The Gospel Coalition

SESSION 1

SPEAKER: Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research

TITLE: Denominationalism: Is There a Future? (Audio here)

THE GIST: Ed Stetzer made a strong case for denominations. He believes denominations are valuable tools for churches on mission. Denominations will persist into the future because churches on fire for the Great Commission find they have to cooperate. The kind of denominations we hope to see in the future are theologically orthodox, methodologically diverse, and in service to local churches.

OUTLINE:

Two Faulty Assumptions about Denominations

1. Denominations are a necessary or even integral part of the mission of God.
2. Attempting to interpret the role of denominations in the life of the local church apart from the Missio Dei (the mission of God)

Denominations might not be necessary, but they are valuable. They are good tools to be used in the mission of the church.

Why Denominations Do Have a Future

1. Denominations are inevitable. (Whether positively – for missional cooperation, or negatively – for tribal self-preservation)
2. Younger evangelicals are looking for a sense of rootedness in a fragmented society. (Young, Restless, Reformed / Emerging Church / Deep Church / Ancient-Future / Worship)
3. Churches that belong to denominations have confessional systems and accountability that ground them in orthodoxy.

What Kind of Denominationalism is Desirable?

1. We want to see denominations that are missional as opposed to tribal.
2. We want to see denominations based on confessional consensus.
3. We want to see denominations that value methodological diversity.
4. We want to see denominations that assist local churches, not vice versa.

Why I am staying in our denomination:

• I believe what we believe.
• Churches that belong to denominations are the primary agents of global evangelization.
• Diverse leadership environments stretch me.
• Because God led me to.
• Denominational affiliation is not just about me.

MEMORABLE QUOTES

There are some, too many I think, who are impressed with the denomination.  It is their focus and their passion.  But being consumed with the machine of the denominational machine can distract us from the mission for the church.

Denominationalism seems to be unavoidable, whether propelled by passion for the gospel and the Great Commission into missional cooperation or propelled by passion for maintaining tribal identity and stability in a fast-paced world of change.

The pursuit of relevance, as important as it may be, has dulled our sense of legacy and the value of heritage.

Where some see age, decay, and obsolescence in denominations, many others actually find longevity, maturity, and wisdom.

Whenever a church becomes institutionalized, there is a danger for that church to begin working hard at preserving its unique identity instead of being willing to sacrifice its identity for the sake of the lost.

Denominations that are effective for the kingdom of God unite in doctrine and diversify in methods.

Fifty years from now, what will historians write about us? That we were warrior children of the Conservative Resurgence, splintering into dozens of subgroups? Or that we were warriors for the Great Commission, spreading the gospel to the nations?

God’s mission never comes on a work-for-hire basis to a denomination.

A denomination is not just a place to get something; it is a place to give and serve.

This afternoon, I will be traveling to Jackson, TN to attend a conference at Union University: “Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism.”

The publicity team at Union has graciously offered to host me this week as I live-blog each session. I am excited to see what this group of speakers will say about evangelicalism and the future.

Here’s what you can expect to find at Kingdom People as I live-blog this conference. I will write a separate post for each of the talks. The posts will be summaries, not exhaustive transcripts. (I am sure the audio from this conference will be up soon for those who don’t want to miss anything.) Here is what you will find in each post:

• Lecture title and speaker
• Short summary of the speaker’s basic point
• Very brief outline of the talk
• A few memorable quotes
• My reflections on the talk, including areas of agreement, disagreement, and unanswered questions

I will also be updating my Twitter regularly with information from the conference if you’d like to follow me there.

Click here to see the schedule and the list of speakers.

The live-blog begins tonight at 5:00 p.m. (CST) with Ed Stetzer tackling the question: “Denominationalism – Is There a Future?” Then, Jim Patterson will reflect on the 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement. I will be posting on these talks shortly after they are delivered.

What do you do when church members tell you that they truly desire to share their faith and yet feel too afraid? How can you help church members become bold enough to share the gospel?

I start out by diagnosing the specific reasons this church member is afraid to witness:

• Some worry that witnessing to a stranger might seem distasteful and turn them away from the gospel.
• Others worry that witnessing to close friends or relatives might change something in the relationship. They don’t want to risk the friendship or damage their family ties.
• Some people fear rejection.
• Others worry that they don’t know enough about Christianity to give good answers.

Once you have diagnosed the root causes of the church member’s fear, you can begin to explain why fear should not stand in the way of evangelism. It is appropriate to approach the task of evangelism with some trepidation. After all, we are participating in a sacred task of obedience to our Lord. But “being afraid” – whatever the reason – is not an excuse to not evangelize. Why not?

First, we have been commanded to make disciples. Christ does not provide any loopholes in his statement. It is a command for all able Christians. We are not commanded to evangelize only when we overcome our fears (that may never happen); we are to make disciples despite our fear.

Secondly, we should realize that we have little reason to fear. Most unsaved people are not hostile to the gospel. In fact, research from Thom Rainer and others demonstrates that a great number of non-Christians are open to hearing about the faith of others. When you speak kindly and graciously about the gospel, you will find that most people react kindly and politely, even if they reject your call to repentance.

Third, we should do everything in our power to minimize the reasons for our fear.

If lack of knowledge is one of reasons you are afraid to share the gospel, then do some more learning. Be ready to answer and give a defense for your faith. Dive into some apologetics and have some resources handy. Whenever you are asked something you do not know the answer to, simply be honest and admit your lack of knowledge. It is okay to say, “I don’t know. Let me get back with you.”

If you worry that sharing the gospel might damage a familial relationship, then consider the words of Christ, who tells us that the gospel will divide families. You should do everything in your power to unconditionally love and respect those in your family, even if they do not accept the truth of the gospel. But at some level, the gospel is offensive, and if the gospel divides you, so be it. Only make sure that it is the offense of the gospel that causes one to stumble, not your offensive manner of evangelism.

Christians who are afraid to participate in evangelism readily recognize their human weakness and frailty. Instead of denying this weakness, we should embrace the truth that we are indeed powerless to convince others to trust in Christ.

We depend upon the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Our fears should drive us to our knees in prayer. Satan would have us fearful. God would have us emboldened by unswerving trust in his power to save.

O God,

I know that I often do your work without your power,
and sin by my dead, heartless, blind service,
my lack of inward light, love, delight,
my mind, heart, tongue moving without your help.

I see sin in my heart in seeking the approval of others;
This is my vileness, to make others’ opinion my rule,
when I should instead see what good I have done,
and give you glory,
consider what sin I have committed and mourn for it.

It is my deceit to preach and pray,
and to stir up others’ spiritual affections
in order to receive compliments,
when instead my rule should be daily to consider myself more vile
than anyone else in my own eyes.

But you show your power through my frailty,
so that the more feeble I am, the more fit to be used,
for you establish the presence of your grace in my weakness.

Help me to rejoice in my infirmities and give you praise,
to acknowledge my deficiencies before others and not be discouraged by them,
that they may see your glory more clearly.

Teach me that I must act by a power supernatural,
through which I can attempt things above my strength,
and bear evils beyond my strength,
acting for Christ in all, and having his superior power to help me.

- The Valley of Vision (adapted)

Dr. Russell Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Seminary. He is the author of an influential book on the evangelical view of the kingdom of God, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective and a very good book on adoption, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches.

During my time at Southern, I have been blessed by Dr. Moore’s books and blog, but most of all by his friendship and his commitment to serving the local church. I am grateful for the ministry of Russell Moore and his gracious recommendation of Holy Subversion: Allegiance to Christ in an Age of Rivals:

“Christianity is all about paradox. We lose our lives to gain them. We find life in crucifixion. We serve in order to reign. In his book, Holy Subversion, Trevin Wax takes up the question of how to be both a rebel—against the false authorities of this time—while simultaneously being submissive—to the divine authority of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This book is a helpful warning against both nihilism and cynicism.”

- Russell D. Moore,
Dean, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky

Take a look at these popular logos with hidden symbolisms. The FedEx arrow is my favorite.

Time’s list of “banned books” (i.e. recently been controversial in libraries) includes three that I consider “must-reads.” (Can anyone guess what my three are?)

Jared Wilson on Rob Bell’s “Evangel-less” definition of evangelicalism.

Kevin DeYoung has a thoughtful and comprehensive review of Deep Church.

Why the Mommy Wars need a dose of theology

Michael Bird on the vertical and horizontal aspects of justification. He wonders if it is correct to speak of justification in this way.

Michael Moore, Mammon, and Me

Charles Spurgeon points out one of John Bunyan’s blunders.

A helpful review of Hank Hanegraaf’s preterist fiction series.

Crossway is launching a program called Share the Good News of Christmas. They have put together a gift bag—which includes an ESV Outreach New Testament, a Christmas tract written by Max Lucado, 30 days of free access to the ESV Online Study Bible, and a customizable invitation to a Christmas service. It looks like a great way for church members to give these gift bags to friends, neighbors, and co-workers to personally invite them to a Christmas service. The goal is to reach one million homes with the gospel. For more info, click here.

Top Post this week at Kingdom People: Why Should I Believe in Original Sin?

1959: The Year Everything Changed by Fred Kaplan chronicles the changes nascent in American culture in the year before the turbulent 1960′s arrived. The book’s writing style (popular history retold in story form) resembles Malcolm Gladwell (though Kaplan is not nearly as captivating). Kaplan’s thesis is that 1959 deserves our attention for a variety of reasons:

“1959 was the year when the shock waves of the new ripped the seams of daily life, when humanity stepped into the cosmos and also commandeered the conception of human life, when the world shrank but the knowledge needed to thrive in it expanded exponentially, when outsiders became insiders, when categories were crossed and taboos were trampled, when everything was changing and everyone knew it – when the world as we now know it began to take form.” (1)

There are two main reasons for the abruptness of the change that began in 1959:

“It was this twin precipice – the prospect of infinite possibilities and instant annihilation, both teetering on the edge of a new decade – that gave 1959 its distinctive swoon and ignited its creative energy.” (4)

It is no coincidence that 1959 was released in 2009. Kaplan points out parallels between 1959 and today, which leads the reader to ask: Is it possible that we are in a year that everything is changing as well?

This is an interesting book that covers a variety of topics:

• literature,
• music,
• the space race,
• obscenity laws, etc.

Regarding obscenity laws, consider this: in 1959, the New York Board of Regents would not allow a French film (Lady Chatterly’s Lover) to be shown in the U.S. because “its ‘theme’ is the presentation of adultery as a desirable, acceptable and proper pattern of behavior” (53). Wow. How far we have come!

Most fascinating for me was the story of the computer microchip. In 1959, few realized the significance of this invention. At a trade show that year, The New York Times focused most of its coverage on a system created by Westinghouse that would allow someone to drive from coast to coast without ever putting their hands on a steering wheel. Westinghouse’s idea never went anywhere. The barely-covered microchip changed the world. You never know what is truly significant.

1959 is an interesting book, but it is ultimately unsatisfying. Kaplan sees most of the changes of the 1960′s as positive. He obviously anticipates the 1960′s as a decade of liberation.

Kaplan writes positively of Margaret Sanger and the birth control pill, never pointing out the underlying racism of Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s origins. He sees birth control as liberating from women, but never considers the way “sex without consequences” puts women in another set of chains – that of having to suffer consequences by themselves.

Although there are some interesting stories in 1959, Kaplan’s take on this landmark year is too one-sided for me. I wish he had taken in the complexities of the time, weighing its positive and negative aspects.