General Baptist National Missions Blog

Reaching Men

May 9, 2008

It has been a while since I wrote a new blog. I have spent the last month traveling far too much. April 21-24 I attended and spoke, at the invite of Ed Stetzer, at Exponential 08. Exponential is a national conference designed with the church planter in mind. The seminars covered everything from "Nuts and Bolts" of church planting to the "Organic Church" movement. I highly recommend this conference to anyone interested in church planting. Next year's conference will have an international flavor to it as they look to understand church planting movements across the globe.

So, while I sit in the airport in Tampa Bay waiting for my flight home I thought I might share a few facts I discovered while reading The American Church in Crisis by David T. Olsen. This is a must read book for anyone in the church. If Olsen is right, and the church continues on its path without a fresh vision, and drive for planting strong, healthy new churches we are in serious trouble. Planting new churches is the only way to revitalize our declining church base and begin a revival in the U.S.

One striking statistic Olsen shared blew me away! The stat is so shocking I think it needs some serious attention and should spark numerous conversations about how we plant churches. Olsen reports on page 89;

          "A Study in 2000 from Switzerland provides insight on the importance on male attendance on the religious development of children in the country. 'In summary, if a father does not go to church, no matter how regular the mother is in her religious practice, only one child in fifty becomes a regular church attendee. But if the father attends regularly, then regardless of the practice of the mother, at least one child in three will become a regular church attendee.'" 

Even though that research was done in Switzerland, I believe that it will hold fairly true in the U.S. as well. The disparity between "one in fifty" and "one in three" is huge! Just stop and think about those numbers for a while. That should cause us o consider how we are designing our church plants. From the color of the curtains to the use of PowerPoint backgrounds, we need to target the men. If we are honest, much of what we do appeals more to women. While we need and are thankful for those women who have faithfully served our churches over the decades, we must reach the men. I heard Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle share on a video The Good Soldier, if want to win the war, you have to win the men.

Steve Gallimore, pastor of Tennessee Valley Community Church, recognized this need several years ago and launched a NASCAR series. The church was located in an old car dealership and the stage and worship room was completely set up for this theme. The stage had a set of gummy tires from a racing car and when the service started the speaker roared with the sound of squealing tires and smoke machine added a sense of realism to the burnout. While many may find that kind of service sacriligious God used this series to bring hundreds of men into a saving knowledge of Christ and kept them active in the church.

Paul tells us to "become all things to all men". What does that mean? It means, in simplistic terms, we must use the culture to our advantage and find a way to connect with people where they live. Some call that compromise of the scripture and a watering down of the gospel. I think Jesus was accused of that several times. Remember, Jesus was faced by the Pharisees several times asking him why he didn't do things the right way. In reality the Pharisees, as well as many today, have confused their tradition with biblical principles. The Gospel was not written in a cultural vacuum. It was written in a specific culture and yet transcends that culture.

Posted 5/9/2008 in Stephen Gray

1 Comment - Add Comment

Transformation vs. Accommodation

April 9, 2008

This week I am in New York at the Q-Conference. The main thrust of this conference is a conversation about our culture, the changes we are experiencing, and how the Church might engage this new culture.

I have been reminded, at this conference, of the massive job the Church owns to engage a Post-Christian, pluralistic nation. Chuck Colson shared that Christians are having increased difficulty sharing their faith with neighbors and family because most don't know what they believe and, therefore, can't defend or articulate a coherent belief system. You can find more about his ideas in his new book "The Faith"

One speaker has been a particular challenge for me Eboo Patel. Eboo is the director of the Inter-Faith Youth Core (IFYC) in New York City. I had hoped to hear of his conversion or at least about his journey toward Christianity. Sadly, however, Eboo is a devout Muslim and not about to change. He shared how he hoped that Christians and Muslims could join together for the sake of humanity, even though we have fundamental theological differences.

His presentation made me very uncomfortable, especially as I looked around the room and watched heads bobbing in agreement with what Eboo. I wondered how many young pastors, and church leaders were buying into his ideas without critically thinking about the implications. One church planter excitedly told me how his new church plant was going to involve the three big faiths; Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. ???? Exactly! What is he thinking? How can you join together belief systems that are so diametrically opposed?

Here is just one of many problems with following that idea. The basic presuppositions, held by both of these faiths radically differ, as it concerns humanity, sin, evil, and goodness. These presuppositions determine how we deal with, view and help humanity. One faith looks at humanity and sees the desire to eradicate human suffering on earth, therefore solving the human problem. The other faith looks at humanity and understands a deeper problem; Sin. Sin is the root cause of all human suffering. Joining hands to eradicate human suffering, according to a Christian worldview, ultimately comes down to repentance for sin and a life spent with the Savior. The only true remedy for the condition of humanity is Jesus. No program can alleviate sin. Joining hands to help humanity must be Christo-centric! We do what we do, as Christians, because of our faith. That is not what those of the "Inter-Faith" movement have in mind. We are asked, in a sense to take on a compartimentalism to accommodate their worldview. But our faith does not exist, or at least should not exist, separate from the whole of our life.

Posted 4/9/2008 in Stephen Gray

1 Comment - Add Comment

How vs. Why

March 5, 2008

I spent the day on Tuesday at a Nazarene College in Central Ohio. I had the opportunity to teach a few church planting ideas to a small group of students. I enjoyed the day and appreciated the college for inviting me to come for the day. While I was on campus I sat in on a class being taught by a dear friend of mine, Dr. Larry Houck. His class was so good I felt I needed to share it with everyone.

Here is the main gist of the class.

How we do church, is not as important as why. If we don't have a good foundation of "why" we do what we do, then "how", doesn't really matter. If we concern ourselves with the "Why", then "how" we “do” church, (or any spiritual thing for that matter) will naturally follow. Understanding the "why" of what  we do, is so important because what we think, is a direct reflection of what we do.

James Allen said: "We do not attract that which we want, but that which we are." In other words, everything we do flows out of what we think. Everything flows out of our theology of "Why". The size of a church, its ministry and growth (or lack of) is the direct result of what we think. The question then must be answered. What do we "THINK" about God, and His mission to the world? And how does our belief about God's mission effect our co-mission?  Are we on the same mission? Why did Jesus do what he did? The main issue for churches to discuss is not "How" but “why”.

Churches often spend more time bantering over, and fighting about "HOW" to do missional work and little time discovering "WHY" we are to do what we do. Just consider how much energy the Church (big C) spends on arguing over endless methodologies and you will discover the truth in that statement.

More churches today fight over foolish things like, changes of worship style, services, color of carpet, and color of paint on the wall. Many seem to worship their methods and traditions more than Christ Himself. When a church says that no change is needed, in effect, what they are saying is “What is, and has been is all that God wants to accomplish through this church”. And yet, the harvest is still ripe!

The fact is, God blesses every form, kind, style and method of church. He even uses opposing denominations. God does, and has used Baptists in amazing ways, yet we don't agree with charismatics on many points. God uses Wesleyans, Arminians, Calvinists, house church movements, attractional churches, purpose driven and etc... Yet many of them openly contradict one another and have for years. Yet, we cannot deny that God has, and is using these groups in powerful ways all across the world.

How is it that God can pour out his power, inexhaustible resources, and send His Holy Spirit on people groups who seem to stand in such sharp contrast to one another? How is it that God can bless those who seem so opposed to one another?

The Answer: "God seems infinitely more concerned about why the church exists than splitting theological or methodological hairs." It seems to me, we are more concerned, than God with “how” to “do” church.

Why do you do what you do? Sunday worship, board meetings, money, outreach and the like must all have a "So that..." attached to them. The church exists so that... sinners might be saved, the Father might be glorified, the Body might be built up, and people might be discipled and trained to work in the harvest.

Without a proper "so that..." we simply have a place where the righteous meet the righteous, where our emotional well-being is served, where our bank account is well padded, where our church is safe from outsiders.

So, what is your "So that…"? As you look at your life and the life of your church regardless of denomination, method or style, "why" should be infinitely more important than "how".

Thank you Dr. Houck!

Posted 3/5/2008 in Stephen Gray

2 Comments - Add Comment

Missional vs. Cultural

February 28, 2008

Does God endorse a particular style or method of "doing" church?

That question seems to be debated time and again in our churches, on the various blogs and even among different church planting movements. Should we focus on planting "Organic" style churches, "Programmatic" style churches, "Attractional" style churches, or even "Cell-based" style churches? My answer to that question is "YES"! Yes, to all. God does not endorse any one style of "doing" church. We need every style, flavor, and method of new church possible.

The only thing we should concern ourselves with, when it comes to planting a church or refocusing a church, is our theology. If our theology is in line with Orthodox Christian theology, then how we "do" church is not an issue.

The problem is many believe that they are defending the Gospel, when in fact they are simply defending their own cultural heritage. Too often, leaders fail to understand that the Gospel, while supracultural, was written within the context of an historical culture. Jesus came during a specific time in history. He lived, taught, died and embraced the good aspects of the culture of which he was a part. Culture is not evil or the enemy of the Gospel of Christ. The scripture endorses no culture, it is culture-neutral.

Now, back to the question of "doing" church. We should be able to exegete the cultural context God has placed us in as well as the particular calling God has placed on our lives. A failure to understand either of these issues will bring disaster upon any style or method of "doing" church.

As leaders, we must be able to contextualize the Gospel. We should be intelligent and shrewd enough to realize that God uses different people and different styles and methods of "doing" church to reach everyone possible. As Paul stated, "I have become all things to all men, in order that I might win some." (1 Cor 9:22)

We should not be debating about methodologies and styles. It's a foolish debate. The issue is not should we plant Organic, Attractional, Programmatic, Cell-based, or Purpose-Driven churches. We should concern ourselves more with the dwindling effect of the church on the American culture and how we are going to take back the ground Satan has taken from us.

I believe that Aubrey Malphurs said it best in his book A New Kind of Church. "To fail to be culturally relevant is to muddy the Gospel with unnecessary trappings that serve only to miscommunicate the Christian message." (pg.105)

Posted 2/28/2008 in Stephen Gray

1 Comment - Add Comment

Missional Giving

February 19, 2008

I have just finished reading "The State of Church Giving Through 2005". By John and Sylvia Ronsvalle. This report may not sound like a good read to most of you, but I highly recommend it! I was challenged through this report and I hope you will be as well.

Let me share a few quotes with you.

"members are not challenged about increasing giving beyond maintenance levels for the larger vision of the church, and stories about and references to missions are used as flavoring to make everyone feel that present levels of activity can be viewed as significant."

According to this report only 2% of every dollar given to churches goes toward missional endeavors. Think about it, that means 98% of every dollar goes toward maintaining the status quo. When a church wants to raise additional dollars to build the budget, missional-type works are spoken about, but only as a means to an end. That is alarming!

"In our industrialized society, money, as both a fungible medium of exchange to obtain other types of material possessions and as a possession in and of itself, is an available standard measure of the heart condition. The issue to be considered in the present discussion, then, is whether the church is producing changed hearts, resulting from turning to God and repentance, as shown in the relationship of church members to their money....spending patterns of members help track whether the church is pursuing God's intention for its existence."

That quote calls the church to consider its mission. Why do we exist? What is our purpose and how are we doing in the fulfillment of that purpose? Churches seem to have a greater vested interest in maintaining the status quo than fulfilling the Great Commission. While Americans have more spendable cash than ever before, giving to the church has been on a steady decline. The lack of giving has caused most churches to scramble for more dollars and adjust their bottom line.

What was once used to fulfill the Great Commission is now being diverted to maintain the status and standards of the local church. Missions, while an aspirational value of every church, is not being realized.

Pastors, and denominational leaders alike, who should be challenging, confronting and discipling their members/congregations to become outward minded and evangelistically driven are too busy downsizing and restructuring their departments due to lack of funding. Interestingly enough, they have less funding because they are inward focused and people are not interested in giving to institutions. Most will give to something significant, but few will give to maintain an institution.

What does all of this have to do with church planting? Everything! I think it stands as a stern warning to those starting new churches to keep the outward focus primary to the life of the church. In my research on fast-growing church plants, I discovered that one of the major factors that stifled the growth and self-sufficiency of the new churches was an inward focused, self-maintenance mentality. Giving to missional work, must be a part of the DNA of a church plant. Leaders of these plants must go to great lengths to keep this focus out front if we are to see effective and lasting results in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

IMAGINE WITH ME!

I spent a week in the Tampa, Florida area in early Feb. This area is wide-open for new churches. Florida is set to explode by almost 100% in the next 15 years. The problem is, the church is not keeping up with the growth curve. As it stands there is only one church for every 2500 people in Florida.

What might happen if we/you really got a passion for planting more churches? If everyone reading this blog gave only $25 towards the planting of a new church in that area, how much could we raise and how many lives could be changed?

God has given us the resources and responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission. Americans have more extra, spendable cash than ever before. The question is: What will we do with what he has given us?

Posted 2/19/2008 in Stephen Gray

0 Comments - Add Comment

The Big Idea

January 29, 2008

Just finished reading The Big Idea by Dave Ferguson, Eric Bramlett, and Jon Ferguson. It was a good book. I highly recommend that everyone read this book. The authors challenge the church to get more focused in our communication of the Gospel. This book is one that  every pastor should consider.

One caution however, I feel must be addressed. While I enjoyed the book tremendously, the opening chapter left me saddened and frustrated. I have to admit, in some ways it tainted the rest of what I read. I have heard many church leaders calling the church world to abandon the use of the title “Christian” and to replace it with the concept of “Christ Follower." Their reasoning is that the title is misused and causes confusion. While I agree that there are many abuses and a great degree of confusion about what it means to be a Christian, I hardly think it is a good reason to abandon the title. This title was first used in the book of acts and has been carried on throughout the generations. My caution really comes down to the logic behind abandoning the term.

The author's logic for the abandoning of the term is flawed. Why do I say that? Basically because they build the argument off of Barna’s fallacious "Christian" classification of undeserving Americans. Just because someone calls himself or herself Christian, does not make him or her one. This faulty classification is no fault of the authors. However, when you start with a faulty premise, you often end with a faulty conclusion.

Such as: If I proclaim to be a brain surgeon, and teach you or tell you something false or cannot do surgery,  it does not, and should not reflect upon all who turly are brain surgeons. I am a brain surgeon, not by my actions or behavior, but by my own admission. However, if we follow Barna's logic, I am one because I call myself one. Therefore, all brain surgeons resemble my thoughts, deeds and words and every brain surgeon should abandon that title. Or maybe we could use lawyers instead, that might fit better into a broad based classification. Maybe we could even talk about used car salesmen.  In fact, we could apply that logic to almost anything and create a mess. There is a distinction between those so-called Christians, who proclaim to be something they are not and those who are truly Christians. I would rather reclaim the title rather than abandon it because some misuse it.

Again, let me reiterate, I did enjoy the book and I do understand the issue the authors are trying to address in the opening chapter. I suppose I show my weakness in that I allowed myslef to be side-tracked by this chapter. To say that we should never call ourselves, or anyone else, Christians is simply silly. I am sympathetic with the idea, but I feel it is overstated. I refuse to abandon a title because some misunderstood and/or misused it. Should we not attempt to educate our society about its true meaning? What happens if the new title gets abused? Do we then set out to find another?

Just food for thought. Read the book, it will help you think deeply about the issue of focus and how you are educating your people with the truth of God’s word. I hope you are not as foolish as I am and allow yourself to focus on the opening chapter.

Posted 1/29/2008 in Stephen Gray

0 Comments - Add Comment