My Own Op-ED--Isn't It Lovely?

This entire series (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) was an attempt to critique an editorial without ad hominen. There are three reasons why this has been my pursuit, and why I want to state that clearly.

I have been wrong in the past.

A brother I love recently stated that I do not recant or concede clearly in writing. At times, I think I am making concessions or admitting wrong doing, yet it is clouded or veiled. Therefore, I want to state this clearly: I have sinned on this blog before and have been/am in the process of confessing that to individuals and making it right. It is perfectly reasonable for brothers to disagree publicly and can be edifying for all involved. However, it is not appropriate to assume motive or attack character on the part of these difference.

This wasn't about Ed.

It was wonderful to have Ed's permission to post these articles. I hope one reason why is that it really wasn't about Ed anyway. I know Ed loves and affirms the gospel. I know Ed has a passion for discipleship and not just conversions. I know Ed affirms eternal security. Therefore, to attack Ed would be foolish. However, I also do not believe his editorial expressed these truths that I know he affirms. And if it were just one editorial I probably would not have said a thing. However, I do believe there has been a growing tendency for ministry partners to assume (or neglect to communicate) the power of the gospel in the midst of their communication. While I am not attacking Ed at all (or anyone else in the Fellowship), I do think the tone and message of his editorial is pervasive in our circles and should be addressed.

So Danny, if you do not have a problem with Ed, and you know he would agree with your posts (probably, I have not heard what he thinks of my conclusions, just that he was ok with me posting them), Why write the series?

Because, Brothers, we have something so much greater to share than we often do.

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.--Matthew 16:16-18

Notice a few things from this text:

--Peter nails it! In this one sentence, Peter affirms that Jesus is the Anointed One, He is divine and the necessity of the resurrection!

--God is the One who graciously reveals Himself. We know Peter. We know He doesn't get it on His own. An answer like this comes to Peter only because God has graciously revealed it to Him!

--This message is that which Christ will use to build His church. There is nothing about programs, cultural trends or methodology in this comment. There is no statement about moral reform, conservative values or traditions either. Jesus simply says that upon the message Jesus will build His church.

Any orthodox pastor believes this, but we are all tempted not to practice it. We're tempted to take this message for granted. In times of perceived prosperous ministry (however one wants to define that) we are tempted to superiority. In times of perceived fruitlessness (again, however a person defines it) we are tempted to feel defeated. In reality, both are an expression of pride. How? Both place far more prominence and attention upon the actions of self rather than the activity of the gospel.

But I also think a generic "God did it" response is insufficient to express Christ's truth. He did not simply say, "Good answer Pete. I'm going to build My church." He told Him the very message by which He would build His church. This means that we do not simply say it is up to Jesus to build His church, but that it is up to Jesus to build His church through the proclamation of the very gospel message. And build is not just a numeric statement. We build people up in the faith. The church will increase in quantity, purity and maturity on the rock!

This gospel is powerful:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.--Romans 1:16

Notice Paul did not say, it is the power of God unto justification. He said it is the power of God unto salvation. Just a quick survey of Romans will show that Paul means justification, sanctification and glorification in this verse. Our gospel we preach must be that which calls the non-believer to repentance and faith for the salvation of their soul in justification. It is also the same gospel we are preaching to the saved in our congregation for the sake of their salvation from sin in the process of sanctification. And our people better learn to love it, for it will be the focus of their worship during their eternity in glorification. This gospel does not merely change your eternal domain, it changes your eternity!

This kind of gospel preaching is powerful. It will powerfully call the lost to Christ. It will powerfully call the sheep to abide in Christ. Its power, reach and grip are far stronger than any program change or structure adjustments.

We really don't fully understand how powerful it is.

My Own Op-ED--He Works Through It

One of the last times I saw Ed Lewis face-to-face, he said something interesting to me. He told me there was someone I needed to meet, because that guy "had the same evangelistic passion" that I had. This caught me a bit by surprise, for many guys think my love of doctrine means I must not be evangelistic enough. (I've been chided many times that I must get more seeker-sensitive.) Yet, Ed seemed to get it. He knows I am doctrinally oriented, but he also knows I love the gospel dearly and am thrilled to see God create new life!

I've always liked Ed (and even more so that day)! Therefore, I felt it safe to point out that his editorial could have used more gospel centrality. It would have influenced his diagnosis and his solutions. But this really isn't meant as a piece to try to call him out. This is meant as a wake-up call for all of us pastors. Are people bored or leaving our churches because we've neglected the gospel?

You see, the gospel is truly the only thing that saves the person. Attending your church for life won't save them. Joining the praise band won't get them justified before God. Liking the church and even getting other friends and family members to join them will not get them into heaven. No, it is only by faith placed deeply into this gospel message by which one becomes saved. And to believe, they have to hear it (Romans 10:14-17). All who hear the gospel will not be saved. But all who are saved will have heard the gospel and believed in it! Therefore, they are won forever by the gospel. They are kept, not by you, but by the Father who holds them in His hand.

But they are also transformed by this gospel. God sanctifies those whom He justifies. Therefore, His children will one day stand before Jesus as He is, but until that day, God will be working the process of making them more and more like His Son. This process will have ups and downs, progress and regression. However, the whole of the process will be marked by transformation. In many ways, this can be the most difficult part.

Bottom line: The pastor does not move his congregation beyond the gospel, but is called to perpetually send his people into the depths of the gospel.

Many people hear me state that the gospel must be preached weekly and assume the weekly theme is simply, "Ask Jesus into your heart. Walk the aisle. Raise your hand." However, I can't remember the last time I employed these strategies. Other pastors will label me a "doctrine guy," yet will assume I turn every Sunday into a revival meetings? Either they think I'm schizophrenic, or they aren't really considering the depths of the gospel. We've already addressed that understanding Christ's sanctifying work helps us assess the statistics differently, but let's look at how it effects proposed solutions as well.

1. Pray together. What many people consider their prayer life is simply their supplication life. They don't first focus on the grace of God in their lives and the worship He is due. Sure, it's great to get young and old together to pray, but make sure their prayers are gospel oriented. An older person will be much more passionate about the young person they've met if their prayer is about the mutual grace of God they have received, than simply praying they find a prom date or get into a good school. Get two people sitting across each other to pray, not focused on the other person, but focused on their mutual Savior.

2. Make the church a "family." This will only work with a gospel centrality. Quite frankly, the niche church plant strategy model has done a great disservice to the truth of the gospel. We have been made a "holy nation." Once we were not a people, but now we are a people of God. Like the church in Antioch, the church should seek to bond people of different ages, races, economic status and educations together. If you simply place generations around each other for the case of exposure, it may be fascinating for a time (What, you mean phones used to have cords on them that went into the walls? Crazy!), but this will eventually wear off. However, when you remind a person that they were alienated completely from God and fellowship is impossible until one comes to God through Christ, this causes the person to appreciate more deeply their fellowship with God, and thus seek out fellowship with others.

3. While "Scum of the Earth" is a cute concept for the name of a church (an idea from MacDonald's book), it is an incomplete message. Yes, we were objects of wrath, but now we have been purchased with the priceless blood of Jesus Christ! Really, are we going to claim that someone purchased with the blood of Christ is scum? Furthermore, we realize we have been reconciled to God in Christ so that we can do the ministry of reconciliation. But this call for reconciliation is not to us, but to God primarily, and then we will see it effect us.

4. Follow up with students. If our students are trained to listen for a truly cross-centered message, then we can more freely set them out knowing what to look for in a church. As far as I know, there are no Grace Brethren Churches in the regions I specifically mentioned. And frankly, that issue just doesn't matter that much to me. Too many of our churches don't understand this gospel centrality and therefore wouldn't share this thread. Our twelve points of the Statement of Faith simply do not narrow things down enough to really get a feel for the passions of the congregation. Therefore, you are left to assess the church based on superficial descriptions (seeker, Willow, Saddleback, Emerging, etc.). But these descriptions don't get to the heart of things, they simply deal with methodology. When Jesus said, "upon this rock," He was not referencing a method of Peter's, but the message that fell from his lips.

5. Real fellowship. Read 1 John 1. There is no fellowship imaginable like the Fellowship between the members of the Trinity! Then, through the work of Jesus Christ, God invites us into this kind of fellowship. Then, once we enter into fellowship with God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we naturally find ourselves having fellowship with others who also abide in Christ. As the passage continues, it explains to us that this fellowship is built upon the confession of sin and the work of Christ. As we abide deeply in the gospel, we abide deeply in Christ. And if we love the Groom, we will love the Bride.

Ultimately, the problem of the young leaving and the "Boomers" distancing becomes one of humility. The "Boomers" are bored with what they have and frustrated with what they do not. The youth, who once attended but have been leaving, are frustrated that changes aren't happening quick enough and they are not receiving enough influence. But both parties are wrong. The church is not about them, she is about Him! A gospel centered message will instill the necessary humility to cause both groups to seek Christ's glory and the other's interest.

The gospel has been assumed and treated lightly in too many contexts. This creates the problem. But their is hope. It is not complicated. It is not a struggle. It is not a message which contradicts. Preach the gospel to all men! The lost need to hear it for their justification and the believer (regardless of generation) needs to hear it for their sanctification!

My Own Op-ED--Time Lapse

As I have stated before, I highly respect Ed Lewis. I am not writing any of these pieces to critique the man, and certainly do not assume a bit of ill intent from him. I simply thought it would be good to share a different take on his diagnosis and his solutions which were offered in his editorial. And the views of the editorial are not unique to Ed, so this really is an issue regarding some discussion for the whole Fellowship.

(In a way, Ed is stuck being singled out because he is a great guy. I clearly like the man. In the past, other critiques, questions or comments I have had for other ministry partners are ignored, bypassed or deleted. I've been accused of being mean spirited or having personal vendettas. This does not apply at all to my relationship with Ed, so I saw this as a chance to place this out in public. If the problem is my writing styles, perhaps I can correct it. And perhaps I can have some constructive conversations with others who seem unwilling to talk? This is your chance to tell me if you think I'm being out of line.)

Really, this has nothing ultimately to do with Ed. It's one article he wrote. I'd sever the connection and move on (for I think these issues matter), except all the posts kind of flow from one another and may not make sense without it. But please, this is far bigger than addressing an editorial from a man who lives in Winona. If you are a pastor (especially if you are in the FGBC), please consider these thoughts carefully.

Often, when we read the statistic that 70% of young people are leaving the church when they leave high school (or that 59% of people 18-29 are leaving the church) we immediately begin to look at the current state of the church. We ask the question, "What are we doing wrong?" However, there seems to be a far more pressing question:

What have we done wrong?

You see, their attendance can trick us. They used to come to church, so we were doing it right then. Now they don't come anymore, so we must be doing something wrong. But what if what we were doing is the reason they aren't coming now? What if past practices are the reason for the current exodus? In fact, could our past practices be the reason the young people are leaving and the "Boomers" are getting bored? I think so.

Mark Dever so succinctly states it: "What you win them with, you win them to." How were so many of the "Boomers" won? We remodeled the facility to look more conducive to their comforts. We shortened the sermons to appeal to their attentions spans. We spoke directly to their felt needs to address the issues they wanted to hear. We began to cater to their desires and wants. We won many with many different things.

Now, the next generation comes along. They tolerated church the way an older generation wanted it for a time, but now they are ready to branch out on their own. They are able to vote and die for their country, but they aren't old enough to begin seeing the church adapt to their desires too. Now it becomes a power struggle. Do we give the "Boomers" what they want (and this isn't status quo, for they are now bored with what they have) or do we seek to engage the next generation?

The editorial suggests PowerPoint® as a possible solution. I'd disagree for the following three reasons (from least important to greatest). a) 99.9% of all PowerPoint® I have seen in sermons is cheesy and lame. Let's be honest, no one is being impressed by it, and at times, it's just making the church look more out of touch. b) It just doesn't go deeply enough into the heart of the problem. This issue goes deeper than just a few surface level corrections we can make. c) Preaching is so different than anything else ever created by God that the Scriptures are full of passages which state people will see by hearing. We still reach the eyes of our people's hearts through their ears. That's a timeless, God-ordained fact.

Furthermore, you won't be able to keep up with the technological demands. PowerPoint® today, holograms tomorrow. You see, what you win them with, you win them to. If they are coming because you have catchy visuals, look out! You'll have to make sure you keep up with the demands. And guess what, the vast majority of our churches are small and are incapable of keeping up with the budgetary demands to wow the masses. Though we can't compete with the funds, staff, equipment and manpower of titan churches, we are often told they are the standard we should be looking to. Even our larger Grace Brethren churches pale in comparison to the "big dogs" out there in other denominations. If that's the way we want to fight the battle, we will lose.

However, if our ministries are set around the gospel, now that we can do. And when we win people with the gospel, then as long as we keep preaching that gospel, we've won them to it. Trends will come and trends will go, but the gospel will keep them there. Ah, but our churches are preaching the gospel, you protest. People often misunderstand what I mean by this, so allow me to ask a few questions for clarification:

1. Do you preach repentance?

Many have abandoned the word repentance because it "just doesn't sell today." It seems to be too strong a word and we've seen too many people turn away when we use it. Therefore, we try to get them to come to Jesus and then we'll teach them repentance later. However, this simply is not the way the Apostles preached. Repentance is not small print in the contract. It is the lifestyle the believer is called to. To turn to Jesus we must turn away from our sin. If you win them with a Jesus who doesn't demand repentance, how do you win them to a Jesus who expects repentance from His Bride?

2. Do you preach the gospel every time?

"Sounds to me like you just want to be an evangelist," is often the response I get. (We'll address that point in the next question.) Many pastors tell me they make their schedule out where there is a specifically evangelistic message on a quarterly basis or so. It doesn't seem necessary to preach it every single week. However, let me ask you this. If a visitor comes--and keeps returning--yet they don't hear the gospel until week five, what was it that won them over in weeks one through four?

3. Does your gospel only seem for the visitor/non-believer?

This is a big pet peeve of mine. To many pastors in my Fellowship view the gospel as simply the message that leads to justification. Once the person has received the gospel, many assume it can just be set to the side as you move on to other issues. Perhaps you bring it back out when equipping the body for evangelism, or when a person doubts whether they are saved. Otherwise, it stays on the shelf while we talk about how to live the Christian faith. However, the gospel must be that which people hear in regard to their sanctification too. It is the message which roots out and destroys my legalism and my lawlessness all at once. It is a message your people must hear to grow in godliness! (Pastor, there is an easy test to see how you are doing with this. How do your people respond when you are preaching the gospel? Do they look around, appear bored or seem disconnected. How could that be? You are speaking about how the Infinite Creator made salvation possible by offering His Son to die for our sins!!! How could your people be bored? Because they don't see that the message is still beneficial to them.) If you won them with a "one time decision" gospel message, how will you win them to a gospel that changes the whole man?

4. Do you over emphasize conversion stats?

If you give altar calls, or ask for a show of hands, or have people fill out decision cards, it is also easy to declare those responses. Now you are in an awkward place. Five people come forward at the end of a service. The church is thrilled and excited. After three weeks, one person is never seen again and there never was any visible fruit. What does the pastor do? Is he to get in the pulpit one week and announce everyone should adjust their scorecards (and let's be honest, people are keeping score) to four? Do we have people adjust a outreach event total when a person later "falls away?"

These seem to be the places we should be looking. If a young person leaves as soon as they hit college and denies the faith, or an older person suddenly becomes bored with the message, we've got two options.

1. The church won the young person over with something other than the gospel, therefore they kept coming to church, but it wasn't really for Jesus.

2. The church faithfully preached the gospel, but there will always be tares among the wheat. They'll eventually leave, and there really isn't anything the church can do about it.

Therefore, the power of the gospel calls us to keep preaching the gospel. If we were before, yet young people are leaving, why would we ever want to change the message? (And doesn't our eschatology tell us that the number of individuals "falling away" should increase as the Day approaches?) But if we look and see our gospel was secondary to the life of the church, there's still time. Repent and place it back out at front and center.

For a neglect or assumption of the gospel is not only the problem, turning back to it is also our solution!

My Own Op-ED--Cause and Cure

I respect Ed Lewis very much. Therefore, when I read his editorial, I found myself surprised at the level of disagreement with his diagnosis and cure for the condition of the local church today. I'm hoping these posts actually offer an opportunity to do something pretty rare these days in our circles (air differences in opinion in public) and could possibly serve as some refining for all of us.

I have already made it known that I did not really agree with the assessment of the church's current situation. There was something that was assumed through out it, but its absence created a tension for me. Then, as I scrolled down to some of the solutions, the same feeling returned. There's just something that is being assumed here, and its absence leaves these solutions in tension. I wasn't surprised that the nagging feeling was identical, for the object missing was identical too...

Where was the gospel?

[caveat] Now, before anyone throws a spear through the internet at me, let me affirm some things. Yes, Ed knows the gospel. Yes, Ed preaches the gospel. Yes, Ed believes in the power of the gospel. As I have mentioned before, these posts are not meant to be ad hominem. I'm conducting an experiment to see if it is still possible to disagree with a person's opinion without it having to create a rift in a relationship. I have no beef with Ed personally, I do not believe their was any ill intent in Ed's editorial. I did not say the gospel was distorted, denied or contradicted. I simply said it was assumed. [/caveat]

How does the gospel further instruct us in regard to the diagnosis?

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.--Philippians 1:6

God is the One who justifies, sanctifies and glorifies! This is not news for our Fellowship, for it has always affirmed eternal security. This is not a battle being fought within our ranks, so I understand why it is tempting to simply not address this fact. However, reminding ourselves of the gospel reminds us that it is God who began the work, it is God who will continue the work, and it is God who will complete the work. Now, if we have a massive number of people who appear to have the work begun, but we do not see God continuing the work in them, should we conclude the church is to blame? Is it the church who causes believers to be sanctified, or is it God who causes sanctification and uses the church in that process? You see, keeping the gospel front and center should cause us to ask a much more disturbing question: If they went out from us, were they really ever of us? (We'll explore this further in the next post.)

How does the gospel further instruct us in regard to solution?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.--Romans 1:16

Keeping the gospel before our eyes gives us renewed hope. It is He who builds the church. It is He who raises the dead to life. It is He who causes the blind to see. It is He who justifies. It is He who sanctifies. It is He who glorifies. It is He who speaks! The gospel is His power for salvation. Suddenly, the person is set free to serve God, for it is not really up to me and my strategies to create the results. It is God who is working and it is His gospel which is powerful. A gospel centrality is vital to the life of the church. (A point we will further unpack in a couple of posts.)

I have no doubt Ed believes those things to be true. I also have no doubt that expressing them in his editorial would have completely changed his tone to one of hope. For God is powerful!

My Own Op-ED--Cure?

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ed Lewis. Therefore, I am trusting that when I didn't agree with his editorial, he would not be offended if I attempted to interact about it.

My previous article explained that while Ed is usually a very optimistic man, his editorial did not seem very hopeful for the church. He stated that the church is losing 70% of the young people we once had (a statistic I believe can be misleading). He also stated that most "Boomers" are becoming "detached." In essence, they want to be served, rather than serve. (I did not address this issue in my last article, for Ed offers no statistics to make this claim, but merely throws it out. There wasn't much to refute, since it just seems to be a personal observation. Perhaps it's true on a global scale? I have no idea.)

Near the end of his article, Ed offers these 5 suggestions:

1. Make it easy for young and old to pray together. Don’t pray for the young: pray with them on occasion.

2. Make the church a “family.” Ask older people to help in children’s ministries. Offer regular, brief interviews in Sunday School. Let youth hear stories of older people in the church. (Then have the youth pray for the older person.) Ask adult classes (ABFs) to interview young people regularly. Learn names. Get to know the young.

3. Read books like Gordon MacDonald’s, Who Stole My Church? Or...

4. Listen to people like Chuck Bomar who say we must open homes to the younger generation. Students who go away to college must be followed up. (Did he find a mentor? A good church? If not, send someone there to help him!)

5. Let the church strengthen relationships. Work on it! Fellowship isn’t just an add-on; it’s crucial. It’s family! Program for it. Learn names. Connect. Play together. Pray together. Do projects together. Praise together.

None of the above things are wrong. They are somewhat insufficient, however. As I've mentioned before, Ed does not consider himself to be a papal authority (although I think he'd look cool in the hat!). I'm sure this list wasn't meant to be conclusive, and if a church attempted to adopt some of these things, I imagine it could possibly help a bit. However, just consider the following:

If your "Boomers" aren't wanting to serve, getting items #1, #2 & #5 to work are going to be quite difficult. How are we assessing that "Boomers" don't want to be involved? Probably because we've already asked them, and they've said no. Therefore, simply prodding them to stay involved will probably only work for a temporary period and has the potential to simply embitter them more.

I absolutely love Chuck Bomar's advise to stay connected to your students. Too many ministries operate on a "out of sight, out of mind" basis. Follow up is important. However, here is my problem. I have a student at MIT. I have another at West Point (and another joining him there this summer). I have a young woman in our church moving to Alamo, California. We're a small, rural community where most of our young people move away. How do I plug them into a "good church" when I know nothing of their new area? Most of the time, a recommendation of a "good church" comes from someone who doesn't even really know your own church, thus they don't know the passions that would make the transition easy. I can tell you this, our church budget can't allow for staff and elders to make scouting trips so we can help them find good churches.

And as for MacDonald's, Who Stole My Church? Well the "Boomer" generation ought to prove its basic premise is lacking. The last couple decades have been spent making the church everything the "Boomer" could ever want only to result in them being bored, detached and uninterested in ministry. Like BurgerKing, catering the church to their desires simply fed their appetite "to have it your way." Eventually, the church can't give someone everything they want and they become dissatisfied. If we seek to again revamp the church simply to meet the desires of the next generation, we will find them eventually bored and dissatisfied too. Are many of the changes MacDonald suggests bad? Not really. Are they enough? Not at all.

As I review these "solutions," I become a little overwhelmed. They can seem contradictory, and at times like they are simply calling us to keep trying the same things, even though they haven't been working. It makes sense then that ministry would seem to be a struggle and something that is very complicated. We strive to reach the young, but they are leaving because we have catered to the "Boomer." But the "Boomer" is getting frustrated and thinking of leaving because of changes we may be making in order to reach the young generation which has already left. I've never liked merry-go-rounds, and staying in this mindset can pretty quickly lead to me "losing my Whopper®."

However, Ed ends his editorial with: I feel for the church leaders...but let's do something to change it. It's possible.

I wouldn't bother writing these posts if I did not agree. However, I plan to unpack a slightly overlooked solution starting Monday...

My Own Op-ED--Diagnosis

Feeling Sorry for Today’s Church
I know God is the head of the church and He will build His church, but the church leaders [sic] struggle with how to apply Truth to today’s generations.

Society is so-o-o-o-o complicated—so secular, so far away from Truth.

The church of today has two big issues—the young being one. The old being the other.

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

The bottom quote is obviously from Jesus (Matthew 16:18). The top three quotes are from an editorial from Ed Lewis. Now, why would a generally jovial and joyous man have such a glum perspective on the state of the Church?

I blame stats.

"Today we lose 70% of young people who grew up in the church," the editorial states. Ed is not alone when he laments these stats. Another Grace Brethren pastor states in his book: "58% of young adults who attended church at eighteen no longer attend by age twenty-nine." Just a week before reading that, another Grace Brethren pastor sent me an email, citing stats all over it which described how young people are bailing on the church.

But the numbers seem to say we are losing! Why aren't you equally bummed?

FIrst, let me say, when anyone walks out of the church and doesn't come back, that is sad. Your heart breaks for that person. Each individual case bums me out. However, from a global scale, when I consider the stats above, I just don't find myself bummed for the following reasons:

These stats are only about "church attendance."

Phone interviews are not the way to assess conversion. Therefore, this stat is something which can be quantified...church attendance. Our goal has never been just to get people in the doors, nor has it been to keep them coming. Our goal is conversions, and this stat says nothing of that nature. And really, we have no idea what kind of attendance we're talking about. Only corporate Sunday morning worship? How frequent? For how long?

We know nothing about the churches.

This is not a Grace Brethren survey. Even if it were, we don't know how faithfully each church was preaching the Word and declaring the gospel. Quite honestly, if a person was in a bad church (one that doesn't preach the gospel clearly from the Word of God), I'd just as soon see them leave. People going to bad churches never think, "Man, I should get back in church." People who leave churches (even bad ones) are sometimes prompted to get back in church. And perhaps the second time around, they'd find a good church.

This stat does not actually mean we are losing the generation.

Any young person who comes to know Christ after age 18 doesn't count in this stat. A college student, who had never darkened the doors of a church, yet comes to know Christ and gets plugged into a church, does not reverse this stat.

100% retention just is not possible.

This is not merely realism, this is Biblical. The Scriptures are clear, there are tares among the wheat, and eventually, they will leave. Not to mention there are bad church experiences that drive people away for a period of time. What about a person who is moved or transfered to an area where a sound church just doesn't exist?

Each person who leaves the church should be pursued. But each reason why a person walked away from a church completely varies. If a person walks away from the church because they don't like the truth the church proclaims, we should mourn for the rebellion of the person. However, we should rejoice in the purity of the church! We pray for that person. We pray God will continue to work on the person and bring the gospel across their path. We pray that eventually His grace will overwhelm them irresistibly! Yet, the only way this can happen is if churches are strong and pure. When young people walk away from the church because the church refuses to agree with their secular philosophy professor, or because they refuse to be as inclusive as the quasi-universalist churches in town, we should rejoice for the perseverance of His church.

Hell may overpower our society, but it will never be able to stand against His church!

My Own Op-ED

--I do not believe Christians have to be in complete unity on every issue. While sin and ignorance are still around, we're not going to agree. I bring my own sin and ignorance, as you do too.
--I do not even believe that members of the same Fellowship (or denomination) need to agree or be in unity on all things. There are core issues that matter, but other issues where we may disagree.
--I do not even believe it is necessary to mask the difference. If two people have differing perspectives, it can be good and healthy for those two to discuss their difference in public, where others can gain perspective, as well.

This perspective is not shared by many. While I can be disappointed by some diversity in areas I think our Fellowship should hold in unity, I am most troubled that there seems to be a spirit of secrecy if you disagree. Either you are accused of being a pharisaical critic (a heavy charge in its own right!) or the person blows you off and refuses to discuss or explain their perspective. While we say we want to celebrate diversity and difference, in reality, the climate is set to ignore it.

Reading this editorial piece led me to one of those moments of differing opinion. I would not hold to the author's perspective (either in diagnosis or cure) and believe it could be healthy to lay it out publicly. Here are some reasons why I believe it could be fruitful to draw out these differences:

1. Ed is secure. As Executive Directory of CE National for the last 30 years, Ed does not need to fear any critique. Possibly in interactions in the past, some pastors have shut things down because they fear unrest from their congregation and believe their position is in jeopardy. Ed does not need to worry about these things. His position is set, so hopefully there is freedom for us to disagree without him having to worry about angry congregants seeking his job!

2. Ed is wonderful. No one dislikes Ed Lewis. If you've met him, you've seen grace, mercy, joy, humility and passion. I'm leaning on his possession of these attributes, and my pursuit of them, for this to work. If Ed chooses to respond (he clearly is not required), I believe it will be done with continued grace and humility.

3. Ed is liked. I've known Ed for about 20 years now. Ed has always been friendly to me and even if we haven't seen each other in years, he still somehow seems to know what is going on in our lives! In previous interactions with others, I think they have feared my comments to be ad hominem. I have no such "attack" against Ed (how could you?) and hopefully then, we can just stay to the issue.

4. CE National has influenced me. I learned a great deal of the New Testament through CE's quizzing program. I learned my love of preaching while participating as a "Teen Challenge Speaker." My wife and I really developed our friendship while participating in Operation Barnabas. My ability to attend Grace College was largely due to scholarships made possible by CE National. Even now, our own youth pastor was trained by CE's "National Institute." Again, there clearly is no axe to grind. Hopefully, readers can give me the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

5. Ed is not papal. He claims no amount of infallibility. His position is not even one of authority over churches. He is Executive Directory of a non-profit organization. If he is an elder in his church (I don't know if he is), then he has authority over those particular sheep. However, Ed's role is very influential. I would argue that with his tenure and with his exposure, he is easily one of the most influential men in our Fellowship. If he says something, many pastors are going to assume it.

6. Ed's article was public. You can read it from the link. I received it directly into my email. These are not issues by which Ed is pondering and working out with other men privately. These were his thoughts which were publicly presented to others. Ed holds to these views strongly enough that he was willing to broadcast them nation wide.

7. I love Ed. Ed is one of the most positive and joyful men I've ever met. His life exudes joy. (The picture could have been taken at pretty much any random moment in Ed's life, not just for posing for a picture. Quite frankly, I kind of assume Ed even smiles like that during his sleep!) That's why the particular article caught my eye. When speaking of the the church, which Christ has said He will build, Ed does not seem to have this typical joy. That bums me out. I think the down nature of the article is due to some mistakes in thinking. I'd love to see the joy back when discussing this topic.

8. Ed is a man. I emailed Ed this post as well as tomorrow's and Ed responded with great grace. I wouldn't have posted this series without his permission, which he granted.

9. I love our Fellowship pastors. Ed's discouragement is not his own. It is shared by many pastors I speak to. Again, by posting this publicly, I hope it could serve as an encouragement to other pastors and help reshape their thinking.

10. I love our Fellowship. However, I don't think it is going to survive much longer if we do not allow open dialogue. Quite frankly, how can you use the word "fellowship" when you can't even talk? I'm one of the youngest teaching pastors in the Fellowship (33 last February), yet if I disagree or ask for someone to clarify things or explain their purposes, I am met with silence, a refusal to talk or emails that respond but never actually deal with the issues. Perhaps the problem is me? (I'm being serious here.) If my tone has been wrong or my methods detrimental, I desire to try it once publicly, so others can help shape me and teach me. I'm at the end of my rope and thought maybe--just maybe--if the problem is me, and I lay it out publicly, others can help shape me before I completely give up on this concept we're calling a "Fellowship."

Lord willing, I plan to address the linked editorial with three posts:

1. How the diagnosis is off.
2. How the cure is insufficient.
3. How the diagnosis and cure are really linked to the same issue.

May it be done to the praise of the glory of His grace!

DTMW4I: Alva J McClain

In this connection I would like to encourage Christians who delight in finding the Lord Jesus Christ upon every page of Scripture. Do not permit yourselves to be frightened by those overcautious souls who cry against what they call "too much typology." Doubtless there are some things which may properly be catalogued as "types" and others not. But whatever you may call it, it is the privilege and highest duty of the Christian to discover and behold the face of the Lord Jesus in Scripture--everywhere! Far better to break a few rules of classical hermeneutics than to miss the vision of His blessed face.

We need only one caution--let us be sure that what we find is always true to the historic revelation of the Son as recorded in the New Testament. With this safeguard, there is no end to what we may find in the inspired record of the infinite and incarnate Son of God. And by finding Him throughout Scripture, we shall be finding the perfect will of God in the wonderful context of His grace. For grace reigns "through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21)--Law and Grace, p 67-68

The Success of Noah's Sermons

Before entering the naval sector, there isn't a lot of information about Noah's occupation. Lamech's exposition of Noah's name certainly implies the family worked the ground. Likewise, his embarrassing post-flood condition showed he certainly knew how to cultivate a vineyard. Whatever Noah did to put matza on the table, we know he was also a preacher:

and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;--2 Peter 2:5

"Preacher of Righteousness." Two words (in the Greek) provide the only explanation. What else do we know about Noah's preaching? Was he good at it? Could we call him successful? Did people listen? Did he see results?

How do we assess a preacher?

By most modern calculations, Noah's preaching would be considered average at best. No sermon transcripts remain; his sermons seem to have died with him. We have no record of future generations emulating his style. If we're generous, his "conversions" total seven...and those were all family, possibly converted beforehand. The man did not even seem able to gather a crowd.

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.--1 Timothy 4:16

Paul reminds Timothy that a preacher's responsibility is two-fold; Life and Teaching

Character & Doctrine--These are the two items Timothy is called to guard. Paul has mentored his son in the faith, placed him in a church, and is now giving him instructions. These are not two segregated items, for true doctrine will effect your living and your life will either confirm or deny your doctrine. Paul does not instruct Timothy to guard the "buzz factor" around the church, or to even hone his oratory skill. His key will not be in his management skills, nor in his civic connections. He is called to watch his conduct and guard his teaching. It is to be guarded, persevered in, marking that it is not just something established at the front...but it should remain foundational through his ministry.

Similarly, Noah guarded these things as well. He was set apart from the violence and sin of his society. He acted in faith, preached righteousness and walked with God (see: Genesis 6:8-9; Hebrews 11:7)

See Salvation--Just how can life and teaching draw others to salvation if it is not centered upon the gospel message? Paul reminds us: Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). Clearly, for our lives to remain focussed on the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, we must walk with Christ. However, such obedience can quickly turn to life sucking legalism if not constantly accompanied with the life altering declaration of the gospel. He did not give Timothy a two point action step--preach the gospel then pursue obedience--but calls for perseverance. We are to continue to guard our life and doctrine.

It is interesting here to note that Paul is not giving Timothy a method. He is not saying to Timothy, "My disciple, let me encourage you that a way to reach people for Christ is by guarding your life and teaching." No, Paul offers no alternative. His instruction is that salvation comes through the practice of guarding one's character and doctrine. Often, I hear other pastors present evangelists as theologically shallow by nature. To many, it is almost a requirement; for the evangelist cannot get himself bogged down with doctrinal issues. But Paul not only says that compromising one character or side-stepping some doctrinal truth is not to be preferred...he states it is nonproductive. Salvation is ensured by continuing in these things.

Grading Noah

I recently sat in a meeting where men were willing to deem something a "movement of God" simply by crowd size. (This man's church is growing, it has new people. Clearly God is blessing!) But if this were the case, every large church (including the one who boasts being the largest) would have to be deemed blessed by God. If this were the case, every Protestant pastor in a Catholic community would have to acknowledge the blessing of God lies with the church of Rome. Globally, we'd have to claim that God is doing some amazing things within the Moslem community. Brothers, we know these things to be false.

But often, we refuse to see it working the other direction. Is the faithful pastor of the small, insignificant (in the eyes of men) congregation unsuccessful? Is the pastor who is mocked by other community clergy for his refusal to accept their universalist ecumenical agenda failing to be kingdom minded? Can we really call the pastor of a persecuted church whose numbers have dropped due to martyrdom a failure? Are we ready to call one preacher, with only his family as followers, a failure?

So Great a Salvation!

Noah saw seven others saved from the flood. It is not wrong to desire more converts than that. Clearly, every gospel pastor should desire to see every soul saved they encounter! However, if we think Noah only brought salvation to eight people, we have miscalculated.

While the creationist acknowledges that we are all Adam's descendants, we sometimes neglect to note we are all Noah's as well. Had Noah been unfaithful, our life and breath could not trace through his DNA. As Hebrews 11 points out, that message of faith that was passed down by the patriarchs passed right through the blood of Noah. In the generation of the flood, this faith message only passed through one man. At that particular time, the rope of the gospel was down to one singular thread. And lest we forget, it was not just the message of the coming Messiah that carried through Noah, but the lineage of the Messiah as well. Jesus Christ's arrival on earth, enabling Himself to lay down His life as our ransom, came through the family of Noah and was thus made possible through Noah's faith and obedience. As the world turned a deaf ear to Noah's message and his ministry almost appear fruitless, God sovereignly works to accomplish the salvation of all His elect through the life and teaching of Noah.

How sad if Noah would have changed his message to reach more masses. What a tragedy if Noah decided to participate in the violence of his culture so he could connect better and foster relationships. Oh the great loss if he had simply become fatigued and quit due to the lack of visible response! Ironically, if he had adapted so that he could reach more than seven, he would have failed to bring salvation to all. However, by walking in faith, trusting that God creates the increase, Noah guarded his life and teaching and carried that salvation to all. (In a more recent example, the continent of Africa would look different if James Gribble had focussed on immediate results instead of his life and doctrine.)

Certainly, we desire to see all men saved. But this is not accomplished by doing whatever we can to reach as many as we can. This is done by paying close attention to our life and doctrine, and trusting God that through it He will reach far more than we could ever imagine!

Brothers, preach the Word.