5 Wrongs and 1 Right

By Franklin Dumond

Suppose a convoy of large, over-sized, over-weight transports arrived at a bridge with specifically posted and well known weight limits that made it dangerous to cross. Suppose the drivers of the transport vehicles conferred on the implications of the weight limits by investigating the history of the load limits, the placement of the weight limit sign, along with the stated intention of the drivers to deliver their over-sized, over-weight cargo.

bridge for blogSuppose the nine drivers take a formal poll to determine the course of action with the result that five of them announce their belief that the designers of the bridge never intended to restrict access, the use of the bridge should not be restricted based on the precedent of history and everyone should be able to move whatever cargo they choose to deliver across the bridge. Despite the fact that four of the drivers object, five of them determine to press ahead to deliver their over-sized, over-weight cargo despite the clearly posted, scientifically sound weight limits on the bridge.

The analogy is remarkably like the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding marriage laws in the United States. Their decision that marriage is not to be understood only in traditional terms of union between one man and one woman now applies throughout the land despite the logic of history and the message of a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Several concerns have been raised by leaders and lay members in evangelical churches as they consider the implications of such a decision. In the current legal framework here are some facts that need to be considered.

  1. Can Baptist pastors be compelled to officiate same-sex marriages? NO! Baptist pastors are not agents of the state and thus they cannot be compelled to act for the state. Government officials may be compelled to act for the state as part of their statutory responsibility. Pastors have always been able to determine the conditions under which they will officiate a ceremony. Many pastors require a particular series of pre-marital counseling sessions, others refuse to officiate at second marriages if divorce has been involved while still others choose only to serve the members of their congregations. None of this is changed by the Supreme Court ruling.
  2. Can churches be compelled to allow the use of their facilities for same-sex marriage ceremonies? NO! A building use policy that is crafted to tie a General Baptist Church to the Social Principles adopted as policy statements by the General Association of General Baptists will prevent any claim of discrimination or any misunderstanding of the church’s biblical view of marriage. (For more information see the General Baptist Messenger, Winter 2013, pages 34-35 at www.GBMessenger.org)

A church that engages in the rental business, however, may be subject to the restrictions imposed by public accommodation laws. That is if a church’s building use policy offers rental of the facility for stated fees and other terms that make it appear that the church provides a public access service to the community then the church may find itself without important protections.

Similarly a harsh, restrictive facility use policy that defines what the church is against rather than what it is for muddies the water. For example, a building use policy that states “These facilities shall never be used for same sex ceremonies” is very different from a building use policy that states “These facilities shall never be used in a manner inconsistent with the biblical view of marriage stated in the Social Principles of General Baptists.” The General Baptist Social Principles Booklet is downloadable from www.GeneralBaptist.com by going to the Council of Associations page and scrolling down to the We Believe documents.

I noticed with sadness the release of the Supreme Court opinion. The day it was released the sun went down, but the day after the sun came up again.

The world has not come to an end because five people made a collective mistake. The court has made mistakes in the past, most notably the Dred Scott decision in 1857. The court will most likely make mistakes in the future-all humans do.

The larger implications of the recent ruling are that the church must be more effective in evangelism and more efficient in discipleship. Real change in a culture does not come from laws and court opinions but it comes when hearts of stone are replaced with new hearts of flesh that are in tune with and guided by the Lord himself.

Despite recent Supreme Court rulings General Baptist Ministries continues to affirm a view of marriage and sexuality as defined by the Scripture and as summarized in the Social Principles of General Baptists:

“We believe in the divine sanctity of the marriage covenant, which is the union between one man and one woman only. This is God’s plan for a continued moral civilization. We reject ‘marriage’ between two parties of the same sex and count such an act in violation of God’s ordained plan for human beings…Marriage is a partnership between husband and wife and accomplishes its full purpose through unity, loyalty, and love.” (page 10)

“We recognize that sexuality is a good gift of God which, in all instances, is to be disciplined in such a manner as to bring two persons to its true fulfillment. We are to be good stewards of this divine gift. We believe that society as a whole has fallen far below God’s standards of sexual morality. We believe the Bible teaches that sexual relations should be practiced only within the marriage bond.” (page 15)

Executive Director Clint Cook has stated, “Neither courts nor legislatures or a secular culture can alter eternal standards revealed by God himself. The recent Supreme Court rulings illustrate the mandate given to the Church to make disciples one at a time so that society at large may be changed. General Baptist Ministries will continue to pursue an aggressive plan for church planting to win more and more people to the faith. We will continue to coach and encourage local General Baptist churches to aggressively pursue evangelism and missions with the goal of life transformation that will in turn lead to social transformation. May God send us another Great Awakening to rescue our lost and dying culture.”

4 Areas Where Church Leaders Need Continuing Education Pt 2

By Dr. Franklin Dumond

The world of the church and the world at large continues to change at an ever increasing rate. The 21st century provides greater challenges than ever to the church leader who would remain relevant and current. Four areas where church leaders need continuing education to meet these challenges.

  1. Communication Skills. Click here to read about why continuing to better communication skills is necessary for church leaders.
  2. Personal Evangelism. Too many churches report zero conversions in a year because too few church leaders engage in personal evangelism.

a) The Public Arena of Personal Evangelism.

Our changed and changing culture has made many of the traditional approaches to evangelism obsolete or less effective than they once were. Unfortunately many aspects of evangelism were public, general appeals. Their success was proportional to the advance work that had been done to prepare people to hear, understand and respond to the gospel.

The advance preparation, for the most part, came from a culture with a Judeo-Christian morality and a worldview that included acknowledgment of a benevolent creator. The advance preparation also included a cultural respect for the church and a general awareness that local churches were open to all who would choose to attend.

The practical reality also existed that the church provided the ‘best show in town’ with music and message that simply was not available except by attending in person.

This public appeal for a decision was an innovation of the 19th century that was widely accepted by the 1850s. In the aftermath of the great Camp Meetings the practice of local evangelistic meetings also spread with the geographic and religious frontier of the day.

Throughout much of the 20th century this public practice of evangelism continued with predictable success. The cultural reinforcements for the Christian gospel were in place but in the later years of the 20th century this began to change.

In my experience by 1990 spontaneous response to a general public appeal to become a Christian all but disappeared. The Sawdust Trail of the Camp Meeting and the great crusades was no longer a built-in part of the cultural or social expectations communicated to people.

The public efforts to win people to Christ, then, became less effective not because the gospel was ineffective but because of the lack of preparation provided by an increasingly secular culture.

The simple fact that evangelism requires background information to prepare people to make a decision for Christ has been known since the 1st century. It shows in the declaration by the Apostle Paul to describe the Corinthian process of evangelism: I planted, Apollos watered, God gave the increase.

The simple fact that public evangelistic efforts are more successful when people share a world view that is sympathetic to the gospel is illustrated in the contrast between Acts 2 and the thousands who were baptized on Pentecost and Acts 17 and the few who believed when the same message was presented. In Acts 2 the people were prepared. In Acts 17 the background information simply did not exist and without prior knowledge they could not come to a decision.

Does a shifting culture exclude a public appeal to become a Christian? Not at all!

The cultural deficiencies of a secular, hostile culture requires some added features to this public proclamation that were not necessary a generation ago. Four elements come to mind.

  1. I believe simple explanations of the gospel should be part of every pastor’s preaching calendar. Thus a few times each year (perhaps 3-4) the morning message is a simple recounting of the gospel.
  2. Public invitations must avoid the #1 fear of being pointed out in public. There is nothing about walking to the front of an auditorium that will in and of itself save anyone. Effective use of a communication card or spiritual survey can gain the attention of hearers who otherwise would never respond publically.

iii. A sample prayer is needed. Again because of the cultural deficiencies of our secular mindset we need to assist people in making those connections to God. On the gospel presentation days it is possible to lead the entire group to repeat this prayer!

iv. Focus evangelism on 2-3 Big Days as a means of making initial public connections that will result in on-going private conversations.

b) The Private Arena of Personal Evangelism

i. Relationship is the key and must be cultivated. Jesus used his relation building skills to connect with people. We can do the same. This takes time and often requires a compassionate heart and a patient spirit.

ii. Un-churched is different from De-churched. De-churched people have experience with the gospel and its impact on a local assembly. Often they suffer their own personal disappointments that require bridges of trust must be redeveloped. Often the de-churched have their own disappointments with life that impact and complicate their disappointment with the church.

Un-churched have no clue about church music, church etiquette or church finance. Patience is required to gently teach and train. We used to call it being user friendly. Non-threatening is another expression that could be used here.

iii. Important tools in the toolbox of personal evangelism include:

–personal integrity since they will not trust the message until they trust the messenger,

–personal understanding of the issues and context involved so that a customized response rather than a one-size-fits-all answer may be provided,

–patience.

  1. A three-fold witnessing plan is essential.

Many folks are well equipped to provide an Instructional Witness where they will offer answers to questions about the faith–apologetics. Still others will be able to provide an Informational Witness as they tell their story of personal faith. Many leaders find the first steps of personal witness come from encouraging an Invitational Witness whereby believers invite their unbelieving friends and family members to attend a Big Day.

  1. Making Disciples in a Non-Christian Culture requires that we cannot rely on the culture at large to teach basic Christian beliefs. For example, many folks in my generation learned the Lord’s Prayer at school along with the Pledge of Allegiance. This doesn’t happen these days so church leaders must be more intentional and more comprehensive in their disciple making enterprises.
  2. Maintaining an appropriate work/life balance now that the 24/7 on-call world of ministry has expanded to the 24/7 digitally-connected world of ministry. Many church leaders manage to appear very busy without being very productive. Pilots are reminded as they prepare for solo flight “Don’t forget to fly the plane!” In their case it is tempting to focus so much on the dials and indicators that the essential task of flying becomes secondary.

Frantic, last minute preparations are sometimes necessary because of unexpected interruptions and emergency ministry needs. More often, however, they are the result of poor time usage early in the week that requires frantic effort at the end of the week because Sunday is about to arrive!

Even in the 24/7 world of connections pastors still need some regularity of schedule to accomplish the routine ministries of worship and witness and service.

 

 

Christian Population Shrinking?

By Franklin Dumond

WASHINGTON — The United States is a significantly less Christian country than it was seven years ago.

That’s the top finding — one that will ricochet through American faith, culture and politics — in the Pew Research Center’s newest report, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” released Tuesday [May 12, 2015].

This trend “is big, it’s broad and it’s everywhere,” said Alan Cooperman, Pew’s director of religion research.—USA Today, Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Reported on both the local and national news media the research reports that about 70% of Americans label themselves Christian while in 2007 about 78% chose the Christian label. At the same time 23% of Americans now classify themselves as have no religious affiliation up from 16% in 2007.

Several other features of the research report that evangelicals remain more stable in their percentage of the population while Catholics have lost both market share and real numbers. The study was based on 35,000 respondents.

Noted church researcher Ed Stetzer often remarks that facts are our friends. It appears to me that this is true of the current study despite the alarmist reaction in both local and national media. There is cause for alarm but there is also a basis for optimism.

Cause for Alarm: An 8% loss is serious. This accounts for about a 1% loss of market share every year since the last survey taken in 2007. Among evangelicals, however, the loss was much smaller with a decline from 21% of the adult population to 19% of the adult population.

Basis for Optimism: One important fact not included in the news coverage of the research study is that the overall number of believers in the United States has remained relatively stable for a generation or more. What has changed is the rate of growth of the Christian movement in the United States. Growing at a slower rate than the overall population means a loss of market share but no necessarily a loss of total numbers. Thus the imminent demise of the Christian church is not likely.

Cause for Alarm: The rise of the “Nones” is significant. Nearly one-fourth of the population surveyed indicated no religious preference. Cultural trends influence this response. In the middle of the 20th century going to church was an accepted, even expected, cultural trait. The Christian church in America enjoyed preferential treatment and competing activities were simply not allowed. For example sports leagues and extra-curricular activities were never scheduled on Sunday mornings and in many communities were not allowed on Wednesday evenings.

Basis for Optimism. The loss of cultural Christians leaves a ‘lean, mean, fighting machine’ of believers who have intentionally chosen their faith. It’s been a long time since I heard the stories of church leaders who served faithfully for 20-30-40 years finally coming to a personal faith after all those years of service.

Cause for Alarm. The downward trend in market share has resulted in a loss of preferential treatment for the Christian Church and has even tended toward a hostile environment of skepticism and distrust. In some cultures the current treatment of some Christians in America would be considered persecution. Can the church in America survive in a hostile environment?

Basis for Optimism. The loss of preferential treatment for the institutional church removes many of the automatic tools designed to propagate the faith that were available to earlier generations. Relationships, however, remain the key to winning people. Thus with a larger proportion of non-believers the fields remain white for harvest if believers take seriously their relationship to non-believers.

Cause for Alarm. It is harder to reach people these days by just having a physical presence on a busy street. A church planter who became a mentor to me in my younger days always advocated three key ingredients for church growth in the 1950s: “location, location, location”. He knew that in his day folks would come to church, if they knew where the church was located. Thus visibility was the key ingredient to church growth.

Basis for Optimism. The gospel still works! Ministry remains hard work but for those pastors and church leaders who will intentionally hold forth the Good News life change will still happen. The key ingredient these days is not location of facility. Nor is it style of worship. The key ingredient these days is gaining a hearing for the gospel so that the message of who Jesus is and what He does can begin to change people’s lives.

As I look at the research I find the cause for alarm moving me to a new sense of urgency. As I reflect on the implications of the research I find a new basis for optimism not in a blind, uninformed faith but in the rock solid conviction that the Lord is still at work in our world. Part of my optimism is based on the conviction expressed in the old gospel song:

“We’ll work! ‘Til Jesus comes we’ll work.

We’ll work ‘til Jesus comes and we’ll be gathered home.”