Recently the staff at The Bible Church of Little Rock suggested a review the book “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell would be beneficial to our church family.

I did a review recently on a Sunday evening.  If anyone is interested, the MP3 is available from the Sermon Downloads section of BCLR’s website:  http://www.bclr.org.

Blessings,

Pat Howell

Education: Secular School, Christian School, or Home School?

I recently received this information which was apparently pulled from the following website: http://www.exodusmandate.org/. It was posted in part, as an argument against Christian children attending public schools.

“The research data on the success of the public schools in indoctrinating Christian youth with humanistic or neo-pagan worldviews is overwhelming. The Nehemiah Institute’s worldview PEERS test shows that 83-percent of the children from committed Christian families in public schools adopt a secular humanist or Marxist socialist worldview.

At the SBC’s 2002 annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life reported, among other disturbing things, that 88-percent of the children raised in evangelical homes leave church at age 18.

Barna Research reports that only 9-percent of born-again teens believe in moral absolutes, and more than half believe that Jesus sinned while He was on earth. We believe the fact that 80-percent of Christian families send their children to public schools is a prime reason for this lost legacy.

A Response:

We (my wife, actually) home-schooled our two girls for all but one grade with our youngest and with the exception of kindergarten, 6th and 10th grade for my eldest daughter. I went through the public school system as an unbeliever. I have served in pastoral ministry in three churches that had Christian schools—and was Senior Pastor at one of them.

Both of my girls took Junior College courses at a secular school while in their high school years, and both graduated from a very solid, theologically sound Christian College.

My elder daughter is now in grad school at a secular university, likely headed toward a PhD in Literary Theory/Rhetoric, English Literature, or Philosophy. She also teaches two undergrad courses in argumentation and while being in a very secular, liberal, academic environment requiring carefulness on her part, she is having great opportunity to challenge the beliefs and worldview of her students in the classroom. Admittedly, she is not proclaiming the gospel in the classroom, but she obliterating the philosophic and cultural presuppositions of many of her students. And that’s a good thing.

Regarding Barna’s research and that of others, I am reminded of Mark Twain’s comments about statistics. But more significantly, if those statistics are indeed accurate I would attribute them more to deficiency’s in the evangelical church and family, than to the effectiveness of the educational system. Acclimation to typical evangelical church culture is ostensibly much easier to achieve than is developing mature, discerning (not judgmental) Christians.

Just as attending an evangelical church does not necessarily result in one being either a Christian, or a mature Christian, so attending a public school does not necessarily mean one will become a raging secularist. Neither does attending a Christian school necessarily result in the profound embrace of a Biblical worldview and the ability to both articulate and live according to it. Each individual situation will present advantages and/or challenges, but there is no panacea that blankets the discussion.

It could be that the chickens of the evangelical church’s occupation with politics, with our insulation or isolation from the culture, with the satisfaction of outward appearances, and shallow theological understandings have come home to roost. The current, and the next generation of young people often—but thankfully not at all always—seem ill-prepared by the church and/or Christian school, and/or home-school to become stable, mature, engaged believers who can function in the world, and minister to it while not being of it. There is much more to this issue than the means of education.

How one chooses to educate their kids is the parent’s choice. And the children’s age and particular understandings, and abilities are crucial considerations when choosing the means of their education. Protection while they are defenseless is critical. But regardless of the means and/or place of education, parents must own the responsibility to model genuine spiritual maturity and theological and philosophical discernment as they engage lost people and the culture in which they live—then hopefully, the children will embrace both orthodoxy and orthopraxy—as a result of their parents teaching and example.

Could Pogo be correct? Maybe we need to examine what it is we want to achieve and how we are going about it, and make the necessary corrections while we can.

Pat Howell 

With the rise of the emergent church as a reaction (in part) to a cold, deadish, theologically correct but soulishly austere kind of evangelicalism, there is a definite diminution of the priority of Biblical theology. Not surprisingly but tragically, the reaction of many evangelical’s to this development is pendulum-like. Without question, Biblically orthodox theology IS the foundation for the church.  And for the record, I embrace and teach an exegetical theology that is systematically expressed.

Moreover, my ambition is to preach expositorily recognizing that my responsibility is to be both faithful to the text and to edify my hearers. If I do not communicate the authoritative, transcendent, and profound nature of God’s truth, I have failed. If my hearers do not understand what I’m saying, if I am esoteric, arrogant, harsh, confusing, overly technical, or simply boring, and if my content comes across in any way as unrelated to their everyday lives, I have failed.

But a critical distinction must be made. Theological acuity is not an acceptable substitute for genuine, mature, Christ-likeness and the fruit of the Spirit in one’s life-especially the preacher/teacher/leader. Should not theological depth lead first to humility and then to a more profound worship experience?  THEN to ministry and the proclamation and defense of the faith once delivered to the saints?

Some preaching seems to suggest that the preacher is the author of truth and not God-some fail to recognize that authority in the pulpit is derived, not innate.  Some preaching, rather than being borne of humility and worship appears be self-righteous.  Spurgeon once observed that some preachers “preach about hell as though they are glad people are going there.” 

Truth is like nitro-glycerin. When properly handled, truth accomplishes its intended purpose. When mishandled, all manner of confusion and destruction result.  I am aware -in my own experience and by observation-that knowledge of the truth alone engenders pride and condescension (that means looking down on people .  But knowledge of the Holy One cultivates humility.  And when expressed in love, such knowledge builds up and draws people toward Christ or at least the truth is presented clearly enough for the non-elect to reject it. This is critically important-for it should be the truth that is rejected and not a sad and misleading caricature of Christ, the Scriptures, or the Church.  (For those to whom it may matter, I am a Schaefferian pre-suppositionalist and a Calvinist who recognizes that God uses means to accomplish His sovereign will). 

Are there churches that are theologically faithful, spiritually vibrant, and culturally attuned so that they speak the Truth in a language that contemporary people understand?  Are there churches that do not require jumping through cultural hoops in order to worship and hear Biblical truth that is preached in a clear and compelling manner?  (Or is there a numbing solace in the notions that bring a superficial balm to what is really a deep wound?  Hearts are hard; Times are Difficult; We’re in the Last Days; People do not want the Truth-(when was that Truth wanting era again?). Maybe, we’re the problem.  As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Generally, traditional church music, almost formal attire, vocabulary and nomenclature, and whole of a churchy ambiance are uncomfortably foreign to most people unfamiliar with the typical evangelical church and increasingly unpopular amongst the evangelical population in general.  I affirm that the church is for Believers and not bound to appeal to the unsaved, but my point is this: Many evangelical’s are culturally obtuse and thus disconnected from those they are commanded to reach. So whether in or outside of the church, how are we doing at actually reaching people with the gospel?

However, there is another matter requiring thoughtful consideration. I fear that we will-or perhaps better-are losing the next generation of the church-those who are looking forward and not backward.  These who as a result of our ministry and emphasises may be confusing Evangelical Church Culture with Biblical Christianity.  Those who want to know God and yes-experience-Him, as spoken of so often by the likes of David, Paul, and Jesus, Himself.  Form and function are necessary considerations, but they are poor substitutes for spiritual vitality borne of walking in the Spirit.

Is it possible that many American Christians endure or tolerate their church services, rather than find them compelling and meaningful to their souls? What kind of a church loses people to places like Mars Hill-be it Michigan or Seattle?  And yes, I know there is a difference between those two churches and am glad for it.  But, know this about me.  As I write this piece I have not read or heard anything by Driscoll or anyone from his circles.  The only Emergent piece I have read is Velvet Elvis and that for a critique on a Sunday evening for our church.

My frustrations are borne of my own experience of being a Christian and in Evangelical and Fundamental circles since 1975, not because I read some trendy book or have embraced some trendy movement.  (My one caveat is that the years I spent at Grace Community Church were a wonderful exception to this experience.  I chuckle when I hear folks describe Grace as legalistic.  Grace is a great example of how a traditionally oriented church provides excellence in worship and ministry.  But, when I hear someone say Grace is legalistic, I know immediately that this person has never been exposed to real legalism in a church).  

Nevertheless, I perceive that we are on the cusp of an era and opportunity to proclaim and teach the timeless truths of Scripture to this and coming generations-and we should be mindful that some cultural trappings may actually retard our ability to evangelize and edify.  People are coming FROM somewhere to attend churches that are very different from the church’s they left.  It is unfortunate that people leave one church for another-but there must be reasons why people are motivated-and in some cases eager-to do so.  On the other end of the spectrum, I recently read of a church being recommended as “good” because it was conservative-i.e., they use the KJV and its “skirts only.”  Puullllleeeeaaaaasssssssse.

We train missionaries to be culturally astute but then blithely ignore our own culture in American churches and pulpits-deriding such attention to culture as capitulation to the world.  What’s up with that?  But really, we do not ignore culture at all.  We seek to preserve our own-regardless of how archaic it may be.  We sanctify “our” way-as opposed to “their” way.  I understand and affirm that there are reasonable preferences that can be maintained to the blessing of those who prefer them.  And, I recognize that what is contemporary today-will become passé at some point. Fine. Then the onus will be on us/or that generation to embrace change when it is required and not preserve their fading culture.  (Culture changes mind you-not the foundations of Biblical theology).  Culture changes, but Biblically the old adage is true. “If it’s new, it ain’t true.”  But culture is something different altogether.

There is nothing wrong with a church being traditional, but perhaps we should be mindful that what is now traditional was once contemporary.  Let’s just be careful that it is the Truth that we seek to proclaim and not the perpetuation of a preferred cultural era with all its attendant features.  (It is curiously humorous that today “Emergent and Emerging Church” folks refer to the “Church Growth” folks as the older generation that is out of touch with the culture). [And often clothed in polyester, I might add].

Professing Christians are a funny bunch, aren’t we?As the world observes us, what must they think?

There are reasons why many evangelical churches are NOT reaching people with the gospel. There are reasons why people are leaving traditional churches for more contemporary churches.  I do not advocate a diminution of the priority of theology in any way-but being contemporary in preference and/or practice does NOT necessitate a slide down the slippery slope to theological liberalism and apostasy.

Our position must be one of both/and-theologically faithful and ministerially effective in a contemporary context.  I mean for example, all music was contemporary at one point, wasn’t it?  But, there is so much more to this issue than music.  We do not do well building real relationships with lost people-and perhaps with one another as well.  We are virtually isolated or at least well insulated from the culture and as a result, we are almost unable to converse with people.  We are uncomfortable and tense because we fear that we cannot relate to them in any way-this is certainly a fallacy and may perhaps be attributed to a somewhat charitable perspective regarding our own fallen humanness.  Or perhaps it is an unrecognized cultural elitism, or ignorance, or simply fear.

But certainly, we can improve on this, can’t we?

I am SO past traditional church culture.

I SO desire to be faithful to the authority and perspicuity of Scripture.

I SO desire that the world sees more of Christ in the church and less politics, less hostility, less indifference and less disconnection from the world in which we live.

It is possible to be a growing, mature, stable, Christian in the world and not be of the world. But isolation is not the answer.  Preservation of a decades old- culture is not the answer.

HOWEVER, neither is cultural integration at the expense of Biblical truth and genuine sanctification.

Surely, we can do better, can’t we?

Pat Howell 

Greetings Brethren, 

Often, it seems that genuine churchmen who diligently serve the local church with great passion for the glory of God are somewhat befuddled when it comes to missions, or international ministries. On the other hand, and perhaps even worse, because of a lack of training or exposure to international ministries, are happy to let someone else in the church lead what should be a vital concern to the pastor. And of course, sometimes there has been just too much history in the mission’s ministry of the church that it is simply “safer” to let things be. Whatever the reason, I am convinced that there is a profound and pervasive need for pastoral participation and leadership in international ministries. 

On the other hand, it may be that some mission leaders and international workers who are energized by the great commission are not churchmen. They love Christ and are deeply committed to His cause, but somehow or for some reason, they do not have the same passion for the local church as both the means and the end of the work of taking the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. 

Admittedly, these are provocative words. But many, many, pastors and international workers of my acquaintance agree that the need to carefully and objectively evaluate and adjust our missiology is essential, even critical, in light of the greatness of our Lord’s commission and the opportunities and challenges of today’s world. Moreover, my understanding of Scripture, my experience in pastoral and international ministries, and participation in seminary education, all lead me to the conviction that the Lord Jesus Christ mandates the need for greater synergy between the local church and the preaching of the gospel to the uttermost (last, most distant, or extreme) part of the earth. (Acts 1:8) 

Please use this blog to ask questions, request resources, raise topics for discussion, and even express frustrations—but all for the purpose of growing in our proactive embrace of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to His church! 

So, I hope that you will participate often and please pass the address along to anyone who might be interested. 

If I may be of any service to you, or your church or ministry, please contact me at phowell@biblicalministries.org or call at 501.821.2272.

Warmly in Christ, 

Pat Howell

Tim Jeske, an IFCA International colleague asked about the usage of international ministries and missions, and about any distinctions that I might make regarding home and foreign missions. Here are some thoughts. 

Greetings Tim, 

Great to hear from you and thanks for your questions. 

Here is my ambition with regard to terminology. I prefer we jettison the term “missions.” I use it particularly when I am speaking to an audience unfamiliar with the usage of “International Ministries.” In other words, this is an attempt to break in a new terminology of international ministries. 

Today the word missions is freighted with meaning of every kind. It applies to everything from traditional overseas work to cleaning the neighbor’s yard as a form of community service. A good thing to be sure, but is it really missions? If some form of outreach related ministry does not fit the budget anywhere else, it goes under missions. 

Moreover, the old adage “Well, we are all missionaries” contributes to this unfortunate amalgamation of ministries under the rubric of missions. We are not all missionaries, or as I would say “international workers.” We are all witnesses to be sure. But international work and workers require specific training, and they encounter very particular challenges that accompany ministering overseas, and frankly, they often embrace hardships that are painfully unique to their work. The years required for cultural acquisition and language learning come to mind immediately. 

It appears to me that the most common refrain amongst potential but soon discouraged candidates for international ministry is 1) The prospect of having to raise support (sorry—Support Discovery—and lets be honest, how many of us want to do that?), and 2) learning another language and culture in order to minister in your field of service. Thus, to say that we are all missionaries is to contribute to the diminution of the church’s understanding of international ministry and its requirements. 

Perhaps rethinking the issues will be useful in helping us to be more specific as we target areas of ministry, both locally and globally. Local evangelism and a ministry of good works are required by Scripture and essential to a local church’s health and witness in the community. But the testimony of Scripture is that the church is to take the gospel to the uttermost (last, most distant, or extreme) part of the earth. (And by the way, Short-term missions will not accomplish this great task). 

Our legitimate emphases upon local and national ministry must be carefully seen in the greater context of those who have never, ever, heard the gospel in their own language—and have little or no opportunity to do so. Doing so will cause us to more carefully evaluate the strategic nature of all ministry, the competencies of those who minister, and the use of God-given resources. The embarrassment of riches that American evangelicals enjoy must be seen as a stewardship granted us by the King who gave us the great commission. 

I appreciate your second question regarding “home” and “foreign” missions—and it is a fair one. Both works, regardless of what they are called are essential. Again, I would simply prefer we use different nomenclature. Let us consider calling them “Local, National, International Ministries” or something more creative, or descriptive. 

Undoubtedly, there are those ministering in the
United States who encounter very challenging cultural issues. Working among Mormons, working in the inner city, working amongst a rural congregation in dairy country—all these require learning a new culture if you are unfamiliar with them. So, there is great validity to the notion of “missions” in this regard. 

My appeal is that we really think through what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it, where we are doing it, and does it genuinely square with the specific statement of our Lord regarding the “uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) 

And I would like to add two other considerations here: 

1. We really need to examine the effectiveness of what we are doing. Howard Hendricks liked to say, “The church thinks it is doing so well, because it has no idea what it is doing.” I fear that when it comes to international ministries we do not do a great deal of examination—we are just happy to have something happening. But what about the stewardship of lives, resources, and responsibilities that accompany the great commission? We should be preparing the best folks in our churches to send them out—and the best leaders in our churches should be overseeing our outreach ministries—since they really are a reflection of who we are and what we are about as a church. 

2. All ministry should be seen in light of the great commission. Virtually every Biblically minded pastor would agree that that the church is the focal point of ministry and that the local church is the divinely appointed means to evangelize the world. Thus, every local church should not be merely “missions minded.” Rather every local church should be “Mission Minded.” Our mission is clear—take the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. So, every ministry in the church—from children’s through adult—all ministry in the church is to lead ultimately to the fulfillment of the church’s mission. Evangelizing the lost, teaching believers, nurturing toward spiritual maturity in both character and ministry, and each believer understanding and embracing their vital role in the mission of the church—locally and globally. I believe this is the trulyPurpose
Driven
Church.

Having read many, MANY, blog posts on this topic, I find it to be a vexing exercise. Regardless of position, there is certainly clear evidence of indwelling sin. Pride–be it intellectual, spiritual, ecclesiastical (sp?), theological, eschatological, ad infinitum ad nauseum, is ugly, reprehensible, and contrary to the gospel.

The contending for their position on the part of many very often seems primarily, almost eagerly contentious and sectarian. It does not seem to be the humble pursuit of truth for the sake of edification, worship, spiritual maturity, and the cultivation of hope in the glorious appearing and revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Regardless of who said/or says what…much of the blog ambience that characterizes this discussion is a sorrow to the heart.

If JM set a bad example, than bloggers should not perpetuate or exacerbate the problem by justifying their own manifestation of that which they deplore in others.

I have enough first hand exposure to know that there is a deep affection and respect that exists between men like JM, RC Sproul, Mohler, etc. Doctrinal differences–to be sure. But a significant measure of a mans maturity is his Christ likeness in personal relationships–not his ability to verbally/theologically/exegetically slay his opposition. Particularly when one’s position on the matter at hand (while very, VERY, important), is not a matter of eternal destiny or foundational to the Sola’s of the Reformation.

Please, hold your convictions with the passion and strength they engender, but do not compromise your character in the process. It would be a pity to be correct and have no one who cares to listen to you–and this has and does happen to established and aspiring theologians of every theological orientation and conviction. Don’t be one of them, please. We really have quite enough of them already.

this is one of many resources that missioncrossroads hopes to make available.  if you have specific needs or questions, please contact us.

phil-of-min-developmental-outline-1-page.pdf

Greetings Brethren,

Thanks for taking a few moments to let me tell you about a new Blog which is designed to serve the purpose of assisting churches while serving the cause of missions and international ministries to the glory of God. Often, it seems that genuine churchmen who diligently serve the local church with great passion for the glory of God are somewhat befuddled when it comes to missions, or international ministries.  On the other hand, and perhaps even worse, because of a lack of training or exposure to international ministries, are happy to let someone else in the church lead what should be a vital concern to the pastor.  And of course, sometimes there has been just too much history in the mission’s ministry of the church that it is simply “safer” to let things be.

Whatever the reason, I am convinced that there is a profound and pervasive need for pastoral participation and leadership in international ministries. On the other hand, it may be that some mission leaders and international workers who are energized by the great commission are not churchmen.  The love Christ and are deeply committed to His cause, but somehow or for some reason, they do not have the same passion for the local church as both the means and the end of the work of taking the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. Admittedly, these are provocative words.  But many, many, pastors and international workers of my acquaintance agree that the need to carefully and objectively evaluate and adjust our missiology is essential, even critical, in light of the greatness of our Lord’s commission and the opportunities and challenges of today’s world.  Moreover, my understanding of Scripture, my experience in pastoral and international ministries, and participation in seminary education, all lead me to the conviction that the Lord Jesus Christ mandates the need for greater synergy between the local church and the preaching of the gospel to the uttermost (last, most distant, or extreme) part of the earth.  (Acts 1:8)

Please use this blog to ask questions, request resources, raise topics for discussion, and even express frustrations—but all for the purpose of growing in our proactive embrace of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to His church! So, please save the address:  http://missionsblogspot.blogspot.com/ Note that there is a transition underway to http://missioncrossroads.wordpress.com/.

Participate often, and do pass the address along to anyone who might be interested! If I may be of any service to you, or your church or ministry, please contact me at missioncrossroads@earthlink.net, or call at 501.776.3211.  (For those who may be interested, some personal information is included below in a PS)

Thanks so much for your time!

Warmly in Christ,

Pat  Howell

We generally err on one of two sides.  Too much technical data (not theological truth mind you, but exegetical jargon and process), or too much exhortation without a solid foundation of truth.  The old adage about preaching may apply, “too much heat, and not enough light.”  But for some it is “too much data, and not enough light—and no heat.” After 11 years of preaching labs at TMS one of the axioms I attempted to drive home was—and is—”TEXT BEFORE TOPIC.”  Too many in pulpits think (to the detriment of their ministry and the stunted growth of their people), that expository preaching is off-loading exegetical data.  People should listen “because it’s the truth.”  Never mind that the preacher is boring people beyond measure.  Lamentably, this failure as a preacher is often excused by the dismissive comment that “…they don’t want the Word.”  Boring people with the Word of God is inexcusable for the man who occupies a pulpit every week.  Genuine expository preaching is not boring.

So, unpack the text…not the technical data, but its meaning.  If something needs technical support or explanation, keep it concise.  If it is theologically critical, keep the degree of explanation commensurate with the importance of the topic.  Keep the level of your explanation at that of your peoples understanding.  Sure, aim high.  But do not overshoot the target altogether.  But please, by all means unpack the text. Use an outline that faithfully captures and represents what the text is saying.  I have found that preachers who cannot outline a text cannot really understand and communicate its message.  (Not surprizingly, many agree that this element is actually critical to effective, edifying preaching).

Having first understood the text himself and communicated its meaning, the preacher may exhort, edify, and comfort, on a foundation of truth that people understand—and understand in its proper context.  I believe many people in churches are frustrated because they are regularly exhorted to be/do something, but they have no real, working understanding of how to be or do what Scripture requires.  The purpose of knowledge is conduct—not theological volleyball—but that is another matter. We need preachers who will deliver their soul when they preach.  Solid, edifying, Biblical truth, delivered through a sanctified man, with sanctified passion will ignite the church.  So, by whatever means of personality and giftedness God has entrusted to you—by all means, stand and deliver—or please, sit down. 

May your tribe increase. pjh

If we are all missionaires, how come we don’t buy our chops from this guy?