Updated: 5/20/07

Carter meets with SBC
bloggers, who welcome gesture

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

ATLANTA (ABP) — Some of the Southern Baptist Convention's most prominent bloggers reacted positively to a summit they held with former President Jimmy Carter May 17 in Atlanta.

Carter and the leaders discussed building a broad range of Baptist support for an unprecedented gathering of Baptists in North America, set for next year in Georgia's capital city. The "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" is scheduled for next January.

While some SBC denominational leaders have rejected official participation in the event, the bloggers' online reflections on the meeting seemed to indicate cautious optimism that a broad group of Baptists — if not official Southern Baptist involvement on an institutional level — will take part in the gathering.

"Ultimately, if the Southern Baptist Convention does not have a presence, it does not mean that Southern Baptists cannot have a presence," said Marty Duren, a Georgia pastor who operates the SBC Outpost blog (www.sbcoutpost.com), in a May 18 entry. "I'll keep a close eye on the proceedings, but I want to be hopeful rather than doubtful. I don't have to agree with everyone who is there to find commonality with some and that might be worth the effort after all."

Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson, who also met with Carter, said he anticipated that many Southern Baptists would question his theology, politics and judgment because he had met with, and been impressed by the Christian sincerity of, Carter and the other leaders of the New Baptist Covenant effort.

"My prayer is that we as Southern Baptists can get to the point where our relationship with Christ and each other is more important than our political, philosophical or national ideology," he wrote on his "Grace and Truth to You" blog (kerussocharis.blogspot.com). "We are part of a kingdom that transcends the natural. It is eternal and spiritual. The head of that kingdom is Christ and He himself said 'By this shall all men know that you are my disciples; if ye have love one for another.'

"I shall maintain my conservative values" Burleson continued. "However, I refuse to let others define who or who is not my brother in Christ. Nor will I relent to the demands that I not associate with those Baptist brothers who are different than I."

Besides Burleson and Duren, bloggers participating in the meeting were Texas pastor Benjamin Cole and Alabama pastor C.B. Scott. Organizers said other non-blogger Southern Baptist leaders had been invited but were unable to attend.

The leaders of the New Baptist Covenant effort have said they hope to draw as many as 20,000 Baptists from various denominations to Atlanta. They plan to discuss ways of working on a "compassion agenda" to address social justice and human rights rather than squabbling over doctrinal or political differences.

When Carter and former President Bill Clinton announced the effort in January, some Southern Baptist leaders denounced it as an attempt to advance Democratic hopes among Baptist voters in the 2008 elections.

But some bloggers — including Cole and Burleson — who are popular among younger SBC leaders have criticized the dismissal.

The most recent meeting was an attempt to bring as many Southern Baptists into participation in the 2008 gathering as possible. It came on the same day that Carter announced the line-up of speakers for the gathering, which will include several well-known Baptist Republicans. Among them are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination; South Carolina Sen. Linsdey Graham; and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

According to Cole, Carter's overtures were well-received. He said he had been taught by his SBC elders to be "almost embarrassed" that Carter is a Baptist.

"Today, however, I cemented the growing conviction that Southern Baptists of the fundamentalist type have compromised my fair evaluation of brethren differently aligned," he wrote, in an entry on his "Baptist Blogger" site (baptistblog.wordpress.com). "There is a way to be Baptist that holds firmly to your individuality but allows for flexibility and respect for others similarly immersed in the name of the Triune God."

Cole continued, "If Southern Baptists would commit to issues of social justice with the same rallying cry that founded the Cooperative Program [the SBC's unified missions budget] for the task of world missions — namely that we can do more together than we can apart — we might find the good and pleasant blessing promised of God when brothers dwell together in unity."

Updated: 5/18/07

Giuliani explains views on abortion, gays at HBU

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

HOUSTON (ABP)—The front-runner among potential Republican presidential nominees used a speech at Houston Baptist University to explain his views on abortion rights and other controversial social issues.

But the moderately pro-choice, pro-gay-rights positions former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani staked out in his appearance at the Texas Baptist school still may prove problematic as he attempts to convince social conservatives that he’s their best choice.

“There is no candidate for president of the United States with which you completely agree. If there is, then that candidate is probably yourself,” Giuliani said, in a video of the speech featured prominently on his campaign website.

He is the only pro-choice candidate among the major contenders for the Republican nomination. But religious conservatives continue to be a strong presence in the party’s primary process.

Giuliani’s campaign was reportedly eager to clarify his views on abortion after his performance in a GOP presidential debate a week prior to the Houston speech. Many pundits characterized his answers on abortion at that debate as confusing, noting they contradicted some of his earlier positions.

In Houston, Giuliani said his beliefs about the legality of abortion were built on twin “pillars” of principle to which he holds.

“One is I believe abortion is wrong,” he said. “I think it is morally wrong, and if I were asked my advice by someone who is considering an abortion, I would tell them not to have an abortion, to have the child.”

Nonetheless, Giuliani added, “in a country like ours, where people of good faith, people who are equally decent, equally moral and equally religious, when they come to different conclusions about this … I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice here.”

He added, though, that his views on some limitations of a woman’s right to an abortion had “evolved.” For instance, he now supports the federal ban on a kind of procedure that abortion-rights opponents term “partial-birth” abortion, even though he had supported President Clinton’s veto of a similar law.

Giuliani also said he now supports a law—the so-called Hyde Amendment—that bans most federal funding for abortion, even though he once criticized it.

He likewise took a moderate position on gay rights, saying that while marriage was “a sacred bond” and “should remain that way,” he believes that “there should be a way to protect the rights of people who are gay and lesbian.”

Giuliani suggested that the kind of domestic-partnership registries for same-sex couples that he supported in New York would be the best way to guarantee those rights.

He framed his speech by saying that he believes the most important, overarching issues before the electorate are defending the United States against terrorism and maintaining economic growth.

Giuliani said although his views on some of the controversial social issues may separate him from the most socially conservative voters, most Americans could agree with him on the most important issues.

“If we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country—if we can’t figure that out—we’re going to lose this election,” he said. “We cannot go into the next election the same way that we went into the last two.”

While the HBU crowd appeared to receive the speech enthusiastically, several Christian conservative leaders seemed much less enthusiastic.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, denounced Giuliani’s speech in his e-mail newsletter. “When people hear Rudy Giuliani speak about taxpayer-funded abortions, gay ‘rights’ and gun control, they don’t hear a choice; they hear an echo of Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told the New York Times that Giuliani’s position on abortion is “repugnant to pro-lifers” and demonstrates “a moral obtuseness that is stunning.”

Some of Giuliani’s former allies also denounced his abortion positions from the opposite perspective, saying he had betrayed them. The New York affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America released a questionnaire from one of his mayoral campaigns showing that Giuliani was strongly supportive of all its positions on abortion rights—contradicting many of his recently expressed views.

Posted: 5/18/07

Successful churches provide meaning and belonging

By Ken Camp

Managing Editor

WACO—Successful congregations do two things well; they provide people with meaning and with a sense of belonging, said religious researcher Kevin Dougherty.

“To succeed, a church must provide meaning. It must make a compelling case there is something worth believing—worth sacrificing for,” said Dougherty, assistant professor of sociology at Baylor University and a researcher in the school’s Institute for the Studies of Religion.

For congregations to communicate meaning, they need to grasp clearly their own mission and purpose, he added.

The clarity of a church’s mission and purpose relates directly to the church’s vitality and its growth, Dougherty told a symposium on congregational renewal, sponsored by Baylor’s Center for Ministry Effectiveness and Educational Leadership.

Older churches—congregations removed by at least one generation from their founding vision—find it more difficult to agree on their purpose and adapt to changing circumstances, he observed.

“The gospel is timeless. Your church is not,” he said. “Your congregation was relevant for its founding generation. But the further away you get from the founding, the more squabbles arise about who and what a congregation should be about.”

Churches succeed when their members feel they are a valuable part of a family that cares about them and involves them in meaningful ministry, he added.

“Faith is spread through relationships. The more intimate churches become, the more transformational they are,” Dougherty said. “That’s why smaller churches grow faster and do a better job of mobilizing their members.”

Large churches can grow and involve members in ministry most effectively through small groups that strengthen personal relationships, he noted.

People are drawn to active churches where they have multiple opportunities to participate in meaningful ways. And it’s a bigger drawing card than worship style, the quality of the sermons or most of the other things churches often view as enticements to prospects, he said.

“The higher the level of congregational participation, the more attractive it is to new adherents,” Dougherty said. “When you have an engaged, involved church, it will draw people like a tractor-beam. Active churches are attractive churches.”

Globally, young people in the developing world are rejecting secularism and looking to spiritual sources for the answers to ultimate questions, said Byron Johnson, co-director of the Institute for the Studies of Religion.

“Many argue that Christianity is declining and that secularism is on the rise. The opposite is true,” Johnson said. “Christianity—especially in the global South—is on the rise.”

Much of the world’s population continues to grow more religious—but not necessarily more Christian, he added. Christianity’s great competition globally comes not from a secular worldview but from Islam.

“It’s unlikely that secular Europe will stay secular,” he said, pointing to the growth of Islam in western Europe. The real question, he insisted, is what will happen in the East. “China either will be our worst enemy or our best ally,” he predicted. “China and India will be critical global players.”

Posted: 5/18/07

Trial date set in first of five
Missouri Baptist lawsuits

By Vicki Brown

Associated Baptist Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (ABP)—A Missouri judge has set a date for the first jury trial in the cases of five statewide Baptist institutions embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Jury selection in the convention’s lawsuit against Windermere Baptist Conference Center is set to begin on Oct. 23, with the trial scheduled to run through Oct. 31.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan ruled the Missouri Baptist Convention’s challenges to moves by trustees of the five entities —the Baptist Home retirement-home system, the Word & Way newspaper, the Missouri Baptist Foundation, Missouri Baptist University and Windermere—should be tried separately.

The convention had sought four trials, one as a combined case against Windermere and Word & Way and one each against the other three defendants.

The convention sued the agencies after trustees of each voted to change their governing documents to become independent of the convention’s control. Before the changes were made in 2000 and 2001, messengers to MBC annual meetings approved the agencies’ trustees.

Judge Callahan said five separate trials would be preferable. “The court suggested individual trials given the fact that, while there is commonality, there were also distinct facts that would affect the individual institutions,” Kurt Odenwald, an attorney for Windermere, Word & Way and the Baptist Home said.

Convention lawyers had argued that land issues should place Windermere first in line for trial. The convention filed a separate legal action against the conference center, located on valuable property on the Lake of the Ozarks in south-central Missouri, on Nov. 1, 2006, for selling parcels as part of a refinancing plan.

Odenwald noted all parties agreed to the convention’s request.

Judge Callahan also scheduled arguments on several pending motions in the case for July 18. He will most likely hear arguments on whether the convention has standing—the legal right to file a lawsuit against the agencies—on that date.

Attorneys for the defense consider standing “the most prudent issue” to hear, Odenwald explained, because it is a “very basic,” “fundamental” and “foundational” issue.

Windermere’s attorney said he does not anticipate the setting of the trial date to affect the second lawsuit against the conference center. Windermere has filed a motion to dismiss in that case and intends to pursue it because the second case raises the same issues addressed in the first.

Posted: 5/18/07

Women caught in the crosshairs
of global debate over families

By Hannah Elliott

Associated Baptist Press

WARSAW (ABP)—Critics of the World Congress on Families called it homophobic and unrealistic. Supporters saluted the recent congress—the fourth such global gathering, which played to a sympathetic audience in conservative Poland—for proclaiming the family unit as the only hope for economic and spiritual growth in Europe.

In each case, women are caught in the crosshairs of the debate—portrayed either as saviors of civilization or victims of conservative dogma.

“It’s been said, ‘When you educate a man, you educate a man. When you educate a woman, you educate the whole family,’” Bush administration official Ellen Sauerbrey told listeners during her May 11 address. “Educating women and girls raises every index of development” in a nation.

Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of state for the U.S. Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, talked about the toll of human trafficking, much of which directly involves women and children. Educating, supporting and enabling women will, by extension, protect their children and make a dramatic dent in the 800,000 people coerced or sold into exploitation each year.

Sauerbrey’s speech characterized much of the rhetoric of the three-day event, held in Poland’s tallest building, the Soviet-era Palace of Culture and Science. Billed as the largest event ever of its kind, the congress attracted more than 3,000 activists, policymakers, theologians, lawyers and teachers—most committed to a traditional view of family gender roles.

Speakers said large families led by heterosexual parents and bound by faith are the solution to the “demographic winter” facing Poland and the rest of Europe. And mothers figure significantly in that equation, they stressed.

Jurgen Liminski, a German journalist specializing in social and family policy, cited reports that said the estimated cost of paying someone to do the daily tasks of a housewife is $9,000 euros a month—more than $12,000 in American currency.

But that work never is compensated, he said. Work perceived as important to society is respected, but work not believed to contribute to society lacks respect, Liminski added.

“Economies from the very beginning did not recognize the work of the family. It is never paid,” Liminski said. “This discrimination negates the identity of mothers and their roles—the mothers who create the basis and the identification of a nation.”

Christine Vollmer, president of the Latin American Alliance for the Family, also noted the need to support women through economic means. She urged countries in the developing world to convince the European Union to stop “imposing on our countries anti-family values, neutering women. … We must succeed in convincing our government to cease imposing tax structures that penalize our women.”

A similar refrain, one also appealing to so-called liberal diplomats allegedly imposing their values in Europe, came from Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and Patrick Fagen, a clinical psychologist and former deputy assistant secretary of health and human services for the Bush administration.

In his May 12 address, Fagen said a child is best protected in a home with both a mother and a father. Violence against children is most rare in married relationships, while it’s highest in cohabitating relationships between two never-married people, he said.

“Feminists of Europe take note: The safest place for children is in the natural family. The most dangerous is cohabitating couples,” he said.

And Inese Sesere, a Latvian parliamentarian, decried gender-based policies that “try very hard to pull mothers out of the role of mother and put them into job markets.”

Some family experts say such pronouncements are overly simplistic, however.

Asked to comment on the congress, Diana Garland, dean of Baylor University’s School of Social Work in Waco, called for some balance to the view that women who join the workforce have made a mistake.

A newfound potential for economic independence has led to a lower percentage of the population being married, Garland conceded, but it has also produced other changes. For instance, the entry of women into the workforce and their ability to control family size have increased their potential for economic independence. Women now have the option to leave abusive marriages—or not get married at all, she said.

“In that sense, family planning and women’s rights have decreased the prevalence of nuclear … families,” Garland said, but other important factors, like lengthening lifespans, also contribute significantly to the growing single-adult populations.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, two-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told the Poland gathering that men who must “cede leadership to women” for lack of male leaders in corporate life and women who “leave the family for the workforce” will be unexpected manifestations of “the advance of feminism and the marginalization of men.”

“Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional daycare centers and cold apple turnovers,” he said.

With or without apple pie, the bottom line for many experts on both sides of the debate is that families should receive assistance, not resistance, from governments, since many modern societies in effect require both parents to work outside the home.

That in itself is inherently expensive, demanding and stressful, Garland said.

“Our research shows that that the biggest stress in the lives of all families—married, re-married and single—is the presence of dependent children,” she said. “Policies that will help parents provide the emotional and economic support for their children will undoubtedly encourage more adults to be parents.”

Posted: 5/18/07

BaptistWay Bible Series for May 27

Ministering inside while reaching outside

• Acts 19:8-10; 20:18-35

By Leroy Fenton

Baptist Standard, Dallas

What do Christians understand the church’s mission to be? Better still, what does God expect the church’s mission to be?

In keeping with the focus of this lesson, there are two major considerations—evangelism or servant ministry. Both are biblical and grounded in the exemplary ministry of Christ.

Jesus gave the Great Commission (Matthew 4:19; 28:19-20; see Acts 1:8) but also extolled servant ministry (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 4:18-19). Christ called his followers to both and never dismissed one for the other.

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

The Apostle Paul was first an evangelist, but he also was a teacher, healer and servant. Evangelism brings the individual into a relationship with God and into a fellowship of believers which forms the basis for that individual to share his/her faith with non-believers.

In our day, salvation has been cheapened, while servant ministry has turned predominantly inward toward the church family. The church must choose both opportunities and build its organization to address these spiritual and physical needs. Not to do so is like washing only one side of the face or driving a car with a flat tire.

The church does a reasonably good job with evangelism and ministry within the body but a reasonably poor job of ministry and evangelism in the community. Most faithful Christians do not know a lost person with whom to share their faith. Church is not all education and environment but about intentional ministry and evangelism, reaching out to its local community.

Both clergy and laity struggle to carry out these two basic responsibilities—evangelism and ministry—in the global world of faceless friends and stressful schedules. Priorities must change if we are to touch the unbelieving world with the gospel of Christ. Laity must be engaged on the evangelistic front and churches must struggle with new ways to break out of the rut of shameful neglect. The balancing of the evangelism and ministry may tilt either way based on opportunity, spiritual gifts, empowerment or temporary focus.

Paul left Athens to minister in Corinth and connected with Aquila and Priscilla. Making tents to sustain himself, he worked continuously in the synagogue reasoning with both Jews and Greeks (18:1-6). The seeds Paul had planted would spring to life and bear fruit.

For example, Luke mentioned that “Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized” (vv. 7-8).

The Jews continued their pursuit with accusations against Paul before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, who dismissed their charges as unworthy of his court, suggesting the Jews settle the matter themselves. Angered, the bystanders turned on “Sosthenes, the synagogue ruler, and beat him in front of the court” (vv. 12-17). Attacking Sosthenes rather than Paul is most curious except that the Lord had spoken to Paul saying “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city” (vv. 9-10).

Luke affirmed the power and hand of the Lord at work to aid Paul in his Great Commission purpose. Paul stayed in Corinth about a year and a half (vv. 11, 18) before sailing for Syria in the company of Priscilla and Aquila (v. 18). After a brief stop in Ephesus, Paul sailed to Caesarea and then to Syrian Antioch (vv. 18-22).

About 52 A.D., Paul began his third missionary journey, lasting four to five years, visiting churches previously established “throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples” (v. 23). Most of the time was spent in Ephesus, in the Roman province of Asia, the primary location of his mission support and evangelistic campaign.

Ephesus was located in the Roman province of Asia and one of the greatest cities of the Roman Empire, on the prominent north-south rode into Asia Minor. The temple of Artemis (goddess of fertility), now in ruins, was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world. As the center of ceremonial prostitution, immorality and sorcery, Ephesus attracted the dregs of society and was one of the greatest challenges in Paul’s ministry (19:23-41).

Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria who was very knowledgeable of Scripture, came to Ephesus preaching and teaching with great fervor, refuting the Jews and “proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” He had an effective ministry but was deficient in his understanding of baptism and the Holy Spirit (18:24-28).

The division of chapters hampers the continuity of the story which continues in chapter 19. When Apollos goes to Corinth, Paul comes again to Ephesus and finds about 12 men misinformed about matters of faith. Paul corrected and completed Apollos’ teachings on the Holy Spirit. Something like Pentecost occurred affirming the Holy Spirit was at work in Ephesus in the same way he worked in Jerusalem (vv. 1-7).

The missional church as a witnessing church (Acts 19:8-10)

With Ephesus as his base of operation, Paul, the ultimate missionary, continues his evangelism with earnest desire and bold action. In much the same way as at Antioch, with the help of Priscilla and Aquila, Paul reaches out farther into territory unclaimed by Christ.

First, entering the synagogue, he “argued persuasively about the kingdom of God” (v. 8). Leading the small pilgrim church by example, Paul pressed his message of Christ, the inward and outward transformation of individuals.

Noteworthy to this passage is the continual “obstinate” opposition by the Jews who “refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way” (v. 9). These chose to walk away without believing. The lies, the concocted charges before courts, the physical punishments, the incarcerations, the trumped up mobs and riots, and harsh verbal assaults by those who rejected the gospel were heaped upon Paul and his colleagues.

The gospel changes the human heart and those changes impact family, habits, customs, science, education, benevolence and duty. Opposition only drove Paul harder and further. The stronger the opposition, the more determined he became. His commitment to his calling superseded any thing or person who might stand in his way.

Paul took his disciples and moved away from the unresponsive people to another venue. Moving from the synagogue, this band of colleagues moved to the “lecture hall of Tyrannus.” While the working men were resting from 11 a.m. to 4 a.m. and available, Paul used this hall, a familiar local setting, to lecture those who would come, trying to persuade them Christ was the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. He did this for three years (20:31) until “all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (19:10). Paul would not stop (20:22-24) while changing his location, methodology and likely his message as he appealed to anyone and everyone to be saved (20:20-21).

Paul’s methodology was a familiar process that included yielding to the direction of the Holy Spirit, appealing to the Jews in the synagogue setting until his message was rejected, changing audiences to Gentiles seekers, staying as long as possible, developing a central base from which to work, and using both Scripture and reason through preaching and teaching. His persistent preaching eventually would bring resistance and opposition until he could no longer find ears that would listen and hearts that were open.

When all avenues were closed and the barriers could not be breached, Paul would then start the process over again in another place. At Ephesus, God did many miracles through Paul (19:11) and “the name of the Lord was held in high honor” (v. 17) and the “word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power” (v. 20). The Ephesian campaign was successful and Paul decided to go to Jerusalem and, then, to Rome (vv. 21-22). Before leaving, he witnessed the riots started by the silversmith, Demetrius, which were quieted by the local officials (vv. 23-41).

This is a different day and a different culture. The gospel is not new and alluring to contemporary secular minds. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Human nature has changed little, if any, during the passage of 2,000 years of history. Not everyone can be like Paul or an Apollos, but most every Christian can be more active in the scriptural objectives of the church, the body of Christ. Paul’s challenges were far more dangerous and challenging than most of us will ever face.

The missional church as a ministering church (Acts 20:18-35)

Leaving Ephesus, traveling back through Macedonia, Paul arrived at Miletus. Hurrying to arrive in Jerusalem by the Passover, he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church to come to him. Curtis Vaughn says, “This is the only recorded speech of Paul which was delivered to Christians.”

“Elders” in verse 17 are called “overseers” (or “bishops”) in verse 28. Paul, apparently, used different names for the same office or function. Instructing them to “be shepherds of the church of God” (v. 28) probably indicates they functioned as a pastor. Paul, concerned about the future of the work in Ephesus, gave his final address to these church leaders calling them to minister faithfully. Rather than the expected outline of familiar ministries, I have chosen to point out the ministries as mentioned in sequence by Paul in his address to the elders at Ephesus..

Ministry of leadership (Acts 20:18-19)

Paul reminds them of his open life all the time he was in the Roman province of Asia (v. 18), serving “with great humility and with tears” (v. 19). He felt no one could question his work ethic, his attitude or his service. The elders would understand that Paul would not ask them to do what he was not willing to do himself.

Luke made it clear that Paul lived out the gospel he preached under the greatest of stress from those who opposed him (v. 19). Paul’s absolute devotion to his calling, tireless expenditure of energy, courage in the face of opposition, attitude, compassion, hard work, long travels, mounting expenses, preparation through study, use any available resources and means, development and training of disciples, following the leadership of the Holy Spirit and taking leadership responsibility was, and is, a vital ministry of faith.

Ministry of education (Acts 20:20)

Paul taught his newborn believers “publicly and from house to house” anything “that would be helpful.” Luke shared in Acts many experiences of Paul staying in a location to teach, educate, train and disciple.

Ministry of evangelism (20:21)

“I declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.” This ministry is the ultimate and primary spiritual gift of Paul.

Ministry of obedience (Acts 20:22-23)

Paul, when prompted by the Holy Spirit, was obedient to his heavenly calling, not knowing what lay ahead even though God’s Spirit warned him of hardship, stress, difficulties, dangers and hostilities. Over and over again, Luke tells us how the Spirit of God, from Pentecost onward, would prompt Paul and give guidance, direction, help and encouragement. Paul was obedient to God’s divine voice.

Where is the Holy Spirit in the church today? Is the church to be guided by the Holy Spirit or by a few souls in a business conference on Wednesday night? Can we rely on a business conference to determine the voice of the Spirit to the church?

Ministry of purpose (Acts 20:24-27)

Paul was driven by his purpose and wanted desperately to finish his task assigned to him by Christ Jesus to testify “to the gospel of God’s grace” (v. 24) and “proclaim to you the whole will of God” (v. 27). Completely satisfied he had done his best, Paul declared he was “innocent of the blood of all men” (v. 26). His diligence was so thorough, he believed he had given the gospel to everyone and anyone who would listen. He wanted no individual left out of the kingdom of God because of his neglect to tell them of the Savior, Christ Jesus. Paul defied all traditions, structures and barriers that would restrain his message and the achievement of his clear purpose until every door was closed.

Ministry of shepherding (Acts 20:28-31)

Delegation was part of Paul’s strategy. Paul recognized he was an itinerate evangelist and not a pastor. He handed over the responsibility for the church to these elders or overseers because he did not foresee a future visit or contact (v. 25).

Two major imperatives are given. First, guard yourselves and the flock for whom the Holy Spirit has made you overseers of (vv. 28, 31). Second, “Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood” (v. 28).

Paul knew the leadership of the church must take care of their own spiritual needs and maturity in order to be adequate shepherds of the church. His warning was not without reason. Paul’s experience had proven that the enemy, like “savage wolves” would come in to ravage the church and “draw away the disciples” (v. 29). These leaders were warned and encouraged by Paul’s trust in their ability to assume this charge.

Ministry of stewardship (Acts 20:32-35)

Paul finalizes his charge to the elders by committing them “to God and to the word of his grace” (v. 33). Paul’s conduct and finances were beyond suspicion and free of any charge of being motivated by monetary gain. See Paul, in this dramatic moment, raise his hands to them to say “these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions” and by this same means “we must help the weak” (v. 34-35). The statement by Christ, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” was Paul’s theological motivation and philanthropic attitude.

Gradually, over my years of ministry, per-capita giving of church members has declined. This is another clear way of pointing out the selfishness of the church that forfeits the financing of the kingdom for self-indulgence. God asked only for a tenth. Paul gave it all to the fulfillment of his calling to evangelism and ministry.

Summary

This summary is a reflection on this lesson but has a wider application. The issues of concern are far reaching and extremely urgent. We live in a very different culture than the New Testament world. Yet, the challenge of God’s purpose for the church is unchanged and unchanging.

I love the church, its fellowship and its work. However, I must be honest in what I observe over 50 years of ministry. Reflect carefully on the following observations spoken out of compassion for the church family and God’s work

The erosion of biblical purpose makes the church powerless to address its status quo in a changing environment. The outside world demands personal authenticity which has been clouded by ecclesiastical irrelevance, laity apathy and clergy failure.

Structures are neutral and are developed to manage the mindset of the people. Mindset and perception is everything. The mindset of most churches is inward rather than outward, is self-serving rather than others-serving, is traditional rather than creative, is structure bound rather than open to change, is focused on evangelism that is financially underwritten rather than soul-winning that is personal, and is more fearful of financial failure than of the judgment of God.

Lay leadership is inadequate, programs are self-fulfilling rather than mission-fulfilling, and committees are disjointed and function as turf-protectors with little regard to the church’s Great Commission purpose. The mindset and structure are co-dependent, each feeding the other while stifling creativity, change and objectivity.

Like a drug-dependent junkie, the church is in denial of its problems in order to continue to feed its insatiable appetite for its own pleasure. Because each Baptist church is self-governed, often a cookie-cutter church serving the denomination, the congregation mostly will vote for the familiar and safe rather than for risk and reward.

With the population of the world exploding and pagan ideologies rampant, the church prefers to stick its head in the sand. With head in the sand, the church is more ignored than attacked. There is a deathly silence. Rigid, conforming and exclusive, the church must tear down its walls and penetrate its world. The called-out must be the sent out.

Like so many others, I am calling the church back to its scriptural purpose, to join in the reinvention of itself in the context of today’s culture and human need. We no longer can tweak the old programs and hope they will reinvigorate the congregation until another one comes along. The opportunity is too great to afford the luxury of more mistakes. Strategic thinking must be done, a new model must be developed (perhaps already has been) and the current system must not undercut new leadership with visions of effective church evangelism and ministry.

Currently, in this transitional time, the old and new are in an arm-lock of unresolved conflict, both with different solutions to the same problem. The temple paradigm is and has not been adequate for years. Reformation is not enough. A reinvention is needed. Harmony can be achieved in mindset, if not in reality, by reclaiming the scriptural mandate and plan of both evangelism and ministry. From this root, change can be managed and the church can be effective in reaching out and changing lives. As Christians, we are here to serve rather than to be served.

Discussion question

• Which would you say your church needs to improve in most—ministering to Christians on the inside or reaching out to people on the outside?

Posted: 5/18/07

Bible Studies for Life Series for May 27

Being a peacemaker requires effort

• Genesis 50:15-21; Matthew 5:23-24; Colossians 3:12-15

By David Harp

First Baptist Church, Stanton

Conflict affects us all. When conflict is faced properly, reconciliation can bring people back together and give glory to God. One of the greatest pieces I ever read is a prayer by St. Francis of Assisi, which is a reminder for each of us who would be peacemakers: “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy; O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”

Believers are to pursue genuine reconciliation. How do I pursue genuine reconciliation when I am in a conflict situation?

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

Be ready to restore (Genesis 50:15-21)

When their father Jacob died, Joseph’s brothers feared Joseph would seek revenge. They sent a message to Joseph asking for forgiveness. This message included a personal request for Joseph to forgive them. When his brothers approached him, they fell before him, declaring they were his slaves. Recognizing the evil they had done, Joseph saw the hand of God working to save many lives.

Through Joseph, God spared the lives of Jacob and his family along with the lives of the Egyptians. Joseph assured his brothers and promised to provide for them and their families. His words of kindness relieved their fears and gave them a new beginning.

Like Joseph, when we can see past our own hurt, we can begin to see God at work in our human relationships. His desire is to bring about restoration and reconciliation. We do not ignore the wrongs that have been done, but with God’s grace and help, we can move past them. The opportunities to bring restoration must be sought.

Joseph asks a classic question, “Am I in the place of God?” (Genesis 50:19). We never are in the place of God. We should be ready to restore.

Make reconciliation a priority (Matthew 5:23-24)

Jesus is serious about human relationships. Worship is a primary part of our relationship with God. If we are not in right relationship with each other, we cannot be in a right relationship with God. Jesus instructed people to leave their offerings at the altar and be reconciled with other believers.

Believers must be as serious about worship and relationships as God. When we have a broken human relationship, according to God, our worship will be disrupted to the point God will not be honored. We must make a priority of mending broken human relationships, and then we will be ready to resume our worship with God.

Notice the phrase “has something against you” (Matthew 5:23). This can refer to a just cause or to what the person thought was a valid cause. This verse speaks to an offense the worshipper has committed against another person.

It should be noted an effort at reconciliation can be attempted without being successful. The teaching of Jesus clearly instructs the believer that we should do the right thing whether or not anyone else does. We are not called to be successful—we are called to be faithful and walk with God. Worship means we get the vertical relationship right, but it does not mean we ignore the horizontal (human to human) relationships.

Forgiving completely (Colossians 3:12-15)

Paul encourages believers that Christian values such as forgiveness, love, peace and thanksgiving should mark every believer. Believers are to forgive as Christ has forgiven them. Yet, forgiveness does not automatically cancel the consequences of past actions. Sometimes the consequences have to be faced in order for genuine forgiveness to occur. Christian forgiveness is not simply based on emotions, forgetting or excusing, but it is an act of the will. One must choose to forgive. As always, Jesus leaves the choice with his followers.

The word “forgive” comes from a root word translated forgiven (v. 13), based on the word for grace. Forgiveness is an expression of grace and is not based on whether or not the forgiven person is deserving. The word “peace” (v. 15) has the same meaning as the old Hebrew word “shalom”—well-being and wholeness under God’s rule. It carries the idea of Christian harmony found in the church when people are committed to one another in Christ.

Discussion questions

• How can we make restoring human relationships a greater priority?

• Is your worship being affected today by some past wrong human relationship?

• How can we forgive those who have offended us but have now died?

• How can we find peace with ourselves and become true peacemakers?

Posted: 5/18/07

Explore the Bible Series for May 27

Adopting an eternal mindset

• 2 Peter 3:3-12, 14, 17-18

By Kathryn Aragon

First Baptist Church, Duncanville

The typical mindset is that God allows suffering so we will learn more about him, but God sometimes works in ways we don’t expect. As an example, during our seminary years, he reversed my family’s fortunes and made his word come alive. You see, we lived in a $6 million mansion during our two years in seminary.

The house was involved in a divorce settlement, and the wife was trying to sell it. Her mother managed the estate, but preferred to stay at her home in Arkansas. Our job was to be caretakers. There were rules, of course, but we had the run of the place.

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

Here’s how it worked: The mother told us her expectations and outlined our few chores, then departed. Before leaving, she told us she’d come back now and then to check on us. Meanwhile, we could go about our lives. She really just wanted someone to be there who would watch over the place while she was gone.

True to her word, I came home from work one day to find her there. Lucky for us, we had obeyed her while she was gone. She was pleased with our work, and we were blessed to live in a mansion instead of our one-bedroom seminary house. What I learned was how serious the mandate is to be ready.

Jesus is coming

Our lesson this week is a reminder that Jesus is coming, and we must be ready. We’ve talked a lot lately about the disparity between what we know and say and what we do. My question is this: If Jesus came back today, would he be pleased?

Because Jesus has been slow to return, we Christians have become lazy. God has given us a manual that lays out his expectations, the rules for how his children should live. We are told to study to show ourselves approved, yet few of us give the Bible more than a cursory read now and then.

Of course, there are the parts we like, and we’ll return to them again and again. We like the part about God’s grace. We like that Jesus died on the cross to cover our sins. We like that salvation is a work of God’s grace, not our good deeds.

But this emphasis on God’s grace has become a stumbling block. For most Christians, security of salvation means not having to think about sin or Judgment Day or God’s call to purity. Since we are forgiven, we think we can do what we like, leaving Jesus to clean up our messes.

But this is wrong thinking. We like Paul’s assertion that where sin increases, grace increases all the more (Romans 5:20). But we fail to read on. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1).

If our behavior and attitudes don’t change after salvation, is it real? Jesus preached “wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13). Anyone can recite a prayer and quote Scripture. Anyone can call themselves Christian. It isn’t what we say or do that determines our eternal home. Jesus was speaking to his disciples when he told them, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). The key word here is change. Only a changed heart will put us on the straight and narrow road.

Are you ready?

Let’s face it, we like our sin. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t find God’s principles so difficult. The trouble, however, is we’re so comfortable with our sin, we don’t recognize it for what it is. Peter reminds us to adopt an eternal mindset. Jesus has said he is coming again, and like the mother at the mansion, he could come at any time. We must be ready.

Peter calls us to fine tune our focus as we prepare for Jesus’ return, mandating we “live holy and godly lives as (we) look forward to the day of God” (2 Peter 3:11-12). He wants us to realize Jesus’ return is real. We will stand before God to give an account for everything we say and do in this life. And we must allow this knowledge to change us. We must become like Jesus, living holy and godly lives.

Sound impossible? Jesus says we must change. Peter specifically tells us we must be holy. Even Paul teaches about the difference between the new and the old man. Would God ask us to do the impossible?

Change is difficult, and we tend to resist it. Our defense typically is that we aren’t saved by works, but by grace. But this is not a theology of works. It’s a theology of change. And while it is hard to change, it may be worse not to change. That’s where the eternal mindset comes in.

One day, we will stand before God. The very idea should strike fear into our hearts. That is, it should if we really believe it. Many people call themselves Christians who have not changed their path to the straight and narrow. Peter is reminding us to take stock. Are we ready to stand before God? Have we deliberately forgotten Jesus’ return, loving our sin so much that we’re willing to protect it at the cost of God’s kingdom? Or have we adopted an eternal mindset, looking forward to Jesus’ return while allowing him to change our hearts in the here-and-now?

Let’s listen to Peter. Eternity is worth the wait, and it is certainly worth working for.

Discussion questions

• Are your thoughts and actions different than they were before you were saved?

• Do you make your decisions based on how God would judge your choices?

• What changes do you need to make to feel more comfortable about standing before God on Judgment Day?

Posted: 5/16/07

British Baptists take action
on migrants, human trafficking

By Hannah Elliott

Associated Baptist Press

BRIGHTON, England (ABP)—Baptists in Great Britain are calling on their government and churches to do more for migrant workers and to oppose human trafficking around the world.

The resolution came at the May 4-7 Baptist Assembly in Brighton, the largest European Baptist event of the year. More than 2,000 were expected to attend the four-day event involving the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the BMS World Mission.

Event organizers planned the meeting to correspond with the bicentenary anniversary of the abolition of the British slave trade in 1807. They also used the occasion to launch a new campaign against human trafficking.

“This assembly recognizes that in the United Kingdom today, significant numbers of workers arriving from other countries are facing situations of abuse, poverty and exploitation,” the resolution said. It also called on the government to provide legal protection for migrant workers and on local churches to “speak out against instances of injustice and exploitation.”

Alistair Brown, the general director of BMS World Mission, challenged delegates to face modern-day slavery, noting that lifestyles in the United Kingdom still relegate many people to a lifetime of forced labor and poverty.

Baptists in Albania especially have focused on the trafficking of people within their country. According to a statement from the Christian mission agency, Albania has large numbers of women and girls trafficked through the nation. Two-thirds of them are sent to Greece or Italy, experts say.

A BMS representative for counter-trafficking, Hannah Wilson, said evangelicals in Albania have been helping trafficking victims through a women's prison ministry. They now are lobbying the Albanian government to create anti-trafficking legislation and training people in churches to know how to prevent trafficking in their communities.

A prayer of lament read to the audience by Jonathan Edwards, the general secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, and Brown also acknowledged that Christians had participated in the slave trade and even profited from it.

“We recognize that, tragically, new forms of slavery have been introduced to our world and that there are still millions of people who are enslaved,” Edwards and Brown read. “We cry out now for those brutalized as prisoners of the sex industry, for those damaged by inhuman working conditions, for those sentenced to poverty by biased, unjust economic systems and for those suffering because of our exploitation of creation.”

Edwards said that “many reports of abuse and exploitation” should compel Baptist churches to welcome migrant workers and show them practical support. He also urged governing authorities to “engage in a coordinated way with the massive challenges that are posed by this influx of migrant workers.”

The Baptist conference concluded May 7, the same day as a migrant-worker rally in Trafalgar Square and a mass for migrant workers in Westminster Cathedral.

Posted: 5/16/07

IMB policies on baptism,
‘prayer language’ softened

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (ABP)—Controversial policies for missionaries on baptism and speaking in tongues were slightly softened—but not revoked —by trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board May 8.

The trustees, meeting in Kansas City, approved an ad hoc subcommittee report of the board’s missionary personnel committee, which had spent more than a year studying the issues.

Many who opposed the rules had hoped the committee would recommend revoking them altogether. In the end, however, the panel suggested softening the language on the baptism guideline and changing the tongues ruling from a policy to a guideline, which carries slightly less authority.

The decision is not likely to silence the denomination-wide controversy over the guidelines, which detractors say improperly exceed doctrinal parameters set in the SBC’s confession of faith, approved in 2000.

Trustee Wade Burleson, an Oklahoma pastor who has been at the forefront of the opposition, said the softened guidelines aren’t enough. “I would like to urge my fellow trustees to seriously consider the wisdom of adopting these guidelines,” he told the board. “I would much rather the (full) convention speak on this matter for the board.”

But Paul Chitwood, a Kentucky pastor who serves as chairman of the board’s mission personnel committee, said the guidelines are necessary despite the lack of evidence of a “systemic problem” with charismatic practices among IMB missionaries.

A preamble to the recommendations said, in part, “the rapid spread of neo-Pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates.”

It continued, “Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.”

IMB trustees first adopted the regulations in 2005. They were designed to disqualify new missionary candidates who practice a “private prayer language,” a form of glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Many observers saw the move as a slap at IMB president Jerry Rankin, who has acknowledged using a “private prayer language.”

The other policy was designed to prevent the approval of candidates baptized by a church or denomination with a different understanding of the doctrine of baptism than the views held by most Southern Baptists.

Board policies already in place in 2005 required missionary candidates to refrain from public glossolalia and other practices common to the charismatic movement. The board has always required missionaries to have been baptized by immersion after professing faith in Christ.

But the IMB’s 2005 action tightened those policies, stirring almost immediate controversy among younger pastors and others in the SBC blogosphere. Many of the disgruntled leaders said the mandate reflected restrictive theological beliefs held by some Southern Baptist leaders but not shared by the denomination at large.

The controversy led the board to appoint the study committee in March 2006. Chitwood said the panel solicited “vast amounts of material” from “across our convention” in its work.

In discussion on the recommendation, Burleson asked Chitwood and other board leaders to define the practical difference between an IMB “policy” and an IMB “guideline.”

IMB attorney Matt Bristol, addressing the question, said guidelines allowed for some wiggle room on the part of those screening missionary candidates.

“The only difference between the two terms is that the term ‘guideline’ carries with it an implication that in the implementation … that as the circumstances are presented with each individual candidate, it will be applied with a degree of flexibility, or if you would rather, pragmatism rather than dogmatism,” he said.

After a 45-minute discussion, the trustees approved the guidelines by a voice vote, with only a handful in audible opposition.