The Power of the Whine
Mar/05/2010 07:07
One great thing about the internet is the instant collaboration and commenting that takes place except when what you say (write) comes out so fast that you can't take it back.
Yesterday Bill Streger posted a very intriguing blog post asking tough, critical questions of Acts 29 and the types of church planters they were recruiting. Bill is an Acts 29 planter, so he's an insider with insight that you and I don't have. His main contention with Acts 29 was that the recruits he was interviewing were all the same. In his words, “they all sound the same.” Apparently, they looked the same, talked the same, developed the same plans of action, and were all trying to reach the same hip, urban, sophisticated crowd. I thought his post was great and his point “that uncool people need Jesus too” was worth considering. So I commented...
Have you ever had that moment where you wish you could immediately hit unsend? As I was reading my comments right after I posted them, I wished I could’ve hit unsend. It wasn't the content of my comment but rather the tone of the comment. I sounded like a spoilt 11 year old girl.
The reason why I'm posting this here is two fold:
1) be careful not only of what you write on other people's blogs but how you write it. I think I gave the foreign mission crowd a black eye amongst the urban church planters by sniveling my way through that comment.
2) try to make your point when and where it will be heard. There's nothing wrong with my comment per-se. It's true. Why is it that if I wanted to plant somewhere in N.America I would have a $50,000 salary to do so today? Why are most church planting/missional orgs/congregations funneling MILLIONS of dollars into American cities and doing the same type of ministry as everyone else? Why do urban American church planters get money thrown at them but those of us wanting to plant and grow churches on foreign soil have to grovel on hands and knees? Not sure. But, having that kind of discussion is appropriate here, not on a blog post about Acts 29.
So here it is, the apology and warning. I’m sorry for sounding like a spoiled girl scout and next time I’ll be more careful with what I say or write.
Yesterday Bill Streger posted a very intriguing blog post asking tough, critical questions of Acts 29 and the types of church planters they were recruiting. Bill is an Acts 29 planter, so he's an insider with insight that you and I don't have. His main contention with Acts 29 was that the recruits he was interviewing were all the same. In his words, “they all sound the same.” Apparently, they looked the same, talked the same, developed the same plans of action, and were all trying to reach the same hip, urban, sophisticated crowd. I thought his post was great and his point “that uncool people need Jesus too” was worth considering. So I commented...
Have you ever had that moment where you wish you could immediately hit unsend? As I was reading my comments right after I posted them, I wished I could’ve hit unsend. It wasn't the content of my comment but rather the tone of the comment. I sounded like a spoilt 11 year old girl.
"My wife and I have been working in Europe and concerned for Europe for the past 8 years. We’re moving back to Europe (to Portugal) in May which only has .08% born-again population according to the last sociology census. The sad/ironic thing is that we’re trying to scrape money together for our project and at the same time have been told that if we were considering planting in Las Vegas or Salt Lake that we would have an all expenses paid church planting career if we wanted it. I know a group that is pouring over 1 MILLION dollars into this project alone. There are more Christians in Mormon Salt Lake than in the entire country of Portugal and we can’t get $2000/month in support.
Am I missing something?"
The reason why I'm posting this here is two fold:
1) be careful not only of what you write on other people's blogs but how you write it. I think I gave the foreign mission crowd a black eye amongst the urban church planters by sniveling my way through that comment.
2) try to make your point when and where it will be heard. There's nothing wrong with my comment per-se. It's true. Why is it that if I wanted to plant somewhere in N.America I would have a $50,000 salary to do so today? Why are most church planting/missional orgs/congregations funneling MILLIONS of dollars into American cities and doing the same type of ministry as everyone else? Why do urban American church planters get money thrown at them but those of us wanting to plant and grow churches on foreign soil have to grovel on hands and knees? Not sure. But, having that kind of discussion is appropriate here, not on a blog post about Acts 29.
So here it is, the apology and warning. I’m sorry for sounding like a spoiled girl scout and next time I’ll be more careful with what I say or write.
0 Comments
Why I care about the Pope's visit to Portugal
Feb/11/2010 18:47
- Ironically, his visit is occurring at the same time as our planned move.
- His visit will bring a heightened sense of spirituality to the country.
- The contrast between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism will be clearly seen.
- Those seeking God will be open to listening for his voice.
- His visit will encourage a very down-trodden people.
- Christians in America will be able to see how desperate Portugal really is for the Gospel.
- The pope will leave yet the Lord’s church will remain to help people come to really know Jesus.
- Many young people will be reminded of why they left Roman Catholicism and be open to finding a better way.
- The veil of sin will be lifted and it’s perverted, soul-stealing lies revealed for all the world to see.
I remember all normal programming on T.V. was stopped as Pope Benedict was revealed as the new pontiff. I remember being in Ireland, another ultra-Catholic country when he was crowned as “head of the church.” I remember hearing the hopes and dreams of millions of Irish come crashing down when after a period of time the event was forgotten and life went on. And I remember having the opportunity over the next days and months to share with disillusioned Catholics the truth and hope revealed in Jesus, the real head of the church. I truly believe that the Pope’s visit is an opportunity but only for those willing to see it as such.
Colossians 1:18
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”
The Hardest Math Lesson to Learn
Jan/15/2010 15:48
As I’ve learned about myself and seen in others, we missionaries tend to run a bit on the dramatic side. We like stats and numbers, especially when they favor our cause because they make things sound dramatically urgent. However, we also have a bad habit of sweeping those numbers under the rug when things are not as bad as we thought. Admittedly, there have been times in my past when my desire to see ministry happen in certain places caused me to pay less attention to the details than I should have. As Ed Stetzer discovered in his Christianity Today article Curing Christians' Stats Abuse, I am not alone-
Looking at the facts and choosing to be honest with the numbers about our ministry fields helps clear the air by getting the information right so that we can plan accordingly,“Reports of Christianity's demise in America have been greatly exaggerated. While the main thrust of good research does indicate that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Christians is declining, these data are not necessarily a bad thing. If three out of four Americans call themselves Christians, we are in big trouble. Three out of four Americans certainly do not live like Christians.”
Several years ago, a colleague of mine pulled me aside and pointed out my tendency to be overly-dramatic. Years have passed but I still hear his warning to me: “It’s not simply drama, it’s dishonesty.” In our case, Portugal’s numbers were worse than we thought forcing us to revise our numbers, our materials, and our website down. Sadly, the Portuguese demographical study found that only .08% of the population claimed to be a born-again Christians while only 1/3 of the 84% Roman Catholic population regularly attended mass. Ironically, I’ve felt a weird sense of vindication ever since then... I’ve asked myself since that trip if the numbers had come back better, would I have had the guts to revise my numbers upward possibly threatening support for ministry? I hope so. Readjusting our numbers in order to be honest, not fudging them to provoke drama or coerce money is a hard lesson to learn. But honesty is my (and your) only option. What about you? In your materials, on your blog, on your website, and in your missions presentation, are you honest with your numbers?“In the meantime, bad and misinterpreted data must not convince us that organized Christianity in America is dead and gone. Facts are our friends. The facts tell us that the church in North America is struggling but also, in many places, growing.”
An Open Letter (to your congregation)
Jan/11/2010 08:27
Dear congregation,
This weekend I had a wonderful opportunity to fellowship with around 40 people at the first ever KontaktMission Workers Retreat in Knoxville, Tennessee. This wasn’t a mega conference with thousands of people, vendors, key-note speakers, or publicity. It was a simple gathering of like-minded, missional people concerned about the Great Commission and willing to do whatever or go wherever because of God’s command. You should be proud because the things you are doing in your congregation and teaching from your pulpit God has used to stir up your members to risk everything to save some.
However, as I sat around the table and listened to your members stories, I was saddened to hear that too many of these people were not receiving any support from you, their home congregation. This is exactly the opposite of what we find in scripture. In Acts 11 Paul and Barnabas were teaching and ministering for a full year with success and growth in Antioch but in Acts 13 they were set apart by the Holy Spirit to be sent out from the Antioch congregation for their first missionary journey. How can it be that scripture shows one thing but you’re doing another? In fact, let me ask another question: Why would you rather support someone you’ve never met, haven’t trained, with unknown work habits, unknown theology, and unknown family life versus someone you’ve trained, taught, discipled, cared for, counseled, and watched their family, life, and ministry? Why support strangers when you can send from your own flock?
Another disappointment from my discussions with your members was the level of frustration they felt because you were not open to the Lord’s leading in establishing where your congregation should work. Many, many people I spoke with said that you had denied them support because their location choice was different than the mission committee’s choice. I don’t think it is wrong to choose a mission location but perhaps God desires a different location if he’s setting apart your people for a place or a people? Consider how Acts 15 would have turned out if the Jerusalem council had decided that the church was only going to work with the Jews and cut off Paul and Barnabas’s ministry? Some of your choices-by-committee are killing the missionary vision in places where the gospel is needed. Compelling cases based on need are everywhere because the need is great everywhere. Open your mind and expand your vision so that you don’t miss God’s choice.
John Piper wrote that “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” I believe that God wants to do an amazing work through your congregation but I also believe that you’re missing tremendous opportunities by overlooking your own people and never considering where God might be sending them. Is the exaltation of Christ and the unceasing worship of his name by all peoples the basis for your mission or has your missions committee decided on something else? If it's the latter, let me suggest you rethink and readjust. You might be surprised by the opportunities that arise.
In Him,
Kevin@outpoured
This weekend I had a wonderful opportunity to fellowship with around 40 people at the first ever KontaktMission Workers Retreat in Knoxville, Tennessee. This wasn’t a mega conference with thousands of people, vendors, key-note speakers, or publicity. It was a simple gathering of like-minded, missional people concerned about the Great Commission and willing to do whatever or go wherever because of God’s command. You should be proud because the things you are doing in your congregation and teaching from your pulpit God has used to stir up your members to risk everything to save some.
However, as I sat around the table and listened to your members stories, I was saddened to hear that too many of these people were not receiving any support from you, their home congregation. This is exactly the opposite of what we find in scripture. In Acts 11 Paul and Barnabas were teaching and ministering for a full year with success and growth in Antioch but in Acts 13 they were set apart by the Holy Spirit to be sent out from the Antioch congregation for their first missionary journey. How can it be that scripture shows one thing but you’re doing another? In fact, let me ask another question: Why would you rather support someone you’ve never met, haven’t trained, with unknown work habits, unknown theology, and unknown family life versus someone you’ve trained, taught, discipled, cared for, counseled, and watched their family, life, and ministry? Why support strangers when you can send from your own flock?
Another disappointment from my discussions with your members was the level of frustration they felt because you were not open to the Lord’s leading in establishing where your congregation should work. Many, many people I spoke with said that you had denied them support because their location choice was different than the mission committee’s choice. I don’t think it is wrong to choose a mission location but perhaps God desires a different location if he’s setting apart your people for a place or a people? Consider how Acts 15 would have turned out if the Jerusalem council had decided that the church was only going to work with the Jews and cut off Paul and Barnabas’s ministry? Some of your choices-by-committee are killing the missionary vision in places where the gospel is needed. Compelling cases based on need are everywhere because the need is great everywhere. Open your mind and expand your vision so that you don’t miss God’s choice.
John Piper wrote that “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” I believe that God wants to do an amazing work through your congregation but I also believe that you’re missing tremendous opportunities by overlooking your own people and never considering where God might be sending them. Is the exaltation of Christ and the unceasing worship of his name by all peoples the basis for your mission or has your missions committee decided on something else? If it's the latter, let me suggest you rethink and readjust. You might be surprised by the opportunities that arise.
In Him,
Kevin@outpoured
Portugal's Homosexual Mistake [u]
Jan/09/2010 11:49
In February of 2006 Portugal blocked the “marriage” of a lesbian couple challenging the country’s judicial position to not legally recognize their union. I remember the decision and supported the court. Yesterday however, Portugal reversed course when the Parliament forced a bill through effectively legally recognizing same-sex unions as “marriages.” Aside from the arguments that help to define what marriage is and isn’t I think that Portugal’s decision to legally recognize this is wrong. This is why:
Usually, the issue boils down to the idea of “equal rights” for all people. The problem is that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are not equal by definition. One produces offspring, the other does not. It is in the government’s best interest to protect and aid stable, healthy, heterosexual unions because they produce offspring that ensure the survivability of the people and government. For example, future generations of stable, healthy individuals contribute to the economy through work and taxes, contribute to the safety of that country by providing military might, contribute to the furthering of that country’s unique language and culture through education, art, commerce, and food. By removing the protection and “uniqueness” of stable, healthy, heterosexual unions, Governments undermine their own survivability. As I’ve written before, this is not a moral issue it’s a public issue.
[Update]
After my post last week, this news item appeared in my news reader: “Portuguese Split on Same-Sex Marriage” by the Angus-Reid Global Monitor. What I find interesting are two stats: First, that Jose Socrates and his Socialist Party only won 36% of the vote in September 2009. Secondly, that over half of the Portuguese population oppose homosexual “marriage” and that nearly 70% of Portuguese oppose homosexual adoption! The fact that such a small coalition government can force the majority of Portuguese people to adopt a bill they oppose speaks volumes.
Usually, the issue boils down to the idea of “equal rights” for all people. The problem is that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are not equal by definition. One produces offspring, the other does not. It is in the government’s best interest to protect and aid stable, healthy, heterosexual unions because they produce offspring that ensure the survivability of the people and government. For example, future generations of stable, healthy individuals contribute to the economy through work and taxes, contribute to the safety of that country by providing military might, contribute to the furthering of that country’s unique language and culture through education, art, commerce, and food. By removing the protection and “uniqueness” of stable, healthy, heterosexual unions, Governments undermine their own survivability. As I’ve written before, this is not a moral issue it’s a public issue.
Notice that I am not denying homosexual’s the right to make long-term commitments to each other, the right to do things in private that they want, or the right to will their money to their partners. They can do all of those things as they see fit right now without government intervention. Rather, I am trying to make the argument that because these two unions are not equal the government should protect the one that contributes to it’s future through stable, healthy offspring. Beyond those few simple protections, government should stay out of the bedrooms of it’s citizens and leave them to their own lifestyles. Legally equating these two very different unions is wrong and in doing so, Portugal made a big mistake.“Society needs strong, healthy families that naturally produce healthy children for the good of and future of the state. In other words, it is in the state’s best interest (for future tax revenue, military protection, job creation, education, etc.) to protect the institution of marriage. Homosexual couples by natural process do not produce future generations, therefore they should not be privy to the special protections guaranteed to stable heterosexual marriages that do. These protections ought to be denied to them because in this important distinction, they are not equal. This is not intolerance, it is simply stating what is.”
[Update]
After my post last week, this news item appeared in my news reader: “Portuguese Split on Same-Sex Marriage” by the Angus-Reid Global Monitor. What I find interesting are two stats: First, that Jose Socrates and his Socialist Party only won 36% of the vote in September 2009. Secondly, that over half of the Portuguese population oppose homosexual “marriage” and that nearly 70% of Portuguese oppose homosexual adoption! The fact that such a small coalition government can force the majority of Portuguese people to adopt a bill they oppose speaks volumes.
You are the Light of the World
Dec/11/2009 16:10
I found this map on IMB’s website a few months ago but just never got around to posting it. You’ve probably seen it as many times as I have but I keep it around as a reminder of why we’re doing what we’re doing. That little country just north of Africa is where we’re moving, the lack of light is why.
Ireland and Homosexual "Rights"
Jun/26/2009 16:00
Friday, Ireland granted “rights” to homosexual couples for the first time in their history. This isn’t surprising as this legislation was going to be forced through the Dail eventually anyway with or without the consent of the people. There is already widespread tolerance and support for homosexuals in Ireland and those who disagree have all but abandoned any reason for doing so. Europe as a whole has for the most part followed the same line as Ireland. Even Poland now has an openly practicing homosexual Rabbi. This type of “tolerance” is sweeping through Western Europe as the last vestiges of moral absolutes ebb away. Opposing these changes brands you an intolerant person as every viewpoint is welcome except one that opposes homosexuality. Ironically, their tolerance only goes so far. The fact that homosexuality has been so readily adopted in Europe only reiterates to me the importance of why we’re moving back to Europe and the desperate need that Europeans have for the good news of Jesus Christ.
In addition to the spiritual refreshment that Europe needs from the preaching of Jesus they’re also desperate for some clear thinking. One reason why Christians fail to make their case against homosexuality persuasive is that they often quote biblical scripture as their argument in opposition. The Bible is correct, true, and the inerrant word of God, clear in its opposition of homosexuality but those who don’t accept God’s take on the matter won’t listen to our quotations of scripture. To open a dialogue we need to be thoughtful of our initial approach and demonstrate from logic why homosexuality is not in the state’s best interest. Greg Koukl writes:
This unique approach (one Christians would be wise to employ) is tactically brilliant because it and others Koukl uses removes the conversation from the realm of opinion and into the realm of societal Truth (the way the world actually is). Society needs strong, healthy families that naturally produce healthy children for the good of and future of the state. In other words, it is in the state’s best interest (for future tax revenue, military protection, job creation, education, etc.) to protect the institution of marriage. Homosexual couples by natural process do not produce future generations, therefore they should not be privy to the special protections guaranteed to stable heterosexual marriages that do. These protections ought to be denied to them because in this important distinction, they are not equal. This is not intolerance, it is simply stating what is.
You can see this reasoning at work in other situations that do not produce healthy, stable, future generations. The state outlaws incestual unions between siblings, parents and children, 1st cousins, and relationships between humans and animals not only on moral grounds (although it is right to do so) but on its commission to protect the future stability of the state. It is not in Ireland’s, Portugal’s, or any other EU country’s best interest to legitimize any relationship that undermines the stability of future populations and yet without protecting, upholding, and celebrating healthy, stable heterosexual marriages the existence of the EU as we know it may disappear forever. As Christians we have the obligation to help people think clearly about truth and offering the coherence of the Christian worldview regarding homosexual “rights” in a clear, attractive manner is one way of getting the job done.
(See Greg answer the question “Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?” in this video.)
In addition to the spiritual refreshment that Europe needs from the preaching of Jesus they’re also desperate for some clear thinking. One reason why Christians fail to make their case against homosexuality persuasive is that they often quote biblical scripture as their argument in opposition. The Bible is correct, true, and the inerrant word of God, clear in its opposition of homosexuality but those who don’t accept God’s take on the matter won’t listen to our quotations of scripture. To open a dialogue we need to be thoughtful of our initial approach and demonstrate from logic why homosexuality is not in the state’s best interest. Greg Koukl writes:
“What is marriage? Marriage is defined according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan like this: "Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary." If you look in Black's Law Dictionary it says this: "Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex." Webster says this: "Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
Here's the point that I'm making, my friends. As a category, by definition, culturally and linguistically and legally, marriage involves not a man and a pet, not a woman and a machine, but a man and a woman. Restricting it as such is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word doesn't even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman.”
This unique approach (one Christians would be wise to employ) is tactically brilliant because it and others Koukl uses removes the conversation from the realm of opinion and into the realm of societal Truth (the way the world actually is). Society needs strong, healthy families that naturally produce healthy children for the good of and future of the state. In other words, it is in the state’s best interest (for future tax revenue, military protection, job creation, education, etc.) to protect the institution of marriage. Homosexual couples by natural process do not produce future generations, therefore they should not be privy to the special protections guaranteed to stable heterosexual marriages that do. These protections ought to be denied to them because in this important distinction, they are not equal. This is not intolerance, it is simply stating what is.
You can see this reasoning at work in other situations that do not produce healthy, stable, future generations. The state outlaws incestual unions between siblings, parents and children, 1st cousins, and relationships between humans and animals not only on moral grounds (although it is right to do so) but on its commission to protect the future stability of the state. It is not in Ireland’s, Portugal’s, or any other EU country’s best interest to legitimize any relationship that undermines the stability of future populations and yet without protecting, upholding, and celebrating healthy, stable heterosexual marriages the existence of the EU as we know it may disappear forever. As Christians we have the obligation to help people think clearly about truth and offering the coherence of the Christian worldview regarding homosexual “rights” in a clear, attractive manner is one way of getting the job done.
(See Greg answer the question “Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?” in this video.)
