiastic about some of these partnerships, including those with like Together for the Gospel and others.

A lot of folks over 50 are not only unhappy with my interaction with Mark Driscoll, they are unhappy with my interaction with men like John Piper, Ligon Duncan, or Tim Keller.

This week, I am interviewing Dr. Danny Akin – president of Southeastern Seminary. Click here for parts 1 and 2.

Trevin Wax: Your Great Commission Resurgence document has a number of points related to the gospel. The document itself does not define the gospel. How you would define the gospel?

Daniel Akin: I define the gospel in my Axioms message as being the good news that Jesus Christ came from heaven, died on the cross having lived a perfect sinless life, bore then in His body the full penalty of our sins, was raised from the dead. Those who repent of sin and place their faith in the perfect work of Christ can and will be saved. There’s the gospel.

Trevin Wax: There has been a lot of discussion regarding the axiom that calls for a denominational restructuring. What specific areas do you think can be streamlined for maximum effectiveness?

Daniel Akin: Church planting.

If you, for example, wanted to be a church planter right now, and you wanted to work through the system, you would be interviewed and would seek funding from your local association, from the state convention where you want to go and plant a church, and from the North American Mission Board where you want to go and plant a church.

There is a three-tiered – not duplication – but triplication in this system that is only going to provide nominal funding for you to actually accomplish what you need to do. There are also strings attached to those funds that limit what you can do to earn additional income. You can’t be a tentmaker like the apostle Paul, working to compliment and supplement what you would need to live on.

Classic example. We just sent a student from here up into the Washington D.C. area to plant a church. He went through the three avenues I just described, and it took months to pull everything together. He was able to put together $36,000 for his first year. Try and live in Washington D.C. You can’t pay rent and utilities for $36,000 a year.

But he is informed by NAMB that if he received funding from them, he can do nothing more than occupy a part-time job. That’s insane. So he will have to do what everybody else does: raise funds outside our structure.

This is why a lot of people are getting frustrated. Let’s take a large church like Highview Baptist in Louisville. If they were to give 10% of their monies through the Cooperative Program, they would probably be giving somewhere around $400,000 a year. I’m not even counting Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong or anything else they do. Let’s just say they give around $400,000 a year.

First and foremost, 60% of that money is going to stay in Kentucky. That money is never even going to get out of the state.

Then, let’s say they send Trevin Wax from Highview to be a church planter. You appeal to the Kentucky Baptist Convention for funding. Even though Highview has been giving around $260,000 to $280,000 a year for a number of years to that state convention, when you go to get funding, you’ll be lucky to get $12,000 a year from them for three years. After three years, they’re not going to give you another dime.

Suddenly Highview says, “What are we doing? What are we doing? Why should we give $280,000 a year to the Kentucky Baptist Convention when we try to plant a church? Why should we work through the system that we are funding if, because of the overhead and the bureaucracy and other things, we are only going to be able to get back from them maybe $25,000 to $30,000 over three years? That doesn’t sound like a good deal.” So all of a sudden, you have people saying, “We can do it better without partnering with a state convention.”

What part of Article 9 of the Great Commission Resurgence document is trying to say to our state conventions is: Look, we actually are your friend. We are on your side. Danny Akin and Johnny Hunt are not your enemies. But you cannot keep doing things the way you’ve been doing then, because these young guys are not like an older generation.

My parents came through World War II and Korea. They came through a period of time where you simply support the structures that are in place.

If you go to a church, for example, and your church goes through a split, do you leave? No, you don’t leave.

If you have to fire a pastor, do you leave? No, you don’t leave. You just stay because that’s your church.

You give to the government because you give to the government.

You give to the church because you give to the church.

You give to the Cooperative Program because you give to the Cooperative Program.

My generation (I’m 52 now) was less inclined to just give and trust that the folks you give money to will be good stewards of it. Your generation is not at all inclined to do that.

Your generation – and this is both good and bad – has very little loyalty to anything. I hope you have (and I do believe you have) a loyalty to the gospel. But your level of loyalty is very thin.

Therefore, if you do not believe in these various entities, if you have an option, then you are not going to give. That is what Article 9 is trying to help those who are in a position of leadership right now understand.

We can’t keep doing it like this because these guys aren’t going to participate. They are not going to buy into this. They are not going to support this, and this is not going to work.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the rise of Reformed theology in the Southern Baptist Convention and the relationship between Southern Baptists and the wider world of evangelicalism.