Do We Over Emphasize Growth?

This is a difficult blog for me to write. The truth is, things are going great at my church. Our numbers are the best they have been since I got there. We are taking in more money then we have ever done before. We are growing. This being said, I must ask the question, "Do we over emphasize growth?"

When I was in seminary the church growth movement was at its apex. It has slowed down a little in recent years. However, it is still the most popular ecclesiology in the world today. The idea behind the church growth movement is simple. Healthy things grow. Thus, if a church is healthy; it must grow. I am not a church growth guy, but I use this type of language all the time. Now, I am beginning to wonder if growth and health are the same thing.

As I study the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that some of the most unsuccessful ministries were the best. Elijah and Jeremiah were failures. Their call was to preach repentance to Israel. Neither one of them saw the nation repent. As a matter of fact, God told both of these men that their ministries would not succeed. They preached knowing that the people would not repent. They preached knowing that destruction was coming. They preached only out of a state of obedience.

I also look at Job. Job was decimated as a faithful follower of God. I know, I know, God gave him back everything and then some at the end of his life. However, when Job was going through the trial would anyone describe him as a success.

This being said, Job, Isaiah, and Jeremiah were obedient to God. They did not have success in their lives. This leads me to think that growth and obedience are not always linked together.

I have come to believe that football can draw a crowd. That a concert can draw a crowd. That Benny Hinn can draw a crowd. Yet, I do not believe that any of these things are obedient to God.

Now there is one thing that scares me about writing on this topic. I do believe that many ministers are not successful because they don't work very hard at what they do. I believe that someone could easily take this little article and say, "You see, I am being obedient. I am just suffering in my work. I am laboring for the master." So let me put this disclaimer here. If you are a minister, and your church is not growing. And you take your sermons from sermon central. And you preach only topical messages because it is easy. And you spend more time sleeping than you do in the ministry each day. Then please, totally disregard this post. I am not talking about you.

Ministry is a hard thing to judge. I believe God calls some ministers to struggle. Why? Because God just does. I speculate that the best Pastor in America is in some small community that no one has ever heard of. He has pastored the flock faithfully for 30 years. He has burried and married everyone in the town. He has ministered to them in triumph and tragedy. No one will ever ask him to speak at a conference. He will never write a book. He will never be called Doctor. All he does is faithfully minister to the people God gives him. He is obedient and not successful. I hope to be that good.

The State of the SBC Presidency

At this years Southern Baptist Convention, a relatively unknown Pastor won the presidency. Frank Page is the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, South Carolina. Frank Page is the President of the Southern Baptist Convention for two reasons. First, he won because there are many in the convention that believed control was held by too narrow of a group. Second, he won because the main candidate he faced did not support the cooperative program the way he should have.

When Page won, I did not think he would do anything that might damage the convention. He was not the candidate I voted for. However, I was willing to give him my support. I respect the office of President regardless of the holder. He is obviously a very capable pastor and a man of high integrity. That being said, last week he gave a speech that makes a person like me want to vomit.

Dr. Page spoke to the Executive Board at their last meeting. He told the Executive Board that the Southern Baptist Convention needed a "Holy Ghost Revival." He went on to explain that we cannot have a "Holy Ghost Revival" until we become unified as a denomination.

I would hope that Dr. Page would refrain from using terms like "Holy Ghost Revival" in the future. I would certainly like to know what he meant by this. I did not know that we could have a revival of any type without the Holy Spirit's involvement. Nevertheless, the term "Holy Ghost Revival" smacks of chasamatic theology. The truth is, there is nothing more that I could ever desire than to see a revival in our midst. I just think the term stinks and gives the image of revivalistic fervor which is based in ignorance and emotion.

I also believe that Frank Page mis-spoke when he said that a "Holy Ghost Revival" would not happen until we fix the division within our Convention. When I read about Godly movements in our country, they happen normally at our weakest times. During the First Great Awakening many of America's churches had lost pastors. Yet, God sent a revival that changed the country.

Dr. Page should also remember that God does not need our permission or abilities to act. To make a statement that revival will not happen unless we do something is not only theologically incorrect, but a bit arrogant. I do not think God is in Heaven hopeing we get things together so that he can act. I don't think God is saying, "I sure hope those Baptist unify so I can send a 'Holy Ghost Revival'".

I know I sound nit-picky, but I think that our convention needs a serious president. We are going to face very important issues over the next two years that is going to define who we are as Southern Baptist. One of those issues is tongue speaking and charasmatic theology. I do not think terms like "Holy Ghost Revival" is going to help matters. Dr. Page must remember that everything he says matters now. He doesn't have permission to speak off the cuff. I think he must be reminded that he sought this position in such a time as this. His words and explanations must equal the seriousness of his title.

Feminists Versus Darwinists

Last week, I watched a television show, and I listened as a person describe in detail the concept of "the survival of the fittest". This person said that the female of a species looks to mate with the dominant male of the species. This would naturally limit the weakest part of a species. Thus, only the strong survive. The truth is that this didn't really interest me much. I had not planned on writing about it, until I learned that Gloria Steinem, and a few other feminists, are getting together to start a new radio program.

If you do not know Gloria Steinem, you are probably the wiser for it. She is probably America's best known feminist. She is a well trained lawyer, and a former president of the National Organization of Women. (Rush Limbaugh likes to call them N.A.G. The National Association of Gals).

I began to think about these two groups. Darwinists and Feminists are passionate about their beliefs. However, I wonder why they get along so well. Their opinions are so different from each other. It is amazing they don't fight.

Feminists do not believe that the female species is looking for the strongest male. As a matter of fact, feminist believe that their is no difference between the male and female species. The feminists have been very affective in neutering the American male. Men have become sissies and wimps, and the feminists have applauded as they have shrunk.

So with such passionate views from these two ideologies, I must ask the question, "Why do they play so well together?"

You never see feminists and darwinists having words. They both continually vote in the Democratic party. They raise money together. They run in the same circles. However, they do not fight with one another.

The reason I believe the two don't argue is because they have a common enemy. These two groups are at a constant battle with Evangelical Christianity. Both Darwinism and Feminism are anti-Bible. Thus they see each other as friends. They must first defeat a common foe before they turn on each other.

This is why liberalism will never be successful. American liberalism has become a collection of extreme groups. They work together because of a common enemy. However, a coalition of extremes never wins. Also remember, Evangelical Christianity has God on her side. And if God is for us, who can be against us.

Is It O.K. To Censor?

I wrote a blog about tongue speaking in the SBC on February 15th of this year. I would recommend that you go back and read it. Tongue speaking is becoming a huge issue in Baptist life. It has now created another controversy at one of our seminaries.

On August 29th, a well known African-American Pastor, Dwight McKissic, from Arlington, Texas, spoke during a chapel service at Southwestern Seminary. Pastor McKissic addressed a topic of controversy. Recently, the International Mission Board stated that they would not approve a missionary that said they spoke in a private prayer tongue. This was a slap in the face of the President of the International Mission Board, Jerry Rankin, who has publicly stated he does just that. Pastor McKissic decided to let his feelings be known on the topic. It was not received well by the leadership at Southwestern.

Pastor McKissic acknowledged that he too spoke in a private prayer tongue. He went on to challenge the International Mission Boards decision. He used his chapel service to express his concern for more openness in the SBC. All of this placed him in opposition to the President of Southwestern, Dr. Paige Patterson.

Pastor McKissic and Dr. Patterson are friends. They have both affirmed their friendship in the press several times since this incident. Nevertheless, Dr. Patterson has pulled Pastor McKissic's sermon off the Southwestern website. He disagrees with the sermon's purpose, and does not think it represents the principles of Southwestern Seminary.

So here is the question, "Should have Dr. Patterson censored Pastor McKissic's sermon?"

We live in a society of freedoms. Southwestern Seminary is an institue of higher learning. The question must be asked, is it good to censor an idea that you disagree with?

The answer to this question is that it is absolutely good and right for Dr. Patterson to do just what he did. The SBC, the Seminaries, and the mission boards are not bastions of civil liberties. The same goes for my local church. If a person was invited to preach at my local church and began to address a topic that I thought was out of line, I would censor him immediately. At the very least, Dr. Patterson let Pastor McKissic finish his address.

As the President of Southwestern, Dr. Patterson has been given authority over the sacred desk at their chapel. This authority cannot be taken lightly. He is responsible for every word that comes from that pulpit. The seminary pulpit is one immense importance. It must be guarded and protected. It literally is the face of the Seminary. For those who speak from it represent the Seminary. Thus, I believe Pastor McKissic used the wrong venue to speak his concerns. He has his own pulpit for that. He also has the state paper to do it. You do not borrow a friends pulpit to speak against a friends point of view.

I am sure that those who are in favor of extreme academic freedom will hate this blog. That is fine, but you don't have my permission to write about your opinion here. I have a suggestion, get your own blog. Then you can write whatever you want. Pastor McKissic should take this advice also.