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.

Late last year, I wrote a blog post titled “Your Podcast Is Not Your Pastor,” prompted by this comment from Russell Moore:

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

Today, I’m excited to welcome two friends of mine to the blog for a conversation on the need for multi-ethnic congregations.

Derwin Gray is a defensive back who played safety for five seasons with the Indianapolis Colts and one season with the Carolina Panthers. He now resides in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is the founding and Lead Pastor of Transformation Church in Indian Land, South Carolina.

Juan Sanchez is pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, and one of the advisory council members and writers for The Gospel Project. 

Trevin Wax: Welcome to the blog, guys. First off, why even have this conversation about multi-ethnic churches? Why is this important?

Juan Sanchez: The glory of God. A few weeks ago, I laid the biblical-theological foundation for multi-ethnic churches over at Ed Stetzer’s blog. In essence, through Christ God is gathering a multi-ethnic assembly that will dwell in His presence for all eternity, under His rule, for His glory and our joy. God is greatly glorified as wise when we witness this multi-ethnic assembly being manifested in local congregations and functioning as one (Eph. 4). So, ultimately, this conversation is about the glory of God in Christ.

Derwin Gray: Absolutely, and the gospel paints a glorious picture of humanity reconciled to God through Jesus and to each other! Jesus said “make disciples of all nations (ethnos),” or different ethnic groups. The gospel demands that if different ethnic groups are around the local church, as missionaries, we should be intentional in reaching them. And the multi-ethnic church displays the “mystery of Christ” and the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:4-6,10-13).

Juan Sanchez: I think this conversation is important for another reason too. Due to various cultural factors, many churches were fairly segregated and remain so to this day. However, the church growth homogeneous unit principle (see Tim Chester’s helpful explanation) seems to have legitimized monoculturalism for the sake of evangelism. (I’m not fully knowledgeable about this history, so feel free to help me if I am missing the mark.) As a result, many churches remain fairly segregated for both cultural and evangelistic reasons.

I think that as our culture and economy have become more global and as international travel has become easier, we are realizing more and more that the body of Christ is diverse but that through Christ we have more in common with our Christian brethren throughout the world than with our unbelieving blood kin. Then we ask ourselves when we return from mission trips, if we have such a unity with brothers from different cultures and ethnicities in another country, why can’t we experience this same unity at home?

Trevin Wax: Do you think the homogeneity principle led to church growth but at the cost of multi-ethnic congregations? 

Derwin Gray: Great question. First, let’s define Dr. Donald McGarvan’s Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP). In essence, HUP teaches that people come to faith faster when people are of the same ethnic and socio-economic background. HUP has worked pragmatically and fits very well in our consumer Christianity context. But it has not nor will it ever produce local churches that reflect the ethnic diversity of what the new heavens and earth will look like. Pastors and leaders, our goal should not be pragmatism but God’s glory.

The HUP has become the standard ministry model of church planting and the church in general. However, in his eBook Should Pastors Reject or Accept the Homogeneous Unit Principle? Mark DeYmaz quotes Dr. McGavran as saying, “There is a danger that congregations…become exclusive, arrogant, and racist. That danger must be resolutely combated.” McGavran saw the danger of HUP when it was not used correctly.

Juan Sanchez: Here in Texas, it is not surprising to see a new cowboy church plant (I don’t think they are in the Acts 29 Network!). The idea, born from a legitimate and genuine desire to reach a group presumably not being reached by traditional churches, is that “cowboys” don’t go to “church” but they need the gospel too. Agreed! In this approach, utilizing the homogeneous unit principle, that like attracts like and provides an easier path for profession of faith in Christ, “cowboys” get together and do church in the “cowboy” way in order to reach “cowboys.” As a church like this grows, I would say that growth occurs at the expense of multi-ethnicity AND multi-culturalism. At the end of the day, I’m left asking, “Is this just evangelical consumerism?”

The solution is not to have “cowboy” churches composed of African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Anglos, etc. Such a church would be more homogeneous than they might realize because they are gathering around “cowboy culture.” The picture I see the gospel presenting is not a “cowboy” church composed of various ethnicities but a “cowboys” and “Indians” church – a church where formerly hostile parties, having nothing previously in common but hate for one another, now worship and share life together. In Ephesians 2, we’re reminded that the gospel brings together two formerly hostile parties and makes them into one new man.

Derwin Gray: I don’t think church size has much to do with the lack of ethnic diversity in local churches in America.  Transformation Church (TC) was planted two years ago. God, in His grace, has grown TC from 178 people to a thriving, dynamic, multi-ethnic, multi-generational congregation of nearly 2000. We’ve seen over 800 commit their lives to Jesus. In our case, we’ve grown large very fast; we attribute our growth to our commitment to biblical theology and missiology, fueled by the gospel. Our target audience is whoever lives within the scope of our local church; therefore, our ministry reflects the diversity of our mission field. TC is 60 percent white and 40 percent other.

Juan Sanchez: On a clarifying note, though the homogeneous unit principle may be applied ethnically – let’s plant a “Black” church, it seems to me that it is applied more culturally within current church planting circles. Whatever “target” group is chosen (i.e., upper middle class, artists, musicians, college students, generation X, Y, Z, etc.), everything is tailored to reach that “target,” and that group becomes the majority culture. So long as one fits into that majority culture (regardless of ethnicity), then they will fit into that group. I wonder if perhaps this is what is happening in some “bigger” churches. They may look different (ethnically diverse) when in fact they are really the same (mono-cultural). In this sense, bigger churches may tend to be as homogeneous as smaller churches but for differing reasons. Reminder – all this is anecdotal; I would love to see the data on this!

Trevin Wax: What do you say to the pastor who has a very homogeneous congregation but wants it to be multi-ethnic? Where do you start? How can one begin moving the church in a direction that more clearly demonstrates the glory of Christ’s lordship over all nations?

Derwin Gray: First, the leaders’ hearts must be seized by the biblical conviction that God wants the local church to be multi-ethnic whenever possible. Multi-ethnic church is not in addition to the gospel, it is a result of the gospel.

As a pastor, I had to work through this for myself in the Scriptures and in prayer. The question that drove me was “What does a first-century church look like in the twenty-first century?” I worked through Acts, particularly Acts 2:42-47, to try and answer this question. The most mind-renewing passage of Scripture for me was Ephesians, specifically chapters 2 and 3. That was life- and ministry-changing. One book that was particularly helpful to me in my biblical study was J. Daniel Hays’ From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. So, for the pastor, that’s where I would say to begin – the study of Scripture and prayer.

Derwin Gray: The next step would be to pray and fast for a leadership team at every level, from pastors to volunteers, to reflect the multi-ethnic diversity of the community in which God has placed you to be a missionary outpost (i.e., local church).

Hopefully, this process will bring everyone on the same page, allowing the leaders to address the congregation’s questions, not just you. This, then, is a direction from the leadership, not just the pastor’s latest “thing.” At this point, as a pastor, I would personally try to get my hands on every book written about multi-ethnic ministry and church to try to understand the practical dynamics involved in implementation. Choose the best and share one or two with your leaders.

Derwin Gray: I also think diversity in worship styles is crucial to developing a healthy, multi-ethnic church. It’s important to create a multi-ethnic ethos in the congregation. How do we do that? As the Lead Pastor, I must continually cast a God-sized, beautiful, compelling vision and teach from the sacred Scriptures that the outworking of the gospel produces a multi-ethnic, mission-shaped church.

Derwin Gray: I’d also recommend learning from leaders who have planted multi-ethnic local churches, such as Ken Hutcherson (Antioch Bible Church), Miles McPherson (The Rock Church), Efrim Smith, Mark DeYmaz (Mosaic). I’d love to help any leader who wants to plant gospel-centered, multi-ethnic, missional churches.

Juan Sanchez: Ultimately, we have to trust the Lord. He is sovereign, and only He can change you, the leaders, and the church. But remember that this is an issue of the heart and a renewed mind, first and foremost. You cannot concoct ethnic and cultural diversity in your church. You can’t announce, “We’re now a multi-ethnic church,” and expect that the next Sunday the crowd is going to be different. You also cannot concoct ethnic and cultural diversity where there is little.

Our call is to preach the gospel to all peoples and make disciples of them. A good question to ask is “How does the makeup of our church reflect the community that the Lord has sovereignly planted us in?” As your community changes, Lord willing, so should the makeup of your congregation if you are reaching those within your community regardless of who they are or where they come from.

I know a pastor who thinks militant Calvinism is about to overtake the Southern Baptist Convention and lead to multiple church splits. In personal conversation, he is constantly going back to the dangers of Reformed theology and the damage it is doing across the evangelical world.

I have a friend on the other side of the spectrum – a truly Reformed guy convinced that the contemporary church movement, particularly its Purpose-Driven manifestation, is man-centered, God-dishonoring and infecting evangelicalism all over the place, leaving us powerless for mission and divided in our churches. Whenever I talk with him, he is constantly railing against church growth and numbers-obsessed pastors who only want to build monuments to themselves.

I have another friend who has a visceral reaction whenever someone is expressive in worship. He talks often about how people are just showing off. Their enthusiasm isn’t real. If it gets out of hand, it will cause problems.

Do you know these types? Maybe it’s not Calvinism or church growth or charismatic expression but something else. The common thread you find is that they are almost obsessive in their critique of a movement, theological persuasion, or church practice they think is doing damage to the kingdom of God.

For the anti-Calvinist pastor, it was a church he labored over for many years. When he moved to another city, the church called a Reformed pastor who immediately began pushing a theological agenda that surprised and startled the congregation. A heated battle took place, and the church went through a messy split. The former pastor felt like much of the work he had done was obliterated by his Calvinistic successor.

For the anti-Purpose-Driven guy, it was a church he belonged to for many years. When a new pastor came in and began changing the direction of the church to become primarily focused on seekers, my friend felt increasingly uncomfortable. The new pastor downplayed doctrine and theology, leaving a number of church members feeling marginalized and antiquated. My friend’s concerns were shoved aside and ignored. Eventually, they had a painful parting with the church, and the pastor dismissed them as being more focused on theology than evangelism.

For the anti-charismatic guy, it was a church split that took place as a result of extreme charismatic expression. The wrangling and politics and behind-the-scenes infighting that was covered up by talk of “God moving” and “revival breaking out” causes him to resist any talk of that sort, even if it is perfectly biblical.

In these and other cases, you notice there’s usually a painful story that serves as the backdrop for their current crusade. And you can probably think of similar examples yourself. These guys may be at different points on the theological spectrum, but they are united by their similar story: bad leadership, painful parting, heartbreaking results – now leading to a passionate crusade.

No doubt there are angry, militant Calvinists who have split churches over hills not worth dying on. No doubt there are Purpose-Driven guys who have burned people as they made changes in churches. No doubt there are excesses in charismatic expression and situations of pastoral abuse of authority. While most Christians understand that you can’t judge a whole movement or theology based on these sad situations, the people in the thick of a controversy can and do. 

I’ve found that whenever I come across “issue Christians” – whether they be Calvinist, anti-Calvinist, church growth, anti-church growth, Dispensationalist, or charismatic – I ought to hear their story.

What is it about seeing a noted Calvinist author quoted in the bulletin that bugs you so much? We had a fierce battle over Calvinism a few years ago, and the church has not recovered.

What is it about raising your hands in worship that bothers you so much? My church split when the pastor led us in a charismatic direction where people were being slain in the Spirit.

Sometimes the crusader just wants to be heard. So let them tell their story. That said, debating the finer points of theology is not the way to go. Debating the strengths and weaknesses of the charismatic worship movement or the man-centered or God-centered nature of Calvinism or church growth isn’t the point. When someone’s been burned, they need a bandage, not an explanation of how the burning takes place.

I’m sorry to hear about the hypocrisy you saw during those worship services. Just goes to show you how messed up the church is, doesn’t it? My heart isn’t always fully engaged in worship either. Another reminder of how badly we’ve fallen and how much we need Jesus!

Don’t try to persuade them to give up the crusade. It’s probably not going to work. And theological crusades can distract us from the mission God has called us to.

Instead, offer to pray with them. Listen to them. Learn from them. Give them guidance if they ask for it. And then challenge the crusader to channel that passion back toward the Great Commission. Encourage them to not let their back story keep them from moving forward.

This month’s issue of Credo magazine is about missions and the church. I was asked to contribute a definition of “the mission of the church” for inclusion in the magazine. It took me a while to think about how to form a definition that showed the relationship between the church’s identity and mission. In the end, this is the definition I offered:

My friend Jonathan Leeman also contributed a definition. His focused on the local church aspect of the mission:

Broadly, God has given His new covenant people on Planet Earth the glorious tasks of proclaiming the God-man Jesus – His substitutionary sacrifice and resurrected Lordship – and of living as a distinct society of Spirit-filled citizens who, little by little, are learning to embody Jesus’ own love, mercy, and justice toward one another first and the nations second, all for the sake of displaying the matchless glory of the Father. For the purpose of fulfilling these great tasks and ends, Jesus has authorized regular gatherings of two or more new covenant members to constitute themselves as official outposts of the kingdom, or local churches, or exercising the keys of the kingdom through preaching the gospel, binding and loosing those who confess with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, teaching everything that Christ has commanded, and spurring one another on to the aforementioned love and good deeds.

• Are we speaking of the local church as an institution or the church as individuals scattered throughout society?
• How are we defining terms like “teaching” and “gathering” and “sending”?
• Is it important to define what the church is before defining what the church does? And is it possible to define the church apart from God’s mission?
• How do we define terms like “nations” and “disciples”?

In thinking through these and other issues, I’m inclined to see the identity of the church – God’s called-out, “sent,” kingdom people – as an illuminating framework for wrestling with the other related issues of evangelism, mentoring, disciple-making, mercy ministry, etc. In the end, the “mission of the church” is part of an ongoing discussion that I hope will encourage us as the people of God to embrace our missionary identity.

How would you define the mission of the church?

A couple weeks ago, I posted a review of a new book edited by Robert Plummer, Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism, that chronicles the journeys of four individuals between four Christian traditions. Dr. Plummer was my hermeneutics professor at Southern Seminary, and he is also the author of 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible. Today, he joins me for a conversation about his experience in editing this intriguing new book.

Robert Plummer: As I explain in the introduction to the book, I began to notice a trickle of Evangelicals converting to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy – both from my local church and the seminary where I teach. When I looked for resources that helped in understanding this migration and responding biblically, I had difficulty finding anything helpful. I originally thought about describing and assessing the phenomenon myself but decided that the book would be much more interesting and accurate if recent converts were allowed to tell their own stories.

Robert Plummer: Frankly, I originally did not want to include Anglicanism in this book because Anglicanism is, in some expressions, thoroughly Evangelical. But the publisher convinced me that enough “free church” Evangelicals convert to Anglicanism that it is a related phenomenon we could not ignore. For example, Todd Hunter, former head of the Vineyard movement has recently written a book about his conversion to Anglicanism (see The Accidental Anglican).

Robert Plummer: I have several different hopes for the book, but let me focus on one here – for the Evangelical readership – that it would help us both understand and respond to persons leaving our churches for liturgical Christian traditions. Speaking quite directly… I believe an Evangelical understanding of the gospel, salvation, and the Scriptures is correct. (If I did not, I would leave Evangelicalism.) Yes, I respect persons leaving my faith tradition.

Nevertheless, through the responder sections of the book, I want to lay before potential converts the reasons I think they are making a mistake to leave Evangelicalism. And for those with friends leaving Evangelicalism, I hope this book equips them to make a loving appeal to stay. Chris Castaldo’s riveting account of his journey from Catholicism to Evangelicalism also highlights the strengths of Evangelical claims, I think.

Robert Plummer: Yes, authority is big. Who or what has the final say in matters of faith and practice – Scripture? Tradition? Experience? Or some combination? Obviously, as an Evangelical, I believe Scripture is the final authority, but I also understand the important secondary role tradition plays in all Christian churches – even those that deny they have traditions.

1. Ask questions and listen. Don’t immediately criticize. Try to understand the attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Visit the church they are attending and graciously observe. Admit your own biases and erroneous preconceptions.
2. Read up on Eastern Orthodoxy in places like Wilbur Ellsworth’s and Craig Blaising’s chapters in Journeys of Faith. Another recommended book is Robert Letham’s Through Western Eyes. Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective.
3. Pray.
4. Speak the truth in love.

A pastor recently asked me about the missional strategy behind The Gospel Project curriculum. “We’ve got people in small groups who study the Scriptures but aren’t involved in reaching out to their community with the gospel,” he said. “How can I get them motivated?”

Set the magnificent, majestic God of the Bible before your people week after week, and pray that they will encounter Him for who He is. Why? Because it’s an encounter with an awesome God that motivates us to mission.

• Moses trembles before God in the burning bush. Next he is standing before Pharaoh saying, “Let my people go!” The majesty of God displayed before Moses’ eyes on a faraway hillside is the same majesty God displays before the greatest empire of the day.
• Isaiah caught a vision of the Lord in His temple that was so staggering that he fell on his face like a dead man. Notice God didn’t even have to tell him what to do. God simply asks, “Who shall go?” and the awestruck Isaiah volunteers: “Here am I. Send me!”
• The Samaritan woman at the well was amazed at the supernatural knowledge of Jesus. Next we see her running into town telling her friends and family about His greatness.
• The women at the tomb are the first to witness the resurrection power of God. Next we see them telling everyone, “We have seen the Lord!”
• Peter denies Christ and hides. After encountering the greatness of King Jesus, we see him boldly proclaiming Christ as Messiah and Lord before thousands of people.
• After Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, he spends the rest of his life seeking to help the Gentiles see the very One who initially blinded him.

May we be so mesmerized by the glory of Jesus Christ that we count it as nothing to lose our lives for the spread of His fame! Let’s get on our faces before God and then get on our feet for His mission.

Yesterday, I shared an article from The Wall Street Journal about the loss of apprenticeship in preparing a young person for adulthood. It’s interesting that the writer recognized the difference between being book smart and wise with regard to life. 

The culture of the first century put a high priority on learning through apprenticeship. You see hints in this direction as you read the New Testament, particularly in how Jesus spoke of His relationship to the Father. But it’s also likely that in the early Christians’ desire to “make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ had commanded them,” their vision of “teaching” was somewhat different than what we mean by the term today.

Once they recognize the deficiencies of an information-only type of teaching, these leaders begin to downplay the need for verbally teaching people the fundamental doctrines of the faith. The result is a largely atheological ministry that inevitably leans toward a behavior-focused, moralistic message. The good news (powerful, life-transforming information) subtly shifts into good advice (“Just tell me how to live!”). And we wind up with a biblically illiterate mass of well-intentioned Christians being told each week what to do.

Camp 2

In response, other church leaders swing the pendulum back. We must teach people and teach them well. The problem, however, is that “teaching” in these churches is often reduced to conveying important biblical information. The assumption is that once we learn the right things, we will live the right way.

It seems to me that the real question is what we really believe. It seems to me that we do tend to have two creeds—the one which we believe in our intellectual assent, and then the one which we believe to the extent of acting upon it in faith. More and more it seems to me that the true level of our orthodoxy is measured by this latter standard rather than the former. And more and more it seems to me that there is no such thing as an abstract Christian dogma—that each Christian dogma can be experienced on some level.

Apprenticeship is serious business. Never downplay the importance of sermons, theological education, and deep Bible study. Just make sure you match all of these with doing life together, modeling a new way of being human, inviting people to come alongside of us and learn what it means to follow Jesus – not merely by what we tell them but also by how we live.

Iranian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani will remain in prison:

In late September of this year, he was given four chances to recant his faith in court and refused each time. His case then was referred to the ayatollah. The American Center for Law and Justice reported one of his court exchanges.

“Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?” Nadarkhani asked.

“To the religion of your ancestors, Islam,” the judge reportedly replied.

“I cannot,” the pastor responded.

Related: Youcef Nadarkhani’s Letter to His Church

UPDATE: The website for The Gospel Project has been launched.

A little over a year ago, I transitioned out of pastoral ministry and took on the role of editor at LifeWay Christian Resources of a new small group curriculum for churches.

Beginning Stages

My first two months at LifeWay (November-December 2010) were primarily focused on helping develop the vision for the new curriculum. In conjunction with Ed Stetzer (general editor), I began mapping out what topics this curriculum might cover. We put together some different options – some focused more on systematic theology, others focused on a variety of approaches, etc.

We also began putting on paper the core values we wanted to keep at the forefront of this curriculum. “Theologically robust” (which we renamed “deep, but not dry”), “Christ-centered,” “Grand-narrative-focused,” and “Mission-driven” are the important elements we want to see in every quarter and (hopefully) every lesson. We took these buzz words and fleshed out how they might apply to a curriculum.

Advisory Council

Then we brought together an advisory council to speak into the project, leaders like D.A. Carson, Matt Chandler, James MacDonald, J.D. Greear, Eric Mason, Juan Sanchez, Collin Hansen, Kimberly Thornbury, Joe Thorn, Danny Akin, and Jay Noh. We met with members of the council in Dallas and Chicago earlier this year and received helpful feedback and great insight into this curriculum.

The meetings with the advisory council were very helpful. The group helped us refine the vision, make needed adjustments, and craft a three-year cycle that brings together systematic theology within the framework of the Bible’s grand narrative. After both meetings, we went back to the drawing board – affirmed in our general direction yet helpfully challenged in some of the particulars.

The Writing Begins

We went back and forth on a few different names for this new curriculum, finally settling on TGM (Theology, Gospel, Mission), a name that helped us crystallize the three components we wanted to have present in every lesson. Earlier this year, we began gathering writers for the initial quarters. The writers’ meetings have been wonderful. I can’t believe I get to meet and work with such great people!

Some of our writers include: George Robinson (professor of missions and evangelism at Southeastern Seminary who has done extensive work on the evangelistic tool The Story), Jared Wilson (pastor in Vermont, author of LifeWay’s Threads study Abide, and Gospel Wakefulness), Juan Sanchez (pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, TX), Halim Suh (pastor at Austin Stone Community Church), Jonathan Leeman (editorial director of 9Marks), Geoff Ashley (discipleship pastor at The Village Church in Dallas, TX), etc.

The curriculum launches in Fall of 2012. The second and third installments of the material will take people on a journey through the Bible in 26 weeks. George Guthrie (Union University professor and author of Read the Bible for Life) has been instrumental in helping us think through how best to accomplish this task.

Major Development – “The Gospel Project”

At the same time I was working on editing the adult curriculum, a student team and a kids team were working on similar products for those age groups. A couple weeks ago, Eric Geiger, the new vice president over the Church Resources Division at LifeWay, recommended that we bring these three curriculum options under one umbrella. This change shifted me from being editor of the adult piece to being managing editor of all three lines. My task is now to oversee the gospel-centered content development across all age groups. Ed Stetzer is now general editor of all three lines as well.

These changes also meant we would need to (yet again) change the name, so as to accurately reflect the emphasis for all age groups. We’ve settled on the name “The Gospel Project.” The new name communicates the ongoing nature of this curriculum roll-out. It also communicates that this isn’t just about creating Bible studies. The curriculum itself isn’t the project that’s most important; we are. We are the gospel project. Our prayer is that as small groups of all ages work through these studies, the gospel will work on us. The church is God’s gospel project.

I’d appreciate your prayers for me and for the teams who are working on this new product. We believe “The Gospel Project” has the potential to serve the church in a good way, as it provides a gospel-centered resource for children, students, and adults.