“His mouth is most sweet….” Who may measure the sweetness which flows from the mouth of our dear Savior?! What a boundless metaphor of the beauty and distinguishing character of Him who is Altogether Lovely! He opens His mouth and endless rivers of salvation, comfort, and assurance pour forth in resplendent beauty. He but speaks and the winds and waves of this life’s trials obey His omnipotent voice. He whispers sweet words of peace and our troubled souls are afforded refuge in the midst of storms. Indeed, the words of his mouth are most sweet!

Consider the posit of ancient Job, who suffered such overwhelming sorrow as few in this life have known: “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12). How often are we caught up in circumstances that press hard upon us and find ourselves exhausted by the seeming “necessities” of those circumstances? Isn’t it remarkable how easily we leave off the reading and meditation of our Lord’s Word in such trials? Notice that Job, though pressed upon to the extreme, is careful to avoid retreating from the commandment of Christ’s lips. He even considers the “words of His mouth” of more necessity to him than the daily food which sustains his physical body. How precious and comforting are His gracious words in the midst of the trials of life. His mouth is exceedingly sweet!

Consider the kind assurances of the Gospel as spoken from the lips of our Savior: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt. 11:28-30). Have sweeter words ever been spoken?

How burdensome and wearying life can be at times. Who of us have not labored under the weighty load of failing personal health or the suffering of those whom we love? What family has not been troubled in some way by strained relationships, or even been crushed by the sad effects of divorce and separation? Who has not, at times, faced financial difficulties that stretch us to the point of breaking? Who among us does not labor under the burden of loved ones who know not Christ in the free pardon and forgiveness of their sins? Hear the sweet words from the mouth of our dear Savior “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

Rest, saith He? Does He somehow magically cause the trial and difficulty to disappear? No. But He gives us rest. Rest in the midst of trials. Rest under the load of burden. Rest in the midst of sorrow.

This idea of rest in the midst of turmoil seems a foreign concept in our “therapeutic” culture. To most, rest is the absence of labor, the absence of trial, the absence of difficulty. But this is not compatible with the concept of rest in Scripture. The rest which Christ here speaks of is a different kind of rest, a rest that is deep and abiding, and a rest that is possible even when we are sorely pressed upon by the trials of life.

It is a rest and a peace that, once we have laid hold upon it, can never be taken away from us, regardless of our circumstances. It is that rest which takes refuge in the fact that every circumstance of our lives comes to us by the hand of our good God. It is that rest that finds comfort in every Providence of our Lord, knowing that He is causing even the difficult things in life to work together for our ultimate good (Ro. 8:28). It is that rest which is content in every situation because we hold fast to the promise that Christ will never, never leave nor forsake us (He. 13:5).

It is that rest which by faith is convinced that God is for us, therefore there is nothing or no one who can be against us (Ro. 8:31). It is that rest which assures us that we cannot be condemned because God has justified us and Christ intercedes for us (Ro. 8:32-34). It is that rest which understands that neither tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or want, or danger, or even death can separate us from the love of God, for we are more than conquerors in all these things because we are loved by Jesus Christ (Ro. 8:35-39). “I will give you rest.” How sweet are the words from the mouth of our dear Bride-Groom.

How then do we find such rest? Again the sweet mouth of Jesus does not leave our question unanswered. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The students of rabbis in Christ’s day were said to “take the yoke” of their teacher “upon them” when they came to sit and learn at his feet.

How may we find rest for our souls? This is a paradox, for Christ says we find rest when we take the “burden” of His “yoke” upon us. We find this rest as we sit and learn at Jesus feet. We listen to the sweetness of the words of His mouth and we meditate upon them until His commandments and promises become our meat and our drink. In doing so we find that, compared to the merciless yoke (burden) of sin, Jesus’ yoke is easy! In the end, it is by taking the yoke of Christ upon us and learning of Him that we find rest for our souls.

Sometimes I feel that all I ever needed to know to love Christ and live for Him I learned while I was yet a child. In a certain sense, it seems that the simplest spiritual lessons are the most profound. To demonstrate what I mean, I leave you with the simple (yet profound) verse of a song that I learned as a child on my father’s knee:

I’ve found my Lord and He is mine;
He won me by His love.
I’ll serve Him all my years of time,
And dwell with Him above.
His yoke is easy, His burden is light,
I’ve found it so, I’ve found it so.
His service is my sweetest delight,
His blessings ever flow.

“His mouth is most sweet…..”

A glad debtor to God’s grace,

R. Cofield

Dr. David W. Manner is the Associate Executive Director for the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists. He blogs at  http://kncsb.org/blogs/dmanner . You can follow him on Twitter:  @dwmanner. 

Now that I have your undivided attention, I do believe that full-time worship ministry is indeed a worthy calling and vocation that requires preparation, education and skills. And yes, it is a real job. But what if opportunities were no longer available for you to lead worship vocationally? What if you needed to voluntarily or were asked involuntarily to step aside from full-time worship ministry for an interim or extended period of time? What if you are unable to land a worship ministry position after graduation? What would or could you do to provide for your family while still responding to God’s call? Some of us have found ourselves in that situation only to realize we are not trained or are not training to do anything else.

Statistics show that 95% of churches average 350 or less in worship and that 75-80% of those churches average 150 or less. Forced terminations as a result of corporate business modeled leadership, unhealthy staff relationships, and ageism are all on the rise. The church planting movement has amplified the need for additional volunteer and part time worship leaders. Even larger, more established congregations are no longer realizing the need for full-time worship and music staff as they try to stretch their financial resources to accommodate their various multi-generational, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-venue worship needs.

With those statistics in mind, the present and future reality is that the need for full-time music and worship ministry staff is on the decline. In other words, there are and will continue to be more prepared full-time leaders than full time places for them to serve. With that understanding, are we being poor stewards of our calling by not being prepared and willing to lead bivocationally in those smaller congregations and church plants that long for gifted worship leaders to help them with Spirit and Truth worship? Reality dictates that while preparing for worship leadership many of us should also be learning additional marketable skills.

For this to occur, we must first agree that a call to bivocational ministry is not a mediocre calling but is in fact a call to full-time ministry that just happens to occur not only when we gather at church but also when we disperse to the marketplace. We must encourage our Christian colleges and seminaries to more actively challenge students preparing for worship ministry to also learn other skills. We must agree that it is never too soon or too late to learn something new. And we must agree that learning an additional skill doesn’t compromise our calling but in fact enhances it by expanding our mission field through our communication in other languages beyond choirs and chord charts.

You work every day of your life with families as a minister. Ministry is your calling. Your entire livelihood or an important portion of your livelihood comes to you from a local church. You love God, your spouse, your children, and the flock to which God has assigned you as a shepherd. You take your ministry seriously. You have made a private and public commitment to be a minister in accord with the biblical exhortations of 1Peter 5:1-4. You hunger and thirst after righteousness and seek to lead the membership of the local church you serve to do the same. Thus far, God has blessed your faithfulness and your time in ministry to the local church you serve has been fruitful and the body has developed a strong trust in you as a biblical leader to the flock.

Then, one Wednesday night something happens. You are standing in the courtyard between the children’s activity building and the worship center talking to the Minister of Music and the Associate Pastor about plans for VBS that has been scheduled for July. It is a windy March evening and the subject of VBS is important because your children’s ministry division has grown far beyond what you had expected for such a small town. The church has grown to be the largest church in three counties and has developed a reputation as a strong Bible teaching and preaching church. Although you did not seek to be popular, you have become well known as a Christian leader. You have influence.

So, there you are talking to two of your fellow ministry leaders. The Children’s Minister and an AWANA worker come out the door of the children’s activity building with a ten (10) year old child between them. The AWANA worker is holding the child’s hand. She has been weeping and it is evident the child has shed many tears also and just recently. The Children’s Minister has a concerned look on his face. He looks you in the eye and tells you that this child, who is now standing before you, has shared with the AWANA worker of experiencing sexual misconduct from a leading member of the church, the major financial contributor in the body, a leading member of the community, and an employer of many of the people living in the town. What do you do now?

If a member of the local church you serve was accused by a 10 year old child of any form of sexual misconduct upon their person, would you immediately notify the legal, governmental authorities or would you first seek to handle it internally of your own accord? What would you do?

Editor’s Note: the topic is “what would you do?” It is not “what do you think about what others have done?”

This was originally posted at Alan’s site, Downshore Drift.

SBC In Free Fall? How Far Will the Decline Go and Why Aren’t We Talking About This?

5.5% decline in baptisms from 2011 to 2012 making this the worst year for baptisms since 1948. We now require 50 members of SBC churches to see 1 baptism per year. There are 105,000 less members than the year before. 188,000 less in worship attendance. We now have less than 16 million members and less than 6 million in worship. We have all known that the 16 million number is false and has been for some time. It might legitimately be half that. But, no matter how you look at it, the number is going down.

Thom Rainer recently tells us that only 15% of Millennial Generation born between 1980 and 2000 are Christians.

Frank Page responds with “God forgive us and God help us.”

The larger culture, even in the South, is throwing off its Christian influence in dramatic and remarkable fashion. It seems that the SBC, even though we are the still the largest Protestant denomination in North America, is having little impact on the culture. At least not overtly.

We have 270 more churches in 2012 than we had in 2011, so that is good. Kind of. New churches can take a while to gain traction and begin to reproduce. They are also largely made up of energetic and passionate people who were in other churches. Are we seeing a “brain drain” from established churches to plant new ones that are having spotty evangelistic impact overall? The question needs to be asked.

Why is this happening? Theories abound from the usual, “We aren’t working hard enough” to “We don’t care enough” to Calvinism to non-Calvinism, etc. Lots of finger pointing. I saw one leader tweet that it isn’t that we don’t care, it is that we don’t know “how” to do evangelism. Apparently, the answer is more training.

I asked Ed Stetzer, head of Lifeway Research, what he thought about the decline and the reasons behind it. Ed told me that we were just seeing the continuation of a 50 year trend of slowing growth and then decline. When Ed first told the SBC that a few years ago, he got a good deal of push back. I imagine those voices are silent now in light of the overwhelming evidence.

It is interesting that there has not been more reaction in the Baptist blogosphere/twittersphere the past couple of days. If this had happened a few years ago, say pre-GCR, there would have been no end to the blog posts, pronouncements, and articles on the subject. But, Baptists are strangely quiet in comparison. Why?

I think that we have fired or are in the process of firing all our bullets. We don’t know what to do. The GCR might prove to be the last concerted effort that Baptists are able to muster in our present iteration. The GCR had good ideas, but it didn’t gain traction because it was a top-down effort largely focused on NAMB and freeing up money for more church planting. Well, we are seeing more churches planted (which is good) but overall decline everywhere else. The GCR stopped short of what was needed.

We voted for a name change last year (barely) that has not been brought up again by anyone anywhere. We spent a whole year with a committee studying what our new name would be for those who wanted to use it. The committee discovered that the SBC could not actually change its name because of legal issues. So, we came up with a nickname – Great Commission Baptists. Nothing changed.

This year, we had a committee study Calvinism and its discontents. A report was issued last week from the committee. Little buzz was generated as it didn’t really say anything that we don’t already know and are largely rejecting – we need to focus on what unites us and get along. The truth is, many Baptists don’t want to get along on this issue and a report from a Calvinism peace committee isn’t going to change that. Daggers are drawn.

Meanwhile, the SBC is getting older. That is the real issue. New church plants cannot keep up with rapid aging of the denomination. Many churches are made up primarily of senior adults and they do not have the energy or ability to revive their churches. A church that was rather large in my own city 15 years ago with an amazing facility along a main thoroughfare is now down to about 200 senior adults and very few children. If you drive past it, the building is very impressive. But, they are no longer capable of reaching their neighbors and community. This is just one example, but it is happening all over the SBC and is the reason for the decline, in my opinion.

More and more young people are getting involved in the Convention. That is good. But, there are not enough of them to replace the generation that is growing old and tired and that can no longer carry the burden the way that they once did. We can get all hands on deck and all pray and work hard and be devoted and still not have the growth and strength that we had in 1995 or 1975 or 1965. The demographics are against us and time stops for no man.

That said, a huge part of our problem is that we have spent a great deal of energy, resources, and time over the last several decades trying to protect our own way of life. We became motivated to engage the larger culture when we sense a threat to the life that we had marked out for ourselves. Often, we used God and theology to construct churches and organizations that would protect us and our own place in the world instead of propelling us out into the world in sacrificial love with the gospel. Viruses like racism and consumerism and individualism made us sick with self and we lost our zeal and desire to lay down our lives for God and others. We cannot serve God and serve ourselves at the same time. We cannot love the lost while consistently thinking about our own personal preferences. We are called to die to self, take up our cross and follow Christ. That still needs to happen.

We need refreshing and renewal and joy and to get in touch with our Savior in a way that we can stand in His grace and hear His voice and discern where He will lead us next. We do need theological and ecclesiological renewal, but along with that, we need a renewal of the heart and of love and relationships and practice and ethics. We cannot get back the power we once had. We shouldn’t even try. The past is past and our former “glory” is fading. Honestly, I see that as a good thing in some ways. The good news is that Christ making all things new and He has a way forward for us in the future. We might not be as big as we once were, but that does not mean that we cannot or will not be fruitful if we abide in Christ. We might be more so.

Our churches on the local level have to seek out where God is working in their neighborhoods and cities. We have to learn to love God and love people everywhere we go. We have to find ways to build relationships and work together where we are. We need to network together to plant churches and equip the saints and be salt and light in our local cultures. We cannot look to our denominational entities to save us or to turn the ship around. They have been trying and it isn’t working. We don’t need to wait for our seminaries and for NAMB to solve our problems. We are called to address our communities and the people in front of us and hold out life to them. We need to experience that life ourselves.

I think that the SBC is going to get a good bit smaller over the next 10 to 15 years. I can see official membership dropping below 10 million and worship attendance dropping below 5 million. I can see baptisms leveling out around 250,000 a year. But, that won’t be because God isn’t working or because great things aren’t happening. It will be because a generation died. We will have to reform and regroup and reposition ourselves for the future. The SBC will continue and will be strong, but it will be downsized – for a while.

Honestly, I think that the SBC’s best days can be ahead of us on a local church level if we embrace the cross as our vision and mission. We will be multicultural and multigenerational and we will have churches all over America. But, the days of triumphalism are gone. Christendom is over and our influence on civil religion, even in the South, is coming to an end. We will return to being a pilgrim people without favor in the world and we will rediscover our roots and our dependence upon Christ alone. And, ultimately, that will be a very good thing.

Louis, a frequent commenter on this and other blogs has given us part 2 in his series, “Two Thing I Hope Do Not Happen at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Houston, 2013.”  Here is a link to Part 1, about Guidestone’s decision to sell products beyond previous boundaries.

The second matter that I am concerned about is how the SBC responds to the Boy Scouts.

I am sure that several resolutions may be floating around already.  I have not read them. Who knows what may be presented on the floor of the Convention.

It is no surprise to anyone that the Boy Scouts made a decision that did not please the SBC.  The question is, “What to do about it?”

Here is what the SBC would be expected to do – pass a resolution saying that we believe homosexual conduct is sinful, that we are against normalizing it, and that we disagree with the Boy Scouts’ decision to remove the restriction on disallowing participation by Scouts who claim to be homosexual.

The SBC will also be expected to 1) discourage the members of its churches from participating in the Boy Scouts, and 2) discourage SBC churches from allowing the Boy Scouts to meet on church premises.

I fully expect that is the course of action that will be suggested at the annual meeting.  Many people will feel very satisfied to vote for such a course of action.

I believe it is the wrong course of action for several reasons.

1) That course of action will cause the SBC to appear to be fixated on the issue of homosexuality. 

There is no confusion about where the SBC stands on issues relating to sexuality.  The SBC has spoken clearly in this area.  The SBC believes in the creative order and Jesus’ expression of that in the New Testament.  The SBC also believes in the recorded witness of Christ’s Apostles as they shared the Gospel in the ancient world, particularly among pagan people who did not see homosexual activity in a negative light.

As it relates to the witness of Christ and His Church, the SBC has remained faithful.

The SBC has spoken numerous times on this topic.  Our governing documents address this.   I am glad that the SBC remains faithful to the Christian witness in this area.

No one who is paying attention would ever think that the SBC is confused or neutral on sexuality.

If there were some confusion about where the SBC stands, I would understand and support clearing up any confusion.  But there is no confusion here.  The SBC is on record.

By speaking on this issue again, at this time and in this way, detractors will paint the SBC as obsessed and fixated on this issue.

We have a wonderful annual meeting coming up.  We have so much more to discuss at our annual meeting than the decision of a private organization that we do not control.

If we play to type in this area, the only headlines coming out of this year’s meeting will be about the Boy Scouts.

2) A statement by the SBC at this point along the lines of what I have predicted above will have no practical effect.

There is no chance that the Boy Scouts is going to reverse course because of any statement made by the SBC.  The SBC is deluded if it cannot see this.  The Boy Scouts has already cast its lot.

The SBC is not acting wisely if it thinks another statement on this topic coupled with the threat of the loss of support in the religious community is going to affect change.

There are times to speak, but even Jesus warned about trying to speak to people who do not want to hear what you have to say.

Also, we have been down this road before.  Does anyone remember?

We boycotted Disney over this issue, with no success.  I supported the action at the time.  I regretted it about a day later.  I understand the intent, but it was a bad tactical decision.  Disney did not change its mind.  Other companies followed Disney’s decision.  And worst of all, members of the SBC’s churches ignored the boycott and went to Disney anyway.

So, we passed a resolution urging a boycott that even we ourselves did not follow.

Do we want to do this again?

3) A statement by the SBC condemning the Boy Scouts and threatening the withdrawal of support from the religious community places the SBC in the position of an aggressor.

I admire religious organizations that stand by their principles.  I believe that most Americans do also, even if they have different convictions.

But most people do not admire groups that appear to be aggressive toward others.  The SBC does not intend to be aggressive.  I know that.  But outsiders do not.  This action will easily be seen or characterized as aggressive.

The SBC can certainly maintain its convictions, and it can urge other groups to adopt convictions that are in sync with SBC positions.

But when a private group, such as the Boy Scouts, decides to go in a different direction, even after the SBC has encouraged it not to, the SBC needs to understand that threatening the other organization with consequences can place the SBC in a negative light.  Not for its convictions, but for the attempt at forcing others to act the way we believe is appropriate.

The SBC can have a great influence on public morality in the United States, primarily by example.  Public pronouncements have their place, but we have to use wisdom.  And being seen in positive light helps increase the effect of that moral influence.

One of the things that we often fail to realize is that many of the efforts of groups to remove the moral stigma from homosexual conduct in today’s society are based on the simple desire to be inclusive.

I am not sure that I see a significant increase in the desire of people to engage in homosexual activities over the last few years, but I do see a strong desire to include in society those people who are seen as marginalized.  That is part of the narrative of U.S. history, with the primary example being slavery.

I am not saying that homosexual conduct is an equivalent to slavery, and I find any such comparison improper and a terrible failure to see the unique horrors of slavery.  Many people, however, do not see things in that light.

The motivating desire for many is love and concern for the one who has been excluded.   Many who are advocates do not want their parents, siblings or children excluded from society.  We hear this over and over again in the pleas of those who argue for removing the stigma from homosexuality.

We have a hard time seeing that because we see the advocates solely from the position of trying to destroy God’s creative order.  There are some in that camp who take joy in  destroying vestiges of Christian morality, and negative feelings toward them are justified.  But many who favor the Boy Scouts’ decision have no desire to destroy anything.  They are wrong, but they are driven by kindness and have no evil intent.

I am not advocating that we agree with them.

I am advocating that we consider what motivates people when we respond.  That will help us communicate effectively.

4) I am not sure that the churches in the SBC would want to operate in a way that we are urging the Scouts to operate.

If a student, say a seventh grader, announces that he is gay, and he starts attending church, what do we do?  We certainly do not tell him that until he renounces being gay, he cannot attend the youth group.  At least I hope we don’t do that.

But we are encouraging the Boy Scouts to have such a rule.  I was a part of the Boy Scouts when I was young.  I do not remember sexuality coming up at all in the material.  I did not stay in it long, so maybe I missed that part.

I know that there are lots of differences here (e.g. the church would help develop the boy’s morals, whereas the Boy Scouts would not etc.), but the illustration brings up the difficulties involved in such a situation.

So, what’s the SBC to do?  Here is my suggestion.

The SBC could pass a resolution expressing our disappointment that the Boy Scouts has decided to pursue a course that will communicate things, whether intended or not, that are inconsistent with the teaching of Christ and the Church and the history of public morality in the United States.

But the resolution could also say that the SBC continues to encourage the Boy Scouts in its mission through scouting to help form young men who will make good citizens.  The resolution could say that the SBC wants to continue to support the Boy Scouts in achieving that goal, and that despite the disappointing decision of the Boy Scouts, the SBC encourages its churches to make their facilities available for Scout troops.

A resolution like this would not be playing to type.  We would not give up a thing in a resolution like this.

Plus the churches of the SBC would continue to have an opportunity to influence the next generation of scouts.  That places the SBC in the position of serving the Boy Scouts, even though we disagree with their decision.

I would rather the SBC been seen in that light than any other.

Part I of II

“It is the disposition of God’s children, after they have tasted the sweet mercy and comfort and love of God, to break forth into the praising of God and to thanksgiving.”
—Richard Sibbes (Exposition of 2 Cor. Chapter 1)

Sibbes’ exposition on this passage may be second to none! He describes the mercy, comfort, and love experienced from God to the individual during the time of suffering. Notice the resulting actions by the individual, “praising of God and thanksgiving.” What a sweet idea for us as God’s children to gather in the midst of our trying times.

There has been a significant amount of writing concerning the ideas of suffering. We live during a time of widespread suffering: everything from natural disasters, tragic loss of life, cancer, and the list could go on. None of mankind are exempt from the tragedies and horrific circumstances of life. Being a believer does not provide a “get out of jail free card.” There is a plethora of questions concerning the purpose, origin, and removal of suffering. It is not something we like or seek after, but it also is not new to our time in history!

As tragedies come and go, there is often great burden and concern left on hearts and minds. The abundance of suffering that takes place today may raise the question of, “has there always been suffering?” The answer is YES, and the Scripture displays that truth. The setting, events, circumstances may be drastically different, but the end result of hurt and confusion still exist. Paul penned 2 Cor. 1:3-11 as a testimony to his suffering. He detailed the accounts concerning much of his suffering. Even in the midst of the most horrific circumstances, one’s focus must be positioned upon Him.

What are some truths we can gather from this passage? Below are some ideas from a message I preached on this passage. This is a raw outline, but I hope it will provide comfort to some who may be in the midst of a tragic or difficult situation.

v. 3 All Mercy and Comfort are from God

Our Heavenly Father, as described by Paul, is The Father of mercies and God of all comfort. He is the most merciful Father, that comforts/consoles His own in all their circumstances. Suffering in the life of each individual believer varies. What one person faces is often completely different from another. He is not only interested in in the outward circumstance but also the inward emotion. The Father desires to reach into the depths of the inner emotion of His children and comfort them in ways known and unknown. I wonder at times if He is providing comfort in the midst of the most tragic and horrific situations, even when it is not visible?

V. 4 Purpose of God in the Comfort

Why would God allow this to happen to a believer? What purpose or good could come from God allowing this? V. 4 tells us, “So that…,” we will be able to comfort those who are in ANY affliction. The situation you faced may not be the exact circumstance, but the God involved in allowing/bringing both, is the same. All of a sudden the comfort you received during a difficult situation demands your return investment in another. This idea is not a burden but a distinct privilege to comfort others with the same comfort we have received. As believers, we should take on the responsibility to pursue those who are suffering and shower them with mercy and comfort.

Charles Hodge said, “A life of ease is commonly stagnated, but those who suffer much and experience the Holy Ghost much, love much.”

We allow ourselves to be intentional about pursuing others, and look for strategic opportunities to pour comfort and mercy upon the hurting. We take the focus off ourselves and place it on others. Laying aside our pride, we have the textbook occasion to engage in the very work of God through Christ to comfort another.

V. 5 The Abundance of God in our Affliction and Comfort

In verse 5 Paul discusses the sufferings of Christ, and how they are ours in abundance. Stop and think about the things Christ went through… Those afflictions were great, and nearly unbearable. Many fulfilled OT prophecies concerning the Messiah. Although passages like Philippians 1:30, 3:10, 1 Peter 2:24 provide great encouragement, handling these situations does not become any easier. They are not because of Christ but such distresses as Christ endured; that is, the very afflictions He faced. Suddenly our unique privilege may not seem so desired!

However, our comfort is also abundant. Our afflictions are met and matched by comfort THROUGH CHRIST. The equal measure of enduring Christ’s travails is met with the consolation/comfort of the one who experienced the most horrific suffering. He shall never leave you stranded in the center of suffering.

V. 6-7 The Intertwining of our Affliction and Comfort

These verses are related to verse 4. Verse 6 shows the tight bond between Paul and the Corinthian church. “If we are afflicted…” is like James saying “when” you face trials; it is going to happen. In fact, the joy in the affliction is CHRIST being our comfort while He is perfecting our faith. The perfecting of our faith is a by-product of being allowed to focus on Christ and then toward others.

Therefore, we begin to understand that our affliction is not all about us… Paul says it is “for your comfort and salvation.” Have you ever thought that your suffering or affliction was actually for someone else? Not just for anything but for another believer’s comfort as well. As we look further, it may be so that someone who is lost comes to repentance toward God and faith toward Christ! This is producing patient endurance in the midst of afflictions. Verse 7- Their hope for the Corinthians was grounded in “purpose and person,” sharers of the affliction and comfort.

Spurgeon said: “I would go to the deeps a hundred times to cheer a downcast spirit and it is good for me to have been afflicted, that I might know how to speak a word in season to one that is weary.”

We have the unique privilege to suffer! It is not a “bad” thing to suffer, it is not a “demeaning” thing to suffer. It is a God honoring, Christ centered, Holy Spirit-lead opportunity to grow in our faith! Let us take a new perspective on our suffering and see what happens!

Louis has been a part of the blogging community for a long time. This is Part 1. Part 2 will come later.

I plan to attend the annual meeting of the SBC in Houston, Texas next week. I am looking forward to the meeting. I enjoy the reports from the SBC entities. I enjoy hearing about our cooperative efforts to share the Gospel and disciple believers around the world.

I also enjoy the fellowship that I have with many people in the SBC. I know people in the SBC from all over the country. The annual meeting brings us all together for fellowship and business.

There are two things that I expect may happen at this year’s annual meeting that I personally hope do not happen.

Here is the first.

1. Making SBC Church Members a Customer Base for Guidestone.

This is the most important issue the SBC will address this year, but most people do not know a thing about it.

In my view, this may be the most important decision that the SBC has ever made, but because it is not overtly theological in nature, it attracts very little interest or critical examination.

We are too busy playing small ball to notice what is going on right under our collective noses.

Guidestone, formerly known as the Annuity Board, historically provided retirement and insurance services to pastors and other workers in the SBC. Those are necessary services since most churches do not have a number of employees constituting a group that would allow pastors and other workers to purchase insurance services. Also, it has been good for pastors to have a place that understands their work and needs with regard to retirement savings.

But Guidestone wants to expand its customer base to include individuals, regardless of whether they work in a church or for an SBC entity.

This is a terrible idea. The reason – it changes the relationship between the SBC and church members.

Church members become a customer base. They become potential purchasers for SBC financial products. This is unprecedented.

Currently SBC church members are contributors to the Lord’s kingdom work, not customers. When the SBC starts treating us as customers for the sale of financial products, that is a new day. And it is a very sad day. It is way too similar to money changers in the Temple.

What if your pastor was also your investment advisor? How would that make you feel?

Do you really want the SBC to become your investment advisor?

What comes next? Guidestone stores with signs saying, “Southern Baptists Investments Sold Here!”

This is also a bad idea because it puts the SBC in a bad light. This makes the SBC look predatory.

The worst religions and cults are usually those that get entangled with their members’ money. “Join our church. Now, let me invest your money!” How does that sound to you?

Can you imagine the charges that can be laid at the feet of the SBC by people outside the SBC?

Do other denominations do this? I really do not know.

Does the Catholic Church sell investment products to Catholics around the world?

Do the members of the Jewish community buy investments from the Jewish Federation or other Jewish organizations?

If they do, shame on them. We should be different. If they don’t, why would the SBC want this to be one of its distinctives?

What has Guidestone said to promote this idea?

Guidestone has said that people want these services.

Really? Says who? It is hard to know how much demand there is for this. If there were (and I seriously doubt that is the case), this idea would have been demanded by people rather than Guidestone. Any claim that people are clamoring for this is anecdotal and self-serving.

And regardless, it is still a bad idea. Have the people who have supposedly demanded this really thought it through? I doubt it.

Guidestone has said that they money it earns will go to help struggling retired pastors.

Guidestone has the Mission Dignity program. That’s great. Let’s just fund that program.

We should not use poor retired pastors as a reason to promote a bad idea. Just because the proceeds of some money making scheme might go to fund a worthy cause does not mean that the scheme should be done.

Giving to the poor is a worthy endeavor. I am perfectly willing, for the sake of discussion, to attribute only the highest of motives to Guidestone. But good motives do not make a bad idea a good idea.

This is such an effective ploy I fully expect to see pictures of retired, impoverished pastors on display at the Convention meeting.

Guidestone says that while financial products are available for sale at many places, Guidestone does some special, unique socially screening not done by others.

This is not accurate. There are many social screened investment products available for purchase in the market. Guidestone does not offer a unique product that is not available on the open market. In fact, Guidestone offers some socially screened products that can be purchased directly from those who do the screening and manage the investments. Most, if not all, of Guidestone’s products are managed by others. Guidestone is a “manager of managers.”

Guidestone will say that it received an award for its financial products.

That’s good, but others have received the same awards. Guidestone has not received any award that has not also been given to others.

I am sure that this idea has proceeded so far along that there will be little opposition to it at the Convention. Most people do not understand this issue. Those who do will not be able to persuade a large majority of the Convention to vote against it.

But there should be opposition.

Guidestone will have some interesting years ahead. As large numbers of Southern Baptist ministers retire, they will be drawing down on their retirement savings. Given the demographics, this may significantly affect the amount of funds that Guidestone has under management.

Opening up Guidestone’s customer base to individuals may be a way to stem the loss that is coming from the payout of retirement accounts.

I would say that does not matter. Let’s just manage whatever we have, whether if be big or small.

Is There A Nathan In The Land?

Are We Going To Allow One Man To Redefine The Family For Black America?

A Response To President Obama’s Speech At Morehouse College

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 21, 2013

President Obama spoke with heartfelt identification regarding the plight, promise and responsibilities of young educated Black men; at the all-male Morehouse College 2013 graduation ceremony. He challenged them to:

• Utilize their training and talents to serve underserved communities and people.
• Not just be concerned about the good they can buy, but the good they can do.
• Follow the examples and be inspired by the legacies of other great Morehouse men who worked for the betterment of all of society – not just African Americans.

He hailed Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of a Morehouse Man who was mentored, equipped, and challenged to serve humanity with excellence while a student at Morehouse.

The overall speech was a masterpiece. It was motivational and memorable. Highlighting historical figures was a most effective and heart tugging aspect of his speech.

Barack Obama’s life story embodies and exemplifies the very words he used to challenge and encourage the graduates. That’s what made the speech so compelling and effective.

There were two startling statements in an otherwise masterful speech, perhaps his best ever – that were probably unprecedented in a college graduation speech. His written speech, which was presented to the media in advance, differed from the oral presentation at a critical point.

(1) In encouraging the male graduates to be responsible family men, he challenged them in his prepared text to,

“Be the best husband to your wife, or boyfriend to your partner, or father to your children that you can be.”

In the actual oral presentation he told them,

“Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.”

The way the audience responded to this statement makes it clear that they were surprised by this comment, and interpreted it for what he meant: an affirmation of same-sex relationships.

Affirming homosexuality in a public setting to a predominately Black audience is virtually unprecedented. If the President had been White, I believe there would have been a huge backlash behind his gay friendly remarks. Many of the parents would have objected.

Encouraging young Black males to “be the best husband…to your boyfriend, or your partner” is a very serious matter. Here we have the first African-American President of the United States, encouraging young Black men to be homosexuals. Who would have ever imagined this would happen?

President Obama was given the opportunity by the media to clarify the difference between his prepared statement and actual words that came out of his mouth and he refused to do so.

President Obama’s statements supporting homosexuality at Morehouse was a moral injustice and an assault on the biblical model of the family as taught by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6). Furthermore, it was an assault on Christian values and convictions held by the vast majority of Black Christians.

Just as President Clinton’s widely publicized engagement in oral sex with a nineteen year old intern unleashed an epidemic of similar behavior on the youth of our nation; President Obama’s repeated promotion and affirmation of homosexuality will likely have an exponential influential impact on homosexuality in the Nation at large, and even more so on the Black Community. What a travesty!!!

I’m grateful that Morehouse’s best known alumnus, Dr. Martin Luther King, left a written document opposed to the notion of same-sex relationships. Hopefully, as they were admonished to do, on this subject matter the graduates should take their advice from Dr. King, not President Obama.

(2) Later in this speech, President Obama stated,

“Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love they share.”

I’m also grateful that Oprah Winfrey is on record disputing that two people of the same-sex can successfully raise a male child. In addressing the subject and the negative impact of fatherlessness on the land, Oprah said,

“Your mother can’t be your father” – Oprah Winfrey: OWN Network –   May 5, 2013

The converse would also be true,

“Your father can’t be your mother” – Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Yet our President encouraged these unbiblical views of family life.

President Obama was encouraging Morehouse men to partner together and parent children. This should have set off an earthquake or avalanche in the Black Christian community. According to Oprah, this cannot be effectively done.

Mr. President, plainly and simply put; YOU ARE WRONG. WE LOVE YOU. The polls indicate the vast majority of America even likes you. Black America absolutely loves, admires, appreciates and deeply respects you, even as you trample on one of our core values.

Mr. President, in your heart of hearts you know you would not have been elected in 2008, if you had told America this is where you were headed.

Please honor the official positions of the nine major Black denominations, whose memberships largely supported you. All nine strongly support the biblical view of the family and hold that homosexuality is a sin. Please Mr. President! Stop this campaign. Do you really want your legacy to be, “America’s First Gay President” as you were labeled by Newsweek Magazine?

Nathan was the Prophet in Scripture who went to another political leader, King David, and rebuked him for his sexual sins. May our beloved President receive a visit from a Nathan, so that our sons and daughters might be delivered from his promotion of what the Black church historically has viewed as sinful and shameful. Are we going to sit idly by and allow this one man to redefine homosexuality for the entire Black race?

The Bible commands us to honor you (I Peter 2:17). But Mr. President, please, for the sake of our families, our children, the future of this great nation, and in memory of the very father that you often speak of not having in your life, please reconsider your public position and statements.

Mr. President, STOP THE ADVOCACY. STOP THIS PUBLIC CAMPAIGN TO REDEFINE FAMILIES AND TO TAKE FATHERS AWAY FROM THEIR SONS TO PURSUE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEN. PLEASE STOP IT.

Lord, please raise up a Nathan who can touch the heart of our President, so that our families and nation will not be destroyed as you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Touch our President’s heart. Turn his heart toward You. Please Lord, move on the President to honor the Christ and the Bible that he says he believes in. We thank You for withholding your judgment and holding us with your mercy. Please God, send us a Nathan who can touch the heart and mind of our President with truth and love, in Jesus’ Name, Amen.

Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.

Preaching on the Ministry of the Spirit this Sunday for Pentecost and I picked up the massive and exhaustive God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul by Gordon D. Fee. He talks about a “Theology of the Spirit” and makes a great observation about how Paul did theology and how we are to similarly do theology each and every day in all circumstances. Sometimes, when we think about “theology” we think of learned academicians sitting in a dusty study pouring over obscure works and pontificating on things that do not really have relevance for daily life. But, true theological work simply deals with what we think about God and His interaction with the world He creating, including us and our place in His plan.

Fee says,

“Yet theology is what Paul is doing all the time. But it is seldom the reflective theology of the academy, dealing with how the various matters we believe about God and God’s ways can be put into some kind of coherent whole. Rather, it is what has been called ‘task theology,’ the theologizing that takes place in the marketplace, where belief and the experience of God run head-on into the thought systems, religions, and everyday life of people in the Greco-Roman world at the beginning of the second half of the first century CE. Such ‘task theology’ is the more complex because it takes place in an extremely heterogenous environment. In part, therefore, the issues raised for Paul have to do with what the God of the Jews (the one and only God) was doing in history through Christ and the Spirit, for him within a particularly Gentile context.

“Into this kind of setting Paul came preaching, experiencing, rethinking, and re-articulating old and new truths, as he wrestled with what it meant for Jew and Gentile together to be the one people of God at the turning of the ages ushered in by Christ’s resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. In the process he was continually ‘doing theology,’ grappling with how the gospel works – and works out – in this new context that was so radically different from that in which it first appeared in history.”

Fee is saying essentially that the mind of Paul and the early Christians was fully consumed with what God wsa doing in the world and that all of their interactions with the Greco-Roman culture of their day was influenced by God’s plan and their part in it. There participation in God’s plan and their reconcilation to God through Christ was by the Spirit of God and it is the Holy Spirit that empowered and animated their experience together.

Fee continues along these lines:

“Here was how the early church came to appropriate the salvation that Christ has brought; and here was how believers came to understand their own existence as essentially eschatological, with the Spirit as both the evidence that God’s great future for the people of God had already made its way into the present and the guarantee that God would conclude what he had begun in Christ. Thus the Spirit is absolutely presuppositional to their entire experience and understanding of their present life in Christ; and as often happens with such presuppositional matters, one rarely looks at them reflectively. They are simply part of the ‘stuff’ of ongoing life; and what one says about such matters is often off-handed, matter-of-fact, and without considered articulation.”

Fee is saying that the work of the Spirit in the life of the Christian, the church, and the world was a given for Paul and thus, it should also be a given for us. God is always working. Our understanding of the world and our place in it should begin and be based in the work of God in bringing salvation and reconciliation to creation and in calling us to participate with Him in His great restoration of all things though Christ. In trying to understand who God is and what He is doing in the world by His Spirit, we are all doing theology all the time and are all, thus, theologians of one kind or another.

Worth thinking about today and we go through our daily ups and downs and routines. As Christians, what kind of theologians are we and what kind of theology are we doing?

Dr. Kevin McFadden has been an  Assistant Professor of New Testament and Greek at Louisiana College. He is one of the professors whose contract was not renewed – the action that sent Louisiana College into the headlines. You can read his biography here. I appreciate both the wisdom and the spirit of this article. 

How should Southern Baptists approach disagreements in theology? What should we do when we disagree about what the Bible says about God? My goal in this article is to help Southern Baptists think productively about the Calvinism controversy and other theological controversies in the Southern Baptist Convention. Full disclosure: I am one of three professors who were recently told that their contracts would not be renewed at Louisiana College next year. None of us were given reasons for our non-renewals, but our non-renewals coincided with several public statements against Calvinism from the president of the college. Almost everyone, including the local paper, has connected the dots.

I think this Calvinism controversy was handled poorly by the leadership of Louisiana College and the leadership of the Louisiana Baptist Convention. But my goal is not to dwell on the past. My goal is to help Baptists think about how these things should be handled in the future. And I’m not just talking about Calvinism, because Calvinism will not be the last theological controversy that Southern Baptists face. How then should we approach our theological differences?

First, we need to recognize that some doctrines are more important than other doctrines. All Christians recognize this to some extent. For example, the doctrine of the return of Jesus Christ, the second coming, is much more important than the question of whether Christ will return before or after the tribulation. If you deny the second coming of Christ, it calls into question whether you are a Christian. But Christians have always disagreed about the exact timing of Christ’s return. So which doctrines are more important and which are less important?

One way to think about this issue is to distinguish between three levels of doctrines. First level doctrines include those a person has to believe in order to be a Christian. These include things like the inspiration of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the humanity of Christ, the sacrificial death of Christ for our sins, and his bodily resurrection. Now I am not saying that every Christian understands these doctrines fully. But if a person rejects these doctrines, can they really be a Christian in any historic sense?

Second level doctrines include those which are important because they promote the health of the church. These doctrines include those which separate denominations, like believer’s baptism or congregational church government. One does not need to be a Baptist to be a Christian, but these doctrines are important enough to the health of the church that Protestants have been willing to divide over them.

Third level doctrines include those which are matters of indifference. These include doctrines like the pre-tribulational rapture of the church, or the question of whether Sunday has become the new Sabbath. Christians simply disagree about many matters of indifference in the Bible.

Now my distinction between three levels of doctrine will not solve all of our disagreements. But it will at least help us think productively about our disagreements. Not every disagreement over doctrine is important. Some are more important than others.

Second, we need to hold to our confession, the Baptist Faith and Message. The Baptist Faith and Message was crafted in part to help us deal with our disagreements. It is an umbrella document under which many different people can work together to cooperate in supporting missions and education. It explains which doctrines are important for us to agree upon, but it allows disagreement on other doctrines that are not as important.

Throughout history, Christians have attempted to clarify important doctrines through the use of confessions, or summaries of Christian doctrine. We don’t use confessions as a replacement of the Bible. We use confessions as a summary of what the Bible teaches. If we could, we would just sit down and read the entire Bible together and say, “that’s what we believe.” But that would take a really long time. So, we summarize the teaching of the Bible in confessions of faith.

Some of the earliest Christian confessions include the Apostles’ Creed and its expansion in the Nicene Creed. These confessions address what I have called first level doctrines. After the Protestant Reformation in the Western Church, many confessions began including second level doctrines. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith was a Presbyterian confession. It was then modified to form the Second London Baptist Confession for Baptists. This Second London Baptist Confession is the parent document that traces down to the Baptist Faith and Message, which was adopted as the confession of the Southern Baptist Convention and the confession of Louisiana College.

To be a teacher at Louisiana College, you don’t have to agree with everything in the Baptist Faith and Message, because our confession includes both first level and second level doctrines. Every teacher at Louisiana College has to agree with the first level doctrines—that is, they must be a Christian. But not every teacher at Louisiana College has to agree with the second level doctrines—that is, you don’t have to be a Baptist to teach here. However, to teach in the religion department, you have to agree with everything in the Baptist Faith and Message. In other words, you have to be a Baptist. This makes sense, since we are training students for ministry in Southern Baptist churches.

Remember, the Baptist Faith and Message explains the doctrines which are important for us to agree upon so that we can work together in churches and as a denomination. It also allows disagreement on other doctrines that are not as important. It protects us from forcing others to agree with our theological pet-peeves and from being forced to agree with the theological pet-peeves of others.

So now we come to the question. Is Calvinism outside of the Baptist Faith and Message? Clearly, it is not. The Baptist Faith and Message comes from a line of Calvinist confessions, rooted in the Second London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is our theological history as Southern Baptists. Our confession has been modified over the years to allow views that don’t fit strictly within the Reformed tradition, but it was certainly never modified to exclude Calvinists, because the current revision of the Baptist Faith and Message included five-point Calvinists on the committee. You can be a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist and be a Southern Baptist. Both views are permitted under the umbrella of our confession.

Is hyper-Calvinism outside of the Baptist Faith and Message? Yes, and it should be. Hyper-Calvinism is the idea that the gospel should not be offered freely to all people. This doctrine is not within the bounds of our confession. Let me say this clearly: Calvinism is not the same thing as hyper-Calvinism. Any person who says the two are the same is either ignorant or lying. And this leads to my last point.

Third, we need to be people of integrity. The Baptist Faith and Message is not enough. It is important. But for our confession to work, we need people of integrity to uphold it. This means that professors in colleges and seminaries should only sign a confession if they believe it and plan to teach in accordance with it. It also means that administrators in colleges and seminaries should enforce policies that are in line with the confession they claim to uphold.

The problem at Louisiana College is not a lack of integrity in the professors who are leaving. I have worked hand in hand with these colleagues for the past three years. They are not sinless, but they are people of integrity. The problem at Louisiana College is a remarkable lack of integrity among the leadership of the college and the leadership of Louisiana Baptist Convention. And I think this lack of integrity is rooted in something deeper I have observed in the Southern Baptist Convention—a culture of flattery and glad-handing and even outright lying for the sake of personal or political gain. I love the Southern Baptist heart for evangelism and revival. But revival needs to start at home. We need to pray that God would grant us repentance of sin and faith in his Son, that he would pour out his Spirit and give us integrity. And we need to beware of the spread of the hypocrisy that is in our midst (see Luke 12:1–3).

Let me close with a historical perspective from the Northern Baptist Convention. Conservative Baptists in the North fought against those who denied first level doctrines. But they lost, and they separated from the convention. Unfortunately, many of them didn’t stop separating. After fighting the battles over first level doctrines, they kept dividing and dividing, many times over doctrines that were really matters of indifference.

And this is what some who opposed the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention prophesied would happen. They said in effect that if you cause divisions over first level doctrines, then the divisions will never stop. This prophecy is beginning to come true. I hope you will see that the situation at Louisiana College didn’t have to happen, and it doesn’t have to happen in the future.

Let’s be clear about first level doctrines—let’s make divisions when Scripture calls us to do so. But when we have theological differences that fall under the umbrella of our confession, let’s agree to disagree, and go on working together for the spread of the gospel and the glory of God.