Anticipation fills the air. The game is about to begin. Suddenly, a voice booms from the stadium speakers and a hush falls over thousands of people. It’s time for the National Anthem. Some stand with hand over heart while others salute the rippling flag. Before the whistle blows and the spectators cheer, everyone pauses for a moment to listen. It reminds us who we are. No matter which team we cheer on to victory, we’re Americans, and our enthusiasm for the game is set against the backdrop of devotion to our country.
Imagine people protesting the singing of the Anthem before the game, saying it is boring, ritualistic, and meaningless. “I mean no disrespect,” one says, “but aren’t there better ways to show our patriotism than by singing the National Anthem before every game?”
One can hear the same mentality in many evangelical churches across America.
“Why pray The Lord’s Prayer every Sunday? It becomes dry and ritualistic when we say the same words every week.”
“The Lord’s Supper is great, but it will lose its significance if we take it monthly. Why not quarterly, or once a year?”
“Let’s dump our Christian lingo. Don’t we scare lost people away with terms like justification, sanctification, sin and salvation?”
“Why not replace the old hymns with praise choruses that are more meaningful to the younger generation?”
The questioners make valid points; in fact, it appears that in most churches, the proponents of change have won the argument. Churches appear to be abandoning difficult terms as quickly as dynamic Bible translations are revising their lexicons.
Before we go on, we must admit – yes, our Christian traditions can become dry and lifeless. In many churches, they are ritualistic and cold. Most of the time, though, rigor mortis sets in when traditions are not understood or explained. When rituals become dry and empty of significance, the answer is not to throw them out, but to rediscover their purpose.
A revival may be waiting if the church returns to Christianity’s roots. Bring back the anthems into our everyday life and Sunday worship! After all, they remind us who we are.
Christians in many parts of the world still greet each other exclusively with “Christ has risen” and the reply “He has risen indeed” for weeks after Easter. What impact could we have if in the weeks following next Easter we were to greet our brothers and sisters in Christ with “Christ has risen?” If spoken in the office or on the phone, how many heads would turn at the sound of someone proclaiming the Resurrection? And how much better would we be reminded of our own identities as Christ’s followers?
Why reserve special greetings for Easter? We could begin greeting each other with the early Christian proclamation: “Jesus is Lord” and the reply “Lord over all.” Surely that would be a better alternative to the “God is good. . . all the time” catch phrase.
Shouldn’t our speech and vocabulary differ from those who don’t know God? Most Christians believe that pure speech means to refrain from cursing or taking God’s name in vain. Very good. But Paul tells us to season our conversation with salt. Perhaps we need a little seasoning in our vocabulary – not just an absence of dirt.
Let’s replace “See you later” and “Goodbye” with “Go with God” and “May the Lord be with you.” Then, we have reminded each other that each step is to be taken with Jesus. And please, let’s get rid of “Good luck” – Christians don’t believe in luck anyway. Wouldn’t “God bless” be saltier?
Perhaps part of the movement to change theological terms like “justification” and “redemption” or “propitiation” is because many faithful church-goers just don’t understand the meanings. Christian leaders cop out by dismissing such terminology because “the lost don’t understand.” The greater danger is “the saved don’t understand.” If our preachers, teachers and writers would reconnect the church with the depth and majesty of the theological terms so many want to throw away, perhaps the cry against hard words would fall silent.
Words are more than just definitions in a lexicon. They remind us who we are – citizens of God’s Kingdom.
Saying The Lord’s Prayer in unison on Sunday reminds us of the community with which we pray “Our Father which art in heaven.”
Taking the Lord’s Supper is time at the table of fellowship to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and how we are the covenant people God redeemed.
Giving thanks to God before meals (the one tradition that seems to be holding on quite well) reminds us of the Giver of all good things.
Greeting each other with Christian phrases that we truly understand might revitalize our sense of mission and purpose in the workplace and the community.
Ancient hymns remind us of saints gone before, helping us realize we are not the first generation of believers with a passion for God.
Let us not abandon the symbols and traditions that remind us of our identity in Christ. Let the anthems play in our churches and resound in our speech. We will play the game of life differently if before the whistle blows, we remember who is King.
Ever used the phrase “Already / Not Yet” to describe the timing of God’s kingdom? If so, you’re indebted to George Eldon Ladd, longtime professor at Fuller Seminary and one of the most influential evangelical scholars of the 1900′s.
Ladd broke through the sterile debates about whether the kingdom of God was a present, spiritual reality or a future, earthly reality. He popularized a view of the kingdom as having two dimensions: “already/not yet.” Ladd was also one of the first solid evangelical scholars to go outside the fundamentalist camp in order to interact with liberal scholars in the academy, men like Rudolph Bultmann.
A Place at the Table is much more than a biographical sketch of Ladd’s life. D’Elia cautiously enters into the theological discussion he describes in order to spotlight Ladd’s contributions to evangelical scholarship and his interactions with scholars from outside the evangelical world. Those who read D’Elia’s book will receive an education, not merely regarding the historical aspects of Ladd’s interesting life, but also regarding the theological debates of the time.
Ladd’s legacy within evangelical scholarship is hard to overstate. I argue in the book that he carved out a place for evangelicals in what was then the threatening and bewildering world of critical biblical scholarship. By demystifying the methods of critical scholarship, Ladd made them available to evangelicals who wanted to use them in their study of the Scriptures. Historic premillennialism, then, is really an incidental part of Ladd’s story. The real achievement in Ladd’s career can be found in the wide range of biblical scholars who sat at his feet and then went on to make their own mark. Those scholars are as diverse as John Piper and Robert Mounce on the
one side, and Eldon Epp and Charles Carlston on the other.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is illuminating, clarifying and (thankfully) brief. It is amazing that Ladd manages to fit all of this great theological teaching into 140 pages.
There is a reason this book is still in print. It is unmatched in its clarification of what the kingdom of God is, and how the kingdom of God can be already present but not yet here in its fullness.
I’ll close this post with Ladd himself. Here are two ways Ladd defined “the gospel,” one personal and the other in light of God’s kingdom:
“I can only bear witness at this point to what Heilsgeschichte means to me. My sense of God’s love and acceptance is grounded not only in the resurrected Christ but also in the Jesus of history. He taught something about God that was utterly novel to his Jewish auditors: that God is not only gracious and forgiving to the repentant sinner but is also a seeking God who, in Jesus’ person and mission, has come to seek and to save the lost…
God has shown me that he loves me in that while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me (Rom. 5:8). This is not faith in history; it is not faith in the kerygma; it is not faith in the Bible. It is faith in God who has revealed himself to me in the historical event of the person, works and words of Jesus of Nazareth who continues to speak to me though the prophetic word of the Bible.”
- George Eldon Ladd, “The Search for Perspective,” Interpretation 25 (Jan. 1971), 56 and 57.
“This is the good news about the kingdom of God. How men need this gospel! Everywhere one goes he finds the gaping graves swallowing up the dying. Tears of loss, of separation, of final departure stain every face. Every table sooner or later has an empty chair, every fireside its vacant place. Death is the great leveller. Wealth or poverty, fame or oblivion, power or futility, success or failure, race, creed or culture — all our human distinctions mean nothing before the ultimate irresistible sweep of the scythe of death which cuts us all down. And whether the mausoleum is a fabulous Taj Mahal, a massive pyramid, an unmarked spot of ragged grass or the unplotted depths of the sea one fact stands: death reigns.
“Apart from the gospel of the kingdom, death is the mighty conqueror before whom we are all helpless. We can only beat our fists in utter futility against this unyielding and unresponding tomb. But the good news is this: death has been defeated; our conqueror has been conquered. In the face of the power of the kingdom of God in Christ, death was helpless. It could not hold him, death has been defeated; life and immortality have been brought to life. An empty tomb in Jerusalem is proof of it. This is the gospel of the kingdom.”
The Southern Baptist blogosphere has erupted in conversation on whether it’s proper to use phrases like “asking Jesus into your heart,” “accepting Christ,” or methods like the “sinner’s prayer” when sharing the gospel. Like many online conversations, this one has tended to generate more heat than light, and I get the feeling that good folks on both sides of this issue may be talking past one another.
This discussion over methods and terms has been bubbling under the surface for a good while now. A younger generation of pastors look out at the state of evangelicalism and are rightly concerned that many people with cultural Christianity in their background cling to assurance they are saved despite an overwhelming lack of evidence of genuine conversion. It’s no surprise that some pastors are blaming the methods and terms that became prevalent in the previous generation. That’s why we hear a pastor like David Platt consider a phrase like “asking Jesus into your heart” to be “dangerous” and “damning.”
The response to this critique has been to trot out the biblical and historical precedent for using such terminology. That’s not hard. The idea of “receiving Christ” is all over the New Testament. It is certainly a part of the good news that we are not only in Christ, but that Christ is in us. Pastor Steve Gaines’ rebuttal to David Platt, for example, focused on the biblical preponderance of such language and how it offers a full-orbed view of what takes place when a sinner places faith in Jesus Christ.
A Global Perspective
The first time I questioned the legitimacy of expressions like “ask Jesus into your heart” was when I was a student in Romania. Several Romanian pastors challenged the use of such terminology. They considered it to be another example of the American tendency to water down the nature of true repentance, and they recommended the use of such phrases only if fully explained. They saw these expressions as distinctively “American” and worried that they did not give sufficient weight to the idea of surrendering one’s life to King Jesus in repentance and faith.
Though some in the Southern Baptist Convention want to make this a debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, a broader perspective shows that this is part of an ongoing conversation between Christians in the U.S. and Christians in other parts of the world. The pastors I knew who had concerns with this language were not Calvinistic at all. Still, they were afraid of creating false converts and offering them false assurance. It ought to at least give us pause that many Christians in other parts of the world are uncomfortable with this terminology.
The Real Issue is False Assurance
At the end of the day, the conversation about “the sinner’s prayer” and “asking Jesus into your heart” is not really about the legitimacy of such methods or the biblical justification for using expressions like “having a personal relationship with Christ” or “receiving Jesus.” I believe that properly understood and explained, any of these methods and terms can be used, to good effect. And I bet David Platt would have no problem at all with the careful way that Steve Gaines explains what it means to “receive Jesus.”
The real issue comes down to finding our assurance in these methods and phrases. False assurance is when a pastor says, either explicitly or implicitly, “as long as you walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, or asked Jesus into your heart at some point in time, you’re safe.” It’s the kind of false assurance that doesn’t take into account a Christian’s fruitfulness (as Jesus commanded us to) and tries to convince tares they are wheat. The debate is not really about the usefulness of a sinner’s prayer, but the grounding of one’s assurance in a particular moment in time where one felt remorse for sin, regardless if true repentance was present or later evidenced.
Growing up in independent Baptist circles, I recall how much emphasis was placed on the moment of conversion. Revival speakers would come into town and scare us as teenagers, telling us, “If you don’t remember the when, the where, the how, and the who of when you got saved, you’re probably not. So come down and get it settled today!” Multiple baptisms were good for the evangelist’s PR and dozens of teens getting re-baptized made the church feel good (“Look what God is doing in our young people!”).
Despite the hype, I never got re-baptized. I couldn’t articulate all the reasons why this was wrong, but I knew something wasn’t right. It felt like the shenanigans of these revival speakers put way too much emphasis on a moment in time and not on a life of fruitful faith.
True Conversion
This conversation about our methods and terminology in evangelism is an important one. I just hope that people who share a lot of the same concerns will understand the common ground they have and not impute mistakes to one another.
To my young pastor friends, we are often more apt to express concern about the precision of evangelistic language than we are to celebrate the passion of evangelistic outreach. Let’s not impute the excesses of revivalism to everyone who uses terms that are familiar within that stream of evangelicalism.
To my older pastor friends, please don’t assume that those who critique shallow evangelism are necessarily criticizing you or your ministry. And don’t think that young guys are gun-shy when it comes to evangelism, afraid to call people to personal faith and repentance, or have a problem with a moment of conversion.
Again, the issue is one of false assurance. No pastor wants to stand before God and find he offered false assurance to someone who showed no signs of genuine repentance and faith. We all ought to tremble at the thought.
Meanwhile, is it biblical to ask Jesus into your heart? Absolutely. We ought to say more than this when we evangelize, and our main focus ought to be on the biblical terminology of repentance and faith, but surely it is proper to speak of receiving Jesus.
Let’s just make sure we explain our terms and phrases so that the nature of true repentance and saving faith is communicated clearly, boldly, and graciously. I hope that’s something all of us can agree on.
In our circles, it’s common to hear pastors and scholars bemoan the lack of critical thinking in many evangelical churches today. From the books and magazines gobbled up by the evangelical populace to the sheer gullibility on display in our forwarding of emails, it seems that biblical illiteracy and theological aberrations are widespread even in Bible-believing churches.
It’s no wonder that in recent years we’ve seen a surge of theological interest among younger pastors, particularly within the “gospel-centered” movement. We like good books. Lots of them. And not just easy books. Some of the books are ancient, hard to work through, and only pay off after spending significant time and energy in them.
The more we read, the more we know.
The more we know, the more we recognize the shallowness of much of contemporary evangelicalism.
In an age described by J. I. Packer as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” the blogosphere has become a place where critical thinking and sharp analysis are celebrated. I know firsthand. I am often pointing people to thoughtful book reviews, incisive critiques of theological developments, and pastoral warnings against compromise. I’ve posted a number of critiques myself.
A Celebration of Critique?
But I wonder at what point our appreciation for insightful analysis turns into a celebration of critique that leads to an unhealthy elevation of the critic.
Yes, I realize that some of the greatest authors and thinkers have been critics. Mark Twain was masterful in his critical commentary. And G. K. Chesterton was a critic who is celebrated even today, when the books and people he critiqued are largely forgotten.
But these kinds of critics stand out because they were always about ideas bigger than their own critiques. Twain had a wit that forced people to take him seriously. And Chesterton’s marvelous sense of humor infused all of his critiques with such joy that one wanted to be conquered by his logic and reasoning even if people ultimately rejected his position.
(Furthermore, both Twain and Chesterton were creators too. They gave us Huck Finn and Father Brown.)
What concerns me today is that in our celebration of the critical mind, we may be indulging the critical spirit. There is a difference. A big one. And it’s largely one of the heart.
Where’s Your Delight?
Charles Spurgeon once said:
The church is imperfect, but woe to the man who takes pleasure in pointing out her imperfections!
Notice how that statement reads. Spurgeon doesn’t condemn the man who points out the church’s imperfections. After all, he himself did that… often! He condemns the one who takes pleasure in criticizing. The difference is instructive. It concerns the heart. Spurgeon recognized the difference between a critical mind (incisive, analytical, fair-minded) and a critical spirit (delighting in exposing the flaws of others, quick to judge, dismissive and proud).
There have been times when my cultivation of a critical mind has led to having a critical spirit. When I was in seminary, I confided in a pastor friend that after taking homiletics (the art of preaching), I was having a difficult time hearing God speak to me in church because I was constantly analyzing and critiquing the sermon. My discernment radar was so strong that I could only hear my own thoughts about the sermon and not the truth the pastor was proclaiming. My pastor friend told me that recognizing this as a problem is the first step toward its resolution. “Trevin, a lot of guys never realize it’s a problem.”
By God’s grace, I now ask for the Lord to speak to me through His Word – no matter who is preaching or what the sermon is. And without fail, God does. The sermon may not be completely tied to the text, biblically faithful in all its particulars, or well illustrated, but God can use it. And thank God He does! Otherwise, how would those of us who preach ever have the confidence to open up the Word and deliver a message?
Loving Discernment
This doesn’t mean we should turn off the critical mind. It doesn’t mean we no longer test everything according to the Word. It doesn’t mean we just accept every sincere message as being helpful and positive.
It does mean that when we critique, we do so with a spirit of love. We overlook small flaws and winsomely talk to our brothers and sisters when we see big issues. We refrain from insisting on agreement for every jot and tittle of theological precision. We don’t dismiss an idea outright just because it comes from someone outside our theological camp.
Your brother and sister in Christ is on your team. Isn’t the Evil One a big enough opponent for us? Or do we have to have an adversarial posture toward Christians too?
There will be times of confrontation. There will be times to call into question your brother’s words and actions. (Paul’s confrontation of Peter comes to mind.) But that was a big deal. Peter was denying the gospel with his actions. The stuff we get worked up about is usually not that critical.
Theologically Minded for the Mission
I am excited at the thought of God stirring up a revival in our day – a movement that refocuses our attention on Christ and His work for us. I pray that King Jesus will raise up a generation that is theologically minded as well as mission-driven. The good that could come from this development is incalculable.
But the Evil One would love nothing more than to infect such a movement with a critical spirit, to have us be theologically minded at the expense of mission-driven rather than having our theological acumen drive us toward mission. It’s a small jump from engaging in critical thinking to having a critical spirit.
I’ve made that jump before. Too many times. And I don’t want to go there again.
We will not critique our way to gospel-centered revival.
How we weigh the strengths and weaknesses of these models depends on what their primary purpose is.
The traditional Sunday school model seeks to use the hour before or after a worship service for adult education, which results in an interactive Bible study or topical teaching series.
The small group model puts a priority on fellowship within the body, which results in accountability and an emphasis on Bible application.
The community group model elevates missional engagement of one’s neighborhood, which results in an open and outward-focused atmosphere.
If the main goal of the group is to invite outsiders to meet the Christians in their neighborhood, then Sunday school and small groups are clearly deficient. Meanwhile, if the primary purpose is Bible study and application, then community groups are off-base. The way we analyze these models depends on what we think is most important to accomplish.
I’m convinced that the purpose for breaking into smaller groups is one of the most neglected areas of discipleship. And when we don’t know what our purpose is, we’re certain not to fulfill it.
For a look at how four different churches envision the purpose of their small groups and Sunday School classes, watch this video clip from the Adult Education Panel at T4G, where Mark Dever, Michael Kelley, Matt Chandler, and I discuss different models and the purpose of meeting in smaller groups.
Trevin Wax: I want to start off by asking you, Mark, what is the purpose of the Sunday School hour that your church has? What’s the purpose of that smaller group meeting?
Mark Dever: Well, let me begin by saying what it’s not. It’s not the main way of delivering Christian education. That happens through the sermon. It is not the main way of discipling. That happens by one-on-one discipling in the church. We call it a culture of discipling which is what we want to see going on.
We’re trying to do something fairly narrow with that time because we have community groups also. Seventy percent of our members are in them during the week. But what we have on Sunday morning would be a much lower percentage of the congregation participating, probably about 25 percent participating. And we have topic-specific classes. We have several different years worth of tracks of classes. It goes Old Testament and New Testament Introduction, basic Christian stuff including evangelism, stuff about friendship, courtship, dating, marriage, all the way to evangelism, apologetics, missions, worldview, work. So those are classes where we’re trying to supplement the educational life of the church.
Trevin Wax: So would you say that the primary purpose of those meetings are educational even though that’s not the primary place for education in the church?
Mark Dever: Yes. Trying to have regularly available, very specific teaching that’s more specific than we’re going to be doing every Sunday morning. And if we’ve gone through all four years worth then I took each of my kids through them their four years of high school. I would sit through the classes with them. When you get through them all, we say grab somebody else who’s new to the church and take them through them. So it becomes a platform for discipling.
Michael Kelley: Our Sunday School classes are also educational, but we want to make sure that we have clearly defined purposes in our church, too.
So, for example, the community groups that we have is where we see the majority of the pastoral care that takes place, rather than through the Sunday School class environment. So when somebody has a baby, when somebody is sick, a lot of the pastoral care happens through the community groups as opposed to the Sunday School.
Also, we spend the majority of the time in the community groups – not necessarily teaching, but more facilitating discussion and praying. We would spend the majority of time in Sunday School doing actual teaching, whereas in the smaller groups it would be more facilitating what’s happened in the sermons, trying to take the sermon to a deeper level and that kind of thing.
Matt Chandler: We’re a bit of a hybrid, primarily we want to get our members into groups and then those groups are driven by materials based off of the sermon. Sometimes that’s in-house material that we’ve written. Sometimes that’s out of house stuff that we’ve identified and have taken and kind of made our own. And that doesn’t mean stealing it. We purchase a license and then tweak what we want and roll it out that way.
Trevin Wax: It’s nice that you guys don’t steal.
Matt Chandler: I just wanted to throw that out there. We’re not just taking somebody’s stuff and putting our logo on it. But apparently that stuff happens. But that’s the primary way.
And then twice a year for eight weeks we have classes at our campuses that are everything from – they can be theological. They can be – I think some of the ones going on right now is we’ve got a parenting class going on right now. We’ve got a ton of babies and first-time parents and so it’s an eight week class on what does it look like biblically? What’s God’s commands on the husband? What’s God’s commands on the wife? There’s a class down in the Dallas campus that’s primarily 20 somethings on dating, courtship, those things. There have been classes on – I mean I could just go on and on. But that’s kind of the feel. So twice a year you have eight week courses, three at each campus. And then predominantly though we want everybody in home groups.
When I am talking to young evangelicals, often who are in ministry, and I say, “Who has been really influential upon you in ministry and on learning to preach and to do the things of ministry?” ten years ago, most people would have given me the name of a local pastor who had mentored them and worked with them. Now they are mentioning a disembodied voice that they have heard on a podcast. That’s a very dangerous thing…
The feedback from that post got me thinking about the men who have been most influential in shepherding me through different stages of my life. Here is a list of six pastors and what they’ve taught me.
1. Bob Kelley – Pastor Passionately
Until I was nine, my family belonged to a prominent independent Baptist church. Bro. Kelley was our preacher. When I trusted Christ on a Saturday morning, Bob Kelley was the man I called to tell the good news. I still remember his excitement on the other end of the line. A few years later, he baptized me.
The one thing that stood out to me about Bob Kelley was his passion. He was fiery in the pulpit, holding up the Bible and then giving every bit of his energy toward proclaiming it persuasively. He pounded. He yelled. He wept. He called for repentance. I didn’t always understand his messages, but I was never bored.
The big impression he left on me was that what we’re doing here is important. It’s life or death. It’s serious business. Not all pastors express passion the same way as Bob Kelley. But all of us should be passionate. And that’s something Bob Kelley got right. (Click here for some of his “lessons learned from a gospel preacher.”)
2. Ken Polk – Pastor Textually
From the time I was nine years old until I left for Romania at 19, I belonged to a church where the pastor preached expository sermons every week. We started as a church plant meeting in a high school cafeteria and over the next decade grew into a church of 1,000. Careful, expository, text-focused sermons were part of that journey. I remember the first (and second) time Bro. Ken took us through the Gospel of John. I still remember his 1 Corinthians series and his sermons from Judges.
I cannot calculate the formative influence that Bro. Ken’s preaching had on my life. For 10 years, I listened to Bro. Ken preach. Ten years. Fifty weeks a year. Two times a week. That’s 1,000 sermons.
It’s no wonder that today I approach the text in much the same manner that he does, looking to discover what’s there, not invent what’s not. I see Christ in the Scriptures because he showed me Christ was there. I respect the Bible because of the way he always made the purpose of the text more prominent than the personality of the messenger. From Bro. Ken, I learned that there is no substitute for pastoring textually. The Scriptures are at the heart of pastoral ministry.
3. Rick Iglesias – Pastor Personally
The years I spent doing mission work in Romania were formative in so many ways. Yet there was a lingering loneliness that set in from time to time, the sense that you don’t quite fit in anywhere anymore – whether back home or on the field.
Pastor Rick visited our campus once or twice a year and led retreats for my college class up in the mountains. He impacted us because he cared about us. He wrote e-mails. He called from time to time. Always seeking to be an encouragement.
As the years in Romania went by, it was easy to feel forgotten by the rest of the world. But Rick remembered.
From Rick, I learned the power of personal contact. Just being there. Another pastor friend on the journey with you. (Click here for an interview I did with Rick a few years ago.)
4. Ted Traylor – Pastor Missionally
Another pastor who made an impact on me during my Romania years was Ted Traylor. I was in my first year of studying theology when Bro. Ted first visited the campus. Our group benefited from several classes with him.
I remember thinking then, What kind of pastor is this who, even though he has a large church to tend to in the States, would come all the way to Romania to pour himself into young Romanian seminary students? Every year after that, Bro. Ted returned. In 2005, he spoke at my class’s graduation.
Ted Traylor is passionate about the next generation. He loves the church. And he has the heart of a missionary. As long as the Lord has given me the privilege to know him, I have seen a missional heartbeat in Ted Traylor’s life and ministry.
Bro. Ted is also passionately devoted to fulfilling the Great Commission in his own city. He’s both a local and global kind of guy. And he has provided a wonderful example of a pastor with Great Commission focus.
5. Florin Trifan – Pastor Prayerfully
My father-in-law recently retired from pastoring two village churches. But during my time in Romania, I saw him in action.
If there’s any word that would characterize Florin Trifan’s approach to pastoring, it would be prayerful. Bro. Trifan is a constant pray-er. Always stopping to thank the Lord for His blessings. Always asking for the Spirit’s power to do God’s will. We pray together over Skype every week even now.
Bro. Trifan has been a good pastoral example in a variety of ways, but the biggest impact he has made on me is his relentless focus on the necessity and power of prayer in the pastor’s life. (Click here to see the testimony of how Pastor Trifan moved from Communism to Christianity.)
6. Kevin Minchey – Pastor Caringly
Along with Ken Polk, Kevin Minchey has had the biggest influence on my life. Kevin is a mentor at heart.
When I was on staff with him, Kevin didn’t only model care and concern for others, he instructed me on how to do the same. For years, I watched Kevin shepherd people, love on them when they were down, rebuke them when necessary, and cast a vision for the kingdom that pushed all of us out of our comfort zones.
For me personally, I was able to see up close the labor of love it is when a pastor chooses willingly to share others’ burdens and to walk through crises and trials. The pastoral wisdom, grace, and care on display in his life and ministry have taught me things that books could never capture. I’m thankful he cared for me. And I hope to shepherd others the same way.
What about you? Who are some pastors who have influenced your life and ministry?
Here is a ten-minute conversation with J.D. Greear about kids’ curriculum, morality, and how gospel-centrality must fuel our passion to be about God’s mission. Best line by far: “When kids are young, you just need to put stuff in them so that when you shake them, they just throw up Bible.”
J.D. Greear: A lot of the children’s curriculum that I was looking at, some of what our church was investigating, seemed to be really heavy on… lessons on sharing, lessons about kindness, and lessons about integrity. All those things are very important. But I felt like what most of the lessons left with and what I’d hear my kids come back and talk about was a to-do list. How we need to do this better. We need to do that better.
But really, what you want them to see in the Scriptures is that there’s one story going from start to finish, that it’s filled with characters they need to know about, but that shows them that they should hope, not in their ability to emulate the example, but should hope in the Savior who came for them. And so it’s been a struggle to find curriculum that is robust in its biblical doctrine and knowledge.
When kids are young, you just need to put stuff in them so that when you shake them, they just throw up Bible. That’s probably not a great image, but you know what I mean! You cut them, they bleed God’s Word. You want them understanding from the very beginning that this is about worship and about grace and that what they do for God is a response to what He has done for them.
That’s been tough to find. I’m not trying to put an indictment on all kids’ curriculum by any means, but finding one that captures everything is difficult.
Trevin Wax: I’ve found that too. And as a dad, I’m thinking about my kids in Sunday School learning Bible stories. I want them to know the Bible stories and I want them to know the details, but first and foremost, when we come to a Bible passage, one of the things we’re trying to do with The Gospel Project is we want our writers to first of all ask what does the story tell us about God—who God is, what He is like—and then how does the story point us forward to Jesus Christ. Because here’s what I see is the danger… If all of the stories in the Old Testament especially are all little morality tales where we’re able to have a small application for kids—be nice, be good, share, things like that—we can thoroughly condition our kids by the time they’re sixth graders, going into middle school, that the Bible’s all about them. That’s what they’ve heard week after week after week. Is that why you see that God-centered nature of explaining Bible stories as being important in curriculum?
J.D. Greear: Absolutely. Again, I don’t want to overreact to it. I think David, I think Moses, in some ways, was a great leader. First Corinthians very clearly says that these things were given to us as examples. So there are things that we can learn from them. You know, there are places in the Bible, Ezekiel says, you know, commends three of God’s servants for their steadfastness in the midst of temptation.
So I don’t want to overplay and say there’s nothing we can learn from them, but I also know that Moses wasn’t allowed to go into the promise land. He had a problem with his temper. He had a problem trusting God.
David—we know his issues that he has. You know, David’s life kind of ends with this big question mark. Is this the king that we’ve been searching for?
Nehemiah, as great a leader as he was… the last chapter of Nehemiah ends with him just going Jack Bauer on everybody. It says he’s ripping out their beards and off their clothes. And he just loses it. I’m not sure I want my kids emulating Nehemiah, every part of him. So what I want to try to show is that Nehemiah, yes, is worthy of emulation. But Nehemiah actually is there to point us to the ultimate wall builder who would build a city whose foundations could never be touched, which is Jesus.
Trevin Wax: I like how you do this. You’re saying we can learn things from moral tales. We can learn courage from David. We can learn faithfulness from Noah (before the scene where he gets drunk, obviously).
J.D. Greear: Right.
Trevin Wax: We can learn certain things from all these Old Testament characters, but at the same time, we know that they’re supposed to be pointing us forward to Jesus.
J.D. Greear: Absolutely.
Trevin Wax: Do you see us overreacting at times as we kind of want to go against the morality tale approach—to not want to bring out morals?
J.D. Greear: A lot of times you’ve got a very justified reaction to moralistic things that probably over speaks a little bit. Hopefully what will happen is that we can settle out in the way that the Bible talks about it. You know, I think the hero of every one of our sermons, every one of our lessons ought to be the Hero of the Bible, which is not you for what you do. It is God for what He’s done.
I will continue to learn from various biblical examples. One of the things I tell some of our teachers is—”Don’t try to be more gospel-centered than the Bible.” And don’t play the gospel-centered card on Jesus. You know, He had it down. He knew what it was like to be gospel-centered. You can follow His lead.
Trevin Wax: We’re seeing a movement in the churches of back to the basics, back to what the gospel is, making it explicit and up front in our preaching and teaching. I’m sure some people are watching this thinking, I’m gospel-centered. I give a gospel presentation at the end of every message. What’s the difference in the way we think of that term versus the Plan of Salvation at the end of a message?
J.D. Greear: Charles Spurgeon had a famous statement where he used to say at the end of every sermon, “I plow a trough back to the gospel.” And I always heard that used to explain why no matter what text or what subject the pastor was preaching on, he would tack the Romans Road onto the end of it. That if you would just, you know, receive Jesus into your heart, then you’d be saved. And so he’d be preaching about finances, and he’d be like—but if you need to be saved, this is how you do it.
The more I’ve read and gotten to know Charles Spurgeon, through his writings, I realize that what he was meaning there was no matter what subject he was talking about—generosity, holiness, being a good husband, a good father—the power for that flowed from the cross. I mean, that’s the image of the trough there. You think of a trough as something that water runs through.
So no matter what he’s talking about, the only way to become generous, the only way to be a faithful husband, the only way to stay faithful in the Bible or in your witness is in the glorious good news of what God has done for you. So when some people say, “Yeah, I’m gospel-centered,” all they think that means is that the gospel is important to them. And I’m sure the gospel is important to them. I don’t want to lose the gospel. Gospel-centered means that the gospel is not just the entry rite for you into Christianity. It’s not just the diving board off of which you jump into the pool of Christianity. You see that the gospel is the pool itself. The gospel is not just how you begin, it’s how you grow.
Trevin Wax: At your church, what are you guys doing to promote gospel-centered application in all the different areas of your church?
J.D. Greear: I’d like to think that begins with how it’s modeled from the pastors who occupy our pulpit. Our teaching team works very hard to be able to impact… it is one of the things we question each other on—What is this pointing me to? Is this pointing me back to the cross or is this pointing me to this?
Our small groups team, you know, has this as a major theme, and they’re writing studies a lot of times that come alongside and they will explore the gospel more thoroughly. Our children’s pastors and student ministers are doing the same thing where they’ll be taking curriculum and weaving more of the richness of the gospel into it.
One other thing I’ll mention is just the role of worship itself. Worship is not the 30-minute warm up to the sermon. Worship essentially is… it’s Word-centered and it’s gospel-rich so that people are coming face-to-face with the rhythms of the gospel as they are seeing the depth and the beauty of it in song and as their hearts are open to the gospel. We’ve done it now where the sermon is always right in the middle of worship because they need to go into that worshiping the cross. I’m in the middle telling them how it all relates. And then they come out of that again worshiping the cross. So I think worship is a key part there too.
Trevin Wax: What role does worship play in connection to mission? You want to see your people motivated to be on mission for God’s kingdom, to be proclaiming the gospel, to be demonstrating the truth of the gospel through the love we have for each other as Christians and then the love we have for the lost people around us, the love we have for our neighbors. How do you connect that worship component with getting people out on mission?
J.D. Greear: John Piper famously said that worship is the goal of missions—is that our desire to see other people worship God and know Him the way we do is the reason we do missions.
Another dimension of that, though, is that worship is not just a goal of missions. Worship is the fuel of missions. Because the only way that I’ll ever be zealous enough to leave father and mother and things that are comfortable to go into the world is when I see how great a treasure Jesus is, that He’s worth more than those things. When I see how much He’s given up to save me, when I see how great His glory is and how much He deserves to be worshiped in the world, that ends up becoming the fuel for mission.
He is the treasure worth leaving the entire field for, Matthew, you know, 13:44. He’s the One, 2 Corinthians 8:9, who became poor for my sake, become rich. You show me somebody that’s worshiping God around the gospel and I’ll show you somebody you don’t need to preach a mission series on in order to motivate into mission. It just comes naturally because they see God is the missionary God that came for them.
Trevin Wax: And that’s what we want. We don’t ultimately want people on mission out of obligation only. We want people on mission because it’s their passion, their heart.
Should churches educate their singles on how to use contraception?
Jenell Paris thinks so. In an opinion piece at Christianity Today called “Both Chastity and Contraception: A Sacred Compromise” (responding to this article), she recommends that churches “uphold premarital chastity as the biblical ideal, and encourage and educate unmarried singles about the effective use of contraception.” In other words, we ought to “educate” unmarried singles about contraceptives without “affirming” their use.
Paris admits this sounds like a compromise, but apparently “abstinence absolutism” hasn’t worked out so well. To reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancies among young evangelicals, we ought to at least consider encouraging contraception. She writes:
Advocating contraception for unmarried churchgoers certainly is a compromise, but consider what that really means. Com- means with, and promise means to agree, or to make a pact. To compromise is to work toward agreement or commitment with another. Like compassion, community, or companion, com- is about being in relationship with others. Unipromise isn’t even a word; without compromise, you’re just alone, speaking your ideal into thin air. It’s fine to have ideals, and to proclaim them with perfect phrases in perfectly planned church services. Contemplating perfection is a holy exercise that lifts our aspirations. Lived experience, however, is far from perfect; when I consider ideal parenting, ideal marriage, or ideal teaching, my life pales in comparison. I count on my gracious children, husband, and students to make daily compromises—as I do for them—as part of healthy relationships in the real world.
So, it’s a compromise. But compromise isn’t that bad, is it?
Actually, this line of thinking is far worse. The idea of “both chastity and contraception” is not a “sacred compromise.” It is a scandalous capitulation to the unfettered sexual mores of 21st century American society.
This idea does not maintain the “ideal” of chastity in singleness alongside the “compromise” of contraception. Instead, it devalues the struggle to remain chaste while legitimizing sexual expression among Christian singles as something unavoidable. It trades the sumptuous feast of covenanted sexual expression for a mess of pragmatic pottage.
Let’s apply this line of reasoning to other illicit sexual activity. Imagine that survey results come in showing that one in four evangelical men admit to having extramarital flings. Young evangelicals perplexed by this state of affairs (no pun intended) gather to discuss an appropriate response:
Well, centuries of absolutism regarding marital fidelity sure haven’t stopped men from cheating on their wives! It’s a shame some of these affairs produce unwanted children. It’s also devastating when the wife and kids find out about dad’s indiscretion. We don’t want anyone plagued with guilt and shame, now do we?
Here’s an idea! Let’s maintain the ideal of marital faithfulness while offering some information to these husbands about how to do their side business a little more discreetly. Let’s educate these men (not affirm them, mind you) on using contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Let’s encourage them (not push them, of course!) to learn new ways to maximize the moments with their mistresses without causing pain and heartache for the family.
The sense of revulsion you feel when reading this imaginary scenario is probably rooted in your God-given, biblically informed, gospel-sanctified idealism regarding the exclusive nature of the marriage bed. And as Christians who believe in the good gift of sexual expression within the beautiful confines of the marriage covenant, we ought to be repulsed by any proposal that cheapens, threatens, or denigrates that ideal.
Encouraging contraception among Christian singles is one such proposal. Surprisingly, Paris wants to ground her argument in the gospel:
After all, “just saying no” to premarital sex, important as it is, is not the heart of the gospel. The heart of the matter is saying yes to God. Maybe we often rely on shame and fear because it’s hard to believe that people would say no to something as tantalizing as sexual pleasure if they didn’t stand to lose something extremely valuable such as honor, the affection of family and church, or even eternal life. If people knew they were loved, no matter what, and that God and God’s people would have their backs even if their own sin is the cause of their troubles, wouldn’t they just sin freely because grace abounds? Perhaps some would, but even then, love can be a kindness that leads to repentance. Others may find the real reason to reject immorality: not for fear of shame, disgrace, or hell, but for love of the right and the good. Right loving—full of compromise, compassion, and companionship—is the best encouragement for right living.
But just change out the sin to see how gospel-denying this argument really is:
After all, “just saying no” to adultery, important as it is, is not the heart of the gospel. The heart of the matter is saying yes to God. Maybe we often rely on shame and fear because it’s hard to believe that people would say no to something as tantalizing as adultery if they didn’t stand to lose something extremely valuable such as honor, the affection of family and church, or even eternal life.
I am flabbergasted that evangelicalism has come to the place where such a scandalous capitulation to a sexualized culture could be considered a “sacred compromise.” Apparently, once you’ve winked at sin enough times, you can no longer see straight. Matthew Lee Anderson is right:
Contraception as a pragmatic concession actually contributes to the conditions where Christians can sin without consequences for themselves or their community… It is well known, or at least frequently stated, that evangelicalism’s public witness has been frequently undermined by our lack of integrity and our hypocrisy, especially on sexual issues. I fail to see how more contraception for our unmarrieds will do anything except deepen such a culture of hypocrisy by making it more comfortable and convenient to sin sexually while remaining in unbroken communion in our churches.
Are evangelicals hypocritical when it comes to premarital sex? Absolutely. We’re hypocritical in all sorts of ways. Every one of us is guilty of sexual sin. But Christianity hinges on repentance. We agree with God about our sin, and we turn from it and turn toward Jesus.
Telling singles they ought to turn toward Jesus and contraception is an implicit denial that repentance is integral to the Christian life. It’s like Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin some more.“
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the response I’d received from my article in Tabletalk - “Not So Fast” - which basically encourages most people to stay with their congregation during a difficult church situation rather than flee. Based on the notes I’ve gotten, some have misunderstood my suggestion not to be hasty in leaving a church (hence the title “Not So Fast”) as a hard, fast rule against ever leaving a church, no matter what happens.
“All of us, at times, will be called to endure humbly a leader’s mistakes and sins.”
Most of us fit this category, I believe. Called to be patient with other people just as other people are called to be patient with us. He goes on:
“Nonetheless, should you find yourself in a church where the leadership is characteristically abusive, I would, in most cases, encourage you to flee.”
The key word here is “characteristically.” No one should immediately leave a church simply because something or someone in leadership has offended them. But when abuse is taking place, one ought to flee for the following reasons:
“Flee to protect your discipleship, to protect your family, to set a good example for the members left behind, and to serve non-Christian neighbors by not lending credibility to the church’s ministry.”
Then Jonathan helpfully points out some examples of abusive leadership:
How do you recognize abusive leadership? Paul requires two witnesses for a charge to be leveled against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19), probably because he knows that leaders will be charged with infelicities more than others, often unfairly. That said, abusive churches and Christian leaders characteristically
Make dogmatic prescriptions in places where Scripture is silent.
Rely on intelligence, humor, charm, guilt, emotions, or threats rather than on God’s Word and prayer (see Acts 6:4).
Play favorites.
Punish those who disagree.
Employ extreme forms of communication (tempers, silent treatment).
Recommend courses of action that always, somehow, improve the leader’s own situation, even at the expense of others.
Speak often and quickly.
Seldom do good deeds in secret.
Seldom encourage.
Seldom give the benefit of the doubt.
Emphasize outward conformity, rather than repentance of heart.
Preach, counsel, disciple, and oversee the church with lips that fail to ground everything in what Christ has done in the gospel and to give glory to God.
How does discipleship take place in smaller groups?
Why do we break off into smaller groups in the first place?
What methods and models are best suited to accomplish the purpose of Sunday School, small groups, or home groups?
The topic of adult education within the context of a local church has not often been addressed within the gospel-centered resurgence. Perhaps this lack of conversation explains why we see a startling amount of diversity within the churches of this movement.
On the one side, there is the model that uses the traditional Sunday School hour to focus heavily on core seminars and the need for biblical literacy and the development of theological acumen. On the other side, a number of churches that have adopted the “Sticky Church” model, which is based on discussion questions from the pastor’s weekly sermon. In between these two models, many churches continue to run their programs of traditional Sunday School, but with little vision for training leaders or utilizing the structure of Sunday School for the education of believers.
Last week, Mark Dever, Michael Kelley, and Matt Chandler joined me for a conversation about methods in accomplishing adult education. We discussed the different models and methods, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Check out the video by clicking here. Download the mp3 audio here.
Topics Discussed:
0:10 Introduction of panel and different perspectives related to discipleship in smaller groups
3:45 What is the purpose of the smaller group meeting?
8:23 What is the best learning / teaching style?
15:15 Strengths and weaknesses of discussion-based groups
20:08 Strengths and weaknesses of lecture-based groups
25:00 Strengths and weaknesses of the alignment model
29:50 How do you determine what is important to teach and learn in a smaller group?
34:10 How does your strategy deal with your environment? (educated, uneducated, transitional, stable)
37:07 Groups based on age or life stage
45:00 The role of community in adult education
50:34 Child education, children’s worship, etc.
54:15 Advice to pastors who have inherited a Sunday School structure
Anticipation fills the air. The game is about to begin. Suddenly, a voice booms from the stadium speakers and a hush falls over thousands of people. It’s time for the National Anthem. Some stand with hand over heart while others salute the rippling flag. Before the whistle blows and the spectators cheer, everyone pauses for a moment to listen. It reminds us who we are. No matter which team we cheer on to victory, we’re Americans, and our enthusiasm for the game is set against the backdrop of devotion to our country.
. See 
. Check out 
