If you weren't praying for the IMB trustees, I hope this news will get you started. Controversial IMB Trustee and pastor Wade Burleson has been censured by the other IMB trustees. Everyone involved in this needs wisdom, courage, and humility. The story can be found here. More to follow I'm sure.
The USA Today recently ran an article detailing the overwhelming turnout the Creation museum has seen over its short, 6 month existence. Museum officials expect about 400,000 visitors by the end of the year, which is about 150,000 more visitors than was originally projected. Not bad.
Contrary to what many of you might think, the visitors are not just coming from the backwoods of Alabama (no offense). In this past week alone, the article said, there were visitors from France, Brazil, Japan, and Hong Kong.
Of course, not everyone is pleased with these developments. Â
Lawrence Krauss, head of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, called the attraction's popularity "embarrassing."
I guess Lawrence Krauss won't be one of those 400,000 visitors. You can read the article here.Â
Multi-campus sites are a hot topic of discussion these days. Is this a new practice? Was it taking place in the early church? Is it wise? Is it doable? These questions and many others are receiving, as you might have guessed, many conflicting answers.Â
Dr. John Piper recently preached on the topic. His manuscript can be found here. Wherever you stand on this issue, I think that you will find this article to be a helpful articulation of one view. Looking at Acts 2:36-47, Piper saysÂ
So we have one church of at least ten thousand members. How did they do that? How were they structured? What did church look like?
Don’t misunderstand. We are not operating on the assumption that if we knew the exact structure of the Jerusalem church or the Philippian church or the Corinthian church we would have to structure ourselves just that way. We believe that where the New Testament commands us to do something or implies that it is right to do it in all times and all places, we obey. But there is no command in the New Testament that says, “Replicate all the structures that you see in the early church.†Some are commanded; some are not. Our aim was simply, “Can we see some guidelines? Can we see mandates and prohibitions if there are any, and can we see opportunities and permissions?â€
He summarizes his findings, sayingÂ
The point is a principle: If a band of radical disciples of Jesus are able to keep a pilgrim mindset and believe in an expanding vision of the local church, multiplying campuses is a feasible and affordable way to do it under the united banner of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.Â
Check out the rest of this sermon.
What do you think? Why do you think what you think? Do you know of any other helpful resources out there on the topic?Â
…according to the Telegraph. I have to say that I think this list isn't quite as accurate as they might like to think it is. Rudy Giuliani is not the most influential US conservative. But I have to be fair, this would not be an easy job. In fact, they admit that
it was far from easy to agree among ourselves as to who to include and in what order. Many readers will dispute a number of those who appear on our lists and no doubt be eager to put forward substitutes.
You can find the lists here.
…he's a wimp. Do you disagree? Dr. John Piper doesn't care. Don't believe me? Here's the quote:
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he's a wimp.
Dr. Piper goes on to spend a few sentences writing about his view on biblical manhood and womanhood. He states that
God wrote manhood and womanhood on our hearts. Sin ruins the imprint without totally defacing it. It tells men to be heavy handed oafs or passive wimps. It tells women to be coquettes or controllers. That is not God's imprint. Deeper down men and women know it.Â
It is worth your time to read the rest of this great article. You can read it here. Do you think this too strong? Does this go beyond the bounds of Scripture? Check out the article, then let me know.Â
Doug Wilson thinks so. Over at the World Magazine blog, Harrison Scott Key quotes an article written by Wilson at Credenda-Agenda. He argues that the lack of masculinity in the pulpit has a lot to do with current church problems such as the the ordination of women. He writes that
 The reason the evangelical church feels the pressure to ordain women (despite clear texts) is that the standards used to evaluate the occupant of the pulpit (for well over a century now) have been the standards of feminine piety. This means that clergymen have been trying to live up to their reputation as the "third sex." Put another way, we have insisted upon effeminacy in the pulpit, and we are now being pressed with the next logical step.
What's the answer? How do we correct this? Well, as we all know, it is easier to detect a problem than it is to correct one. But I think that Wilson does a great job of moving us in the right direction. He continues
 Masculine preachers are not those who demand submission from others; masculine preachers are those who submit themselves. True masculinity is submissive. Right, submissive. Effeminacy in the pulpit is disobedient and rebellious. God tells the preacher to go and speak as the very oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). He might not feel like it. He worries that people will think he is getting above himself. He wonders if he is really called to the ministry. When tackling any lofty scriptural subject, far above him, he is frequently as disappointed with his performance as the farmer's wife was when she asked the sow to fold the linen. But how he feels does not matter. He is told what to do, and he is under authority. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
For Wilson, the issue of masculinity is not optional. It is a matter of obedience or disobedience. God has designed men (and women) to embody certain qualities that are specific to their gender. Unfortunately, Wilson doesn't unpack his understanding masculinity much further than this.
There's no doubt that this type of understanding is controversial both in our culture and, unfortunately, in evangelicalism. But this shouldn't be our greatest concern. Our greatest concern must be about what God has said. And if we are convinced that God has called men to pastor churches with a strong biblical masculinity, then we must double our efforts. And once we re-focus our efforts we are faced with another question. What does a strong biblical masculinity look like?Â
What do you think this looks like? Who have you seen who has exemplified this?
 About a week ago Dr. Steve Wellum, professor of Christian theology at SBTS and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, was interviewed by the king of the bloggers Justin Taylor. The interview contains a helpful introduction and summary of the credobaptist and paedobaptist discussion. You guys have probably already seen this. If you haven't, it is worth a look.
I thought that one of the most important points that Wellum makes in this interview was his perspective on the theological category called the "Covenant of Grace". He saysÂ
In fact, I argued in my chapter that it would be best to place a moratorium on the category, especially if we want to make headway in the baptismal debate. In its place, we should speak of the one plan of God centered in Jesus Christ. And, furthermore, in speaking of the “covenant,†we must think in terms of the plurality of biblical covenants as we carefully unpack the relationships between the covenants across the canon. In short, it is imperative that we do a biblical theology of the covenants which, in truth, is an exercise in inter-textual relations between the covenants which, in the end, preserves a proper balance of continuity and discontinuity across the canon in regard to the biblical covenants. It is only when we do this that I am convinced we will make headway in our debate over the relationship between the biblical covenants without prejudicing the debate in one direction or the other.
Any critiques of this view or anything else he said in the interview?
An overwhelming majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history have answered Yes. With the clear command of Jesus Christ and the Apostles to be baptized, the examples of Christ, the Apostles, and the early church, and the fact that there is no Biblical teaching on infant baptism, it is not hard to see how Baptists came to require baptism for church membership.Â
And yet, there remain a few Baptists who argue to the contrary. Abraham Piper is one of these. This morning, he interacted a little with this issue at the Desiring God blog. Abraham is the son of well known pastor-theologian John Piper, who holds to the exact same position. The senior Piper's thoughts on the issue can be found here.Â
Abraham's blog primarily interacts with a recent blog written by Southern Baptist pastor-theologian Mark Dever. Dever argues that baptism should be a requirement for church membership. Those, Dever states, that have not been baptized He saysÂ
"Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ)."Â
Like many Baptists who have gone before him, Dever writesÂ
"I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now".
Abraham Piper disagrees. He takes issue with Dever’s distinction between intentional and unintentional sin. Using 1 John 3:8, Piper argues that people who continue in sin, whether intentional or unintentional, are lost. So, he continues, churches should not treat people unbaptized people as unrepentant sinners, as lost people. Rather, they should simply acknowledge that they are wrong and welcome them into the church membership. He writes
"But being wrong and being an unrepentant sinner are not the same. If they were, everybody with an imperfect theology (all of us) would be lost. But instead of going to hell, a believer can come before God with humility and repentance and say, "I'm weak-minded and fallible. I'm sorry that I do not understand you like I should. Please help me to know you more." And after this, he may still believe in infant baptism. Not because he's unrepentant, but because he's fallible".
What do you guys think? I think Piper’s rejection of Dever’s distinction between intentional and unintentional sin misses the mark. In fact, the distinction that Piper makes between being unrepentant towards a command of Christ and just wrong about the command of Christ seems to be a lot harder to swallow than Dever’s distinction. Disobedience to a command, whether intentional or not, is sin. Now, as Dever mentioned, the Scriptures teach that unintentional sins do not incur as strict a judgment. Nevertheless, they incur judgment
This issue isn’t going away. Hopefully though, as the discussion continues, the church will gain a more carefully articulated understanding of church membership. Hopefully.Â
As I sat in the convention hall that Tuesday in San Antonio, and as I listened to the discussion between the messengers and the Executive Committee over the adoption of a new articulation of an "old" definition for the Cooperative Program, I wondered what difference all of this would make. I wondered why the Executive Committee found it so difficult to give a clear answer. I remember one messenger asking for a simple yes or no answer. Instead of a yes or no, he got referred to some obscure text. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Maybe it wasn't clear. Either way, I couldn't help but think that there was something that was at stake. Something was taking place. What was it?
My guess? I think that the the leadership hoped that this definition would create greater cooperation amongst Southern Baptist. After all, with about a quarter out of every dollar making it past the state conventions and onto Nashville, the IMB, and the seminaries, there is a temptation amongst many pastors to lead their churches to designate a much higher percentage for Nashville, IMB, seminaries, etc. This designation is seen by some to reduce the level of cooperation that is taking place on the state level. And, therefore, a reduction in cooperation means a reduction in the purpose of the cooperative program. This is where the definition comes in. If there is a definition of cooperative giving that necessarily includes giving through the state without designation of any kind, and churches want credit for cooperative giving (which they rightly do), then this potential fragmentation can be avoided! So, by pushing this definition through, the Executive Committee is protecting the unity of the Cooperative Program.
Unfortunately, it looks like the opposite is taking place. A recent article looking at Southern Baptists in California shows that there is a movement underway to create a competing state convention, a state convention that will give 50 percent of all that it receives to Nashville and keep 50 percent in the state. You can read the article here.
I have to say that I have mixed feelings about what's taking place here. On the one hand, I understand the desire to see more money go towards Nashville, IMB, seminaries, etc. (In fact, I'd rather see 70 percent go out of state and 30 percent stay in. But 50-50 is a step in the right direction.) When the money makes it to the missionaries, we'll have greater excitement about the Cooperative Program. But, on the other hand, I don't want to see the fragmentation of the state conventions. It has been done before, but if it can be avoided, I'd avoid it.
The Executive Committee is thinking about the importance of cooperation and they are taking action. I think that we should follow them in their concern for the CP and we too should take action in seeking to perfect a system that is simply the best thing going. May God give us wisdom, as we seek faithfulness to Christ and his kingdom.
When you read the book of Exodus do you think of Jesus? When you preach and teach from the book of Exodus, do you point your listeners towards Jesus? Jude did. You probably remember when he reminded his listeners "that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe" (Jude 5).