What is the best way of getting the job done?

If you just checked in, you might want to read my previous post to get some background on what I'm talking about. I took this lovely little girl's picture right after a very long service, June 29th at the Koror Evangelical Church. I know some of the people who teach her, and other boys and girls in Palau. I know that these folk have a great desire to see little girls like this grow into women who love the Lord, and serve Him passionately. Having met some Palauan Christians who are 10, 20, 6o years older than this little girl, I see some measure of success.



So, how do we seek to provide the best opportunity for this child to grow in the Lord, reach her peers and make a difference in her tiny island-nation?

Obviously, we need to infect her world with the gospel. I didn't, likely couldn't talk to this little girl, but judging from where and when I met her--having just come from a children's meeting at church--and by the smile on her face I think there is good evidence that the Gospel has entered her heart.

If people are going to serve the Lord, there needs to be more. What is the best way of providing the people of a particular area the resources to get the job done for the Lord? In particular, let me frame the question this way:

I'm trying to keep this abstract, but I just read a blog that said that this little girl's church is hopelessly deficient. What is needed is a new, different, better, more nearly doctrinally correct assembly of believers. While out on a bike-ride I went by the church founded by the blogging pastor. Is he reaching people for Jesus? I hope so. Is what he is doing--and those who work him--best for the Christian future of my young, photogenic friend? I'm not so sure.

I don't know the pastor of the church I rode by, but do have some acquantence with the mentality that seems to always think that the answer is to start another church. I get the idea that faced with following scenario many of my colleagues would give their standard answer: "What this community needs is a solid New-Testament Bible-preaching (fill in some other descriptive words) Church. I think I'll start one."

• A town of a thousand located at an oasis in the middle of an otherwise desolate, desert Island, surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean.


• In that town there are four churches all which basically teach the Bible, each with a solid attendance of 250.


• However, one church baptizes wrong, another sings wrong, the third associates with objectionable ministries, and the fourth has a pastor who has been married too many times.

In my observation, which is admittedly very limited, before missionary X goes to my fictional village to start a fifth church, he doesn't even know about all four churches. Or, if he does his knowledge is very limited.

Just a question a few questions for thought:

• Is a fifth church really what this community needs?


• Is there a place for a ministry that might help move one or more of these existing churches to move toward a more nearly Biblically-correct position? (I have been pastoring the same church for 35 years. We still don't have it right.)


• We are stewards of the resources God has placed in our keeping. Is this the best way to use them?
  

We desire to see the church blossom, but the some of the decisions we have to make along the way are prickly! We will not wrestle with these tough choices without some discomfort.

Some friends of mine, missionaries, a while back were faced with some choices along the lines of what I am discussing. Here are some communites with churches, all flawed. What is the best way for us to have a lasting impact? How do we help begin a movement that will result in the Gospel going out for generations? My friends chose to work with those churches and leaders who were willing to be taught. The answer, they concluded was not to start a new church, but help an old one.

Speaking of help, I could use some in clarifying my thinking. I'm not done yet, but I welcome your comments.

Seventy-nine years of the Gospel.

It was just my privilege to be in Palau for a little over a week. Yes, I did survive. In fact a week ago today I was enjoying a picnic on one of the lovely beaches in the Rock Islands of Palau. I understand it was one of the spots featured in the series. While I did enjoy the scenery, snorkeling, food, and the new experiences; that wasn't why I was there.

It is complicated as to how I got there, but I'm on the board of the Pacific Islands Bible College. The main part of our operation is on the Island of Guam--a USA territory, and the hub of the region called Micronesia. To get there go to Hawaii and keep going for another 4,000 miles, or head to Japan and head south for 1,500 miles or there-abouts. Overall the region is a big as the Continental United States, but all the land mass together is smaller than Rhode Island. As one would expect, because of the vast expanses of ocean that separate these Islands, there is a great deal of diversity among the people of this region. The following is not exhaustive; it represents my limited interface with this little-known (at least to most Americans) part of God's world.

Beginning in the 16th Century Portuguese and Spanish explorers made contact with the islands. The region was dominated by Spain until 1899.

For the next couple of decades Germany was the dominant influence.

In the World-War-One era the Japanese moved in. They developed many of the Islands militarily. On many of the Islands there were far more Japanese than natives. Their mark on the culture of the Islands can be heard in the languages, tasted in the food, and discerned in the phonebook by reading the names.

Most Americans are familiar with the War in the Pacific--part of World War II. Pelileu is part of Palau. The people of Guam celbrate not only the Fourth of July, but, also, July 21st--commemorating the American liberation of the Island from Japanese control. A friend of mine from Yap told me about how many of neighbors were made slave-labor for the Japanese military, and how he hid in a homemade bomb shelter during American bombings. The Chuuk lagoon is known as the Japanese Pearl Harbor. In Operation Hailstone many warships and transfer vessels were sunk. They remain until the present, making the lagoon a premier wreck diving site.

The United States was the controlling influence in the region following the war. That influence continues, even though the most of the Islands are now part of independent nations.

The Federated States of Micronesia is made up of Chuuk, Yap, Pohnpei, and Kosrae. There are nearly 110,ooo people who live there.

Guam is a US Territory, witch maintains a significant military presence there. The native Chomorro people are minority. You can shop at Kmart, eat at chain restaurants, and do other typical American things there. There are between 150, and 200 thousand people who live there. It is a horrible place to go bird-watching. The brown tree snake, accidently imported during WWII, has all but eliminated the avian population.

Palau is one of the smallest nations in the world. It has a population of 21,000. It appeared to me that all of them do nothing more than drive their cars up and down the main road in the Capital, Koror. : )

There are some other Islands involved, but since I haven't had much to do with them, I'll leave the research up to you.

PIBC is a college that functions in three different nations. The main campus is on Guam. We have a campus in Chuuk state and a teaching facilities in Chuuk state, and Yap state of the Federated States of Micronesia. We also have a teaching facility in Palau. That represents people whose primary language is Chuukese, Yapese, Palauan. The campus on Guam is also host to people who speak several other tongues. Instruction at the college is in English. Students have to pass a proficiency exam to enroll.

As I said, before I got into the geography lesson, I was in Palau because I serve on the board of PIBC. This year, so we could interface with a celebration of the Palauan Evangelical Church, our yearly meeting was held in Palau. Billy Kuartei, board member, pastor of Koror Evangelical Church, and Palauan president's chief of staff, was our host.

Meetings are meetings, so I won't bore you with the details. Bottom line, thanks to the dedicated, sacrificial ministry of the staff, the school is moving ahead with its mission to train servant leaders in this region.

Seventy-nine years ago missionaries from Liebenzell Mission (here is a link to the American division of the mission) Germany together with representatives from the Evangelical Church of Chuuk, brought the Gospel to the Islands of Palau.

Liebenzell published a book with an overview of the growth of the church in Palau. If you contact them at the address above, they'll help you get one. I don't know what they cost.

Today there are congregations in many of the communities.

As I sat in meetings celebrating the entrance of the Gospel to these Islands, and participated in a group discussion related to church issues, I was struck by several thoughts. Check back over the next several days, and I'll share some thoughts and questions for discussion.

Thinking for a change:

I know that I mentioned the article in some context in the past, but I thought especially the end of Micheal Gerson's article, Homeless Evangelicals, captured some thoughts that have troubled me, and, in my view, ought to bother more of us.
I owe a lot of my way of thinking on these matters to some friends of mine. These folk love the Lord passionately and serve Him faithfully and sacrificially. They are in every sense of the word good folk. Yet they are decidedly nonconformist in our conservative evangelical church. They voted for the wrong party, they are in favor of gun-control and national health care. I figure that in most elections if my two friends and my wife and I stayed home we wouldn't effect the outcome of the election. All four of us love our country too much to do that, so we dutifully go to the polls and cancel each other out.
I think my friends are wrong. They return the favor. But there is no way I can say my friends aren't good Christians because of their politics. I think they say the same about me--I hope so. In spite of my disagreements with them, I have to admit that their political conclusions are informed by well-thought out attempts to apply the Bible to personal and political life. In some cases we have arrived at different conclusions because we emphasize different truths from the Word. In other cases our variance comes from differing interpretations. They are more apt to see the Sermon on the Mount as national policy. I see it as intensely personal and non-political.
Back to Gerson:

But there is something essentially countercultural about Christianity that should make evangelicals restless in any political coalition. Christianity indicts oppressive government — but also the soul-destroying excesses that sometimes come in free markets and consumerism. It teaches enduring moral rules — and an emphasis on justice for the least and the lost. It is often hard where liberalism is soft, and soft where conservatism is hard.
If evangelical Christianity were identical to any political movement, something
would be badly wrong. It is supposed to look toward a kingdom not of this
world, one without borders, flags, or end. And by this standard, homelessness is a natural state

Today, I read an article by Colson that makes the same point (among others) http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_611082.html
Conservatism (Which should not be confused with
Christianity): [I don't know why this paragraph is indented.]

. . . conservatives understand that "we moderns" are unlikely "to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste."
Revering what is true, as opposed to embracing utopian fads, is
what marks the conservative disposition. It is also at the heart of the Christian disposition—which relies on a Gospel revealed to the apostles and handed down over the centuries.
As the presidential campaign heats up, Christians need to see that most of the issues being debated arise from conflicting ideologies of the two Parties. But we should be taken in by any body's ideology. Because we look to the revealed, enduring moral order, we may advocate things the world calls "liberal"—like prison reform—because doing so promotes human dignity. And we may also reject those things that ideology labels "conservative" that fail to recognize or uphold the moral order.

I'm not saying that political parties don't matter. They do. The dominant party will set the tone, appoint the judges and control the legislative flow. I am saying that we dare not sell our souls to any man-made system.

Book Review, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)

Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Moody Publishers, 256 pages.
Reviewed by Howard Merrell

"[Pastor Cory] is taking me on a driving tour of Passaic, New Jersey . . . you get the distinct feeling of being in another culture. Cory drives me through the housing project where he almost got mugged delivering a pizza. . . .
If Cory wasn’t so busy “living missionally,” he would probably have time to read all of the books on missional living, which would tell him to intentionally get a house in an urban area, get some kind of job that would allow him to rub shoulders with “regular people,” and then “do life” with them. My feeling, though, is that Cory is living missionally by default. He took the job delivering pizzas because he was at the time, The Poor.”
‘I have a cousin who never smoked until he started going to an emergent church,’ [Cory] says, half joking. . . . [F]or a lot of people it’s still just about those peripheral things. It’s been a safe harbor for people who either have been wounded or think they’ve been wounded by mainstream evangelical churches.’” (230-31)

The quote above, from and about a friend of Ted Kluck, sums up a lot of the book.
Kevin and Ted write alternate chapters in the book. Kevin is a pastor in a conservative reformed church—solidly evangelical and committed to communicating the Bible. Ted is the member of a conservative reformed church, a sports-writer and ex-football player. They are longtime friends, so while their articles are completely separate they are writing from the “same page.” As one would expect Kevin’s writing is more heavy-duty on the theology, while Ted’s is more human-interest. As the title would imply, both of these guys are in the age-demographic, and both grew up in a conservative (at least sometimes legalistic) evangelical environment. They also appear to have at least some of the “with it” quotient. They are prime suspects to be emergent, yet aren’t. While their reasons are many, it appears to me that mostly Kevin has concluded that emergent thought isn’t right from a Biblical perspective, while Ted observes that it isn’t satisfying from the viewpoint of what my soul needs. In spite of the “bad coffee,” he likes his church.

Probably a good many of you who read this are like me. You have a general idea of what the “Emergent Conversation” is about, you have read a book or two, seen some articles and blogs and have heard about it from your kids, but you don’t have a real good handle on the movement. Coming from that position, I found the book helpful. It would be less helpful to people who have done a lot of reading on the subject. I found a lot of information that would guide me if I choose to do some further reading.

Some of the points the authors make that stand out to me:

• There is the obvious observation that those who call themselves emergent, or who are called emergent, represent a very broad spectrum. Some are evangelicals who see the need to be more relevant, others are heritics.
• There is a need for clarification. It is incumbent on the emergent crowd to separate themselves from the more radical elements included in the descriptive title. These are my words, “If you are not heretical, draw some lines that show how you are different from those in the movement who clearly are.”
• The authors observe an elitist mentality about many emergents. Ted and Kevin weren’t heavy-handed in pointing this out, but their illustrations make it clear. I could see Frazier and Niles Crane joining an emergent church, while still continuing to look down on their dad, Martin. They would wax eloquent over a pint of Guinness about the need to become immersed in culture, just not his. (see 228-230)
• There is great danger in emergents becoming just another flavor of what they are rejecting. Instead of the Republican, SUV driving, steak from the grill crowd; they might do nothing more than become the Prius driving Democrats who crunch granola and drink good coffee.
• The authors point out a definite lack of emphasis on the core issues. From McLaren’s refusal to give an answer about hell, to Bell’s making light of the importance of the Virgin Birth, to the de-emphasis of the necessity of saving faith—the need to come to a point of trusting the Lord as Savior from sin, there is a danger that cardinal doctrines of Christianity are being discounted or ignored. How much of what makes us Christian can one throw out and still be Christian? Here is a quote: “. . . being a Christian—for Burke, for McLaren, for Bell, for Jones, and for many others in the emerging conversation—is less about faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the only access to God the Father and the only atonement for sins before a wrathful God, and more about living the life that Jesus lived . . .” (120) The authors rightly point out that this is very similar to old Theological Liberalism.
• Like many of us, the authors are frustrated with all the talk of dialogue, conversation, doubt, and uncertainty. They point out that there are things we can know. Why is it that Rob Bell can make precise pronouncements about the Rabbinic/Talmudic-derived meanings of many texts (DeYoung, points out the inadequacy of much of this, p.121 >) yet we can’t figure out what the scripture says about issues that impact our current world, like homosexual practice?
• If we are going to follow Jesus we have to know who He is, and which way He is going. There must be doctrine.
  

While it is clear from the beginning where the two authors will land—their title makes that plain—I thought they were fair in their treatment of the subject. They weren’t the opposite of “I’d rather be wrong with Brian McLaren than right with D. A. Carson.” (This is a quote that Ted gives from a conversation with Carson. I did a quick look to see if I could find it on Sweet’s website, I didn’t. I do remember being shocked—not doubt the intention—reading the statement a couple of years ago in Relevant Magazine. Whether the magazine was quoting Sweet or not, I don’t know.)
The authors point out that some of the criticism of Evangelicalism that fuels much of Emergence is valid. The Epilogue challenges both sides of the argument to become more of what the Lord wants us to be.

I thought it was a good read. I encourage others to get a copy.

BTW. I found this article online, which covers much of the same material as the book in this review, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/612-emergent-epistemology

Wasting time:

The future, in about an hour, Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Morse:

I'm sitting in the Worship Center of South New Millford Baptist Church, just off of I 81 in PA, just south of the NY line. Over 35 years ago I went to school just down the road at Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit PA.

I'm in the back of the room--hopefully, not wasting time--trying to occupy until the wedding comes. The bride and groom are following a practice that I always recommend, but that couples seldom do. They are getting their pictures taken before the wedding. So it is possible that some of you will see pictures--even on the other side of the world--of Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Morse before they are married. They assured me that they would follow-through.

(Speaking of weddings, my son, Chad, is engaged to Tanisha Lehman. Watch for further word, but an early fall wedding is being planned. Here is a picture of Chad's proposal. He surprised her at a meeting that her boss called. How's that for a fringe benefit?)

While I'm here trying to use my time well, I've been thinking about the almost 35 years that I have used at Covington Bible Church. When I tell people that I have been in one church for almost 35 years they almost always go into their "That's wonderful!" routine. Not necessarily. As I frequently respond, "Complacency looks an awfully lot like faithfulness."

Have I wasted my time.?

I'm not after an answer from you. The only one that matters is the "Well done . . . " from my Lord, or the lack thereof. I write, hopefully, to provoke some thought on your part. Even if I am wasting my time, perhaps my failure can serve to keep you from squandering this most precious of commodities.

Watching the couple before me has reminded of how time ought to be spent. Linda and Tim, Jacob's parents, were newly-weds when they first came to Covington Bible. Jacob was about 8 when he came to their home, as the result of a horrendous tragedy. Jake and Crystal plan to spend their lives serving the Lord. While occupying here, I received an instant message from my son who is serving the Lord on the other side of the earth. Time is to be invested in people.

Speaking of which, people are arriving for the wedding so I need to end this.

Last week I had the privilege of hanging out with this group of teens. They are the member of the Jr. Hi Sunday School class at Covington Bible Church. If you examine the picture you can tell that they got together to work.

Sure we took some basketball breaks and there was some serious visiting that went on--not to mention guys watching girls and girls trying to figure out guys (Sorry parents, but it seems inevitable.), but bottom line they youngsters did a good job.

They stained some picnic tables and benches.

Got some Mother's Day gifts ready.

Cleaned, discarded and organized.

Young people have always been an important part of what God is doing. David, Daniel, Esther, Phillip and John are examples of people who were far from gray-headed who accomplished great things for the Lord.

Some of you might look at that picture and wonder why the old guy is hanging out with the kids. Why would the Senior-Pastor take time to teach a bunch of kids?

I reply, "Why would I not?"

I won't be in Covington this Sunday, but the week after I expect to be in class with this awesome group of kids. I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing what these guys and gals will do for the Lord.

They'll paint something red!

Go guys.

It was a good day.

To those of you who are convinced that all of today's teens are no, good, useless, etc. I offer the kids in this picture as evidence to the contrary.

It has always been like this

Taking a Stand!

I have no doubt that many of you won’t get what I’m about to say.
Others of you with a similar background and position to mine will absolutely get it. Of those who get it, some will be utterly opposed to what I say. They will take a stand against me.
It is to those who get what I am saying and find some measure of agreement with my sentiments, that I primarily address these thoughts. I hope this article will provide some affirmation and encouragement:

I really don’t get criticized all that much. I serve in a smaller ministry in a small town, so I don’t get the attention of the watchdogs of whatever they are watching. But for years I have grown tired of the idea put forth by my more conservative friends (That is how they would likely describe themselves, though I often wonder just what they are conserving.) that they take stands, while people like me refuse to do so. We are "wish-washy," "soft," "compromising," "neo-whatever," and lacking in backbone.
“Taking a stand” conjures up images of knights, and war and nobility—standing on principle, a refusal to cave-in—that sort of thing. I’ll grant that the friends I speak of are great at taking stands. I’m just not prepared to grant them a monopoly on the matter; I take stands too:

1. I take a solid stand on the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. It ought to be made available to as many people as possible. Insisting on using a translation of the Bible that is 400 years old, which uses a form of English that is unintelligible to a large portion of the English speaking world makes no sense. It is my stand on the Bible that compels me to use translations that both accurately handle the original languages, and clearly speak the lingua-franca of the people to whom I minister.
   The “King James Only” crowd does not stand for the Bible. They take a cultic stand for one translation of the Bible, a translation that has been very useful, but is no longer the best translation available.
   
2. I take a firm stand on music. There are some other considerations, but basically it comes down to this. God could have given examples of acceptable and objectionable music. He didn’t. There is no music in the Bible. A variety of styles of music can be used in ministry.
   
3. I am a staunch defender of the Bible’s teaching on Christian liberty. Those who place personal preference or group acceptance ahead of Biblical fidelity ought to be exposed and confronted.
   
4. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ. I am not negating the need for appropriate separation. I am saying that acting as if it is virtuous to slice and dice the church, for which Christ died, is not Biblical. (This extends to you more conservative brethren as well. I disagree with you, but I am determined to appropriately love you.)
   
5. I stand clearly on the belief that God will fulfill His promises to Israel. I likewise stand firmly with the Old Testament prophets who proclaimed a message of justice. The modern state of Israel is not always right.
   
6. I am totally against conservatism, when what is being conserved is a tradition that either never was Biblical, or one that no longer serves a Biblical purpose.
   
7. I am absolutely opposed to Liberalism, when it encourages compromise on truths concerning which the Bible speaks definitively. Likewise, I stand against drawing hard, fast lines that keep others out, when Scripture invites them in.
   
8. I take a strong stand on (and, I might add, often, in) ignorance. I am not only convinced that there are many things that I don’t know. I know that there are things that I can’t know. Furthermore, I know that some, who claim to know, don’t. (Deut. 29:29)
   
9. One is neither more nor less spiritual, nor does he speak with greater or lesser relevance based on whether he wears a tie, or jeans. One is clearly out of step with Biblical Ministry if he allows personal preferences to interfere with ministry.
   
10. Erring by straying to the right differs from erring to the left only in the direction in which one goes astray; one is as wrong as the other. I reject the distortion of the truth that arbitrarily says that one form of error is always better than the other. I strenuously object when this error infringes on the liberty of another.
    
11. A prerequisite to pertinent, penetrating proclamation presupposes the purposeful, persistent purging of pointless plotting and pseudo “preacherly plans such as alliteration or the idea that lists must always be 3s, 7s, or 10s. I stand against that!