The Much Argued BF&M Motion

Debate closed last night on a motion regarding the use of the BF&M 2000 as a “guide” for all convention agencies and entities. Rick Garner of Ohio introduced this motion:

That the SBC adopt the following statement previously adopted by the Executive Committee. This statement reads: “The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

A vote was taken. The motion passed with a vote of 57.55%. So, the convention has spoken.

But what did it actually say?

What does all of this mean? What does “guide” mean? Doctrinal leadership or doctrinal parameters?

There is so much “spin” from every direction that the only thing we can be sure of regarding this motion is that we don’t really know what it means. Indeed, as I read the blogs this morning, I find infinitely more eisegesis of the motion than honest, straightforward exegesis of the (rather vague) wording of the motion.

Blogger Bart Barber, who endorsed the motion the motion on his blog prior to the vote, offered this analysis:

“… and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees…” The BF&M needs no other clarifying document in order to serve as a guide to trustees. There is no list of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines in the document. The document itself, as it stands, speaks for itself and is sufficient as a guide to the trustees.

I should note, some people seem to be asserting it as the only sufficient guide to the trustees. But such a belief would be heresy, and I think that people really just aren’t thinking through what they are saying. “Only sufficient” is language that we Baptists generally reserve for speaking about the Bible. Thankfully, the text of the statement says nothing of the sort.

So, the BF&M is precisely what this statement says it is: One document that is sufficient to serve as a guide to the trustees.

Clearly, Dr. Barber contends that this motion indicates that the BF&M 2000 is a sufficient guide for all trustee boards, but not the only guide. The only document suitable for that position is the Bible.

Wade Burleson, in his latest post, has proclaimed:

In essence, the convention said that the agencies and institutions of our convention do not have the right to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM 2000.

Such an interpretation seems, to me , to be a very narrow, eisegetical interpretation of what is (see above) an intentionally vague statement. And coming from Rev. Burleson, such a claim is confusing at best. Indeed, how can one who has, himself, taken issue with several items of the BF&M 2000 … “the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention…” (wording from the above motion), even describing one statement in the BF&M 2000 as “contrary to Scripture” (his words – not mine), claim that this motion has elevated the very document that he refuses to sign without exceptions as the only acceptable doctrinal “parameter” of our SBC agencies, boards, and seminaries. Such a position seems confusing and self-contradictory, at best.

It seems to me that Marty Duren, at SBC Outpost, has interpreted this motion in much more pragmatic, sensible way. In this morning’s post, he stated:

Now that the measure has passed and the SBC annual meeting has decided that the BFM really does mean something, what does it mean? It is to be used as a guide, which very simply means this: Those entity and agency boards of trustees that are striving to adhere to the stated guidance of the Southern Baptist Convention, will be very deliberate to stay within the parameters of the BFM2K. But, those entity and agency boards of trustees that are not striving to adhere to the stated guidance of the Southern Baptist Convention will continue to ignore it as they have in the past.

I quite agree that this will be the most likely outcome.

But I think Art Rogers said it best in his “overnight” post:

Another practicality is that this motion has the weight of a resolution. The Boards of Trustees can not be instructed by the convention to do a thing. The Boards will continue to vote their conscience before God. If their conscience is bound to represent the convention’s action on this, they will do so. If they feel so firmly that the convention is wrong, they will not change and it will be up to the convention to remove them if they see fit, change its mind on the issue, or live with that of which they say they do not approve. In other words, this is not over.

And I believe Art is exactly right. This motion, for all practical purposes, has the weight of nothing more than a resolution. The trustees of each entity will be instructed by it and take it into account.  The polity of the SBC is such that the convention cannot demand any particular decision or behavior from any autonomous board of trustees. They may only elect and remove those trustees. Until then, the SBC trustee boards will continue to do their job as they feel the Lord leads them.

 

 

American Idol – At Least Jordin Won

Okay … I broke down and started watching the stupid finale when I saw the absurd awards that were being passed out. The lady in the big bird suit was a hoot.

It defnintely could have been worse.

At least Jordin, the more deserving of the two, won the competiton. Maybe I’m just getting old, but trying to sound like an old record player just doesn’t “do it” for me. That’s not talent. It is only gimmick. The landscape of the music world is littered with boy-band wannabees like young Blake. I know he’s a sweet kid, and all, but …

It should have been Melinda Doolittle. The highlight of the night was her song with BeBe & CeCe. What a witness! I can’t wait to buy her first CD. I hope it is a Christian music project.

 

Congressional Democrats Seeking to De-Fund Abstinence Programs

According to a recent Baptist Press article, congressional Democrats plan to end all federally funded abstinence programs by allowing Title V funds to expire in June. Title V was established in 1996 during the overhaul of the welfare system. It receives only a portion of the federal dollars invested in comprehensive sex education programs. Indeed, federal and state governments already spend $12 on comprehensive programs for every one dollar spent to teach abstinence.

Efforts to de-fund these abstinence programs rely heavily upon a study by the Mathematica Policy Research group which claims that abstinence education does not delay teenage sexual activity. However, this supposed research flies in the face of other studies which indicate the success of such programs.

It seems that congressional democrats would like to redirect Title V funds to groups like Planned Parenthood, which focus upon contraception … and provide abortion services.

Rep. John Dingell (D), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, stated, “abstinence-only programs seem to be a colossal failure.”

Rep. Diana DeGette (D) of Colorado proclaimed:

With all we know about how to prevent teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted diseases, it is high time to redirect the millions of federal dollars that we squander every year on abstinence-only education to programs that actually work.

My take on this?

Well, it only took a couple of clicks on Google to get to some real information and statistics. I found some particularly helpful information throuth The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Their statistics show that teen pregnancy rates held steady prior to 1995 around 100 pregnancies per 1,000 females between the ages of 15 and 19. The rate peaked in 1990 at 117 pregnancies per 1,000. As of the most recent update in October 2006, that rate has decreased to 41 pregnancies per 1,000.

Here are the rates per 1,000 teen-age girls, ages 15-19, in a more graphic fashion. (Note – statistics were not provided for 2001, 2003 and 2004.

• 1995 – 100 (Before Title V Abstinence Funding)
• 1996 – 96 (After introduction of Title V Abstinence Funding)
• 1997 – 91
• 1998 – 89
• 1999 – 86
• 2000 – 84
• 2002 – 75
• 2005 – 41

Okay … what do we know for sure? We know that governmental investment in contraception promotion has always been in place. That has not changed. It was going on when I was in school. But what has changed? What occurred in 1996 that was on the front-end of the literal nose-dive in teen pregnancy rates?

One word … ABSTINENCE. Faith-based program like True Love Waits. Federally funded, Title V programs.

One would have to be a bit obtuse … a little slow on the uptake … basically, an idiot, to think that abstinence-only programs are a “colossal failure.”

 

Done!

Tonight, after seven years, losing both of my parents, planting one new church, and a host of other life experiences … I completed my final, last-ever assignment and required class attendance in pursuit of my Master of Divinity through the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am almost 42 years old. Truly, it is never too late!

Praise the Lord!

Graduation & Diploma Day – Friday, May 18 @ 10:00 AM.

Double Praise the Lord!

 

Sexual Abuse in the SBC – Do We Really Need (or Want) a Convention-Wide Database?

The Christian Post on-line ran a headline story entitled, “Baptists Asked to Crack Down on Sex Abusers.” This article reports the following:

The Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has started a campaign to call attention to alleged sex abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers and concealed by churches.

SNAP presented a letter Monday to Southern Baptist Convention executive committee members in Nashville, asking the group to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on sex abuse and to create an independent review board to investigate molestation reports.

The convention’s response was, I think, appropriate. Convention president Frank Page responded that the denomination plans to teach its churches how to conduct background checks, and to require letters of recommendation for job candidates. But he rightly pointed out that Southern Baptist Convention does not have the legal authority to create an independent board to investigate abuse complaints in the local churches.

“As much as possible within our structure, we’re going to assist churches,” Page said. “We’re deeply concerned about this. We believe children are the most precious gifts from God.”

The article also pointed out that the Southern Baptist convention passed a resolution in 2002 urging its churches to discipline ministers guilty of sexual abuse and to cooperate with authorities in their prosecution.

But that response did not satisfy the leaders of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). Christa Brown, SNAP member from Austin, Texas, said that’s not enough. She claims that the Southern Baptists need an independent review board precisely because there’s no clear chain of command among Baptist churches. SNAP maintains that they have received approximately 40 reports of sexual abuse by pastors, some of them dating back several years.

Her solution? Here is what she suggests:

“The SBC also does not keep a list of ministers who have been accused of abuse.” She also added, “I believe kids are not safe in Southern Baptist churches.”

Kevin Bussey, friend and fellow blogger over at Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee, posted on this story today. He seems to agree with Brown that such a list is needed. The majority of comments on his blog post also seem to be going in that direction. But I must, at this point, respectfully disagree. I believe that it is neither wise, nor legal, for a denominational group that has no legal authority over autonomous local churches to compile any kind of “list” of people who have been accused of anything. Even sexual abuse.

Let me explain…

I refer you to Ms. Brown’s suggestion in the above quote. I added bold type to one word … accused. Again, that emphasis was mine. But it is a word that I think we all need to pay careful attention to.

Let us analyze this carefully, and thoughtfully separate our analysis from emotion. First of all, like many of you, I am not just a pastor, I am also a parent. I have two beautiful daughters. I shudder to think of dealing with the horror of sexual abuse in the lives of my children. I am repulsed by the very idea of sexual acts involving children. I abhor the sick, perverted predators who prey upon children. If I were the king of all things, their legal, earthly judgment would include a traumatic, painful separation from some of their select bodily members.

But let me ask … how many of you pastors have been accused of something that you did not do? I’m not talking about sexual accusations. Just plain old accusations … preposterous stuff. I’m sure that we all have, at one time or another.

I cannot fathom a ministry environment in which a vindictive person in one of our churches (do you know any of those?) or a political “hit-man” or fellow pastor in our convention (heard of any of those?) could sabotage the ministry of a faithful man of God … simply by making an anonymous accusation (that’s how these things get started) and getting that pastor’s name added to a “Southern Baptist Sexual Predator List.”

Really. Think about the abhorrent political life that exists in the background of our beloved SBC already. We already have self-preserving denominational bureaucrats who “mine” the blogs for information that they can use against people. We have people being skipped over for denominational jobs, or defunded by various Southern Baptist entities, or being “blackballed” in Southern Baptist life simply because of comments made on blogs! We have people writing letters asking for people to be “investigated.” This dispicable stuff is already occurring.

But can you imagine the destruction of ministries, churches, and families that could be wrought by a vindictive Baptist hell-bent on “cleansing” the convention of those who do not think like him (or her) simply by “dropping a name” or accusation for inclusion on such a list?!!!

My friends, we are not the Roman Catholic church. We have no governmental system beyond the local church. The police and law enforcement agancies already maintain lists of people convicted of sexual crimes. That’s their job. It is not our job, nor the job of our convention. Police records can be accessed through simple background checks. If a church fails to do a background check on a pastor, and that pastor turns out to be a predatory pervert, then that church should have its proverbial “clock cleaned” in court, if they are found to be negligent.

Baptists, let’s let law enforcement do its job. Let’s educate our churches on background checks and prevention. Let’s hunt down and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. But please, let us never, ever, ever, start to compile lists of the “accused.”

Sexual abuse is an important issue. It must be addressed and fought with all of our resources. But it must not devlove to an atmosphere of “witch hunting.” Because, remember, in a “witch hunt,” an accusation is all that is necessary.

 

“Spending God’s Money” … My Reflections & Where Do We Go From Here?

Mary Kinney Branson, the former Director of Marketing for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written a new book detailing (at least giving her version of) the inner struggles, politics, and abuses at NAMB under the leadership of Bob Reccord. It’s called Spending God’s Money.

This back of the book offers a pretty good summary of where she’s headed on its pages. I found this posted, also, on the book’s product description at amazon.com (which I have copied here).

What’s Happened to Our Contributions? A hundred years ago, collective giving seemed the perfect solution. What one individual or church couldn’t do, combined efforts accomplished with ease. National agencies sprung up, offering to spend on our behalf. And we embraced them. Flash forward to days crammed with emails, overtime, and endless commuting. Time is often more valuable than money, and the desire to delegate spiritual privileges and responsibilities is even stronger. Surely national agencies and the professionals who oversee them can carry out the Great Commission faster and more effectively than harried homemakers and stressed executives. But as our time shrinks, national ministries grow larger. What started as lean groups of roll-up-your-sleeves workers have become Paul Bunyan-sized agencies, with excess fat and an overload of middle men draining a big chunk of the money intended for spreading the gospel. Elaborate national headquarters have shot up across America, with presidential office suites rivaling those of top CEOs. And giving isn’t the same. Sending a check to a faceless organization doesn’t generate the same fulfillment as pressing money into the hand of a young person heading for the mission field. Now the only smiling faces are those of mega leaders. And recently, their smiles have been fading as disenchanted givers voice their displeasure with irresponsible spending. The author of this on-the-edge book proposes an answer. After opening readers’ eyes to the tremendous waste of their hard-earned dollars, she offers ways to bring joy and effectiveness back into giving.

I received my copy of the book from the publisher around 2:30 yesterday. Right now that seems to be the only way to get it. Anyhow, I started reading it immediately … and I couldn’t stop. My wife thought I was “possessed” or something. I finished reading it around 9:00. I don’t think I will ever look at Cooperative Program giving in the same way again.

Let me say on the front end that I didn’t particularly enjoy the overall flow of the book. I found it a bit difficult to follow at times. Branson introduced important “players” at NAMB, often only by first names. After a while all of the names of all of the VP’s (there seemed to be a whole lot of them) started to blend together. But, as a read account after account of waste, abuse, and even (so it seems) fraudulent use of our sacrificially-given Cooperative Program dollars, I found myself searching for a highlighting pen. The passion and personal experience from which she wrote this book are powerfully evident.

And let me be frank. I’ve had my own personal dealings with NAMB. I am not the organization’s biggest fan. I worked under a contract status, providing professional leadership for short-term mission projects at a department at NAMB for eight years. I was once “fired” by a NAMB associate from one such position through a message on my home answering machine … I got share that humiliation with my family in the room. More recently, I was “let go” because I wanted to start a new ministry that was somehow viewed as “competitive” with a similar ministry at NAMB … and all the while I thought that us Jesus folk were all on the “same team.”

But I found myself having an “out of body experience” as I read Branson’s account of the sheer scope of the wasteful spending of Cooperative Program dollars through our North American Mission Board. I won’t go into any details. You need to read this stuff yourself. But when I found out that, with a budget of $132 million, we were only able to fully fund and field 32 full-time missionaries in North America, well … that “sealed the deal” for me. But at least we have a really nice building full of “middle managers” to show for it and a warehouse full of useless, unsellable inventory … right? Sigh…

If these claims are true, and by all accounts that we have been made privy to up to now it seems that they are, I can’t help but think that there will soon be a radical change in the giving patterns of Southern Baptist churches. Especially when Southern Baptists learn about the boatloads of “loot” and perks that Bob Reccord and other FOBs (that’s the NAMB acronym for “friends of Bob”) made off with when they departed (or even if they never actually were on staff of) our mission board (if these reports are, indeed, true … but I think Southern Baptists should be informed if CP dollars have been used to “buy out” contracts) .

Branson’s thesis seems to be that the further God’s money gets from the hands that gave it (that’s us, by the way … Southern Baptists), the more likely it becomes that a significant portion of those dollars will be wasted, in one fashion or another. I tend to agree. It’s common sense, really. The larger a bureaucracy, the more waste involved. We see it in governments. The most effective, wisest-spending form of government is local. Likewise, it stands to reason that the most effective, most careful, thriftiest spenders of “God’s money” must be the local churches. There is accountability in the local church. There are “checks and balances.” Both the giving and the spending are “personal” in the local church. And, after all, good stewardship requires good accountability just as much as it requires generosity.

I must admit that as a pastor of a relatively young church plant (under five years), comprised primarily of new and young (twenty and thirty-somethings) believers with no historical or familial ties to the SBC, it is a difficult “sell” to convince them that we should mail our monthly checks to a faceless “Baptist fund in the sky.” They want to know where the dollars that they gave are going. They want to know how they are spent. They want to give to a “point of contact.” They want to fund our own home-church “missionaries” in our own mobilization endeavors. Now that I’ve read this book, I don’t feel quite so compelled to be a “CP salesman” and try to convince them otherwise.

Let me confess right now … I am pretty disenfranchised in Baptist life anyway at this point in my ministry life. In the last five years I have been “let go” twice by NAMB, accepted and then six months later kicked out of my local Southern Baptist Association, and seen my church listed in the Kentucky Baptist Convention report book under the auspicious title of, “Miscellaneous.” This “miscellaneous” group of unaffiliated Southern Baptist churches to which I belong (in Kentucky) has relatively little representation on our state board, even though we represent almost 10% of the KBC churches.

From my view, it seems that the only time anyone wants to hear from me or my church in Southern Baptist life is if our correspondence has a check included with it.

I’m tired of being one of what Branson calls the “16 million worker bees” financing the desires and whims of a chosen few. I’ve got a lot of searching, pondering, and praying to do.

I’m wondering. Is the day upon us … I mean staring us full in the face … when one’s level of Cooperative Program giving is no longer the “measuring rod” that defines what it means to be Southern Baptist? Is it time for a new generation to step out in boldness and faith and stop “hiring out” the work of missions and evangelism that we should be out doing ourselves?

The Cooperative Program was created in the early 20th century (though the foundations for cooperative giving were laid in the middle of the 19^th century). Things have changed dramatically in the past 80+ years. It’s not the same “world.” It’s obviously not the same Cooperative Program. And it’s definitely not the same Southern Baptists licking the stamps and mailing the checks.

I’m going to pray fervently about this while I’m on the mission field overseas next week. I’m going to talk personally with some IMB personnel to get their input and absorb their wisdom. I will analyze and write at length on all of this, and more, when I return. Meanwhile, I hope that I don’t miss out on the really good discussion and debate while I’m gone!

 

Where are the Men?

 

I posted a couple of days ago about some innovative methods that our church has employed as outreach strategies to the men in our community. Fellow pastor and blog buddy Tony Sisk challenged me on the notion. He tends to cast his “vote” against these demonstrations of manliness. He made a very thought-provoking statement …

My contention is that most men have abdicated their God-given responsibilities of prayer and service and until they reclaim those priorities, it does not matter how many Harleys you park in the vestibule or tree stands you hang from the balcony to encourage men to do those things. Killing a bear with their bear hands will not make more godly men out of them.

Tony might have a point. If such ministries and events aimed at men are the “end-all” of what churches are doing to disciple men, then I agree with Tony.  They fall way short of what our men truly need in their lives.  But if they are simply creative means to reach out to men and include them in a place and atmosphere of “manly” fellowship, then I think I tend to disagree.  Indeed, I think that events and ministries aimed at men … where they are … within their interests, are just what the “Great Physician” ordered.

Consider …

The Western Recorder, the weekly newspaper of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, ran a fascinating story a few months ago by Kristen Campbell of the Religion News Service entitled, “Getting Men to Church.”

Much of the article is an analysis of David Murrow’s book, Why Men Hate Going to Church.

Consider these interesting insights that Campbell noted and quoted from Murrow’s book:

• “My background is in marketing and advertising … the target audience of almost everything about church culture was a 50 to 55-year-old woman.”

• The theology and practices of Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam offer “uniquely masculine experiences. Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil, and although that was a prevalent teaching in Christianity until about 100 years ago, today it’s primarily about having a relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. And if that’s the punch line of the gospel, then you’re going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not.”

• On Sunday morning, “We’re going to sing love songs to Jesus and there’s going to be fresh flowers on the altar and quilted banners on the walls.”

Pretty heavy stuff. We have all recognized for generations the glaring absence of men fm our churches. Maybe it’s not because they’re simply not interested in spiritual matters. Perhaps they are just not engaged by the overwhelmingly feminine presentation of the faith found in most of our churches.

What do you think? Should we in the church, perhaps, share some of the blame for the apparent spiritual apathy and glaring lack of male leadership in so many of our churches? Should we reconsider the very presentation of our faith to this current generation of men?

 

Growth By Division

I an privileged to serve as the pastor of Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky. God allowed us to plant this church on March 24, 2002. We are rapidly coming up on our fifth “birthday” in the life of our congregation.

Many things have changed in that five years. We have changed locations four or five times. We have changed people. Some jumped on board with our vision early on but, for various reasons, did not persevere. Yet God has graced us with many wonderful, faithful followers of Christ. We have been blessed to see over sixty people come to the Lord in that five-year span and follow Him in New Testament baptism.

And we have changed in our numbers. We have grown as a church … not as much as I would have liked … but we have grown. We launched the church with a classic “large launch.” That was the method that Ed Stetzer taught me as Southern Seminary. We had 174 people in attendance on our opening day. That number dropped down to about 100 the following week and it has climbed, somewhat steadily, since that time. Over the past couple of years we have averaged about 160-170 people each week in our worship celebration, preschool time, and G-Force worship for elementary kids (all were held simultaneously). Sometimes we had more, sometimes less. We have penetrated the 200 mark only a couple of times in our short history. Our actual church membership is about 125 people. We are a Southern Baptist anomaly … we have more people in attendance that we have members. We’ve actually kept up with everyone!

Our biggest problem, though, has been the space. We have purchased a 39-acre property for our future “campus.” We have also purchased a small building (4,000 sq. ft.) immediately across the road from that campus property for our temporary home. 160 people a week pushed us to the max. It has been uncomfortably crowded.

I led our elders and our LIFE Group Shepherds (our equivalent of “deacons”) to study and consider a move to using our building twice … doing two of “everything” on Sunday morning. We took several months to discuss and cast the vision. Then, we called a “family meeting” of the entire body to discuss the move. Some were skeptical. They thought that the division of the worship would hurt the body. They felt that we needed a single worship hour. Others were supportive. But, in the end, the church agreed to follow me as their pastor, step out in faith, and see if God might grow us by dividing us.

We started our dual ministry hours two Sundays ago, on January 7. A new year with a new schedule. And guess what happened! Instant growth!

• January 7 : Total Sunday Morning Attendance – 254
• January 14: Total Sunday Morning Attendance – 239

We have broken through the 200 barrier! We grew by dividing. Most of us have known this simple concept for years … we once called it the “Sunday School Growth Spiral.” The way that you grow is to grow to the maximum in your current units, then divide into more new units, then continue the cycle of growth.

At Crossroads Fellowship we have learned that the concept works across the board. It works with regard to worship services, as well. The most difficult concept to grasp, if we truly desire to grow in numbers, is that it is “OK” not to know (intimately) every single person in the church. But, through our LIFE Groups and Ministry Teams (small groups) you can get to know a small group of people very well.

Sounds kind of like the second chapter of Acts to me…

 

The Prosperity “Gospel?”

This whole thing about giving away houses and cars to lure people into showing up for church has really got me thinking…

A couple of months ago the Western Recorder, the state newspaper of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, carried a front page story by Ken Camp of the Texas Baptist Standard entitled, “Baptist Leaders Voice Concern About Prosperity Gospel’s Influence.”

Camp’s article provides a brief critique of the so-called, “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel,” otherwise known as the “name-it-and-claim-it” gospel, and its apparent growing popularity in North America. This theology, in summary form, states that God wants us all to be healthy financially blessed.  Indeed, some would teach that where there is not health and wealth, there must be a lack of faith.  All one needs to do to have this health and wealth is to “name it and claim it” in faith, then God is obligated to oblige.
The article includes the view of the oft-maligned Pastor Joel Osteen, who wrote in his best-selling book, Your Best Life Now, “The Bible says, ‘God takes pleasure in prospering His children.’ As his children prosper spiritually, physically and materially, their increase brings pleasure to God.”

His view is countered by Suzii Paynter, director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, who said, “…the prosperity doctrine…limits God. it makes Him into a behavioral psychologist who resorts to external rewards to manipulate rat-race human beings.”

The possible impact of this “prosperity gospel” is something that I have decided to investigate. I’ve mentioned before that a church from a nearby community has recently sought to plant a satellite congregation in my community. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a huge fan of the “franchising of the church” and multiple locations, though I do recognize that such is a valid strategy for planting new churches in some instances. But I am a huge advocate of church planting. There are plenty of unreached people in our community. A new church is welcome. I received a mailer from the new satellite church that promoted its first sermon series. The series was entitled, “King Solomon’s Secrets of Success.” A message series designed to unveil the secrets of a successful (and obviously wealthy) king sounded hauntingly like a “prosperity gospel” approach. But, since I didn’t attend, I can’t be sure. But I an quite sure that something resembling this theology can be found in most of our communities.

Of course, this “health and wealth” phenomenon is nothing new. We all remember the “glory days” of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. So-called “evangelists” have been broadcasting their emotionally manipulative programs and convincining the poor and working people to “call in” or “mail in” their hard-earned money (and also affecting their local churches) so that they can “receive a blesing” for the past thirty years or so.

But what is the current impact of this theology? What are the implications of this approach to sharing the message of Christ? Is it truly a message of Christ? Is it, indeed, the true Gospel? Who actually responds to this kind of message? Is it just a sick reflection of the spoiled, selfish, self-indulging, comsumer state of our culture? Or does God really want us to have riches beyond our wildest dreams?