Along the Shore

We do not regularly practice an altar call at Crossroads Fellowship. Exceptions are few. I will, on occasion, have some sort of “action step” at the end of my message. But it does not involve endless verses of “Just As I Am,” with pleas for people to “walk the aisle” to Jesus. Also, I have a very close friend and former pastor who fills in for me when I am away who insists on having an “invitation” when he preaches for me. I find that our older folk like it and our younger (previously unchurched) folk tend wonder, “What was that about?”

We have sometimes been chastised, “demonized,” and ostracized in Baptist life because of our decision not to have altar call invitations. Indeed, some go so far as to question whether or not we are an actual church because of our lack of a proper “invitation.”

But we do have an invitation … of sorts. Each week I debrief the congregation following my sermon using a response card. I ask people to check the appropriate box on the back of their card to let me know what God is doing in their lives, or to tell me what type of decision they have made. If they cannot find a pre-written response that applies, I encourage them to write me a note on the card. We collect those cards during our offering time and I follow up personally with respondents.

Anyhow … our decision not to do “altar call” invitations was deliberate and strategic. In our early days of planting and organizing the church, we determined that in our target group (adults under 40 with children) he altar call was actually a potential HINDRANCE to a response to the Gospel. We discovered that young people were often terrified by the prospect of walking in front of people, or having to speak in front of a crowd. As we searched the Scriptures, we could find little biblical support for the practice, so we elected not to include it in our regular worship experiences. Instead of an “altar call,” we regard a person’s baptism as their public stand for Christ.

I recently discovered this excellent article on “Altar call Evangelism” by Paul Alexander of 9 Marks. In it he explains nine solid reasons why the altar call should not be practiced. In the coming days I will quote, examine, interact with, and comment on each of these points.

Meanwhile … what about your church? Do you practice an “altar call?” Why? Why not? Do you believe it is biblical? If so, please make your biblical case.

The following is quoted from the “Education Briefs” feature at Baptist Press, posted September 26.

Keith Eitel, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s school of evangelism and missions, told a chapel audience Sept. 20 that upholding biblical parameters in cross-cultural contexts and maintaining holiness are essential elements to missions and ministry.

Amid the contemporary push for “rushing to relevance,” Eitel said it must be “within biblical boundaries.” Too often, he said, Christians allow the world, rather than Scripture, to take the first step in determining how they communicate the Gospel.

Eitel, a former missionary in Cameroon, Africa, questions “theology on tap,” referencing the practice of a church whose leaders discuss theology while drinking beer at local bars as a form of outreach. “I can commend the desire … to go into places like this [with the Gospel],” he said, “but we are to have boundaries.”

Eitel also shared his shock at hearing of a missionary in Indonesia who bowed to the Hindu god Shiva in order to appear spiritually minded and relevant to the people. “I fear that we may rush to relevance in such a way, with our heart right for the relevance, that we lose the Gospel message in the process,” Eitel said.

Citing 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, Eitel stated, “There are limits that need to be set in place that control our methodologies for engaging the lostness we see in the world.” He noted, for example, the Apostle Paul’s admonition in verse 14 for Christians not to be bound to unbelievers.

The only way to contextualize the Gospel to the culture is by “the word of truth and the power of God,” Eitel said, quoting from 2 Corinthians 6:7.

Reaction: I quite agree with Dr. Eitel. Our efforts at being relevant must be within biblical boundaries. But I must disagree with his description of recent efforts toward relevance as being in a “rush.” Perhaps these efforts seem rushed to some because innovative, relevant efforts at ministry have lagged “behind the curve” for far too long.

I fear that Dr. Eitel’s description of a couple of misguided efforts at relevance may be presenting something of a false dichotomy between true relevance and biblical orthodoxy. Consider his two stated examples: pastors who talks theology over beer in bars and a missionary who bowed before Shiva. Such examples disturb me, as well. But I fear that many traditionalists will consider those two examples and, because of their extreme nature, dismiss efforts to become more “relevant” in our ministries and Gospel presentation outright. The end result, inevitably, is a maintaining of the status quo, and a continued “treading” of ministry “water,” with many of our churches’ methodologies stranded in time in the 1950’s.

Far too many of our churches exist on their insulated “Gospel islands,” and shout at the world to “come over here with us, we love you!” And they expect the people of the world to walk, look, act, and sound like their view/definition of Christians when they walk through the door. Then they wonder why the few who do visit their hallowed halls flee in boredom, seeking something … anything … more “relevant” to their 21st century lives. But they can always find comfort by somehow convincing themselves, “Well, at least we planted a seed…”

The true Gospel compels us to do more. Much more.

The apostle Paul preached the importance of sharing a timely, relevant Gospel. Consider his words:

²⁰To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. ²²To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor 9:20-23)

Relevance is not the “enemy” of biblical ministry. Indeed, clearly the only biblical approach to ministry pursues a path of relevance … lest we become more concerned about keeping the blessings of the Gospel to ourselves within our Gospel forts rather than engaging the world on its own turf and “sharing in its blessings.” (v. 23)

Let us not cast off an entire Gospel effort and movement simply because of a handful of examples of misguided efforts or attempts gone awry.

NewSpring Church, a rapidly growing Southern Baptist church in Anderson, South Carolina, recently hosted a baptism “tailgate party” on their parking lot. They set up three above-ground swimming pools and invited everyone to come before the baptism and “party on the parking lot.” People showed up with RV’s, lawn chairs, and cooking tents. many watched football games on their TV’s as they cooked and awaited the beginning of the baptism service. People shared the fruits of their grills. It was, apparently, a very festive, gala atmosphere.

Then they began to baptize. It took six staff ministers 90 minutes to … get this … baptize 562 people! Approximately 800 people had accepted Christ during a recent sermon series preached by senior pastor Perry Noble.

But … wait a minute … aren’t we supposed to hide within the “inner sanctums” of our churches to baptize? Aren’t we supposed to gather quietly on a Sunday evening, turn down all the lights, fire up a little background organ music, and shine a spotlight on the people being baptized?

I think not. I like NewSpring’s approach. Let’s shine our baptism “spotlights” on Jesus … in public … for the whole world to see.

Can they do that? You bet they can!

May all of our churches truly celebrate baptism!

You can read the whole story here.

Recently I was approached by the leader at the Daily Sportsmen’s Devotional subscription and web site to become a guest author.  This status involves writing six or more original devotions to be published by this daily network.

Well, my first one is up today.  I am very excited.  They even used my original picture with it.  (Those are my initials under the picture and under the “thoughts” section!)  Check it out here.  You can subscribe to receive these daily devotions by e-mail here.

Enjoy!

Pretty much everyone knows I am a Survivor fan. Not that it is a “perfect” or even a wholesome program, by any measure. I simply like watching how the show brings out true human nature. It shows the depths to which people will sink in the name of the almighty dollar.

I’ve come to expect a steady diet of religious “fruit salad” on Survivor. But I think this latest edition, filmed in China, will top them all.

The opening scene involved what host Jeff Probst called a “welcome ceremony” in a Buddhist temple. But that “welcome ceremony” included a plethora of religious symbols and movements … prayerful hands, bowing, and reverence. It was, quite obviously, a Buddhist religious observance.

My hat goes off to contestant Leslie Nease. This 38-year-old follower of Christ from South Carolina got up and walked out of the building. When confronted by the host about her actions, she said (paraphrasing … as best I can remember) “I’m not a religious person, but I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One of the commands of the Bible is to not bow down to any other gods. If I’m going to put my face on the floor, it will only be for Jesus. I’m sorry, but that felt like worship to me.”

Kudos to this courageous wife and mother of four. She has, most likely, put a huge “religious freak” target on her back, and it may hurt her standing in the game. But what an awesome stand for Christ in front of, literally, millions of people worldwide!

If only all believers could have that type of courage!

I’ve been a bit behind on my reading and blogging lately. I have put a lot of effort into getting sbc IMPACT! up and running. I think it has gone extremely well, and invite you to visit and get involved in the conversations there.

But I came across a couple of comments over on fellow SBC IMPACT! blogger David Rogers’ blog. He has had an ongoing exchange with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Here are the comments that really got my attention:

The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as “evangelicals.”

The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.

 

He then makes this statement:

The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as “unrepentant sinners.”

My Reaction: I suppose I just didn’t realize that the vast number of my friends who attend non-Southern Baptist Churches are “unrepentant sinners” simply because of their church membership. Are these truly the views of Southern Baptists? Do we really believe that our Methodist and Presbyterians brothers and sisters in Christ are in a state of “unrepentant sin?” Are we, as Southern Baptists, always “right” about everything?

This is very important to me because my church has entered into a four-year commitment to reach an unreached people group in Peru through the IMB. Will we be forbidden, perhaps in a couple of years, to work with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Assemblies of God, or Church of God of Prophecy congregations that exist nearby? Is this the direction that our IMB is heading?

I’ll never forget where I was that day.  I was Youth Pastor at Second Baptist Church in Hopkinsville, Kentucky.  I  arrived at the office early that morning.  Our financial secretary had a TV in her office that was connected to the church’s cable system.  She told me that there had been an accident and some kind of plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers.

She and I were glued to the TV, watching the coverage.  We saw the second plane hit the other tower in a live shot.  It was then that I knew we were under attack.  As reports rolled in about the Pentagon and other possible attack locations, I knew that life here in the U.S. would never be the same … or so I thought.  I am amazed at how much things have returned to the “same old, same old” of pathetic apathy and party politics.

Our home is near Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, home of the 101st Air Assault Division and Task Force 160, the Special Forces Aviation Group (The “Black Hawk Down” Unit … those guys were based here.)  We have never forgotten the horror of that day, because we have family members constantly engaged in the ongoing battle against those whose Islamic fundamentalism would have them terrorize and dominate the world.  Soon some of our guys will be leaving for their third our in a combat zone in five years.  America, it seems, with it’s short-term memory fixation, wants desperately to forget the events of that day.  But we don’t have such a luxury in the shadow of a major military installation.

Where were you that day?  What were you doing?  What were your thoughts?  How do you feel about it now?

Like many parents, I have been pretty excited about Disney’s wildly successful films entitled High School Musical.  Both films seem to be wonderful, wholesome, fun entertainment for children and teens.

Not that I can stomach them, myself.  I tried watching a little bit, but could barely stand it.  I’ll confess, I’ve never been a big fan of musicals, anyway.  Though I did see Grease on its opening night in 1978 … but that was more of a desire to see Olivia Newton-John for two hours straight than it was to watch a musical.

But these recent Disney films have been quality entertainment.  They have introduced a generation of “tweeners” to the genre of the musical.  Almost every kid I know  seems to know every word to every song. My daughters both loved the films.  My 14-year-old is a bit more of a fan (though that might be a Zac Effron thing more that a SM thing).  Plans are in the works for a feature film, High School Musical 3.  This is something of a cash cow for Disney … sort of like printing money, if you know what I mean.

So I was utterly shocked and disappointed when I discovered late last week that authentic nude photos of 18-year-old HSM sweetheart Vanessa Hudgens had surfaced on the internet.  That’s right.  18 years old.  Nude pictures.  Illicit photos of the heroine of the elementary and “tweener” Disney channel addicts.

I asked my 14-year-old if she knew about the incident.  She did, of course.  Then my sweet, innocent daughter proceeded to inform me that it was all a horrible mistake.  She said that, “the pictures were taken in private and were never meant to be put on the internet.  It’s not her fault.”  My own child was spewing the product of the Hollywood spin machine.

To which I responded, “My dear, young ladies with any sense of morals, character, or good sense would never pose nude for anyone to take pictures of them … no matter how ‘private’ the situation may be.”  I hope and pray that she got the message.

Of course, the publicity people and the Disney people are falling all over themselves, saying that she made a “mistake” and it was a horrible “lapse in judgment.”  It has also been reported that Disney plans to renew her contract for the next film. But I believe that this is a serious lapse in judgment on the part of the filmmakers.  Indeed, as this girl portrays the supposed innocence of her role in the film, movie-goers will all have the knowledge (and some will have the vision) of nude photos in their minds.

The innocence is lost.  I believe the entire message of the films is degraded.

But back to the title of my post.  The actual event in and of itself has not disturbed me as much as my own daughter’s response and excuse for the event.  It shows me that the media is a powerful force in the continued attempts to erode the moral foundations of of our culture, and the minds of our teenagers are their battlefields … and their playgrounds.   I plan to guard the hearts of my children a bit more diligently.  I hope that you will, too.

I normally don’t “react” to the plethora of stuff that I read … especially letters written to editors of newspapers. But after I stopped by the post office to pick up the church’s mail, I found this “Letter to the Editor” written by Joyce Paul of Louisville, Kentucky, on page 4 of the August 28 edition of the Kentucky Baptist newspaper, the Western Recorder. I have reproduced this armchair editorial in its entirety, and will offer my own editorial (of sorts).

A recent Sunday School quarterly in a lesson worship offers the advice to blend the different styles of worship, music and preaching to eliminate the need for two separate services. In this way the old, out-of-touch seniors and the younger, in-touch emerging church will both be happy.

When did worship develop a style? God gave specific instructions about how we should worship and harshly judged those who refused to comply.

Many beleive the problem with the contention in the church concerning worship is simply a matter of likes and dislikes, but the problem is we haven’t consulted the Scripture to see what God likes.

I once approached a leader in the church about a clearly unscriptural practice in our worship and was told, “This is how we like it and this is how we will do it. You aren’t in charge.” No, I wasn’t in charge and that’s why I appealed to the one who was. I misakenly believed that what God liked ought to prevail over what we like.

It’s one thing to be ignorant concerning what God said, but it’s far more serious to know what He said and not care.

This concept of blending is exactly how the world has crept through the front doors of our churches. In the beginning God separated the light from darkness and Satan has been trying to “blend” them together ever since. In the Garden of Eden, Satan didn’t approach Eve with brand new technology, but he mixed truth with error and the truth served as bait and she swallowed it. A spoonful of sugar facilitates swallowing that which is distasteful.

When gold is mixed with any other substance, its integrity, value and purity are compromised. When we mix what God said with what we like, the result is the same.

My Comments:

1. Wow! I don’t know where to start…
2. I would love to be pointed toward those specific Scripture references which tells us what “God likes” in worship. It has been my understanding that God inherits the praises of His people. I read that once David (the man after God’s own heart) danced naked before the Lord. Is that the biblical standard that we need to return to? I would submit to Joyce that we have, indeed, consulted the Scritpures. In fact, we’ve put music to many of them … we call them praise and worship songs. Somehow I think that God must “like” His Word put to music.
3. I would really like to know what that innocuous “unscriptural practice” was that Joyce described in her church’s worship. I wonder why she didn’t mention it by name. Perhaps it was not so “unscriptural?”
4. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians can so easily label their practices and preferences as “Scriptural,” no matter how little biblical support those practices and preferences may have.
5. As Joyce commented on blending being the way the “world has crept through the front doors of our churches,” I wonder if she realizes that so many of the old hymns (that I’m sure she loves … as do I) were Christian verse “blended” with familiar tunes in the 19th century?
6. I could go on … I find so much to critique in this letter … but let me finish with this affirmation of Joyce Paul’s recent “letter to the editor.” I stand with her in her “anti-blending” position when it comes to our worship. Blending styles does not bring different age groups and worldviews together … it just frustrates everyone. Just focus on the people group you are trying to reach with the Gospel, choose a style of music that will reach that people group, and go with it. Do not deviate from it. Do not try to become “homogenized” in your worship.

In the end, God is simply looking for our praises and our adoration … not the “right and proper” instruments in our “sanctuaries,” choir robes, pipe organs, or pews. He seeks hearts that are passionate for Him and broken for the lost. Enough of this childish, self-focused, idolatrous quibbling over how “we want” our worship to be.

I just received my fall edition of On Mission magazine from NAMB. I can tell that there are already some significant, fundamental changes in our mission board. How can I tell that from a magazine?

I had to get all the way to page 64, the last page of the magazine, to find a picture of the new NAMB president, Geoff Hammond. How refreshing! From all that I have read about Dr. Hammond, he wants to keep our missions and missionaries (not himself) front and center.

I’m looking toward a tremendously positive future for NAMB, and I will continue to pray that we will truly have a mission board … not a “corporate entity.”

Great start, Dr. Hammond!