5 Principles for Evangelical Leadership

Time for a confession: I once thought an evangelical leader had to be a good marketer. Sensing a call to serve the church vocationally during high school, and since most pastors I knew were polished message crafters and used slick methods, I set out to study marketing in college to prepare for ministry in “seeker-sensitive” churches. Leaders in the church were studying the latest advertising trends and picking up gleanings from sociological research to ensure we could pull the correct “felt need” levers. Focus group theology sounded about right to me. My colleagues and I headed to seminars and sought to take those best practices back to our student ministry. Better sound system. Skits and videos. Rocking bands. Smoke machines. We chided those who didn’t “get it” and grew impatient with those who we perceived were anemic about reaching the lost. God’s kingdom depended on us. If we did not act now, God’s purposes in this world would be thwarted.

Enter the ministries of John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul. I cannot remember which came first, but they were my mentors in the faith. It was transformative. They articulated a robust understanding of the authority of Scripture, the finished work of the cross of Christ, the Lordship of Jesus in the life of His disciples, and a high view of gospel preaching, God-centered theology and church life that was, at least to me, radical. Zeal for evangelism was bolstered by an unshakable confidence in the God who works through His un-thwartable Word. Gone was the tiring treadmill of pursuing the next best thing. They introduced me to a chorus of evangelical leaders calling the church to the pursuit of God as He sovereignly worked out his purposes in this world.

Iain Murray recently released a biography of John MacArthur. (Do try to pick up a copy.) In the opening of that book, he uses some of Dr. MacArthur’s teaching to illustrate five qualities of an evangelical leader. We asked Mr. Murray if we could reprint a portion and he graciously agreed. Twenty years ago, this wise counsel would have saved me several years of heading down an unfruitful path. Perhaps it can do the same for another generation.

20 Reasons I Don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists: by John Piper

This is Dr. John Piper at his best.  20 Reasons I Don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists.  In view of recent conflicts over social justice issues it's a timely post to be reminded of.

As context allows: "1) They are humble and respectful and courteous, and even funny (at least the ones I’ve met).

2)They believe in truth.

3) They believe that truth really matters.

4) They believe that the Bible is true — all of it.

5) They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

6) They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

7)They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

8) They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

9) They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

10) Their “social action” is often helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn’t usually get written up in the newspaper.

Three lessons from the extraordinary life of Billy Graham

Dr. Steven J. Lawson spotlights, "Three lessons from the extraordinary life of Billy Graham." Namely: The centrality of prayer, the power of humility, and the authority of the Bible.

"As we learned about the loss of Billy Graham, it is with a great deal of sadness that we say farewell to this extraordinary figure. Perhaps never again—certainly not within our life time—will we witness an evangelist with such a global outreach. He became a figure larger than life, and he did so by only preaching the simple message of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

Early in my ministry it was my privilege to work alongside the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and that experience left a positive and profound impact upon my life. Here was a man who preached the gospel and attempted to reach large numbers of people for Christ. For this example, I will always be grateful.

Allow me to reflect upon my time with his ministry, and to share a few lessons I learned from my partnership with his efforts to win the lost to Christ.

In 1989 I was pastoring The Bible Church of Little Rock when our city hosted a week-long Billy Graham crusade. The call went out for local pastors to participate as volunteers, and I was asked to be the chairman of counseling and follow-up. In this role I oversaw the training of 3,000 counselors, and then was responsible for the follow-up after the crusade for those who committed their lives to Jesus Christ.

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 6)

Is Tim Keller's view on Missions and the Local Church Biblically Sound?

This is part 6 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa. It is one of the most thought provoking articles I've read in a long time.

Specific Concerns (with regards to the Social Action Trend in Missions):

6. Defective Hermeneutics

"The arguments used to promote a social justice philosophy of the church and missions are often based on transparently deficient hermeneutics. The result is arguments that are rhetorically compelling, but biblically suspect. Peter Naylor critiques Tim Keller’s handling of key passages by saying, “He approaches the text with a predetermined agenda that distorts his interpretation.” As Richard Holst points out, Keller’s occasionally defective hermeneutics—especially his habit of overworking metaphors and of sliding into allegory—are the source of many of his questionable views (Richard Holst, “Timothy Keller’s Hermeneutic: an Example for the Church to Follow?”, chapter 5 in Engaging With Keller).

This interpretative error seems endemic to the social justice movement. It is not possible to list and respond to every hermeneutical misstep made by the advocates of social action; however, typical mistakes include the following: Passages about mercy within the church are often interpreted as if they were about social action projects outside the church.The biblical word justice is wrongly defined and its meaning is confusingly intermingled with the word generosity.  The words oppression and poverty are equated. For this reason, David Wells calls political correctness “fake piety,” (Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 8).

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 2)

Series Summary- "Today churches and missionaries are being told that to imitate the ministry of Jesus they must add social justice to their understanding of the church’s mission. As pastors and missions committees embrace the idea that social action and gospel proclamation are “two wings of the same bird,” the kind of work that they send their missionaries to do changes, and this has a negative effect on world missions. This article highlights those negative effects in an African context, offers historical, practical, and biblical critiques of the trend, and redirects the church’s attention to understanding and fulfilling the Great Commission in the way the apostles did in Acts and the Epistles." 

This is part 2 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa.

Sources of the Current Social Action Trend in Missions- "The tug of war between proclamation-oriented missions and social action is not new; however, it has become a prominent debate again in our generation. Recent key voices in evangelical circles enthusiastically promoting social action in missions include John Stott, Tim Keller, and popular Emergent authors.  John Stott’s influence has been felt both through his leading role in the Lausanne International Congress on World Evangelization and through his many books.  At the 1974 Lausanne Conference, more than 2,000 attendees signed the Lausanne Covenant which declared that “evangelism and socio-political involvement are part of our Christian duty.”  However, the Covenant also explicitly said that, of the two, gospel proclamation is of higher priority: “In the church’s mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary.”

In spite of this clear statement, an astonishing event took place on the last day of the conference. Approximately 200 conference attendees drafted a statement entitled “Radical Discipleship” that gave social action equal status with gospel proclamation. While it was too late to change the wording of the Lausanne Covenant, Stott (who had chaired the committee that drafted the Covenant) publically affirmed the alternative Radical Discipleship position the last night of the conference. It was a watershed moment for world evangelization, essentially redefining the church’s mission.

After the 1974 conference, in the face of resistance from Billy Graham and others, Stott continued to press for an equal role for social action in Christian missions.  By 1982, the triumph of Stott’s view was clear. In that year he chaired a Lausanne committee tasked to write a report on the subject. Under Stott’s guidance, the report again recommended that the church make social action and evangelism equal partners in the fulfilling of the Great Commission: They are like the two blades of a pair of scissors or the two wings of a bird.  This partnership is clearly seen in the public ministry of Jesus who not only preached the gospel but fed the hungry and healed the sick. In his ministry, kerygma (proclamation) and diakonia (service) went hand in hand. His words explained his works, and his works dramatized his words. Both were expressions of his compassion for people, and both should be ours.

Lucado, Trump, "Evangelicals" and the 2016 Election

Photo Credit: http://www.christianitytoday.com/

An earlier post provided a brief overview  of Homespun Gospel: The Triumph of Sentimentality in Contemporary American Evangelicalism.   This new book demonstrates how Max Lucado, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen have been leading advocates of a hyper-sentimental gospel that has been widely accepted by a large number of religious consumers.   I'll showcase more of the highlights of Homespun Gospel in future articles.

Today's post is devoted to Lucado, Trump, Evangelicals and the 2016 Election (if nothing else consider my 10 takeaways at the conclusion of this article).

What spurred me on to write today's post?  I decided to write this article after I saw how many Christians reposted a "Anti-Trump" blog article written by Pastor Max Lucado.  In the past two months I have never read more critical pieces of a Republican candidate written by conservative and/or Christian authors.  In a follow up interview "America's Pastor"said that he does not normally inject politics into his pastoral ministry.  Lucado noted that "I don’t even put a candidate’s bumper sticker on my car. People don’t attend church to hear my views on a presidential candidate."

Though I do not agree with Lucado's theology on a number of points, (or his philosophy of ministry- see Homespun Gospel), I think his default position on politics and the pulpit is wise.  The centrality of Christ, the gospel, and the core doctrines of Scripture can be unintentionally eclipsed when Christian preachers become political commentators on Sunday morning instead of 'mouthpieces' of God (to use the language of 1 Peter 4:10).   Having said that, if a cultural/political issue is addressed in the Scriptures, the man of God (2 Tim. 2:15) should faithfully communicate God's position on X, Y, or Z (Acts 20:27-35).  (Examples include: the sacredness of life (at conception), God's view of marriage, gender, and human sexuality, a theology of work in relation to welfare, the role of government, the sinfulness of racism and genuine bigotry, etc).

If a minister of the gospel decides to address a controversial, hot-topic issue from the pulpit (such as race relations and the police, the Ferguson riots, social justice, immigration, Israel, welfare and poverty, gender equality, Roe vs. Wade, SCOTUS, etc) they must be very careful to not read their personal opinions into the inspired Text.  If your pastor says, "This is heaven's perspective on such and such" you better be certain that his finger is pointing to a book, chapter, and verse AND that he is rightly interpreting the true meaning of Holy Scripture (Phil Johnson recently called out brother Thabiti Anyabwile for this very thing- see Against Mission Drift).  Over the years, many errors and half-truths have been propagated from American pulpits (often times unknowingly).

So why did "America's Pastor" post an public article that was critical of Donald Trump (the current front-runner of the Republican party)?