A Retrospective on the God Focused Youth Ministry Training Conference

Very seldom in my life have I been immediately conscious of being a part of something overwhelmingly important. I don't think that is because God has seldom given me anything worthwhile to do; it probably has more to do with the fact that I have blown far too many opportunities for service because I wasn't tuned in to their eternal significance.

My small part in the God Focused Youth Ministry Training Conference was simply overwhelming to my soul. None of the credit for anything good that happened goes to people, and if it did, very little of the credit would have been mine. I am indescribably grateful for the work that God did in my spirit as He exalted His name through the ministry of the speakers and conference leaders and servants.

I think the reason this training conference is so important is that it caused several dozen church and ministry leaders to take a hard look at our personal character and devotion, our view of Scripture, our approach to ministry, and our methodology for discipling other believers. It is patently easy for us who profess to be biblical to cast stones at churches that never cease to find new ways to compromise the gospel. Last week denied the opportunity for stone-casting because we were directly challenged not just to look at what the Bible says about how we are to live, but to test our motivations for why we live the way that we live to ensure that those motivations are focused on exalting the name of our God. My recent post on gospel-centered parenting is a good example of this distinct emphasis.

I've been fortunate to attend a pretty fair number of ministry-related conferences, almost all of which have been beneficial. I have never attended or even heard of one in which the focus has been more about helping pastors exalt the name of God before the eyes of His people. I've also never attended any kind of conference at which I was more directly reproved about the condition of my own spirit and built up in my dependence God alone.

The Positive Action leadership team spent most of the day today directing a critical eye on the past week and making some plans for the future. We found ourselves talking so much about what we want to improve for next year (tentatively set for November 6–9) that it was easy to forget about how grateful we need to be to our gracious God for how He worked in our hearts and those of the attendees despite our deficiencies. May His name alone be praised!

Chickens and Eggs of Ecclesiastical Deterioration: Which Comes First?

One of the panel members at the ACCC Convention discussion forum (I think it was Dr. Colas) said in reference to the institutional influence on contemporary evangelicalism, "As go the schools, so goes the movement."

Is this true? Do educational institutions really drive the bus, or do churches? Did the denominations of the 19th and 20th century fall into disrepair because the schools hired modernist faculty, or because churches were in such disrepair that they failed to lead and exercise oversight? Is the SBC conservative resurgence succeeding because the seminaries changed, or because churches rose up and began to fight for the gospel and purge the seminaries?

This raises an interesting question. Fundamentalist leaders decry the the trend of younger men who are leaving "the movement." Is this because fundamentalist seminaries are unhealthy, or because fundamentalist churches are? I'm only one dude, but I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

Ecclesiastical Identity and Gender Identity

The modern perversion of so-called "gender change" procedures has created confusion in culture about the basis of gender identity. Believers who understand and submit to the authority of Scripture understand that God made people "male and female" and that such procedures are merely cosmetic, not real.

Similarly, some fundamentalists would argue that certain individuals cannot be fundamentalists because they reject the label. I have no interest in arguing whether or not these folks are fundamentalists. I do have some interest in seeing people use valid argumentation.

The point is that we are what we are because it is what we are, not because it is what we say we are. We cannot cease to be what we are merely because we say that we are not what we are. Likewise, we cannot deny that someone else is what they are simply because they reject the name for themselves.

Rick Holland on Gospel-Centered Parenting

What a week! If you're a newcomer to this blog, this week my employer, Positive Action For Christ, sponsored the first-ever God Focused Youth Ministry Training Conference. I plan to post a report in coming days, but I'm not sure I have the distance yet (or the energy) to do a great job of it. And on that energy note, please pray if you are so inclined for the physical recovery of the speakers. Frank Hamrick carried an exhausting load as a primary speaker and the individual ultimately responsible for all that occurred. Bob Bixby will be speaking three times at my church Sunday, and Rick Holland flew back to California today, where he was to spend some time in the office still this afternoon, lead in a college ministry function tomorrow night, preach Sunday, and leave for a pastors' conference in Italy next week.

Now to the point of this post. Much of the theological/philosophical message of the conference was familiar to me since I spend time every week with Frank Hamrick. Frank is not the originator of God-centeredness (God is), but he is a pretty good articulator of it. One concept that was not familiar to me but was one of those "Aha!" moments was Rick Holland's discussion of Gospel-centered parenting. I hope my paraphrase from memory does it justice. I will post a link to MP3s when they're available.

Children are responsible to obey. Parents are responsible to teach their children, not to obey, but that it is utterly impossible for them to obey. That is the point of the gospel. We cannot obey. We cannot meet God's standard of righteousness. Gospel-centered parenting teaches children that although they are responsible to obey, they cannot fulfill this responsibility. Only the righteousness of Jesus Christ applied to their accounts can remove sin's penalty and reconcile them to God. Parental discipline is a tangible reminder that they cannot please God by their own efforts.

Southern Baptists to Debate Doctrines of Grace

Tom Ascol's Founders blog talks about the planned debate between Al Mohler and Paige Patterson over the Doctrines of Grace. Ascol makes two great points. The first is that it matters less who "wins the debate" than the fact that the SBC is willing to grapple publicly with these issues. Second, young Southern Baptists will be on this debate like stink on a monkey (my words, not his) because they are more interested in theology than denominational programs and politics. I expect this to be a fierce clash of views in the context of a mutual desire for unity within the Convention. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debate will be how successful they are in encouraging denominational unity in the face of a stark clash of ideas (and whether that unity is, in fact, a good thing).

Thoughtful independent Baptists are ahead of the game in that they had this conversation several years ago in the context of the Leadership Conference at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. I found Tim Jordan, Dave Burggraff, Dave Doran, Jeff Straub, and others' willingness to discuss these theoological issues openly, directly, and irenically quite refreshing as I listened to the recordings a few days later. I expect that those recordings of the sessions are still available from the seminary.

Polity Matters: Part XII: On Polity and Ecclesiastical Movments

G-Harmony is the star of the blog today. In an insightful comment yesterday, he wrote about one potential benefit of a theological movement:

"There are other issues to consider as well for my flock- for instance, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, my church would have at least some idea where to begin looking for a new pastor- because of who I have encouraged and led us to fellowship with."

Here's my question, and it's strictly that: Has single-pastor polity fed ecclesiastical movements because in the sudden absence of a pastor, congregations have no pastoral leadership structure remaining other than deacons, who may not possess a shepherding mindset or burden? I can think of many reasons why my hypothesis may not be true. If it is true, chalk up one more pragmatic argument (in addition to the exegetical one) for multiple elder-led, congregational polity: its contribution to the obsolescence of the movement mentality.

P.S. G-H, is that a Glamourshot photo?

Bad Reasons to Remain in a Movement

Because an alternative movement has greater problems. Whether or not an alternative movement is worse is largely irrelevant. There may be other alternative movements, one might start a new movement, or perhaps there may be no need to associate with any movement at all.

Because of the ancient landmarks. The reasoning goes something like this: “You are young, and you need to be cautious. You do not yet possess the wisdom that comes only with years. Other men have thought these same thoughts and faced these same frustrations. Be patient, be faithful, and you will understand better in time.” This reasoning is persuasive because there is wisdom in caution and in measured steps. Nevertheless, those who use it must practice it consistently. Would those who rely on this argument counsel a young Southern Baptist frustrated with the doctrinal diversity in his denomination to exercise caution and stay in his movement? I suspect they would not.

Because it is a movement. There is something magnetic about something big. Everyone wants to be on the biggest, fastest bandwagon, but big is not equivalent to great or right or true.

Because of your career. Abandoning a movement might make it harder to climb the ministry career ladder. You might lose all your contacts, and your résumé might become worthless. Big deal. This gutless selfishness is the same attitude that in decades past held back conservative pastors with fat pension funds from separating themselves from liberal denominations.

Because of the fear of man. Have you chosen a milieu for ministry by default—because you are because you dread what people would think or say about you if you were to move to a different circle? Chances are, those people are already talking about you behind your back about one thing or another. You might as well live in the open and give them reason to say what they have to say to your face.

Because you crave affirmation. Are you crafting your life’s ministry in order to get a speaking engagement or honorary degree from your alma mater? Please, don’t just leave your movement: leave vocational ministry, too. There is plenty of mutual admiration in the world of Christian ministry without you adding to it.

Because you like the trappings of a movement. I do not perceive this to be a prevalent point in the conversation of the day, but I wonder how many people—pastors and laypeople alike—are where they are because they feel comfortable where they are. They like the environment—the accepted attire, music, and preaching style. They like the standards or the lack thereof. They like the transparency or the anonymity. They like the people and the culture. They like to be comfortable. They want to “be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease.”

Because you might lead the movement someday if you play your cards right. I hope the Machiavellian essence of this strategy is obvious. To attempt to fly under the radar in a movement in order to hijack later it is theological terrorism. (Sweet mixed metaphor, huh?)

So, why should you stay in a movement? The only remaining option in my mind is that you believe in what the movement is all about. One might see some ways in which the movement could better manifest what it is all about. One might see some glaring weaknesses in how the movement is pursuing what it is all about. Ultimately, however, in its very spirit the movement must be about what is most important—what is undeniably essential. I cannot comprehend how it can be ethical or wise to participate in a movement when one rejects its core ideas. Stand for something because it is true, not because people want you to believe it is true or because you want people to believe that you believe it is true. The Pastoral Epistles have continually challenged me and encouraged me in these matters. First Timothy 4 and Titus 2 are particularly helpful.

But then there is that slippery question about what you should do if you are in a movement that does not consistently define its very essence. (I suspect that most of them do not.) And that question just . . . won’t . . . go . . . away.

The Resolution That Didn't Make the Cut

From the "Resolution on Rick Warren" adopted by the American Council of Christian Churches at its annual conventon this week:

[Warren] repeatedly takes verses out of context as proof texts misapplying the Word of God to fit his own ideas and beliefs. There is very little if any exegetical study of the verses quoted.

I'll be looking forward to the resolution skewering fundamentalist preachers who mishandle the text next year.

Miers' Withdrawal: Krauthammer Got It Right

Maybe I need to let Charles Krauthammer handle future Paleoevangelical predictions. Here's what she said today, and below is the conclusion from Krauthammer's editorial from last Friday, "The Only Exit Strategy."

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

A Quote Game with a Prize

I will send my spare copy of Future Grace by John Piper to anyone who can get the source of this quote without Google in the first five guesses. After that, you'll just have to guess for the love of the game.

The associations of music are very important, and everyone understands that . . . Christian music that is supposed to convey an authentic Christian message should be free from associations with that which is antithetical to Christianity.