Easter Weekend will never be the same for me again.

Last Good Friday was like any other. I went to work all day. I drove home. My wife and I headed to our church to sing and pray and remember Jesus’ death for us together as a body. We pulled a dinner audible afterwards and decided we could go out to eat (I think we had leftovers on the weekly dinner menu scheduled). We ended up at a delicious Japanese steakhouse that looks like a leftover set from a 70′s Kung Fu movie. The two of us got in with little waiting and ate some delicious food and went home…

…Easter Sunday we missed Easter worship with a church family for the first time in either of our lives. Instead, we woke up in the hospital, radically sleep-deprived but overwhelmed with joy, held captive by the cries of a 6 pound baby girl and being called new names like “Dad” and “Mom.”

Our lives had dramatically changed. Good Friday we had gone for a spur of the moment dinner (for 2!), went home and even had a full night’s sleep. We were mobile and flexible. We sang and prayed at church that night with both hands free, no nursery check-ins or interrupting cries. Easter Sunday we had bags under our eyes, no concept of what time of day it was, and were tethered to every need of a tiny human in a plastic nursery bed cart. The phrase “and a high chair” soon entered our restaurant vocabulary. Attending worship was now a complex logistical equation worthy of its own flow chart. Everything had changed when our daughter Eowyn decided to be born a little earlier than expected that April Saturday. (and we wouldn’t go back to the way it was!)

I can’t imagine how extreme the difference between the original Good Friday and Easter morning was. Both were characterized by confusion and uncertainty. Both were emotional events, one of utter despair and fear and the other of unrestrained joy and amazement. Both involved Jesus’ followers being pushed beyond their limits in every way. How do you go from hearing the bold cries of “Crucify him!” on Friday to hearing the excited whispers of “He’s not there!” on Sunday? I don’t think we’ll ever know quite what it must have been like for the original followers of Jesus to have their entire worldview radically altered twice in a span of 48 hours or so.

But at least now, I know a little more of what it’s like to have your whole world changed between a Friday and a Sunday.

After recently taking my 9 year-old cousin to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D for his birthday, I’ve decided to pretend that our SBC Voices comment club is our own version of the Jedi Council and to do a few posts asking for wise, sage, and Yoda-like counsel. To quote Yoda himself, “Up to you it is if happen such wise counsel will.” :

Let me begin with a disclaimer: I fully admit that I am asking these questions because of direct and personal benefit I hope to receive from the answers provided. As discussed in a previous post , our family is preparing to move to Queens, New York to evangelize and plant churches among the 60,000+ Bengalis living there. As such we are responsible for raising a fair amount of our support and have enjoyed some of the highs and lows of approaching churches with whom we have relationships for support. But I believe this discussion could be of help to other missionaries, church planters, etc., as well as beneficial for pastors to learn from each other.

What’s the best way to approach churches about funding?

I’ve been on both sides of this issue. As a youth pastor for 3 years, I received more than my share of solicitations, mass mailings, phone calls, and office visits from various mission agencies, denominational entities, Christian publishers, Christian magicians, and music acts. “Christian spam” I called it. Now as a stateside missionary raising support, I get to make the phone calls, visit the churches, and “network” (I hate that word) with pastors and other church leaders about joining our support team. I’m certain I’ve done a lot of things right but maybe once or twice I’ve gotten it wrong in the process. (Ok, let’s flip those numbers for the real picture.) Some of the conversations were pretty easy to navigate (home church); other interactions were awkward in the junior high dance fashion. I’ve heard a few horror stories from some friends who are planting churches to know that this is commonly encountered issue.

We as Southern Baptists are a little spoiled with the excellent ways the Cooperative Program handles some of these issues for us, especially for vetting our international missions work. However, there are many individuals and groups (like local crisis pregnancy centers or stateside missionaries/church planters or vocational evangelists or campus ministries) that still require additional funding even if they are supported by the CP. Hopefully the following discussion can be of mutual benefit for all of us. I’m certain the many pastors and/or other involved church members have their opinions on the following questions:

What is the best way to approach churches about sponsorship opportunities?

Some questions for discussion:

How do you like a church planter in your area or who has some degree of connection to contact you? How close a degree of connection to your church must a person/group have to realistically be considered for support?

What manner of contact do you prefer? Are you warm to the cold call? Personal visit? Email? Glossy mailing? Facebook stalking? Late-night texting complete with emoticons?

How much stock do you place in being introduced to a church planter or mission group by one of your members? Through the local association or state convention? Or do those interactions make you feel more awkward?

What kind of materials do you expect to see from someone requesting money? What things give you a positive opinion of the person/group? What things give you strong negative reactions?

What’s the best way to respond to deny those requests? Ignore them? Send a kind but honest letter or email? Call on the phone? What factors determine your method of response?

There may be more questions raised here as well, but let the discussion begin.

In a town across the waters live members of one of the world’s largest unreached people groups. In the past 20 years, their population in this city has grown from about 8,000 to around 60,000. While their home country’s political situation is tumultuous, in this new city there is stability and religious/political freedom, including the freedom for missionaries to preach the Gospel to them. Like many other people groups in large cities, they have clustered in several major neighborhoods and have assimilated in a variety of professions, from doctors to taxi drivers.

This people group is the Bengali. While their homeland is made up of the country of Bangladesh and the bordering Indian states, a high population and good work ethic have enabled them to scatter to other cities around the globe.

The city, however, is not the desert towers of Dubai or the congested streets of London. The waters one must cross to reach these 60,000 Bengali are not the Bay of Bengal or the Pacific Ocean.

These 60,000 members of an unreached people group live here in the United States of America, in New York City, to be precise. The trip across the waters is a plane flight to LaGuardia or a ferry ride across the Hudson or East Rivers.

And in just a few months, Lord willing, my wife and I, along with our 9-month old daughter, will be loading up our family car to make that trip from here in Kansas City and settle into the borough of Queens where about half of these Bengalis live. The twists and turns God used to bring us to this point were not always easy (wanting to go overseas with IMB, health issue making living overseas impossible for the time being) but He has proven his goodness to us throughout. I can still remember my jaw dropping when I learned that one major people group was the Bengali, the people I had lived among for half a year doing a missions apprenticeship as a college student!

Many unreached people groups are in the US, especially in New York City. One of the like-minded people we will be working with in NYC wrote an entire book with pictures and profiles of 82 of these people groups. (available on Amazon or learn more at ethNYcitybook.com.)

We are excited to be able to work with the Bengali of NYC. It will take a lot of work: prayer, language learning, bold evangelism, discipleship. There are many obstacles. While some are suspicious of church plants because of experiences of ”sheep-stealing”, we don’t even have that option as 95% of our people group is Muslim and about 5% are Hindu! That’s not leaving many Bengali Christians left. New York is an expensive place to live and do ministry. Bengalis face temptations on both sides- their cultural religious traditions and the materialistic individualism they find in NYC. Despite these obstacles, we believe that God has brought these people to our shores for a reason. Our vision is to see faithful, reproducing churches of Bengali believers in each of these various neighborhoods in the 5 boroughs of New York City.

If you take a look at the states listed in our SBC Voices blogroll, you will see some states missing. I am hoping to see New York added this June and to use my writing to share about how God is molding, teaching, and using us to share the Gospel among the Bengali people of NYC. I’m a firm supporter of international missions; I wanted to be one for 11 years or so! But it would be irresponsible stewardship of us to completely ignore the mission field God is bringing to our shores. Would you take a moment today to pray for the spread of the Gospel in New York City and among the people groups found therein?

If you would like more information about our ministry or how you or your church can be involved in praying or partnering with us, email me at joshcollins8 AT gmail DOTCOM.

To learn more about SBC work in New York, check out:

Metro New York Baptist Association

Baptist Convention of New York

NAMB’s SendNYC initiative

The other night we got home late after eating dinner at the home of one of my coworkers.  It was well past our dog Caleb’s 6 o’clock dinner time and I was certain that he would be starving as we got home at about 10:30.  He did his customary run of freedom around the couch before making his way to the kitchen where his food dish is.  I scooped his nightly allotment (he’s on a diet right now) and expected to hear the sounds of doggie gratitude as he bulldozed his flat little face into the bottom of the curved bowl.

However, this night, he stared briefly at the food and didn’t touch it.  He started smelling my ankles with a concerned look on his face.  He then found my wife and smelled her too.  His face declared that he did not care for whatever smell we had brought home with us.

It was then that we did what any normal people would.  We took a fresh sniff of ourselves to figure out what was so repulsive as to prevent our dog from getting to his dinner.  It was then we noticed the smell.  It was on our clothes.  It was in our hair.  It was on our infant daughter.  And it smelled a lot stranger once inside the comfort of our apartment than it had the previous 6 hours or so we had been smelling it.

You see, my coworker and her husband are Indian scientists.  We had gone to dinner (actually “tea” at 4, then dinner with some homemade Bengali food!) at their house and had spent the evening talking and sharing about our lives, learning about their religious beliefs as fairly devout Hindus, getting to share with them about our belief in Christ as the only source of life we have, and leaving behind a Bible in their native language as our gift to the hosts.  As devout Hindus, a large amount of incense had been burning in their upstairs prayer room and had slowly marinated us in smell over the course of our visit.  While we had long forgotten the strange smells greeting us upon entry, they hitched a ride home with us and our ever-vigilant dog caught them at home.

As we continue to pray for our friends that they would read the Bible in their own language and that we would have future opportunity to repay their hospitality, I couldn’t help but think about 2 Corinthians 2- “¹⁴ But thanks be to God, who always puts us on display in Christ, and spreads through us in every place the scent of knowing Him. ¹⁵ For to God we are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. ¹⁶ To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life.”

As strong as the smell was that followed us home, we pray as we ate and talked with our friends last weekend that a stronger smell was left by us at their home.  We pray that they, unlike our dog refusing to eat because he hated the strange smell, would find a scent of life leading to life as they encountered the aroma of Christ.

Should you preach ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you listen to preaching ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you worship in song ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you give financially ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you pray ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you encourage your fellow believers ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you count the offering ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?

The answer is no.  You shouldn’t.  Churches can be emotionally dead, people can attend church each Sunday and live in ignorance of the Gospel or at least be distracted from it while they attend, people can give from wrong motivations, we can preach hypocritically, etc. We shouldn’t though.  The greatness and holiness of the God we worship and the grace and love poured out into our lives in Christ call for our genuine focused worship every day (not least every Sunday).

So how should we safeguard our corporate worship gatherings against such practices and attitudes?

Solution: only gather as a church once every 3 months. Let’s be honest- attending church each week is ritualistic.  People get more concerned about catching up with Sallie Joe in the foyer and going to eat afterwards than focusing on Christ.  It just becomes another thing we “do” if we attend each week, like the PTA or softball practice.  Why not wait for 3 months before meeting again?  It will keep church attendance (including giving, singing, preaching, praying, etc.) from becoming just another weekly ritual.  It will make that one day out of every 90 or so all the more special because we will appreciate it more having gone so long without it.  It is less hassle for everyone (imagining only needing volunteers for 4 days a year!) and cheaper.  It can also be well-planned, efficient, and orderly with that kind of preparation time.

Ok, I’m being facetious there.  That would be ridiculous.  For one, merely meeting once every three months wouldn’t solve the problems of spiritual apathy, hypocrisy, or mindless “routine” that we should avoid in our gatherings.  In fact, it may increase it judging from those we know who only attend at Christmas/Easter currently. Also, as followers of Jesus, we are commanded to gather, encourage one another, to “Let the message of Christ dwell among us”-aka Gospel remembrance, pray, worship through song and giving, meet regularly, etc. Attempting to avoid these sins by infrequently meeting would cause us to ignore so many other things we see commanded and find Christians doing in the New Testament.

So then, why  do we find that above solution adequate regarding the frequency of the Lord’s Supper?

Discuss.

And bonus credit to whoever can identify the source of the quote below without Google.

“Shame on the Christian church that she put it off to once a month and mar the first day of the week by depriving it of its glory in the meeting together for fellowship and breaking of bread and showing forth the death of Christ till he comes. They who once know the sweetness of each Lord’s day celebrating his supper, will not be content, I am sure, to put it off to less frequent seasons. Beloved, when the Holy Ghost is with us, ordinances are wells to the Christian, wells of rich comfort and of near communion.”

One of the scariest things for me as a young person in ministry is the issues related to a pastor (or staff member, etc.) and his family’s involvement in the life of the local church.  I’ve known quite a few different situations and I often wonder what the best approach is for a pastor and his family.  Some I would outright reject and but even the ones I consider often raise difficult questions in my mind.  Probably some of these relate to parenting philosophy in general, but I’m thinking about the pastor’s family specifically.  One of the biggest tensions perhaps is finding that balance between “church is more than daddy’s job; it has to be a personal commitment from each of us, so do whatever you feel like, kid” and “You’re expected to be here every time the doors are open, early, dressed nice, with a smile on your face, and be willing to serve as de facto babysitter/envelope stuffer/general labor at no cost to the church whenever we feel like it.”  So here are a couple “models” of pastoral family church involvement that I’ve seen or could guess exist from stories I’ve heard (that would be a great new horror film series: “Nightmares of a Pastor’s Kid, Part 3: Sanctuary at Night”).  There are more perhaps, and the whole point of this post is to hear some feedback from those who have actually endured ministry as pastors with families or as the family members regarding advice you’d give to some younger people like me in the ministry.

1. The Indentured Servant Model: The pastor’s wife and kids are resources on loan to the church for whatever they deem necessary. Church members have a right to complain any time they don’t see a family member at a church event or if their appearance/attitude don’t match the stock happy family photo on the church bulletin.

Positive: Kids will be well prepared for military life.  Negative: Church is a job, nothing more. Family feels valued for job performance and not themselves. Kids have ridiculous expectations on them which only lead to bitter rule-keeping or drastic rebellion.

2. The Family Commitment Model: The pastor’s family is committed as members to the church. They attend with the same involvement that would be considered “faithful” for a regular member (aka not gone for soccer 6 months of the year), and are allowed to find their own ministry niche. The church is taught not to freak out if the kids aren’t at the 6 am senior adult prayer breakfast. The wife is free to use her gifts and talents within/without the church as she deems appropriate.

Positive: Church commitment and involvement is kept serious for the family. Within that commitment, there is freedom for individual family members to find their place. Pastor’s family can set model for how other busy non-paid church members can reasonably be involved. Negative: Family members may not see a place for their gifts at the church, especially as children’s interests and talents develop as they mature. “Commitment level” may be hard to keep balanced, tipping either up into the “Indentured Servant” level or down into the “Laissez-faire” model.

3. The Laissez-faire Model: For those who slept during economics class, laissez-faire basically means “hands-off.”  In this model the pastor adopts a “hands-off” model towards his family’s church involvement.  If they want to go, he’ll give them a ride, but he’s not twisting arms or waking people up on a Sunday morning.  If they come, they won’t be asked to do much more than fill a pew.  Forget ministry involvement; if they want his wife to be involved, they should pay her! And of course, if Junior joins one of those traveling carnivals known as “tournament teams”, then the wife and kids can disappear for 6 months and no one will care as much. If the family is tired on Sunday night, then dad will show up and preach, but it’s Home Makeover time for everyone else.

Positive: Kids can never complain about being forced to go to church. If they are involved it is a credit to their personal interest and effort. Negative: Kids can never complain about being forced to go to church.  Tell me which 5 year-old will set their alarm and get themselves ready for church each week, especially if they find out Spongebob is on tv. Some forced activity is healthy for children. And usually this “non-committal” kind of model winds up leading kids to other commitments in place of church, often still not at their own choosing.  The pastor’s family may not hate him for taking them to church each week, but they might resent him for sending them to softball games all weekend in 100-degree heat.  Dad and family may end up living two totally separate lives. It also sends the message to other church members that if one isn’t paid to be at church, then showing up isn’t important. When the only one of a family who shows up on Sunday receives a check for it, the people in the pews wonder why they bothered to show up and get told about how much more involved they need to be each week.

4. The Intentional Exile Model: This one is rare, but I’ve seen it before.  This one might be more common for temporary work like a interim pastor.  The family is committed to going to a different church than where the father pastors.  Maybe for an interim period (especially if the church is going to require some tough changes), the pastor doesn’t want to burn his family out, or have them switch from the local church they all attended for 5-6 months and then return.  Some families may also do this with youth age kids (though the instance I know of, the pastor’s kids were so bad he probably just wanted to stop hearing complaints so he sent them elsewhere.)

Positive: On a temporary basis, this could be good, if the family is committed to a church.  Also there may be a rare occasion where a child absolutely needs a change of scenery in order to be involved. Negative: If not temporary, then we have the bifurcation of the family again.  Also, pastors should not use this model so they can ignore their own family’s behavior because it’s now out of sight from their church.  For a long term pastor, using this approach tells the congregation you’re not committed even to them to bring your family along.

Ok, I came up with 4.  There are probably more, and I’m assuming many people probably fit in a shade in between a couple of these approaches.  For those who’ve gone through this (or are currently), which model did you gravitate towards?  What benefits/negatives did you encounter that I missed? Pastor’s families: which model would you have preferred growing up and why? For those who are not pastors or pastor’s family, what similarities could these approaches have for your own family’s church life?  I look forward to hearing!

Hey everyone.  It’s been a crazy couple weeks in the SBC blogosphere between the convention and other “discussions”.  I personally am taking a brief hiatus from the blogosphere for the month of July (and maybe August).  The hardest part won’t be skipping writing and commenting, but keeping myself from reading everything going on out there in the up-to-the-minute nature of blogging. I add that just to let some of you know that I haven’t died or joined a cult or anything.

Anyways, I thought I’d leave you guys with something to talk about.  Summer. Great time for reading.  Great time for activities. so…

What is 1 book and 1 activity that you’ve enjoyed this summer and would recommend to others?

Now, that’s 1 of each.  I’d love to here some of the creative activities many of you engage in outside the cyber-world and of course, I’m always interested in hearing about books that have shaped others.

So have fun answering the question. I hope it will be profitable for all!

(and note, for those cold legalists out there, I’m not sure when this will post on Voices but I did write it before my little “hiatus” so don’t call me out on that!)

I wish I could go to the SBC.  Alas, Orlando is a 3-week wagon journey from where I live and fording the rivers is tough this time of year.  It would be fun to meet many of you who interact on this blog and authors of other blogs I check out through the awesome meta-feed going on in the directory page here.  (I have to give Tony Kummer a lot of props for putting this whole thing together.)  I even kind of like watching Robert’s Rules of Order in action.

But since I can’t be there, I have a little assignment for those of you who will be.

Meet a fellow blogger face-to-face.

I would like to add “a blogger you’ve debated with online”, but for those who don’t debate at all, that wouldn’t be fair.

But make it your goal to connect with a flesh-and-blood person while at the SBC this year.  Put a face with a name, etc.  I often think of how much our blogging would improve if we were sitting in the same room as the people we are talking to.  Granted, even in real life, you still get the “Drive-by” commenter, the name-caller, the name-dropper, the ALL CAPS person, the person who has written a minor stream-of-consciousness dissertation on your comment thread without use of any punctuation or breaks, and even the trolls.  People are still people face-to-face, and because different viewpoints are represented over issues that people hold dear to their hearts at meetings like the SBC, it probably won’t always end with everyone dancing around the Orlando swampland with flowers in their hair singing some lame song from the 60′s.

But not everyone is like that.  So get up, break out of your church’s little group or your annual good ol’ boys club, and spend 5-10 minutes talking with a fellow blogger.  It’d be good.  You can even use this comment thread to connect if you will, as long as this doesn’t turn into e-harmony.   You may want to follow someone’s comment name to their website and set something up over email.

So meet a fellow blogger face-to-face this year.  You’ll recognize them by their Star Wars pajamas and laptops.

Over at Baptist Press, soon-to-retire SBC Executive Committee President and C.E.O. Dr. Morris Chapman has posted a lengthy almost 9,000 word response to the final report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I highly encourage people to read it as it provides the perspective of someone who knows the ins-and-outs of SBC convention life and politics, serving in this particular role since 1992.  It does seem unfortunate that with the GCR discussion dominating the  heading into the convention, the SBC will miss a chance, perhaps, to give thanks and celebrate the outgoing Executive Committee President and the outgoing IMB president.  Whether one has agreed 100% with everything these two men (Drs. Chapman and Rankin) have said and done during their service to the Convention, they both brought steady leadership (contra turnover at that other agency) and have given countless time and effort to Southern Baptists.  I hope the Convention doesn’t get so dominated by discussion of the GCR that it fails to recognize the service of these two men.

That said, Dr. Chapman wins the “Tell Us How You REALLY Feel” Award for this week.  The sheer length alone of Dr. Chapman’s personal response to the GCR should alert folks that he’s not looking for a nice soundbyte for/against, but rather has thought about these issues in great detail and has a lot of opinions about the various components involved in the final GCRTF report.  Some of what he has said has been brought out in various other places, refuted, counter-refuted, and perhaps counter-counter-refuted.  But there were a couple of places in his response where his own opinions and personal preferences came out louder than the arguments he was making regarding the TF’s recommendations.  In doing so, he risks distracting Southern Baptists from the main issues about the report that we should be discussing.

1. Going after the IMB.

The IMB has often been the “darling” of the SBC; it is the grand SBC rallying cry whose pictures and stories even the Executive Committee (in Stewardship Promotion) makes use of when promoting CP.  At times in the past, perhaps that has put it “above criticism” in the eyes of many Southern Baptists.  I think today with the rise of the Internet, quicker reporting of facts, and the increase of short-term mission trips, more people in the pews have ideas of what missionaries actually do (for better or worse) and this has hopefully led to greater accountability from churches and the trustees appointed to that agency.  Knowledge is power, right?  Dr. Chapman seems to have noticed this “darling” status in the past and isn’t real happy about it.  One needs only to read his questions regarding Component Seven of the Task Force Report to see that his questions target not merely the monetary switch of 1% of the national budget from the EC to the IMB, but go further into making veiled accusations against the Mission Board itself.

He asks, “Did the GCTF review the IMB missions philosophy and practices in foreign countries prior to proposing the expansion of their reach without regard to any geographic limitations and proposing to transfer CP funding in the amount of $2 million from the SBC Operating Budget (SBC Executive Committee)?”  In layman’s terms, this means, I think there is something inherently wrong with the IMB’s philosophy and practices that if anyone on the Task Force had understood, they would have not have given the IMB another nickel.  It’s not as if he just asked about their philosophy, which would require some shift if they were allowed to help in North America with unreached people groups.  He also deliberately mentions practices.  He then asks, “Are the reported baptisms the direct result of SBC missionaries at work on a given field of service at the time of the baptisms?“.

Now this question certainly has a place. Many SBC-ers have asked whether the baptism numbers we receive internationally reflect the missionary’s direct work or the numbers of his national partners.  But it has nothing to do with the GCRTF report.  It is just a way to shed more doubt on the IMB to influence people to reject giving them a bigger slice of the pie.  His third question under that same point carries the same amount of weight as the previous one–good question that needs to be asked, but irrelevant to the current discussion, and continuing to shed more doubt on the IMB.  Lastly, he asks, “Are our alliances in church planting producing churches that reflect Southern Baptist beliefs or those of other faith traditions?” This doesn’t sound like honest inquiry (as Dr. Chapman has certainly been in position these last 18 years to have his questions answered), but casting more doubt on the IMB.  The Task Force wants to give them more money?  Well, do you know how seedy and underhanded the IMB really is? Can you really trust them?

Well, if you don’t know for sure now, you should probably leave this money with the EC to keep it safe.  It has been well publicized that the IMB and the EC heads don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but this line of questioning under this section clearly goes beyond the types of questions related to the issue of the GCR Component Seven and rather serves as a way to subtly air Dr. Chapman’s own issues with the IMB.  Rather than arguing convincingly of why transferring the 1% would hurt the EC, he merely attempts to arouse suspicions toward the IMB, which would in turn result in money staying with EC.

2. The “Reductio ad Acts 29″

I’ve typically tried to avoid writing much about SBC and Acts 29 issues, simply because I have often found that those on each side of the debate who have researched and studied find themselves quickly overpowered by crazies with pitchforks and torches.  But Dr. Chapman plays a sneaky game in his response that needs to be tossed out of consideration.  Dr. Chapman goes after the use of the word “missional” under the recommended Component 1.  He asks, “Other than being a modern “buzz” word, what does the idea of missional offer to us? Where has the word come from?” Fair question.  It’s one that can easily be answered too.  A simple search on the Internet might yield its origins, or someone could fill him in on the idea of “missional” vs. “attractional”, or give a quick call to Dr. Stetzer (who regardless if you love him or hate him- I think he’s a swell chap myself) who has studied the issue to levels that could almost nauseate the rest of us for a brief history and meaning.  Does Dr. Chapman do that?  No, apparently not.  He goes a different route to identify its meaning, the “reductio ad Acts 29″ as I call it.  Rather than researching what the term means or asking TF members what they mean by it, he simply finds another group that has used the word and voila!, guilt by association, the TF is identified now as being Acts 29.  And a simple Google search can show us how Baptist Press under Dr. Chapman’s lead view Acts 29.

The problem is that what the Task Force is proposing, especially in this vision component, has nothing to do with the Acts 29 issues. Now in fairness, Dr. Chapman does provide his readership with a link to the actual Acts 29 site where they can read for themselves about that network.  That’s much better than the out-of-context smear campaign some have undergone.  But I still wonder why he went there.  Yes, they have the word “missional” in their core values.  But shockingly, they also use the words “Christian” and “Evangelical”.  I suppose we have to stop using those terms as well now?  No, one might answer, these words have a history and a meaning that we can affirm, even if other groups that we don’t see eye-to-eye with or partner with (like Evangelical Presbyterians, for example) use these terms as well.  Well, perhaps rather than seeing an opening to scare folks from considering the Task Force’s report with the Acts 29 boogeyman, a little research into the use of the term “missional” could have been undertaken before this response was posted. In a sense, this does little more than muddy the waters of the actual issues involved.  And that goes whether you are Acts 29-friendly or hostile.

I want to re-iterate that though I don’t come to Dr. Chapman’s conclusions on every point, he has provided some valuable insights and asked some good tough questions throughout this response.  We know that he would not have written these things if he did not genuinely have the best interests of the SBC in his heart, having given the last 18 years of his life to serving in the role of Executive Committee President and years in convention life before that.  My disagreements expressed here relate to a couple of components of his report that sunk below the rest of his insights and provided a distraction from the main concerns he and the Task Force are bringing to our convention.  I’m very thankful for his years of service and I sincerely hope that the SBC will honor that accordingly later this month.

“Jumping the shark” is a phrased often used in the television industry to refer to the moment it’s realized that a once-good program has begun a downward descent into mediocrity and eventually obscurity.  It refers to a classic set of episodes from the program “Happy Days” where the character Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli (you may know him as “The Fonz”) attempts to water ski over a section of ocean containing a shark.  Since then, the phrase “jumping the shark” has become a popular reference to a desperate stunt or attempt to save something that is rapidly headed south.

I don’t view preaching in the same light as producing a television show.  Unfortunately, though, our modern tendency to place the pastor in the role of the transformational motivational entertainer has certainly highlighted certain similarities between the creative processes employed in Hollywood and what happens behind the pulpit (or “between the ferns” in some churches) on a Sunday.

That said, I’m curious to discuss experiences we may have had where we felt preaching may have “jumped the shark.”  (We might also call this “When Good Sermons Go Bad”.)  Your stories can be personal or merely observed.  The only thing I ask is that a reasonable degree of anonymity be preserved (aka if I google the situation you are talking about, will it immediately show up?).  Our goal here is not to bash sincere attempts to communicate God’s Word, as I’m certain no one who has preached would be able to cast a first stone regarding every sermon or lesson they’ve ever delivered.  But it would be helpful to be warned (especially for younger folks in ministry like myself) against blunders that while the preacher may have thought they had accomplished a new high point in the history of preaching (like I’m certain the writers of Happy Days thought of their sending Fonzie over shark-land) were really a sign of that all was not well.

Some brief (though not exhaustive) possibilities that may qualify for “Shark-jumping Preaching”:

1. Sermons that sounded great until you realized later nothing of substance was said.

2. A “gimmick” used that took all the thunder from the actual point of the sermon.

3. Good sermon, but TOTALLY wrong time/place for it.

So have you experienced any of these?  Have you ever seen preaching “jump the shark” (perhaps while you were the one on the water skis!)  If so, here’s your chance to help the rest of us learn how we might be better stewards of the privilege and responsibility of teaching God’s Word.