As November 6th approaches, folks have begun to ask me my thoughts about the involvement of Christians in the US political process. Many Christians have never taken the time to think about this subject. After all, we’ve grown up in America, and we understand our role in the electoral process. However, many have failed to ask how being a Christian should inform the way we think about our responsibilities as citizens. The questions I’ve received most often are these:

Does the Bible say anything about our role as American citizens?
Does the Bible say anything about our role as American citizens who are also citizens of God’s kingdom?
Does the Bible say anything about the role of churches in promoting political agendas?

As this election nears, I want to share my response to these questions. I will include a brief answer to each question in the order that I’ve listed them, and I will conclude with some principles that should guide us as believers during this, and every, election cycle.

First, does the Bible say anything about our role as American citizens? Specifically, of course, the answer is no. America didn’t exist when the Bible was written, so there are no specific references to our country in scripture. That being said, the Bible does provide some guidelines for living our lives as Christian citizens, of this or any country.

Romans 13:1-7 provides the clearest description of our role as citizens:

”Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”

Within this text, you will find the following principles that God has given us regarding our relationship to our government:

• We are to be subject (subordinate oneself, put oneself under, obey) to our government, unless they force us to choose between obeying government and obeying Christ;
• God ordains government;
• God ordains governmental leaders;
• It is sin to resist governmental authorities (see bullet point one above);
• As citizens, we are to choose to do good, not evil;
• God ordains government to maintain civil order;
• Submission to governmental authorities protects us from God’s wrath and preserves our consciences before Him and others;
• We are to pay our taxes and required revenues;
• We are to honor and respect those whom God places in positions of governmental authority.

Other texts support this:

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” 1 Peter 3:13-17

“And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,3 but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius4 and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.” Mark 12:13-17

”Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.” Titus 3:1-2

As these verses demonstrate, we have very specific responsibilities as citizens. As American citizens, we have the unique privilege to be a part of a political process like few other people on earth have ever enjoyed, including Jesus, the disciples, and Paul. As such, we should be good stewards of this opportunity, striving to make decisions in the light of God’s word and with a clear conscience before Him. We must embrace these biblical principles, because they teach us how to do this.

Second, does the Bible say anything about our role as American citizens who are also citizens of God’s kingdom? God’s word spends far more time talking about the kingdom of God than it does about earthly governments. Governments have been rising and falling since the creation of man; the one constant throughout, however, is the kingdom of God. It has been growing and flourishing through all of human history, and one day it will culminate with a divine Monarchy—the literal reign of Jesus Christ as King on earth. Consequently, other than the verses I reference in this article, God has little to say about our interaction with human governments.

That being said, however, God has much to say about our role as citizens of the kingdom of God. Matthew 5-7 provides an amazing description of those who live as residents of God’s kingdom, regardless of the governmental system they are under. Here are some additional principles that speak to our role as Kingdom residents who are also American citizens:

• Jesus is the Sovereign King over all earthly rulers:

“Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” Revelation 1:5

• God raises up governments and governmental leaders:

“Daniel answered and said: ‘Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. 21 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings.’” Daniel 2:20-21

• God is sovereign over the decisions made by governments:

“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wills.” Proverbs 21:1

“For God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” Revelation 17:17

• Our primary purpose as residents of God’s kingdom is to seek God’s kingdom, in our lives and in our world, because God’s kingdom transcends earthly governments:

“Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” Matthew 6:33-34

• Our allegiance to Christ transcends our allegiance to any earthly government:

“But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4:19-20

“20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20

As these verses demonstrate, there is a unique tension here. We have a dual citizenship: as followers of Jesus, we are citizens of both heaven and earth. There is also a hierarchy here as well: we owe allegiance to Christ, and we offer allegiance to our country. Furthermore, as long as Christ and country do not come into conflict with one another, we follow Romans 13 and live in the reality of Romans 12:18. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” If, however, we must choose between obeying Christ or obeying the government, we must always choose Christ.

Third, does the Bible say anything about the role of churches in promoting political agendas? The answer is both yes and no: yes in the OT and no in the NT. In the OT, when kings who received their thrones by virtue of God’s covenant ruled Israel, the prophets had much to say about their idolatry and wickedness. After all, Israel is the people of God, and He had very clear laws for the nation to follow.

In the NT, however, there is absolutely no teaching that the church should be proclaiming a political message. Jesus never preached against the Romans, although they were oppressive to his people. He taught the people to pay their taxes and carry a soldier’s equipment with joy if forced to do so. Jesus submitted to their authority when he was arrested. He acknowledged that Pilate was ruling by virtue of God’s sovereign will of decree (John 19:11). He didn’t respond to his treatment with anger or vitriol. Instead, he reaffirmed that he was the king of a different kingdom, and his followers didn’t accomplish their mission with violence or hatred, but rather peace and love (John 18:36-38). Jesus wasn’t about transforming earthly kingdoms; he was about transforming lives for his kingdom.

Similarly, Paul never spoke about political activism, either. When he wrote the text in Romans 13, the Caesar was Nero, one of the most brutal leaders of all time, and a violent persecutor of the church. Many believe it was Nero who killed Paul. One would think that if there were ever a time for political activism in the church that would have been it. Instead, however, Paul focused his attention on the gospel (1 Cor. 1:18-31). His message for citizens of Rome, or any nation, was one of civil obedience, respect for authority, and prayer for governing rulers. (1 Peter 2:17)

Consequently, there is no biblical support for a politically active church. Clearly, however, many have adopted that mentality. Their argument goes like this: “God didn’t command us to do it, but he didn’t command us not to either.” This is bad theology, of course. It’s like the person who says, “God didn’t mention Euthanasia, so it must be ok.” We must always look at the whole of scripture when we develop our theology. The evidence is scripture is clear: God created the church to proclaim the gospel, baptize and teach disciples, and evangelize the world—not to focus its attention on the foibles of politics.

What are we to do as Christians who are citizens not only of the US but also of God’s kingdom? Here are my thoughts:

• As Christians, our focus must be centered on the kingdom of God and the command to live as Kingdom residents. Christians live under all types of political systems around the world, and God calls them to live out the gospel under every one of them. (Mt. 5-7)

• As Christians, we must live in the reality of the mission of the church. Ultimately, our battles are not against people or political parties. It is against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12) Like Christ, we must stay focused on his mission. Governments don’t change people–God does!

• As Christians, we must strive to be wise stewards of the opportunity we have to be involved in the political process in the US. As is true with every area of our lives, scripture alone must guide our decisions when it comes to elections. We must never allow blind loyalty to a party or a person to trump our loyalty to God and His Word. (1 Cor. 10:31)

• As Christians, we must never judge the motives or choices of others. Jesus alone has been given the authority to judge. (Mt. 7:1-5) The decision about whom to vote for, or whether to vote at all, must be decided on an individual basis before God. Every person will give an account of their lives when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and that includes how they participated in the political process.

• As Christians, we are free to share our own positions about political issues, but only in a spirit of humility and grace, so that we do not cause a brother to stumble. It is always arrogant to act as if ours are the only opinions that have any merit. Similarly, anything that creates division in God’s church is a sin. This includes conversations about political events or elections. (Titus 3:1-2, 9-11)

• As Christians, we must be intentional about prayer. (1 Thes. 5:17) God has given us prayer as a gift. We can talk with God about anything, including a political election. As with all of our prayers, however, we must submit to God’s sovereign will. (1 Jn 5:14-15) Ultimately, though, the most important prayers we pray are not about earthly governments; they are about the kingdom of God and the work of the gospel. (Eph. 6:10-20).

As Christians, we must participate in politics as Kingdom residents. In a few short weeks, this current election cycle will be over for another couple of years. God will reveal his sovereign will of decree for our country, and life will carry on as it always does. What we cannot do, however, is leave a trail of hurt feelings, hemorrhaged relationships, and judgmental attitudes in our wake. If our church, or any church for that matter, is divided and distracted from God’s mission because of an election, the cause will not be patriotism—it will be sin! I’m praying that God will spare us from this fate and help us to navigate it with humility, grace, and a Kingdom-driven focus!

The danger of theological “drift” has always been a challenge for the church. Indeed, the assault on its soteriology began during the earliest days of the church’s existence. From the false claims of the Jewish religious leaders concerning the resurrection of Jesus, to the legalistic interpretation of the gospel by the Judiazers, to the metaphysical objections of the Gnostics, the early church and its leaders faced regular assaults on the gospel. These assaults would prompt Jude to write the following words of warning, “Dear friends, although I was eager to write you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all. For certain men, who were designated for this judgment long ago, have come in by stealth; they are ungodly, turning the grace of God into promiscuity and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (3-4).”

Today, the church continues to wrestle with a consistent barrage of attacks on the gospel. Ancient heresies have been repackaged for contemporary audiences. The deity of Christ continues to be questioned through “discoveries” like the “Jesus family” tomb, the exclusivity of the gospel is undermined by assumptions about “anonymous Christianity,” and widespread religious pluralism assigns faith in Christ to a myriad of “ways” for achieving eternal life.

It is within this context, amidst a wide variety of competing theological systems, that today’s pastor-teachers are called to serve. Sadly, however, in an era when theological acumen is more important than ever, many pastors have lost sight of their responsibility to be theologians for the church. Instead, many pastors have chosen to limit themselves to cultivating an expertise in the more practical areas of leadership, church growth, or counseling. Certainly, all of these areas are helpful skills and beneficial for ministry in the local church. Yet, when it comes to equipping the church with the ability to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” nothing is more critical than the ability to teach good theology. While no one would question the value of understanding one’s “leadership lid,” I would submit that a pastor-teachers greatest task is to help his people understand that good theology informs every aspect of their lives.

Before you turn me off, let me assure you that I’m not advocating an either/or situation. We need not choose between theology and praxis. Instead, I hope to remind you that this is a both/and situation. As pastor-teachers, we must seek to expose our churches to good theology. After all, good theology breeds healthy praxis. As we look across the wide spectrum of SBC churches today, our primary problem is not the absence of potential methodologies; our primary problem is shoddy theology. As a result, our people often struggle to understand the most rudimentary of doctrines. Furthermore, because they have not been taught how to think theologically, they are often “blown around by every wind of teaching, by human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit (Eph. 4:14).” And when that occurs, no one is more to blame than the pastor-teacher.

The New Testament has much to say about the significance and necessity of the pastor-teacher’s responsibility to shepherd the church theologically. Often, the mandate to teach is linked to the dangers of false teachers and their doctrine. This can be seen very clearly in Paul’s final letter to Timothy. In this letter he reminded Timothy of the sufficiency of God’s word (3:16-17) and the necessity of teaching it rightly (2:15). However, both of these truths where accompanied by warnings of “evil people and imposters” who “will become worse, deceiving and being deceived (3:13).” Within the context of this discussion, Paul reminded Timothy that there are two types of theological error—one to be engaged and another to ignored. Paul told Timothy that he was to engage any false teachers whose soteriology differed from the gospel he had received from Paul. Indeed, he was to “rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching (4:2). However, Paul also told Timothy that he was to ignore those secondary theological discussions that could produce disunity in the church. He told Timothy “not to fight about words; this is in no way profitable and leads to the ruin of the hearers. . . . avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness (2:14, 16).” This type of theological error was so potentially damaging to the church, Paul compared it to gangrene (2:17-18).

It is within the tension of these two theological areas, defending or diffusing, that pastor-teachers are called to serve. Sadly, many pastors find their way out of this dilemma by choosing one of three poor options. Some pastor-teachers desire to contend for the faith keeps them in battle mode at all times. Everywhere they look they can find the emerging threat of heresy. Others struggle with defining the doctrinal essentials and, as a result, they are constantly arguing over secondary or tertiary doctrines. Still others solve the problem by ignoring theology all together. The results of all of these choices, however, will be a church that is both poorly trained in theology and poorly equipped to engage in theological conversations. Despite the failures of many pastor-teachers and churches to learn how to think theologically, it is never too late to adopt a new paradigm. The balance of this essay will offer four suggestions for growing a theologically healthy church.

(1) The pastor-teacher should make a commitment to the on-going study of theology.  There are many factors that contribute to the absence of theological instruction that characterizes many of today’s churches, including the belief that theology is boring at best and unnecessary at worst. The number one reason for its absence, however, is the inability of many pastor-teachers to impart sound doctrine. Yet, that is the most important task of every preacher. Paul urged Timothy to “hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who lives in us, that good thing entrusted to you (1:13-14)).” The “good thing” to which Paul is referring is the truth of the “sound words” that Timothy had learned.

Good theology, therefore, is something to be learned, retained, guarded, and valued. For that to occur, then, every pastor-teacher must make the study of theology a life-long pursuit. Thankfully, with the amount of good theology books currently available, including the upcoming Theology for the Church, we can all become trained pastor-teacher-theologians. And if our churches are to become theologically astute, it will be the direct result of a growing number of pastor-teachers who take theology seriously.

(2) The pastor-teacher should create a safe environment where theological discussion and disagreement are both accepted.  At first glance, this statement may feel like a recipe for disaster in the church. In actuality, it is a key ingredient in theological study and church unity. Before this can be taught and practiced in the local church, however, it must first be embraced by the pastor-teacher. For this to work, the pastor-teacher must have a clear understanding of the three levels of theological inquiry. The first level of theological inquiry contains those doctrines that must be embraced by every member of a local church for theological unity to occur. These are often referred to as doctrines of eternal significance. At our church, we’ve six first level doctrines: Trinitarianism, the full deity/humanity of Christ as prerequisites for his person and work, salvation by grace alone on the basis of faith alone, the exclusivity of the gospel, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the literal existence of heaven and hell. These doctrines set the parameters for our defense of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. In fact, no one can join our church unless they acknowledge that they affirm these doctrines.

The second level of theological inquiry contains those doctrines about which we choose to agree as a church. For our church, these issues are related primarily to Baptist distinctives like believer’s baptism by immersion, the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of the passion of Christ, the autonomy of the local church, and the security of the believer. These are the theological issues that help define us as a congregation. They would influence potential partners in ministry, but they provide flexibility for specific situations where we might participate with other protestant faith traditions.

The third level of theological inquiry contains those doctrines about which inerrantists regularly disagree. It is at this level that most church conflicts arise, and it is here that Paul admonished Timothy not to “fight about words (2:14).” In our church, the theological issues that we place in this category include rapture questions and the finer points of reformed theology. Within the scope of these issues, there is room for inerrantists to disagree. Consequently, nothing in this category is viewed as a test of fellowship issue in our church.

The significance of identifying these first, second, and third level theological issues for your church cannot be overstated: level one doctrines are test of fellowship issues; level two doctrines are shared, communal doctrines which inform partnership and participation; level three doctrines include those areas where inerrantists often disagree. Before a church can think through this, however, the pastor-teacher must have these issues clearly defined in his own mind; only then will he be prepared to teach his church how to think theologically about these issues in a spirit of unity.

(3) The pastor-teacher should teach the totality of Scripture, including the difficult passages. The violation of this principle may account for much of the theological ignorance in our churches today. For too long, many pastors have simply avoided the biblical texts that were difficult to understand or that might run counter to the commonly held belief system of a church. While many men convinced themselves that this was really in the best interests of all involved (including themselves), they unwittingly created an environment where honest theological conversation about challenging doctrines was both uncomfortable and unacceptable. As a result, important theological questions related to subjects like soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology have been ignored.

In recent years, however, the growth of expository preaching has brought these issues back to the forefront in our churches. The revival of expository preaching is one of the great gifts of God to the contemporary church. And despite the flawed claims of some who insist that exposition and contemporary methodologies are incompatible, a commitment to expository preaching will help grow a theologically healthy church. Exposition will assist in this process in three very significant ways. First, it will help ensure that the pastor-teacher does, in fact, deal with the totality of Scripture, even the parts that are challenging. The practice of teaching through books of the Bible, or preaching from complete textual units, will force the preacher to be disciplined in his study and teaching. Second, exposition is the best defense for avoiding the temptation to “major on the minors.”  When this occurs, a church may lose sight of its evangelistic mandate and may become embroiled in unnecessary turmoil. Third, exposition will protect the pastor-teacher from becoming consumed with a pet doctrine. It is tragic when a pastor-teacher chooses to limit his ministry to the exploration of one doctrinal issue to the exclusion of others.

When we commit ourselves to teach the “whole counsel of God,” however, we must be prepared for our churches to encounter biblical texts that not only deal with these kinds of sensitive theological issues, but also may challenge previously held and/or accepted interpretations of them. When the careful pastor-teacher begins to address these theological issues in a context where they have been avoided, the results can be challenging for a church. The answer, however, is not to continue the habit of skipping the hard parts in our preaching. No, the pastor-teacher must equip his people to think theologically while maintaining a spirit of unity.

(4) The pastor-teacher should avoid majoring on third level doctrines.  This principle has a two-fold emphasis. First, as I noted earlier, one of the greatest challenges for many pastor-teachers is realizing that not every doctrine is a first level issue. Sadly, many churches have been injured because the pastor-teacher made his pet, third level doctrine a test of fellowship issue for the church. Second, developing a healthy environment for theological discussions to occur within the church requires a unique ability on the part of the pastor-teacher: he must acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on third level doctrines. When our studies reveal that fellow inerrantists hold different positions about the same theological issue, wisdom should guide us away from taking a dogmatic stand on that issue.

The definition of sovereign election and the timing of the rapture are two classic examples of this. Rather than allowing these doctrines to become a source of disunity, a wise pastor-teacher will acknowledge the existence of different interpretations while explaining his own. Furthermore, because these are third level doctrines, he will emphasize that it is acceptable for the people within the fellowship to be at different places regarding these doctrines. The willingness of the pastor-teacher to provide this kind of theological leadership will have two very positive outcomes. First, it will do more than anything else to develop a climate where healthy theological dialogue can develop in a spirit of unity. Second, it will develop a climate of trust that will allow the pastor-teacher to share his position and have it heard.

The role of the pastor-teacher has always been a challenging one. It takes great wisdom to balance the demands of ministry. And it takes great courage to faithfully teach the word in a climate where people “will not tolerate sound doctrine (4:3).” While others may hesitate to engage our culture with good theology, I want to urge you to join me in this pursuit. The pursuit to become pastor-teacher-theologian’s for the glory of God and the good of His church.

Published in SEBTS, Outlook (Spring, 2008): Feature Article. Cannot be copied without permission.

Joe Paterno began his coaching career at Penn State in 1950, serving as an assistant coach for fifteen years. He became the head coach in 1966, a position he held until his recent firing amid the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.  During those years, he led the Nittany Lions to 37 bowl games and two national championships. Ironically, he accomplished his greatest achievement the week before he was fired—he won his record 409^th career game, making him the winningest coach in NCAA Division One history.

That same week, Paterno’s long-time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested on charges of molesting 10 boys over the span of 15 years, some of whom were molested in the football facilities at Penn State. What made the story worse is that Paterno knew about the situation. He had received an eye-witness report that Sandusky had raped a boy in the team showers. Rather than report it to the police, however, he simply pushed the matter up the administrative chain of command. And, it appears, he never tried to find out what happened to the little boy in question and never followed up to see if the police had been informed. Worst of all, when it appeared that nothing would be done, he simply allowed the incident to be swept under the giant Penn State rug, and continued his pursuit of football immortality. And ultimately, when the truth finally came out, he suffered the swift justice of a legacy-destroying ouster from the school.

Joe Paterno was known for the slogan that defined his football program: “Success with Honor.” For sixty-one years, he sought to instill that idea into the hearts and lives of his players. For Paterno himself, however, the slogan was simply a mirage—a hollow credo without character. That’s not to say that Paterno did not begin with a legitimate goal to instill “Success with Honor” in his players. But somewhere along the line, his goal changed from building character to building legacy. As the wins piled up and the national championships were won, Paterno became about one thing—Paterno. At some point in his journey, something clicked, and he knew that he could become the greatest of all time. Nothing could stand in the way of that; not even a little boy being raped in the showers of his football complex. Make no mistake . . . on the fateful day when Joe Paterno heard what had happened, he made a conscious decision to protect his legacy at the expense of a child’s life and wellbeing.

Paterno’s comments about his choices are sad and pathetic. They reveal how little character Paterno really had. In the Post interview he said, “I didn’t know which way to go … and rather than get in there and make a mistake. . .” What kind of answer is this? He didn’t know which way to go when confronted by the news that a young boy was raped in his complex? Surely, someone who preaches “Success with Honor” knows that you must protect an innocent child, especially if that someone has kids of his own. Are we to believe that if the child had been one of Paterno’s sons that this would have been his response?

Paterno went on to say, “You know, (McQueary) didn’t want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.” I spent three years in law enforcement. Rarely have I heard a more blatant falsehood. Paterno didn’t know if reporting it would have done any good? Seriously? He did what he thought was best? For what, his legacy? Finally, he ends his comments by saying he did enough when he pushed the matter up the chain of command. I suppose he hoped someone else would have the integrity to do the right thing. And then, his conscience soothed, Paterno turned his attention back to the really important thing in his life—winning football games.

Paterno made one comment that was the most devastating of all, however. He said, “This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.” Once again, he attempts to minimize his responsibility with false humility. “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more?” How much hindsight did he need? The event happened nine years ago! If that weren’t enough time, how much time would he have needed? Apparently, he just needed enough time to get the all-time record for wins. Maybe then he would have had the courage to do the right thing, rather than allow the lives of young boys to be destroyed for the sake of his “legacy.”

Since his death, much has been said about Paterno. Penn State President Rodney Erickson called him “a great man who made us a greater university.” Penn State’s new football coach, Bill O’Brien, called Paterno a “great man, coach, mentor and, in many cases, a father figure.” Tom Bradley, one of Paterno’s long time assistants, said, “He will go down in history as one of the greatest men, who maybe most of you know as a great football coach.” Clearly, we would expect these types of comments from those in the Penn State family. These are men who see Paterno’s legacy as a bridge to their own, and as a result, see it as a legacy that must be preserved at all costs.

A “Who’s Who” of famous coaches have weighed in on Paterno as well, sharing thoughts about his greatness and legacy. New Ohio State head football coach Urban Meyer said, “He will go down as the greatest football coach in the history of the game.” Bobby Bowden, who competed with Paterno for the most wins in history, said he hopes Paterno will be remembered as a great leader and coach, and not for his role in the Sandusky scandal. He said, “You can’t ignore the great years he had at Penn State and the great things he did for Penn State.”

Meyer may be right. When it comes to winning football games, no one may ever rival Joe Paterno. But when it comes to integrity, and the legacy it creates, Paterno is totally bankrupt. As much as I respect Bobby Bowden, his thoughts are misguided here, driven more by his friendship with Paterno than his understanding of the gravity of Paterno’s choices. You cannot separate Paterno the coach from Paterno the man. He is not a great leader, and he is not a great man. He was confronted with great evil in his program, the worst, most heinous evil that exists on the planet, and he chose to do nothing. He placed a higher value on winning football games than protecting children. He chose to continue the pursuit of his own personal milestone and the development of his own personal legacy over the pursuit of truth and justice. Good men do not make those choices.

Of course, some will argue that Joe Paterno doesn’t deserve this type of criticism. After all, they say, he didn’t rape the boy. While that is true, he knew the event happened—that alone makes him culpable. And although he may have tried to assuage his guilt with his “I pushed it up the ladder” mea culpa, he, more than anyone, knew he had the responsibility to do more. I’m sure after that fateful day in 2002, every time he used the phrase “Success with Honor,” it left a hypocritical taste in his mouth.

Despite the attempts by many to salvage Joe Paterno’s legacy, I’ve lost all respect for him. Everything he claimed to stand for was a lie. He chose himself over a helpless child. No amount of wins can ever justify that. Ultimately, his legacy is this: “Success without Honor.”

Before I close, however, there is one other person who should weigh in on this matter. One significant individual who should give us his take on Joe Paterno’s legacy: “Whoever harms one of these little ones, it would be better for him if a millstone were placed around his neck and he was cast into the depth of the sea.” –Jesus.

Recently, I spent some time talking with a friend of mine who is a single mom. She was sharing about the challenges her son was having in school. He’s just entering his teenage years, and he is having the same struggles as most of the kids his age–trying to manage the demands of an adult world while still trapped in an adolescent body. He’s interested in everything but school: girls, friends, fun, and most of all, finding his significance. Unfortunately, he is seeking to find his significance in some unhealthy ways. He is regularly in conflict with his teachers, and he is spending more and more of his time suffering the consequences of his poor choices. Clearly, he sounds like lots of kids, maybe even some that you know.

As I shared with his mom, and she unpacked more of his story, I recognized that I had heard the story many times before. Sadly, his parents divorced when he was about 8—a very formative time in his young life. His father had chosen to move on with his life, leaving his kids and their mother to go it alone. And although Dad is around, and occasionally sees the children, he rarely takes the initiative to invest in their lives. When they are together, the kids are more of a nuisance to their father than a necessary part of his life. And so this boy, who desperately needs the love and attention of his father, is seeking attention and approval in any way, and from anyone, who will give it to him. Unfortunately, he is seeking it most often in negative ways.

This story is a common one in today’s world, and it is not limited to any particular demographic. More and more, children are being deprived of the one thing they need the most—quality and quantity time with their parents. Sadly, as parents we’ve become proficient at providing our kids with things. But scripture reveals that the main thing the need from us . . . is us! In Deuteronomy 6:1-9, we find some amazing verses that emphasize the importance of investing spiritually in the lives of our children. In this text we are taught that the most important thing we can give them is the proper understanding of who God is and how we can know him through his Son, Jesus Christ.

But this text reveals that this is a lengthy process, and it requires us to be proactive. Notice what the text says about how we should do this: “These words should be on your heart and you must teach them diligently to your children”. . .

• Talk of them when you sit in your house,
• And when you walk by the way,
• And when you lie down,
• And when you rise,
• You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand,
• You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

These simple phrases provide us with an understanding that raising our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord is not a Sunday event—it is a holistic process. We have to spend time every day living our faith and teaching our faith, if we want our children to grow up to be men and women of God. And, for this to occur, we have to spend time with our kids.

Notice the descriptive phrases again. Talk with your kids about God, and his purposes for their lives, when you are sitting in your house. Clearly, if the TV is always on, or our kids are trapped for hours in the fictitious worlds of video games, we will have trouble accomplishing this. We’re to invest in them while we’re spending time with them on a daily basis, always looking for those teachable moments. We’re to instruct them before they go to bed and over the breakfast table. When I was a child, we always ate dinner together as a family. Sadly, that tradition has evaporated in many places. Yet, those quiet moments before bed, and those crazy moments around the dinner table, provide us with great opportunities to teach our kids. Finally, our homes are to be defined by our own personal walk with God. In that way, our children understand that God is the heart of all we are and do.

Immediately, there will be some who can create plenty of reasons why these things are impractical or impossible. Yet, there is no substitute for spending time with our children. No one else is going to invest spiritually in the lives of our kids. Oh, sure, we will find help at church, but we have them 24/7, and God has given us this awesome privilege and responsibility. At some point, we have to understand that our kids need us! They need our time, attention, and affection. There is no substitute for this in their lives.

How can we accomplish this? We have to look at our own lives and habits and consider ways to create more time with our children. I understand that depending upon the make-up of the family, this can be especially difficult. I know many single moms who are stretched to their limits trying to fill the role of both Dad and Mom. Nevertheless, we can all accomplish more by adopting some simple changes. Here are a few I would suggest:

1. Spend less of your together time watching TV. When you watch TV, you are in the same place, but you’re not together. Shut it off and play a family game instead.
2. Eat as many meals together as a family as you can. Clearly, the demands of life may make this challenging, but don’t miss out on the opportunities you have. Ask your kids questions about their day, and share spiritual truth with them as you have opportunity.
3. Plan special events together. Spending time together doesn’t require any money—it just requires imagination. Go to a park, or a museum, or a market, or a lake. Hike on trails, ride bikes in your neighborhood, or camp out in the back yard. All of these things keep you connected to your kids, and they create the environment where you can teach them about God.
4. Worship together as a family. It is essential that you take your children to a good, Bible-believing church that offers great experiences for your children. We only have our kids for a little while. We must do everything we can to help them know God and discover His purpose for their lives.

As you can see, there are lots of ways that we can spend time with our kids. They need us to help them make sense of a senseless world. They need us to be their role models, their counselors, and their coaches. More than anything, they need us to help them discover who it is that God created them to be. They need us to help them discover their significance in this world. They need us to demonstrate our love for them. And for that to happen, they need our time, and lots of it!

How do your kids spell love? T.I.M.E.

Recently, I spent some time talking with a friend of mine who is a single mom. She was sharing about the challenges her son was having in school. He’s just entering his teenage years, and he is having the same struggles as most of the kids his age–trying to manage the demands of an adult world while still trapped in an adolescent body. He’s interested in everything but school: girls, friends, fun, and most of all, finding his significance. Unfortunately, he is seeking to find his significance in some unhealthy ways. He is regularly in conflict with his teachers, and he is spending more and more of his time suffering the consequences of his poor choices. Clearly, he sounds like lots of kids, maybe even some that you know.

As I shared with his mom, and she unpacked more of his story, I recognized that I had heard the story many times before. Sadly, his parents divorced when he was about 8—a very formative time in his young life. His father had chosen to move on with his life, leaving his kids and their mother to go it alone. And although Dad is around, and occasionally sees the children, he rarely takes the initiative to invest in their lives. When they are together, the kids are more of a nuisance to their father than a necessary part of his life. And so this boy, who desperately needs the love and attention of his father, is seeking attention and approval in any way, and from anyone, who will give it to him. Unfortunately, he is seeking it most often in negative ways.

This story is a common one in today’s world, and it is not limited to any particular demographic. More and more, children are being deprived of the one thing they need the most—quality and quantity time with their parents. Sadly, as parents we’ve become proficient at providing our kids with things. But scripture reveals that the main thing the need from us . . . is us! In Deuteronomy 6:1-9, we find some amazing verses that emphasize the importance of investing spiritually in the lives of our children. In this text we are taught that the most important thing we can give them is the proper understanding of who God is and how we can know him through his Son, Jesus Christ.

But this text reveals that this is a lengthy process, and it requires us to be proactive. Notice what the text says about how we should do this: “These words should be on your heart and you must teach them diligently to your children”. . .

• Talk of them when you sit in your house,
• And when you walk by the way,
• And when you lie down,
• And when you rise,
• You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand,
• You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

These simple phrases provide us with an understanding that raising our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord is not a Sunday event—it is a holistic process. We have to spend time every day living our faith and teaching our faith, if we want our children to grow up to be men and women of God. And, for this to occur, we have to spend time with our kids.

Notice the descriptive phrases again. Talk with your kids about God, and his purposes for their lives, when you are sitting in your house. Clearly, if the TV is always on, or our kids are trapped for hours in the fictitious worlds of video games, we will have trouble accomplishing this. We’re to invest in them while we’re spending time with them on a daily basis, always looking for those teachable moments. We’re to instruct them before they go to bed and over the breakfast table. When I was a child, we always ate dinner together as a family. Sadly, that tradition has evaporated in many places. Yet, those quiet moments before bed, and those crazy moments around the dinner table, provide us with great opportunities to teach our kids. Finally, our homes are to be defined by our own personal walk with God. In that way, our children understand that God is the heart of all we are and do.

Immediately, there will be some who can create plenty of reasons why these things are impractical or impossible. Yet, there is no substitute for spending time with our children. No one else is going to invest spiritually in the lives of our kids. Oh, sure, we will find help at church, but we have them 24/7, and God has given us this awesome privilege and responsibility. At some point, we have to understand that our kids need us! They need our time, attention, and affection. There is no substitute for this in their lives.

How can we accomplish this? We have to look at our own lives and habits and consider ways to create more time with our children. I understand that depending upon the make-up of the family, this can be especially difficult. I know many single moms who are stretched to their limits trying to fill the role of both Dad and Mom. Nevertheless, we can all accomplish more by adopting some simple changes. Here are a few I would suggest:

1. Spend less of your together time watching TV. When you watch TV, you are in the same place, but you’re not together. Shut it off and play a family game instead.
2. Eat as many meals together as a family as you can. Clearly, the demands of life may make this challenging, but don’t miss out on the opportunities you have. Ask your kids questions about their day, and share spiritual truth with them as you have opportunity.
3. Plan special events together. Spending time together doesn’t require any money—it just requires imagination. Go to a park, or a museum, or a market, or a lake. Hike on trails, ride bikes in your neighborhood, or camp out in the back yard. All of these things keep you connected to your kids, and they create the environment where you can teach them about God.
4. Worship together as a family. It is essential that you take your children to a good, Bible-believing church that offers great experiences for your children. We only have our kids for a little while. We must do everything we can to help them know God and discover His purpose for their lives.

Recently, I spent some time talking with a friend of mine who is a single mom. She was sharing about the challenges her son was having in school. He’s just entering his teenage years, and he is having the same struggles as most of the kids his age–trying to manage the demands of an adult world while still trapped in an adolescent body. He’s interested in everything but school: girls, friends, fun, and most of all, finding his significance. Unfortunately, he is seeking to find his significance in some unhealthy ways. He is regularly in conflict with his teachers, and he is spending more and more of his time suffering the consequences of his poor choices. Clearly, he sounds like lots of kids, maybe even some that you know.

As I shared with his mom, and she unpacked more of his story, I recognized that I had heard the story many times before. Sadly, his parents divorced when he was about 8—a very formative time in his young life. His father had chosen to move on with his life, leaving his kids and their mother to go it alone. And although Dad is around, and occasionally sees the children, he rarely takes the initiative to invest in their lives. When they are together, the kids are more of a nuisance to their father than a necessary part of his life. And so this boy, who desperately needs the love and attention of his father, is seeking attention and approval in any way, and from anyone, who will give it to him. Unfortunately, he is seeking it most often in negative ways.

This story is a common one in today’s world, and it is not limited to any particular demographic. More and more, children are being deprived of the one thing they need the most—quality and quantity time with their parents. Sadly, as parents we’ve become proficient at providing our kids with things. But scripture reveals that the main thing the need from us . . . is us! In Deuteronomy 6:1-9, we find some amazing verses that emphasize the importance of investing spiritually in the lives of our children. In this text we are taught that the most important thing we can give them is the proper understanding of who God is and how we can know him through his Son, Jesus Christ.

But this text reveals that this is a lengthy process, and it requires us to be proactive. Notice what the text says about how we should do this: “These words should be on your heart and you must teach them diligently to your children”. . .

• Talk of them when you sit in your house,
• And when you walk by the way,
• And when you lie down,
• And when you rise,
• You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand,
• You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

These simple phrases provide us with an understanding that raising our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord is not a Sunday event—it is a holistic process. We have to spend time every day living our faith and teaching our faith, if we want our children to grow up to be men and women of God. And, for this to occur, we have to spend time with our kids.

Notice the descriptive phrases again. Talk with your kids about God, and his purposes for their lives, when you are sitting in your house. Clearly, if the TV is always on, or our kids are trapped for hours in the fictitious worlds of video games, we will have trouble accomplishing this. We’re to invest in them while we’re spending time with them on a daily basis, always looking for those teachable moments. We’re to instruct them before they go to bed and over the breakfast table. When I was a child, we always ate dinner together as a family. Sadly, that tradition has evaporated in many places. Yet, those quiet moments before bed, and those crazy moments around the dinner table, provide us with great opportunities to teach our kids. Finally, our homes are to be defined by our own personal walk with God. In that way, our children understand that God is the heart of all we are and do.

Immediately, there will be some who can create plenty of reasons why these things are impractical or impossible. Yet, there is no substitute for spending time with our children. No one else is going to invest spiritually in the lives of our kids. Oh, sure, we will find help at church, but we have them 24/7, and God has given us this awesome privilege and responsibility. At some point, we have to understand that our kids need us! They need our time, attention, and affection. There is no substitute for this in their lives.

How can we accomplish this? We have to look at our own lives and habits and consider ways to create more time with our children. I understand that depending upon the make-up of the family, this can be especially difficult. I know many single moms who are stretched to their limits trying to fill the role of both Dad and Mom. Nevertheless, we can all accomplish more by adopting some simple changes. Here are a few I would suggest:

1. Spend less of your together time watching TV. When you watch TV, you are in the same place, but you’re not together. Shut it off and play a family game instead.
2. Eat as many meals together as a family as you can. Clearly, the demands of life may make this challenging, but don’t miss out on the opportunities you have. Ask your kids questions about their day, and share spiritual truth with them as you have opportunity.
3. Plan special events together. Spending time together doesn’t require any money—it just requires imagination. Go to a park, or a museum, or a market, or a lake. Hike on trails, ride bikes in your neighborhood, or camp out in the back yard. All of these things keep you connected to your kids, and they create the environment where you can teach them about God.
4. Worship together as a family. It is essential that you take your children to a good, Bible-believing church that offers great experiences for your children. We only have our kids for a little while. We must do everything we can to help them know God and discover His purpose for their lives.

As you can see, there are lots of ways that we can spend time with our kids. They need us to help them make sense of a senseless world. They need us to be their role models, their counselors, and their coaches. More than anything, they need us to help them discover who it is that God created them to be. They need us to help them discover their significance in this world. They need us to demonstrate our love for them. And for that to happen, they need our time, and lots of it!

As you can see, there are lots of ways that we can spend time with our kids. They need us to help them make sense of a senseless world. They need us to be their role models, their counselors, and their coaches. More than anything, they need us to help them discover who it is that God created them to be. They need us to help them discover their significance in this world. They need us to demonstrate our love for them. And for that to happen, they need our time, and lots of it!

How do your kids spell love? T.I.M.E.

Last week, SBC President Dr. Bryant Wright addressed the Executive Committee of the SBC and suggested that a committee be formed to consider changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. In his remarks, Dr. Wright mentioned two reasons for his request. First, some churches in other parts of the country may not want to be associated with a denomination that has a southern, regional nomenclature. Second, a name change may position us for maximum effectiveness in reaching North America in the 21st century.

In what has been described by some as a “contentious” meeting, the EC voted 39-20 to establish the committee. Following approval, Dr. Wright assembled an excellent committee for this task (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36156). He then asked the committee to answer four questions: 1) Is it a good idea, that is, is there value in considering a name change? 2) If so, what would be a good name to suggest? 3) What would be the potential legal ramifications of a name change? 4) What would be the potential financial implications?”

The SBC has been ablaze with conversation and criticism since the news of the new committee was announced. Of course, the typical fringe elements are being heard the loudest, as the pendulum swings widely between those in our convention who hate change of any kind and those who stand ready at all times to throw the baby out with the bath.

For those of us who stand somewhere in-between these two extremes, the issue of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention may elicit a variety of responses. Some see the name of our convention as an extension of their own personal identity. For these, changing the name of the SBC would be a traumatic event. Others, however, who came to the convention for more pragmatic reasons, would scarcely even notice or care if the convention changed its name.

In the paragraphs that follow, I will attempt to unpack some of the stated goals of this process. I want to examine the rhetoric and see if there is a solid philosophical and theological basis for the conversation. I always welcome change, but paradigm shifts in any organization must be based upon sound premises and data, not just personal opinion. As I begin, though, I think it is fair to share my individual thoughts about the process. Personally, while I am interested in the debate, I am not conflicted by it. This may result from the fact that I wasn’t born a Southern Baptist. I chose to become one in my twenties, and I owe all of my ministry training and service opportunities to this wonderful convention of Christ-followers. That doesn’t mean that I don’t care, however. I chose the SBC because I believed then, as I do today, that it is the greatest evangelical denomination on the planet, despite its many imperfections. Consequently, I am strongly committed to its vision and mission. What it does mean is that I’m legitimately indifferent to the ultimate outcome of this debate. What I care about most is making a decision that reflects good philosophy and theology, not simply a convenient pragmatism. Here are my thoughts at present:

1. Recent statistics do not demonstrate that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is a major hindrance to our mission work.

In 2006, Ed Stetzer conducted a study that asked the question, “How do people perceive Southern Baptists?” Here are some of the results to the study:

• Overall, Southern Baptists were viewed favorably (combining very and somewhat favorable) by 57 percent of adults interviewed.
• Southern Baptists were viewed more favorably than either Latter Day Saints (32% favorable, 32% unfavorable) or Muslims (27% favorable, 31% unfavorable) but had higher unfavorable ratings than Catholics or Methodists.
• Two of three respondents in the South expressed a favorable opinion of Southern Baptists, compared to 1 of 2 in the East and West regions. More than 1 of 3 easterners said they were not familiar with Southern Baptists.
• One of five respondents ages 18 to 24 expressed a “very unfavorable” impression of Southern Baptists, while another 4 percent reported a “somewhat unfavorable” opinion.
• Middle-aged adults esteem Southern Baptists most, with 66 percent of 55- to 69-year-olds reporting a favorable impression.
• When asked “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church was Southern Baptist negatively or positively impact your decision?” only 31 percent of respondents said this knowledge would positively impact his or her decision to visit or join the church.
• The Southern Baptist identity simply does not resonate as well with adults age 18 to 24. More than 40 percent of respondents in this group said knowing a church was Southern Baptist would negatively affect their decision to visit or join the church.

The report (http://www.namb.net/namb1cb2col.aspx?id=8590001109) concluded with some of the following statements:

• But it also should give us pause when our denominational label causes some not to hear the gospel in our churches. Too often, the stumbling block of the cross has been replaced with the stumbling block of the church.
• This study does not answer some of the questions, “why?” Are Southern Baptists seen as intolerant because they believe that God’s best for marriage is one man, one woman, and one lifetime? Are they seen as harsh because they see God’s word as inerrant? Or, are there valid reasons why they have negative perceptions of our churches? The answer is probably some of both.
• Regardless, there are major concerns here, particularly for long-term ministry of our Southern Baptist churches. Many churches have now removed Baptist from the name of their church in the “name” of reaching the unchurched. The data would seem to indicate that is not the best choice in all areas but may have validity in some areas and with some segments of the population.

Honestly, we may be able to look at the evidence provided by Stetzer and reach a variety of conclusions based upon our own, unique, interpretation of the data. At the very least, however, we can agree that the statistics do not reveal a massive branding problem with the name of our denomination.

What are we to make of this? For me, this reveals that while some are attempting to make the case that our name is a big problem across the North American landscape, our research to date does not appear to support that claim. Does this mean that we shouldn’t change our name? No, but it cannot be demonstrated from this data that we must.

2. Regional names are not a determiner of the success or failure of businesses or organizations.

Dr. Wright’s first stated purpose for forming this committee is because some churches in other regions of the country may not want to be associated with a denomination that has a southern, regional nomenclature. I’ve already demonstrated that our most recent research does not support the claim that our name makes us ineffective in North America. Here, however, I’m asking whether regional names determine the success or failure of a business or organization.

After much thought, my answer to this question is “No.” One need not look far to discover businesses with regional names that are extremely successful. Chief among them may be Southwest Airlines. Southwest Airlines has been one of the nation’s few consistently profitable airlines. Southwest, in part because of its conservative fiscal management, has remained a large force on the domestic scene. With its no-frills service and absence of bag fees, it has become the airline of choice for people seeking cost-efficient air travel. Sadly, it doesn’t operate in my area of the Southeast. Otherwise, I would use it every chance I had. Are people avoiding this airline because of its regional affiliation? Obviously, not. The evidence suggests that people are not offended by their name, based as it is upon a region. People want to participate with businesses/organizations that add value to their lives. I would say it like this: people make decisions about who they will patronize based upon the product, value, and service the businesses/organizations provide—not based upon the name.

Consider Northern Tool as another example. This company is a leading seller of tools and equipment. Founded in Minnesota in 1980, Northern Tool’s success and growth has been significant. Their catalog, Internet, and retail stores continue to experience success. They now have local stores throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Clearly, people in the South don’t avoid this company because of its name. They patronize them because they have confidence in the value, products, and service that Northern Tool provides.

Finally, consider Texas Road House and the California Pizza Kitchen. Both of these restaurants have regional names. Personally, I love California Pizza Kitchen, but I’m not a fan of Texas Road House. Is this because of their names? Clearly, not. Like other consumers, I decide where to eat based upon the product, value, and service.

As I reflect on the name-change debate, my contention is that people make decisions about churches the way they do about everything else in their lives–does this church add value to my life, provide an excellent product, and demonstrate authentic service through its ministries? In my opinion, the day when churches drew a majority of their members by virtue of their Southern Baptist affiliation is over.

3.  Changing the name of an organization doesn’t eliminate the errors of its past; it simply changes the name.

It is impossible for any business/organization to outrun the painful mistakes of its past. All it can do is take ownership of the issue, correct the problem, and move forward. In recent years, a number of high-profile businesses/brands have experienced major setbacks because of poor decisions. For instance, Toyota experienced a major crisis from 2009-2011 because of braking/accelerator pedal problems that resulted in a number of fatal crashes. The company initiated a massive recall effort to fix those issues in their cars. As you might imagine, the result of those problems had both economic and branding implications. Toyota didn’t panic during that time, however. They didn’t choose to abandon 75 years of branding. Instead, they owned the issue, corrected the problem, and pushed ahead. Today, Toyota remains a leading seller of vehicles in the US.

Consider as well the dilemma of the American International Group, the world’s largest insurer. The demise of AIG would have been catastrophic to numerous financial institutions, which helps explain the Government’s investment of $85 Billion dollars in its survival. Today, as a result of the bailout, AIG continues to provide services in the insurance industry.

Since 2007, many have been calling for AIG to change its name in order to get out from under the stigma of their failings. But some branding experts have a different solution. In her article “Another Post-Scandal Name-Change,” Margot Bushnaq suggests AIG keep its name. She makes the following, insightful comment: “In the end, most people will still know It’s the same exact company, and the reputation will heal over time as business turns positive.” (www.brandbucket.com).

At this junction, some will argue that my illustrations are illegitimate because the errors of these companies do not reach the level of those attached to the SBC. In fairness, there is a big difference between bad braking systems and a legacy that is stained by a connection to slavery. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But numerous other institutions have been touched by the same kind of stigmas, some in our own generation. Consider, for instance, the University of Alabama. On June 11, 1963, then Governor George C Wallace stood on the steps at the University in an attempt to keep two courageous black students from enrolling. Thankfully, his attempts failed, and the long-overdue process of integration began at schools throughout the south. All of us would agree that this was not the finest hour in the University of Alabama’s history. What did the school do in response to this? Did they change their name? No, they owned the issue, corrected the problem, and carried on. Today, the University of Alabama is acknowledged as one of the premier academic institutions in America.

This is what many in the SBC today fail to realize. We can change the name, but we will remain the same exact group of people that we are today. We will continue to operate the same, with the same entities, leadership, and mission. If we do this, everyone will know that “we are the exact same” organization, albeit with a new name. And, we will lose all of the positive branding we have developed as a denomination in recent years, including repenting from the sins of our past, our stellar reputation in the area of Disaster Relief (especially since our remarkable ministry following both 9/11 and hurricane Katrina), and our recent adoption of the GCR report. In my opinion, it is far better for us to own our issues (including our past), correct the problems (which we are doing), and carry on for the glory of God.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a name-change, the larger issue from my perspective is correcting the perception issues that we have in the SBC. This is accomplished over time as we continue to succeed as a denomination.

4.  Nothing limits the saving work of a sovereign God.

Dr. Wright’s second purpose for considering a name-change for the SBC is to position us to maximize effectiveness in reaching North America in the 21st century. To this point in my essay, we have been thinking about some of the philosophical issues surrounding a name change. Here, however, I think it is helpful to pause and consider any theological rationales for advancing the agenda of a name-change.

It has been stated by numerous individuals that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is a hindrance to the gospel and the ministry of the church in certain regions of North America. Again, there are a couple of things to consider at this point.

First, nowhere does the Bible suggest that the saving work of God, accomplished through the scriptures, is limited by human actions (Is. 55:11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).  To the contrary, Christ reassures us that “all that the Father has given me will come to me” (Jn. 6:44). Second, it is an unproven claim that the name “Southern Baptist” is keeping people from accepting Christ. For 166 years God has been using Southern Baptists to take the gospel around the world with amazing results. Does that mean we shouldn’t change the name? Not necessarily. What it means is that tying the success of the gospel to any organizational name is wrong.

After all, a name simply gives a group an identity. It does not, by default, give credibility to the group’s message. No one ever accepted Christ because our church is called Cornerstone. The same can be said about FBC Woodstock, Bellevue Baptist Church, Saddleback Community Church, or any other church. Every person who is converted through the ministries of these churches comes to Christ through the leading of God the Holy Spirit, and His work is not hindered by the names of these churches. Interestingly, the very first name given to believers was “Christian.” This name wasn’t a complement. Instead, it was a term of ridicule spoken in anger against the followers of Christ. Personally, I’m glad the early church didn’t abandon it because it had the potential to place “limitations” upon their effectiveness. Perhaps they knew something we’ve forgotten: God’s word accomplishes the purpose for which it has been sent—it is not limited by man’s actions.

Cornerstone Baptist Church in Florence, SC, where I serve as senior pastor, is a classic example of this. Our church will celebrate its ninth anniversary in October. By God’s grace, we have grown to more than 1800 members during that time. During every Prospective Members Class I take time to explain our affiliation with the SBC and the reasons why we have chosen to be affiliated with it. We regularly have folks join our church from other faith traditions, and many are from the North. In nine years, I’ve never had a single person question our SBC affiliation or refuse to join because of it. Consequently, I remain convinced that most of the time when people have problems with the SBC, it’s not the result of our name: it’s the result of our gospel (1 Cor. 1:23).

At this point let me be very clear. I am not against a name change for the SBC! Clearly, any church can change its name if it feels like it will resonate more clearly with its community. The SBC can choose to do the same thing. However, let’s not try to justify the name change by inferring that the name of our denomination is somehow hindering the effectiveness of the gospel.

5.  Changing the name of the SBC will not correct the systemic problems that plague us.

We are being told that 18-35 year old church planters in the north and west are the driving force behind this conversation. It appears that our SBC leadership continues to grasp for potential solutions to a big problem: the flight of our young pastors and leaders away from the SBC. They want these young pastors and leaders to lead their church plants to partner with the SBC. So, some believe that changing our name will help accomplish this.

This problem resonates strongly with me. At 48, I no longer fit in the young pastor or leader category. However, I still think like a young pastor, and I lead like a young pastor. I planted a church nine years ago, and young families dominate our membership. I minister in a contemporary context, and I’m continually looking for new ways to make us more effective in reaching people with the gospel. This includes co-founding a church-planting network (www.nacpf.org) with my fellow-laborer, Dr. Dwayne Milioni.

Also, I love to hang out with young pastors and church planters. When I talk with them, however, I rarely hear them complaining about the name of the SBC. Instead, I hear them talking about the ongoing systemic problems in the SBC. These are the things that are tempting them to disconnect from us. Here is a summary of the ones I hear most often (perhaps I will unpack these more in the following days):

A. The Builder Generation model no longer works in a Millennial context.

The Builder Generation (people born before 1946) is perhaps the greatest generation in American history. They are characterized by patriotism, hard work, and loyalty. They won wars, survived the depression, and helped build much of the infrastructure of this nation. This generation established the Cooperative Program, and invested heavily in the building of churches, schools, and denominational institutions. They affirmed a democratic approach to managing church and denominational affairs, and they were very comfortable entrusting their money to others to accomplish ministry.

Millennials (born between 1977-1998), on the other hand, view the world through very different lenses. They are described by some as “confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat, and open to change” (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1501/millennials-new-survey-generational-personality-upbeat-open-new-ideas-technology-bound). As you can see, they are very different from previous generations. They are tech-savvy, innovative, and loyal to themselves and their ideas. They are not supporters—they are doers. This is what resonates with the young pastors and leaders with whom I meet. They do not want to send money so that others can do ministry; they want to invest their money and their lives at the level of personal ministry. Consequently, the Builder Strategy that drives much of Southern Baptist Life is becoming obsolete.

B. The SBC has evolved into a bloated bureaucracy at all levels.

We first encountered the phrase “bloated bureaucracy” during the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. In their report, they urged state conventions to “eliminate programs that do not directly assist local churches in fulfilling their biblical mandate to make disciples of all people.” However, the committee did not single out state conventions or local associations as the only ones needing to become better stewards of their resources. They also challenged national SBC entities like NAMB to do the same thing.

This gets to the heart of why many Millennials are fleeing the SBC in record numbers. They recognize the rampant duplication of ministry across all of our denominational structures, and they do not believe that money given through the CP is being used as effectively as possible. Further, they see how a massive bureaucracy is limiting the flow of money to church planting and missions, both in North America and around the globe. Thankfully, NAMB has begun to address its many flaws under the capable leadership of Dr. Kevin Ezell. Yet, NAMB is still hampered by state convention and local association delivery systems that are out of touch with a 21st century, missional approach.

It has long been the opinion of many young pastors and leaders that our problem in the SBC is not a lack of resources. Every year, Southern Baptists give hundreds of millions of dollars through local churches. A percentage of this money flows to local associations, state conventions, and the national convention. The problem isn’t the amount of money we have—it is our choices about how to use that money. I agree with these young leaders at this point. I believe we have all the money we need, if we will make the tough decisions to reduce the duplication of ministries, eliminate unnecessary convention jobs/programs, and focus on the primary purposes for our denomination’s existence—assisting the local church in its biblical mandate to make disciples of all people. Thankfully, the GCR report has taken a step is this direction. But, there is much that remains to be done, and until it is, many young pastors and leaders will simply choose to use their local church resources for their own missions and church-planting work. And, they’ll do it with an effectiveness and efficiency rarely seen in SBC life.

C. The generational conflict over preference issues in ministry is smothering participation by young pastors and leaders.

An attendee at any state convention meeting this year will notice something about the majority of other attendees—primarily, they include builders, boomers, and a smattering busters. You will hardly find a Millennial on the premises  (unless he or she has been required to attend for class credit). For years, people have asked the question: “How can we get more young people to attend?” That question always reveals a lack of clarity about the problem. The meetings are run in a democratic fashion, are driven by institutional programming, and always include a call to give more money to the CP.

At the same time, however, the meetings will often include motions made by well-intentioned but misguided individuals, who rant against Calvinism, contemporary worship, Acts 29, the consumption of alcohol, and a host of other issues that continue to drive young pastors and leaders out the door. Is this because the issues aren’t important to some people? Of course, we would say “No.” But, they’re not important to Millennials. Millennials are just as committed to sharing the gospel as previous generations; they just aren’t using the same methods, and they could care less about receiving approval of their methods from certain voices in the SBC. The more negative the rhetoric becomes, the more young pastors and leaders exit the SBC.

I addressed this very issue in 2007 when I wrote an article entitled “Working Together for the Sake of the Gospel”. In this article, I addressed the ongoing, generational battle in the SBC that seeks to divide people on the basis of ministry preferences. As a convention, we fought and bled over the issue of biblical inerrancy, and then we bled again to craft and pass the BFM 2000. I suffered great harm in a local church because of my commitment to the theology that this document represents. As a convention, we have stated that our mission participation and personal fellowship will occur under the umbrella of this amazing, theological document. Yet, many continue to assault the methodology of young pastors and leaders, despite the fact that the BFM 2000 does not place any limitations upon either Arminianism/Calvinism, Traditional/contemporary worship, suits/golf shirts, alcohol/non-alcohol, etc.

While many young pastors and leaders would applaud a denominational name change for pragmatic reasons, here’s what they know in their hearts: changing the name won’t change the problems. As long as we remain unwilling to address the systemic issues that plague us, it doesn’t really matter what we call ourselves.

6.  We must fix what’s broken, not be distracted by cosmetic changes.

During Sarah Palin’s failed vice-presidential campaign, she made a famous statement. In essence, she said it’s unproductive to put lipstick on a pig. Now, I don’t know if the SBC name change issue rises to that level, but it feels to me like “much ado about nothing.” Of all our problems, are we really going to tackle that one first? After all, we can’t even really determine if there’s a need to go down this road. However, here are some issues that many, including myself, believe we should be addressing first.

A.    Focus more clearly on our primary vision. Thankfully, the GCR report began this process. However, its principles have yet to filter down fully to our state conventions. More work must be done to facilitate role clarity among all of our agencies.

B. Eliminate bureaucracy throughout the convention. Downsizing is hard, but it is essential if we’re to become more effective in this new financial climate. Decentralization, elimination of unnecessary bureaucratic structures, and the appropriate use of technology must be utilized.

C. Become better stewards of the money we already have. The Cooperative Program has been a great vehicle for giving for Southern Baptists. However, it is naive to believe that the continual call for greater percentage giving, without an accompanying restructuring by our institutions, will result in increased funds. It’s time for our conventions and institutions to function like our churches: prioritize what really matters and fund that. Everything else has to be discontinued, no matter how great a program it may be. If it is God’s will for a ministry to continue, He can provide other funding for it. If not, we shouldn’t be doing it anyway. This kind of wise stewardship will motivate people to give.

D. Stop the generational in-fighting about preference, ministry issues. Despite numerous calls for change in this arena, the problem continues unabated in many places. We must look to our national and state leaders to set the example for this before we can expect others to follow. This, as much as anything, will slow the exodus of young pastors and leaders from our convention.

Concluding Thoughts

When all is said and done, however, we are still left to ponder the primary issue: should the SBC seriously consider a name change? Honestly, if we believe as a convention that a name change will make us more effective in our mission, then we should do it, regardless of the potential challenges. However, I affirm Ed Stetzer’s statement from a recent blog: “If they don’t [change the name] I will say God is still sovereign and churches will still be planted, people will be reached, and the gospel will be proclaimed” (http://betweenthetimes.com/2011/09/21/should-the-sbc-change-its-name/).

Finally, let me reaffirm my commitment to the SBC. I remain grateful for all the blessings that God has given me through this great denomination. I affirm the work that has been accomplished nationally, and to some degree at the state convention level, as a result of the adoption of the GCR report. And, I stand ready to support the committee’s recommendation to our convention in regards to a name change. However, it is my heart’s desire that the forming of this committee will not distract us from the primary work that needs to be done to streamline our convention and prioritize our mission. In my opinion, this is the only thing in the long term that will help our young pastors and leaders reconnect with the SBC (or whatever the name may be) and reverse the decline in mission, ministry, and giving that we’re currently experiencing.

Recently, there was a firestorm of controversy surrounding the prophetic ministry of Harold Camping. Camping, President of Family Radio, is noted for his attempts to predict the timing of the return of Jesus Christ to earth. His most recent attempt, which placed the return date on May 21, came and went with great fanfare. While it was successful in focusing the thoughts of people on the doctrine of the second coming, it succeeded most in exposing the church to the ridicule of a skeptical world.

Evangelical leaders were quick to condemn Camping’s prophecies by quoting the words of Jesus in reference to his return: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mk. 13:32).” Scholars were quick to weigh in on his fantastic claims.

Dr. Al Mohler addressed Camping’s false teachings in his recent blog entitled, “False Prophets, False Teachers, and Real Problems: The Case of Harold Camping”. In it Mohler makes the following statement,

He bears all the signs of a false prophet. He claims to have a secret knowledge revealed only to him by God. He claims to have found a hidden code in the Bible. He rejects what he calls “literalism” and claims the right to a “spiritual” interpretation of the biblical text. He has rejected all correction from the believing church and persists in his false teachings. He has led thousands astray from the truth and has brought reproach upon the Body of Christ. He refuses even to concede that his prophecy was false. He and he alone is right.

Dr. Mohler has revealed the primary dangers related to false teachers. They claim to have a “secret knowledge” revealed only to them by God. This is the claim of “special revelation.” The false prophet claims to have been given some type of “extra biblical” truth that is “inspired” by God. As a result, it is viewed as being as authoritative as scripture. Furthermore, the false prophet is proficient at attempting to link his “special revelation” to biblical revelation.

At the foundational level, false teachers who claim “special revelation” have rejected the belief that the canon of scripture is closed. Rather than affirming the complete sufficiency of scripture, they seek to add to scripture by virtue of their own claims of “special revelation.” This is the genesis of Harold Camping’s errors. Camping believes that “God told him” that the world was going to end on May 21.

Camping’s flawed understanding of biblical revelation is exacerbated by his inability to use good hermeneutics to interpret the scriptures (See chapter four in my book Engaging Exposition for principles of good hermeneutics). Generally, false teachers share a common trait: they are underprepared to handle the scriptures carefully (2 Tim. 2:15). Consequently, they are proficient at taking verses out of context or “discovering hidden meanings” in the text of scripture. Camping’s latest prophecy came as a result of the fact that “God told him” that there was a hidden timeline in the Bible for the return of Christ. His interpretation of the Bible is nothing short of laughable—and tragic.

When studying false claims of “special revelation” by false prophets, there is a consistent formula that can be applied:

Weak hermeneutics + flawed concept of biblical revelation = dangerous “God told me” theology

Today, everyone wants to “hear” from God, and almost daily there is a new claim of “special revelation.” I would submit, however, that there are few things more dangerous to the mission of the church than “God told me” theology. There are several potential dangers:

1. “God told me” theology rejects the theological position that the biblical canon is closed, with its claim that God has already told us everything we need for life and godliness in the Bible.
2. “God told me” theology embraces the reality that believers have access to “special revelation” from God that equals/trumps the revelation of scripture.
3. “God told me” theology places subjective, personal experience in a position of authority over the objective truth of scripture.
4. “God told me” theology minimizes the role of scripture in personal experience and the need for the faithful interpretation of scripture.
5. “God told me” theology cannot be repudiated on the basis of scripture, because “special revelation” places itself above scripture.

As we reflect on this list, we can begin to see the dangers of holding to a belief system that affirms the potential of special, extra-biblical revelation from God. A number of years ago, a guy came into my office and made this statement, “God told me to divorce my wife.” As you might imagine, I was stunned to hear his words. Immediately, I carried him to a number of texts of scripture that affirm marriage and condemn divorce. I may as well have been talking to a tree. Every time I challenged him with scripture, he responded simply, “God told me.”

After that conversation, I sat and pondered the decision-making process he had used to rationalize his own desires. Simply, he had rejected the authority of scripture preserved in a closed canon; he had convinced himself that he had received “special revelation” from God; he was placing his own subjective thoughts above the objective truth of scripture; he rejected the revealed truth of scripture properly interpreted; and, he placed me in a position where I had absolutely no suitable response. After all, what response is there to the massive claim, “God told me?”

When we see this type of error in Harold Camping, it is easy to identify and repudiate. We are quick to challenge him for his false assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations. And well we should. But our critique is aided by virtue of the fact that we don’t know Harold Camping, we don’t move in his circles, and we have nothing to lose by adding our voices to the chorus of repudiation he so rightly deserves.

I have a very sobering question, however. What are we supposed to do when one of our SBC contemporaries, or other like-minded evangelical, embraces a “God told me” theology?

Are we to ignore his claims because we move in the same circles, and we are connected by relationship? Or, do we carry some necessary responsibility to rebuke him in love and humility (2 Tim. 4:2; Gal. 6:1-3)? I am convicted that “God told me” theology is so dangerous that we must confront it wherever and whenever it manifests itself, whether it is in our own local churches or in the larger community of faith.

That is why I am so disappointed by the recent claims made by Mark Driscoll that he is the recipient of “special revelation.” Driscoll is the lead pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. God has used him to grow a great church that is passionate about reaching the lost with the gospel and planting churches. He is a gifted communicator and instrumental in the lives of thousands of young pastors. He has been blessed to share the platform in strategic venues designed to strengthen the church.  All of which, by the way, make his claims of “special revelation” problematic for the church at large.

I communicate my thoughts about Driscoll’s recent claims with a great sense of trepidation. I do not have a relationship with Mark, and so I do not have the benefit of engaging him personally on this matter. Further, I’m a Driscoll fan. I’m not one of the SBC’ers who despise him, hate Acts 29, or want to ban his books from Lifeway. In fact, I regularly listen to his messages and often share them with folks in my own church when he addresses a topic that I think will be helpful. Finally, I can already hear the rebuttals to my critique by others, based not upon scripture, but upon claims that I’m just another jealous, “old-school” pastor who doesn’t like young guys.

Of course, those of you who know me know that I’m as progressive as anybody. Our church does ministry with a contemporary methodology, and I’m equally committed to reaching the lost and planting churches. Similarly, I’m committed to investing in the lives of young leaders through teaching and writing. But beyond all of this, I am committed most to the fidelity of scripture, and I am bound to provide this rebuke for the theological well being of my people at Cornerstone and the church at large, even if it is Mark Driscoll I’m addressing.

Mark has made the repeated claim that God “told him” in an “audible voice” to do five things (this has been well documented, most recently in Tony Merida’s wonderful book, Faithful Preaching, 48-49). Driscoll identifies them as:

1. Lead men
2. Preach Scripture
3. Plant churches
4. Marry Grace
5. Trust God

Recently, he re-defined his audible, “God told me” claim of special revelation as requiring four specific things in his life (He referenced this “audible revelation” again on Twitter the week of May 30, when he linked to a YouTube clip of a recent sermon at Mars Hill: Pursue Your Calling Not Your Potential.  In this sermon, Driscoll identifies the four specific ministry assignments “God told him” to pursue as the following:

1. Preach the Bible
2. Marry Grace
3. Train men
4. Plant churches

I don’t know why Mark has changed the story at this point and moved from five specific tasks to four. That is not the main problem. The main problem is Mark’s claim that he has heard an “audible” command from God for his life by virtue of “special revelation.”

In the video clip noted above, Mark is teaching on Luke 4:42b-44. In this text, he is communicating one simple truth: God the Father told Jesus what his mission in life was to be, and every Christian needs to ask God to tell him/her the same thing. An analysis of his sermon reveals the same formula that defines the false claims of Harold Camping.

1. Weak Hermeneutics: Mark challenges his listeners to “Pursue your calling, not your potential.” Mark suggests that the Father’s sovereign purpose for Jesus required him to separate his call from his potential. He forces this understanding into the text through his interpretation of the phrase “kept him from leaving”. In reality, Jesus did not have to choose between teaching and the service actions of his ministry. He always did both (Lk. 7:20-23). This part of the message is significant to this discussion, however, because Mark is using this text to suggest that a “special calling,” similar to the one of Jesus, is necessary and normative for every believer.
2. Flawed understanding of biblical revelation. In the Luke text, Mark is equating Jesus’ unique, supernatural calling with the calling we should desire to receive from God in our own lives. He describes Jesus’ explanation of his calling with this phrase, “God the Father told me to do that (Lk. 4:42b-44).” However, the supernatural prophetic call to ministry as defined in scripture, and seen in the lives of the OT Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul, is non-prescriptive for today’s believers. Rather than seeking some form of “special revelation” from God about our life’s calling, we are to live for God’s glory in obedience to his revealed will found in scripture.  We have great freedom to pursue careers within the context of the abilities and passions that God has given to us. Should that include a passion for ministry in the local church, we can choose to serve God in that context as well (1 Tim. 3:1). And, we trust in the providence of God to guide our steps as we journey through life (Pr. 3:5-6; Ps. 37:23). Mark is using his interpretation of this text to suggest that God speaks to people about their life callings in the same way he spoke to Jesus.
3. God ‘told me’ theology: Once he has concluded his interpretation of this text, he uses it to justify his claim that God spoke to him audibly and “told him” to do the five/four things he has mentioned. While he does provide the declaimer to his listeners that he can’t guarantee they’ll hear God audibly, he suggests that they can pursue that same kind of clarity in their own lives.

When he tells the story about what “God told him,” Driscoll attempts to provide his audience with some rationale for accepting that his claim of “special revelation” is valid. He does this by asking two questions, ostensibly raised by critics like me:

a)  How do you know that it was God who spoke to you? This, of course, is a vitally important question. Mark responds by saying that he knows it must be God because the message he received was consistent with scripture. He states, “That sounds like something God would say.” However, this is a flawed argument. We call it a non sequitur (i.e., it does not follow). In other words, just because something sounds like it should come from God does not mean that it does come from God. After all, why would God need to use special revelation, and speak to him audibly, to tell him something He has already told him to do in scripture?

b)  What did God sound like? This is another important question. If someone claims to have heard the audible voice of God, it should be easy to provide a description of that voice. Surely, it is something that one could never forget. Yet, Mark refuses to answer the question. This is another flawed argument (i.e., irrelevant conclusion). In other words, Mark refuses to answer the primary question by diverting attention away from it. Instead, he answers another question by describing God’s voice as “authoritative.” Of course, we would all assume that if God spoke it would be authoritative. Here, however, Driscoll is addressing tone rather than tenor, which is the whole point of the question. The answer is simple: Describe the sound of his voice. Was it like the sound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10; 4:1)? Was it deep? Was it high? What does God sound like?

Recently, it came to my attention that John Piper has made claims of “special revelation” as well. He, too, affirms that he has heard an “audible voice” from God: The Morning I Heard the Voice of God. In this talk Piper states, “At this very place in the twenty-first century, 2007, God was speaking to me with absolute authority and self-evidencing reality.” Here again is a massive claim to special revelation. But unlike with Driscoll, Piper clarifies his claim with this refreshing truth:

If you would like to hear the very same words I heard on the couch in northern Minnesota, read Psalm 66:5-7. That is where I heard them. O how precious is the Bible. It is the very word of God. In it God speaks in the twenty-first century. This is the very voice of God. By this voice, he speaks with absolute truth and personal force. By this voice, he reveals his all-surpassing beauty. By this voice, he reveals the deepest secrets of our hearts. No voice anywhere anytime can reach as deep or lift as high or carry as far as the voice of God that we hear in the Bible.

Here, Piper joins with me in proclaiming that the only place we receive special revelation from God is in the pages of scripture. Scripture alone provides us with the truth we need to live our lives for the glory of God.

In light of the claims made by Mark Driscoll, however, we must make some biblical decisions about the validity of “special revelation” and about those who claim to receive it from God. I will offer four provisos related to claims of special revelation.

First, the canon is closed, and there is no need for special revelation. Consequently, I reject wholeheartedly any claim to special revelation, whether it comes from Harold Camping, Mark Driscoll, or anyone else, whether friend or foe. God does not need to give us special revelation, because he has already given us “everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3).” To say otherwise is to reject the full sufficiency of scripture.

Second, claims of special revelation are dangerous. These types of false claims have been the source of countless false prophecies and heresies throughout the history of the church. Now, some might argue that Driscoll’s claims don’t reach the level of Camping’s, because their claims relate to personal issues rather than serving as public proclamations for the whole church. I would agree that at this point Driscoll’s claims are not as outlandish as Camping’s, but they have the potential to be just as dangerous because both lead to the same destination. Once we jettison the Bible as the only source of special revelation, and we allow ourselves to affirm a “God told me” theology, we are at risk of introducing error to our lives and to the church.

Third, God does not need to give us special revelation to reaffirm what he has already told us to do in his word. Consider the five areas of calling that Mark identifies as the ones “God told him” to pursue. You will notice that each of them has been affirmed in scripture for anyone who chooses to serve God in ministry:

1. Lead men (2 Tim. 2:2)
2. Preach scripture (2 Tim. 4:2)
3. Plant churches (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 13:1-3)
4. Trust God (Ps. 7:1; 1 Tim. 4:10)
5. Marry Grace (Pr. 18:22; 2 Cor. 6:14).

Clearly, there would be no reason for God to use special revelation to command Mark to do the things He had already revealed in the Bible.

Fourth, if this is simply a matter of semantics, we must become more intentional about using appropriate language to describe our spiritual journeys. Clearly, all of us desire to know, love, and serve God. We desire a close intimacy with God the Father, Son, and Spirit. And, we desire to follow hard after God with all of our hearts. God, in his infinite wisdom, has given us His Spirit and the word to accomplish those things. I, like most of my readers, would affirm unashamedly the role of the Spirit in applying the truth of scripture to our hearts, as he guides us into truth and convicts us of sin, righteousness, and judgment. However, there is huge difference between illumination and inspiration. One affirms the work of the Spirit, the other claims “special revelation” from God.

As a result, if this is a matter of semantics, I want to urge Mark Driscoll to clarify his remarks. If he is referring to illumination through the work of the Holy Spirit, it will certainly put my fears to rest. Moving forward, I would urge him to avoid language that suggests the validity of on-going, special revelation. If, however, I am correct that he is claiming that special revelation is real and normative for him personally, and by extension for the church, the significance of his ministry position requires him to clarify his understanding of biblical revelation. Those of us who love him, support him, and use his resources in our ministries have a right to ask for this clarification so that we may know whether we can continue to walk together.

I have written this blog with two primary goals in mind.
First, I am writing it to provide important biblical instruction for my church family. I never want you to be swept away by anyone who claims that “God told him” to do something. The supreme test for every truth claim is scripture alone, and scripture does not need the support of special revelation through the audible voice of God to make it more relevant.  A “God told me” claim does not carry more validity than the scriptures themselves. Remember the words of Paul,

As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:14-17

Second, I am writing it to challenge the church to think more carefully about the issues of illumination and inspiration. Claiming personal access to “special revelation” may be en vogue, but that doesn’t mean that it is legitimate. So, let’s focus on obeying the revealed truth of scripture—God has already told us everything that He wants us to do!

In many ways, 2006 was a great year in SBC life. Last year Southern Baptists reaffirmed their belief that we can do more together than we can do on our own. For the first time, gifts to the Cooperative Program topped 200 million dollars! The Lottie Moon Christmas offering (2005-2006) resulted in $137.9 million for global missions. And, for one of the few times in our history, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for the North American Mission Board exceeded our 2006 goal of $56 million dollars. As of December 21st, 2006, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering was $57,927,507!  As Chairman of the Board of Trustees for NAMB, I want to say a special word of thanks to every Southern Baptist who invested in our Annie Armstrong offering this year. We had a difficult 2006, but your North American Mission Board is pressing on into 2007 with great enthusiasm and with a great sense of anticipation at all that God will do through our agency this year!

As we enter a new year, however, it is with the solemn awareness that we must be even more effective in accomplishing God’s kingdom work. We partner together as Southern Baptists to do many important things, but the priority of our cooperation must be working together for the sake of the gospel. Our task of global evangelization is a daunting one. But permit me to take a moment to review some indicators of the severity of our problem in North America alone:
• SBC baptisms are at their lowest levels in 12 years;

• 73% of SBC churches are plateaued or declining;

• 11,740 SBC churches reported zero or one baptism in 2005;

• 55% of SBC churches baptized no youth between the ages of 12-17 in 2004;

• From 1991-2004 the number of unchurched adults in America increased from 39 million to 79 million;

• Every county in North America is at least 50% unchurched (statistics available from NAMB).

It is easy to become discouraged when we think about the implications of these numbers. Certainly, Jesus’ words have never been truer: “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore, beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest (Mt. 9:37-38).” Despite the amazing need and opportunities for Kingdom work that surround each one of us, we find ourselves distracted as a convention. In the era following the conservative resurgence, when we should be better positioned than ever before to work together for the sake of the gospel, we are beginning to see factions crystallize within our convention. Where before we stood united in our commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, many are now choosing sides over issues which pit generations and traditions against one another, and which seek to limit theological fellowship when, in fact, debatable issues exist within the scope of the BFM 2000.

I have watched these sentiments develop in recent years, both in my home state of South Carolina, and throughout the SBC. I have seen these issues begin to divide good men who labored together during the resurgence; men whom I respect. And I am heartbroken by what I am seeing. Individuals on different sides of a variety of issues continue to fire rhetorical salvos at one another, with little apparent regard for the consequences it will have on the current effectiveness of our evangelistic strategies. The ultimate result of this behavior will not be greater denominational purity—it will be missed evangelistic opportunity.

As a result, I urge all Southern Baptists—pastors, entity leaders, and laypeople—to consider adopting the following framework for our continued cooperation in evangelism. I offer these suggestions in a spirit of humility and with the sincere desire that our convention successfully refocus on the priority of the Great Commission.

Respect the worship styles of churches that affirm the BFM 2000. There is no question that we are experiencing a seismic shift in 21st century worship methodology and ministry philosophy in America. It can be seen in all facets of religious life, including Southern Baptist churches. Many churches, while remaining faithful to the biblical message, are engaging their culture with more contemporary forms of music, ministries, and evangelism. However, there are some within our convention who are struggling with these contemporary models. Indeed, some are desirous of defining how churches in the SBC should worship. It is here, for clarity’s sake, that we must turn our attention to our convention’s own theological document for insight on this issue. The BFM 2000 defines the church in the following way:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.

As you can see, nowhere in this statement are worship styles or methodologies mentioned. In fact, nowhere is there even an implied reference that the use of contemporary methodologies is by definition, unbiblical.  One of the strengths of our convention is that every church is autonomous. Every church has the freedom to use the worship style that best suites its own context. By not addressing the issue of worship style in the BFM 2000, Southern Baptists have already decided that worship styles and methodology are not a condition of cooperation. I think this is very wise! Any SBC church has the right to be as traditional or contemporary in its methodology as it chooses to be, as long as it follows a biblical ecclesiology. But for us to be successful in working together for the sake of the gospel, we must reject the claims of those who insist that their worship style, either traditional or contemporary, is the only valid mode of worship.

Respect the theology of those who affirm the BFM 2000. The conservative resurgence mobilized tens of thousands of Southern Baptists to reaffirm our commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture. We stood united while we struggled for the heart and soul of our convention. During that time, we refused to let our differences in worship styles and methodologies hinder us from the task at hand: reforming our convention. Similarly, we refused to be uncooperative during those years because of theological issues that were debatable within the scope of the Baptist Faith and Message. After all, we were striving “for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).” There were still conversations by premillenialists about the timing of the rapture and by theologians and pastors over the unsolvable tension between sovereign election and the free agency of man, but these disputes took a back seat to the cause of inerrancy. We stood side-by-side in defense of our conviction that Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. And it was, and still is, a worthwhile cause. And the goal was a convention better prepared and equipped to work together for the sake of the gospel.

Today, the battle over inerrancy is being replaced by a growing conflict between Calvinism and non-Calvinism. While some Southern Baptists are trying to identify Calvinism as heresy, others are mocking those who adopt a more Arminian, free-will theology. Once again, when facing an issue of this magnitude, it is best to revisit our convention’s own theological document, the BFM 2000. It has this to say about sovereign election and the free agency of man:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

Obviously, the free agency of man is widely accepted in the belief system of Southern Baptists. Similarly, a cursory reading of SBC history will reveal that Calvinism has had a place in our convention since its inception. Yet, we find ourselves as a convention in a growing conflict over these positions. Today, there are some non-Calvinists who are so insistent upon the free agency of man that they seem to exclude any acknowledgement of sovereign election. On the other hand, there are some Calvinists who are so strident in their position regarding sovereign election, that they appear to devalue any human responsibility in salvation.

Now let’s return to the BFM 2000 passage I quoted above. A careful reading of this document reveals that neither Calvinism nor non-Calvinism is defined as being outside the scope of the BFM 2000.  As a result, the degree to which one affirms a position of either Calvinism or non-Calvinism should not be a test of fellowship issue. Frankly, “Are you a Calvinist?” is the wrong question for us to be asking. The proper question is this: “Are you committed to sharing the gospel of Christ and fulfilling the Great Commission?”

Years ago in my Systematic Theology class at Southeastern Seminary, Dr. Danny Akin made a statement I have never forgotten. He said, “Any system of theology which deemphasizes the Great Commission is a flawed system.” Remember the statistics I mentioned earlier? They reveal that the greatest problem in our convention is not the number of Calvinists or non-Calvinists. The greatest problem is the reality that regardless of the system of theology being adopted by people throughout our convention, in practice at least, we are deemphasizing the Great Commission—and that is the greatest flaw of all. But this one thing is absolutely certain: if we are content to pull ourselves apart over this issue, rather than work together for the sake of the gospel, our ability to permeate our culture for Christ will be greatly diminished.

Ultimately then, one’s personal positions related to either sovereign election or the free agency of man should not be a source of division. Most pastors, theologians, and laypeople have adopted personal positions on this subject, and often enjoy discussing and debating them; but we should not cease cooperation because of them. Ultimately, I would submit that the decision about these positions is an issue, once again, to be decided in the local church. However, the BFM 2000 makes room within our Southern Baptist family for those who are either Calvinists or non-Calvinists.

Reject the divisive rhetoric in our convention. Today, seemingly more than at any time since the end of the conservative resurgence, there is the emergence of harmful, and potentially destructive, rhetoric. The willingness of some SBC leaders, pastors, and laypeople to criticize, label, ridicule, and shun fellow Southern Baptists over the issues I’ve addressed in this article is astounding to me. It is appearing with greater regularity, and its effects are being felt throughout the convention. From mega-church pastors, to our young pastors, church planters, and missionaries, it seems as though one’s positions related to these areas is becoming a litmus test everywhere we look. We’ve already noted that the BFM 2000 does not exclude people on the basis of worship methodologies or the degree to which they affirm either Calvinism or non-Calvinism. Now it’s important to note that I am not advocating an absence of dialogue about the significant issues that face our convention and our churches. Yet the positions and current dialogue are becoming so polarized in some circles that we are risking the viability of our convention and the effectiveness of our evangelism. In fact, from large churches to small, many of our pastors are asking a question that years ago seemed unthinkable: “If this is what the ‘new’ convention looks like, do I really want to stay a part of it?”

Sadly, I fear that unless something happens soon to bring us into a new era of cooperation for the sake of the gospel, despite our differences in these areas, we may enter yet another conflict—something I believe the majority of Southern Baptists oppose. Yet, there are still some glimmers of hope that we can find a way to navigate through this challenging time. Last year at our convention, Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. Al Mohler engaged in a good-natured debate about Calvinism during the annual Pastor’s Conference. That one event demonstrates the reality of my claims that there is room in our convention for people who have disagreements about the five points of Calvinism or worship styles. It also set an example for the kind of rhetoric that should characterize our convention: gracious, reasoned, and respectful. It is time for us to adopt this as our pattern and to steadfastly reject anyone who uses divisive rhetoric to assault brothers who affirm the BFM 2000.

Refocus on the biggest problem facing Southern Baptists. As I noted earlier, our biggest problem as a convention is not worship styles or Calvinism. It is the overwhelming number of lost people in our world. The suggestions I’ve offered in this article, if applied, have the potential to bring us together again for the work of the gospel. They will allow us to value our Southern Baptist heritage, while at the same time permitting us to use new, creative, and innovative strategies to reach people for Christ. I, for one, am making the conscious decision to use whatever influence I may have in my church, my state, my agency, and my convention to refocus on the priority of the Great Commission. I will not criticize, be uncooperative, or break fellowship with any supporter of the BFM 2000 because of personal differences in worship styles or methodologies. I will accept the different positions held in Southern Baptist life related to either Calvinism or non-Calvinism, neither privileging nor vilifying proponents of any BFM 2000-affirming view. We may all be unclear about the mystery of sovereign election and the free agency of man, but we should be very clear about the mandate of the Great Commission. Therefore, I will choose to focus my attentions on the promotion of the expository preaching of an inerrant Bible, for the winning of souls and the growing of Christ-followers.

Some may ask, “Why are you so passionate about this subject?” It is a fair and valid question. I’m passionate about it because we need to be about the business of evangelism, missions, and church planting. I’m passionate about it because the North American Mission Board, which I serve as a trustee, is tasked with assisting our churches and state partners with fulfilling the Great Commission. The simple reality is this: if we are prepared as a convention to break fellowship over the issues I’ve addressed in this article, it will have a tremendous negative impact at NAMB on our future capacity to recruit and deploy church planters and missionaries. Are we really prepared to let that happen? Did we really participate in the resurgence so that we could destroy ourselves over these issues? I think not. But we all face an important choice: Will we value one another’s contributions to the kingdom as affirmers of the BFM 2000, regardless of our differences, or will we be distracted from our primary purpose? Now is the time to refocus our attention on the work of the gospel. At the North American Mission Board, our missionaries, staff, and trustees are working hard to fulfill our mission. You can have confidence that we will strive to set the pace by leading our convention to reach North America with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Cooperating together despite our differences has been an integral part of our Southern Baptist heritage since the time of Charleston and Sandy Creek. Perhaps it is time for a new generation of Southern Baptists to work together for the sake of the gospel. Perhaps it is time for our SBC leadership to guide us into a new spirit of cooperation for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I urge the precious people of the Southern Baptist Convention to join me in adopting the framework I have recommended, so that we can work together for the sake of the gospel and fulfill the Great Commission as cooperating Southern Baptists.
Respectfully,
Bill Curtis

Dr. Curtis is the pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Florence, SC, and the Chairman of the North American Mission Board of Trustees