jeremywallace.net

This past week I met with a group of pastors in Chattanooga at a local church for a quarterly meeting.  In these quarterly meetings we spend time in prayer for each other as well as discuss one ministry topic.  The topic in this meeting was the importance of ordination.  I spent some time thinking about the ordination process in many Baptist churches and believe there are some serious concerns that need to be addressed.

I will  readily acknowledge that my opinions are primarily based on my experiences. But I have also had conversations with other pastors and I have a feeling this is a wide-spread issue in Baptist circles.

I am afraid that the ordination process in many places has become nothing more than a dumbed down, good ol’ boy, buddy system where men are ordained based on relationships they have rather than the qualifications and giftedness they possess.  I recently observed two different ordination councils for men whom I believe have been genuinely called to and gifted for ministry.  However, there was not one doctrinal question asked in either council.  They each lasted about 30 minutes and served no real purpose. There was no examination.  THIS IS TRAGIC!

Do we have such a low view of the roles and responsibilities of a pastor that we settle to simply assume someone has the correct doctrine?  Does the responsibility of preaching and teaching God’s Word not demand a complete and detailed examination?  We have lowered ordination standards and then wonder why the tenures of pastors are so short, why there is no power, why there is no impact.  Could it be that our ordination process (or lack-there-of) has placed people in ministry that have no business being there in the first place?

A weak ordination process opens the door to unqualified and uncalled men serving in positions for which they are not gifted.  I don’t have all the answers as to what an ordination process should entail,  but here are a few thoughts.

• It should include the candidate giving his salvation testimony as well as how he is growing spiritually.
• It should include a complete doctrinal examination.  The candidate should have to defend his doctrinal position, not just state it.
• It should include questioning on general Bible knowledge.
• The candidate should be required to explain the gospel as well as how to present the gospel to someone who is an unbeliever.
• It should be done only after the candidate has been discipled by someone in ministry.
• It should be done only after an individual has completed biblical training.
• It should only be done after evidence has been given of a genuine call to ministry.
• It should only be done after giftedness has been proven.

Regardless of the ordination process your church adopts, be committed to a process of ordination that is thorough, serious, and impartial.  The office in which these men desire to serve demands it.

Last week I suggested that churches needed to consider supporting non-American missionaries.  I have received a great deal of feedback on this topic, and while I still believe that somehow American churches should look into creative ways to support nationals, there are some valid concerns which must be addressed.  The problem is not in supporting the nationals; the problem is in doing it in an effective, accountable, and truly beneficial way to the national pastor, the national church, and the American church.

Here are some dangers and pitfalls of supporting non-American missionaries that must be avoided.

1- There are rumored to be organizations that take advantage of the sympathy and generosity that Americans tend to demonstrate to nationals.  Some organizations do nothing but raise funds for nationals from American churches and individuals.  They bring nationals to the states as the emotional ‘trump’ card.  Some organizations keep as much as 20% of the funds raised.

2- Non-American pastors who come to the states can become spoiled by the comparative luxury we enjoy.  Many times they never want to return home.  When they do return, their perception and attitude can be negatively affected.

3- National churches can become dependent on American funds, failing to ever operate as a self-supporting church.  (This happens in all areas of missions, not just in supporting nationals.)

4- There can be lack of connection to the American church due to communication barriers.  When there is no communication, there is also limited, or no, accountability in areas of finances and doctrinal teaching.

5- How can we know if the national pastor has actually been called by God to do what he is doing?  I realize the same question can be posed for American missionaries, but at least we can contact sending churches and sending pastors to inquire about the missionary’s testimony and calling.  This is difficult, if not impossible, to do when supporting nationals.

While I think it would be beneficial for American churches to support a national church-planter, there are definite dangers that must be considered.

A Little More About What We Are Doing

I think our situation in supporting a national church-planter is as ideal as it can be.  I think we are avoiding as many of the dangers mentioned above as possible.  We are going to be supporting a national who trained with an American missionary for a number of years.  The national is moving to a different area to start a church but maintains his relationship with the American missionary. They have weekly contact about the new ministry. This provides the needed accountability.

We are supporting him for a period of 3-5 years to help in the initial expenses of getting the church started.  We are not interested in maintaining this ministry, just helping in the initial expense of establishing a church in a difficult area.  The national understands our position and is in agreement with it.

The church-planter is not asking for American help — he has no real way to do so, but he is in desperate need of it.  We are offering it to him as a way to encourage the advancement of the Gospel in a difficult area, to expose our church to missions in a unique way, and to partner with someone in a different culture for the purpose of making disciples.

I believe this is a situation that will yield benefits for both our church as well as the church-planter in Argentina.

One of the failures of American, Independent Baptist missions is that we have been terrible stewards with the resources God has given us.  We not only have a responsibility to do everything in way that brings glory to God and in a way that is completely in line with Scripture, we also have to be as effective as possible.  In one word this is stewardship.  Here is an idea on how we can improve missions stewardship.

I have heard many missionaries say that they have the goal of starting churches and then training nationals to carry on the ministry.  Their rationale is that the nationals will be better equipped to reach their own people than an American missionary.  This makes perfect sense.  But let’s carry that thought process a step further.  If nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people, why do American, Independent Baptist churches not support non-American missionaries/ministries?

Let’s back up one more step.  What is the purpose of missions?  Would you not agree that it is to spread the gospel to the ends of the world for the purpose of making disciples of all peoples?  If that is the goal of missions, we have a responsibility to do that in the most effective way possible.  And if nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people than American missionaries can, why not support them in addition to American missionaries?

The question is this,  “What makes it possible for nationals to do a better job of reaching their own people?”  Here a few reasons off the top of my head:

• They already know the language. Time and money does not have to be spent on this, again allowing us to be better stewards.
• They already know the culture.  They don’t have to go and study the difference between contextualization and syncretism.   They know how to contextualize the gospel.
• They already know the city in which they live. Time does not have to be spent on learning the area.
• They already understand the spiritual climate.  They were raised in it.
• They already have relationships built.

In addition to this, there are a couple of other benefits.  First, you don’t have to worry about the all-to-common problem of the American missionary starting an American church in a non-American location, thus limiting his effectiveness.  The national is starting the church, which makes transitioning that ministry to another national much easier.  Second,  many nationals do not have to spend three years and $250,000 raising support.  They are working in ministry as a ‘tent-maker’, so to speak.  American churches would simply be coming along side of them with more assistance.

I understand the challenges that are associated with a concept like this. But why not put effort into finding non-American missionaries or church planters who have doctrinal and financial accountability to partner with for short periods of time?

Let me state very clearly that I am not all suggesting that God cannot use American missionaries on the foreign field or that they are wasting their time.  I have many very good friends who are missionaries and who are doing a great job.  There will always be the need for American missionaries to go to the foreign field.  I am not suggesting that we no longer support American missionaries or that we should put all of our resources into supporting nationals.

However, I am suggesting that if we are going to improve Independent Baptist missions, we must begin to think outside the box.  We need to be open to supporting non-American, national, church planters.  This will allow us to see a greater effectiveness and be better stewards with our resources.

In October we plan to support our first non-American missionary for a period of 3-5 years.  I am excited about this opportunity.  We will be bringing a church-planter from Argentina to our church to share his burden for HIS people with whom he has lived for almost his entire life.  He speaks no English and does not look like an American…but perhaps that is what will make him effective in Argentina.

It has been a couple of months since I first started writing about missions.  Those initial articles received close to 10,000 hits.  Since then I have spent many hours thinking about the current Independent Baptist Missions model.  I have read many books, and interacted with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals on this topic.  I must say that my previous conclusions are still valid (You can read those conclusions here: part 1, part 2, part 3).  The current Independent Baptist missions model is in need of an overhaul.

 As I have been thinking about this topic there have been some other issues that presented themselves as problems.  They are mindsets that many hold to that need to change in order for the current missions model to have a chance of changing.  Let me briefly mention them.

1- Many wrongfully think that sending missionaries means only sending American missionaries.  What if churches in the States had a specific strategy to send non-American missionaries from other countries to other countries?  I believe this would yield many more benefits than our current model.

2- Many wrongfully think that missions is what we do for our missionaries instead of what we do through our missionaries.

3- Many wrongfully think that missions in our churches is simply supporting missionaries.  There is rarely any other connection than this.

4- Many wrongfully think that missions is simply a foreign objective.  While many reference Acts 1:8, most fail to build their missions model around it.

5- Many wrongfully understand the role of the sending church as well as the mission board.  These misunderstandings prove to be a hindrance to the missionary’s effectiveness on the field.

6- Many wrongfully think that a 4-7 day missions conference is the only and best way to keep missions as a focus of the church.  I know it is not the only way, and am convinced that it is not the best way.

Over the next several weeks I will be addressing each of these misconceptions and then I will propose a new model or two.  Be sure to SHARE these articles to help spread the word.  As always, I welcome your comments and thoughts.  What are some other wrong mindsets in missions?

I am afraid that many people (pastors included) have confused the essentials of the church with the non-essentials. The more people I talk to the more I see a misunderstanding of the church and what the church should be doing when it meets together. While I am not focusing on the foundational purposes of the church in this post, I do think we need to clearly state what the essentials and non-essentials of a church really are.

So what are the essential components of a church service? Here is what I think can be easily seen in Scripture.

1- The preaching and teaching of God’s Word

2- Prayer

3- The observance of the ordinances

4- The public reading of Scripture

5- Congregational singing

6- Giving

These are the 6 essential components of a church service. The problem I see is that many people and churches are abandoning the essentials of ministry while becoming more committed to other non-essential aspects. I am sure you are wondering, “What are some non-essentials of church ministry?” Let me offer a few.

1- Sunday School

2- Sunday evening service

3- Special music

4- Invitations

5- Passing the offering plate

6- Missions conferences and revival meetings

Understand that there is not necessarily anything wrong with anything on this list. However, when these are held to more strongly that the items in the essential list, it is a sign that our focus and priorities are wrong. We are wrong to judge a church based on anything other than the essential components. A church is neither biblical nor unbiblical based on whether or not they have certain non-essential components that you prefer.

So How Does This Play Out?

If a church has all of the essential components of a church service, but does not have Sunday School, or a Sunday evening service, or special music, or a traditional invitation — guess what — they can still be a 100% biblical church. On the other hand, if a church is traditional in every way – they have Sunday School, invitations, special meetings, three services a week, etc., but yet are not committed to all of the essentials, then they are not a biblical church.

As I said at our church on Sunday, “We are not here to see how contemporary we can become, nor are we here to see how traditional we can remain. We are here to see how biblical we can be.” This requires that we become fully committed to the essential components of ministry and less hung up on the non-essentials.

The headline read, “Killed by Friendly Fire.”  Pat Tillman was killed in 2004 in the mountains of Afghanistan not by the enemy, but accidentally by his own army.  This was a tragic event that received nationwide attention.  His death was mourned by thousands.

Unfortunately this happens within the Body of Christ each and every week.  Doctrinally sound pastors and Christian leaders are shot, so-to-speak, by those in their own army — by other pastors and other Christian leaders.  And while this is taking place, the real enemy sits back and laughs, free from any opposition.  In many cases we have lost sight of who the real enemy is.  We get ready…..shoot……and then aim.  We are duped into ‘sowing discord’, gossiping, and attacking others.  The whole time this is taking place, we incorrectly believe that we are fighting for the sake of Christ.  In reality, we have become a hindrance to the work of Christ.

There are several things we need to realize.

1- Satan is the real enemy, not each other.

2- Doctrinally sound pastors and churches are to be unified in fighting the enemy.  This is done by focusing on the Gospel.  Completely separating over styles of music, Bible versions, and other preferences is unnecessary and detrimental to the advancement of the Gospel.

3- As has often been said, “If you can’t say something nice (edifying) about someone, don’t say anything at all.”  This needs to be practiced.  Sure there are times when doctrinal error needs to be pointed out, but here we are talking about non-doctrinal issues.

4- Understand that we each have a responsibility to pray for each other.  Over the course of the next year our church will highlight a different church in our area each week.  We will pray that God will meet their needs, that the pastor will be strengthened and protected, that the gospel will be proclaimed, and that souls will be saved.

Let’s keep the crosshairs on the real enemy.  Get Ready…..AIM…..THEN Shoot!

You have probably heard the saying “Don’t just stand there– do something!”  But, sometimes the exact opposite of that is what is needed.  We need to realize that activity does not always equal effectiveness and busyness does not always mean ministry is taking place.  There are times when we need to just be still. 

Impossible, you say?  Perhaps it is impossible if you must always be in control and if you refuse to trust God.  There are times when the solution to the problem you are facing is to actively choose to do nothing to fix the problem.  There are times when patience and self-restraint are your biggest asset.  But understand that patience is not inactivity.  Patience is actively and aggressively pursuing the face of God about a situation while, at the same time, remaining active and faithful in the things you know God wants you to do. 

We instinctively want to do the opposite of that.  We want to stop everything we know God wants us to be doing and put all of our effort and resources into fixing whatever problem or situation we are facing.  Psalm 46:10 is a passage the deals with this very thing.  It says:

Be still, and know that I am God.

Contrary to popular belief this verse has nothing to do with being still and doing your devotions.  It is a command to not panic in the face of danger, difficulties, or problems.  It is a command to not take matters into your own hands, but to be still and trust God.  No matter what problem comes into your life or ministry there are times when we need to be still and trust the sovereignty of God.  In other words, don’t just do something–stand there!

I recently received a phone call from an individual who unknowingly demonstrated why it is dangerous to live life in a bubble.  For this individual, his bubble was the basis for defining reality.  

Many people are submerged in the same circle of ministries and churches for years, if not decades.  They only visit those churches, they only preach in those churches, they only talk to pastors from those churches, they only recommend that you go to those churches, and they only understand the culture in those churches.  That circle of churches and ministries has created a bubble in which these individuals live.

Let me say that there is nothing wrong with having a certain style of church or ministry that you prefer.  But what has happened for many in Baptist circles is that their bubble now defines reality; it’s all they know.  As a result, if affects how they make decisions, it affects how they view outreach, it affects their view of missions, and it affects how they interact with those not in their bubble.  They begin to think that the issues they face in their bubble are the only issues that are facing the Church and Christianity as a whole.  They begin to think that their methods are the only methods that are permissible.  They begin to think that those not in their bubble are wrong.  Their bubble has created a new, but false reality.

The individual that called me was critical of my view of missions and my desire to create a new missions strategy.  The problem with his comments was that they were all based on the reality inside his bubble; not true reality.  He was convinced that everything he said was true.  However, he simply demonstrated that he was living in a bubble.

Pastors, if we are not careful our bubble can make us blind to reality. It is something I fight daily. We must intentionally resist the urge to redefine reality based upon our specific circles.  If you allow this to happen there are several things that will unknowingly take place in your life and ministry.

1- You will become isolated.  You will choose only to associate with others in your bubble — those who define reality in the same way as you.

2- You will become legalistic.  Your way of doing ministry will be the right way, and all other ways will be wrong.

3- You will become defensive.  You will feel the need to defend what you do.  You must keep the bubble from being popped.

4- You will ignore the weaknesses of your movement.  It is easier to ignore something than fix it.  If everyone ignores the problem, then there is no problem.

5- Your effectiveness will be limited.  When you are blind to reality you cannot effectively influence those living in reality.

We must intentionally be aware of reality.  Please, beware of the bubble!

An interesting perspective.

Why Pastors Should Bless Interracial Marriage from Desiring God on Vimeo.

I was recently asked why I (primarily) preach verse-by-verse sermons (expositional) instead of topical sermons.  This is a crucial question that needs to be addressed.  Below is some of what I presented to the church this past Sunday evening.

When you boil it all down there are really only two approaches to studying God’s Word.  Whether it is in preparation to preach a message or teach a Sunday School class, there are only two options.

The first option is called exegesis.  The term exegesis means to lead out of.  The second option is called eisegesis.  This means to lead into.  What is the difference?  Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.  We are told in 2 Timothy 2:15 to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who rightly divides the word of truth.  The only way to do that on a consistent basis is by following the principles of exegesis.  

Now, these two principles of Bible study lead directly to varying approaches to preaching.  Eisegesis leads primarily to topical preaching, and exegesis leads primarily to expository preaching or verse-by-verse preaching.   

It is important that you have an accurate understanding of what expository preaching is.  Here are a few short definitions and explanations. 

• Expository preaching is making the point of the passage the point of the message. 
• In expository preaching the passage shapes the message, in topical preaching the message shapes the passage.
• In topical preaching, Scripture is nothing more than support material for the topic upon which the speaker has decided to preach.  In expository preaching, Scripture is the topic.

If pastors never preach expositionally, they will never preach more than they already know, because rarely is new study conducted (Dever).  They simply try to find verses that appear to support their pre-conceived view.  Please understand that pastors are called to be mailmen not letter writers.  It is the pastor’s job to communicate the truth of God’s Word explaining it accurately, not coming up with their own message and trying to find verses that, at first glance, seem to support what they want to say.

Unfortunately, many churches (Independent Baptist churches) have pastors who blindly hold to a style of topical preaching where they preach their own message, many times misusing God’s Word to do so.  And, in my opinion, it is for this reason that the Independent Baptist movement is slowly rotting away to nothing.  Many of these churches are filled with people who very rarely hear God’s word preached in a way that is true to Scripture.  Pastors stand up and preach their opinions on issues and they misused God’s Word to do so. 

I was recently reading an article by Steven Lawson entitled “Preach the Word.” Here is a quote from this article.

The pastor must not parade his personal opinions in the pulpit.  Nor may he expound worldly philosophies.  The preacher is limited to one task – preach the Word.

If the Independent Baptist movement is to survive, it will be because there is a return to expository preaching.  This is the greatest need.  You may wonder why?  If the people of God are to live a life based on the Word of God, the Word of God must be preached in a way that is consistent with the intended message, not the pastor’s personal, insignificant preferences.

Lawson goes on to say:

Every season of reformation and every hour of spiritual awakening has been ushered in by a recovery of biblical preaching.

Such was the case in the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century.  Martin Luther, John Calvin and other reformers were raised up by God to lead this era.  At the forefront, it was their recovery of expository preaching the helped launch this movement…

The same was true in the golden era of the puritans in the 17^th century.  A recovery of biblical preaching spread like wildfire through the dry regions of Scotland & England.  A resurgence of authentic Christianity came as an army of biblical expositors.

 The 18^th century witnessed exactly same through the Bible-saturated preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield.

Philip Schaff writes

Every true progress in church history is conditioned by a new and deeper study of Scripture.

 Lawson summarizes his article by stating the following:

 Every great revival is the church has been ushered in by a return to expository preaching.

Again, the job of the preacher is to accurately communicate the message of God.  The only way to that, consistently is through expository preaching. 

So to answer the question: “Why do I preach verse-by-verse (expositionally) instead of topically?”  My answer is this:  It is the only way to consistently and accurately communicate the Truth of Scripture to the people of God.  I never want to reduce the powerful Word of God down to nothing more than support material for my thoughts.

Sometimes people ask me “what should I look for in a church.”  One of the things I say to them is this.  “I would not attend or join a church that did not have a commitment to expository preaching.”

If all a church does is emotionally driven, topical preaching…stay away!”