Other preachers have spoken to me of being challenged by preaching at seasons like Christmas. I suspect that perhaps the reason is a too narrow view of what is acceptable for a Christmas series. If we simply return to the Christmas passages in Matthew and Luke again and again, it can get difficult. One can only exegete so much out of these very familiar passages, especially when our people have heard it all before.

I don’t wish to make a big point on this post, but simply to ask a few questions of any preachers who read it. First, do you find Christmas to be a “homiletical challenge”? Do you dread Christmas for that reason? If not, why not? And what do you do to preach Christmas? What are your goals in preaching for the Christmas season?

I am thinking of writing up some of my approach, but I’d like to hear from others first. Is it a topic of interest?

Is this a Biblical way to look at one’s gifts and/or talents?

There are three major passages in the New Testament dealing with spiritual gifts. They are Romans 12.6-8, 1 Corinthians 12, especially vv. 8-10 and vv.28-30, and Ephesians 4.11. There are a few other minor passages, but these are the significant ones.

We could divide the gifts between gifts of certain men to the church and gifts to many men in the church. Eph 4.11 lists four or five classes of men given to the church for the equipping of the saints. Their role would include training people in using their spiritual gifts. We could further divide the gifts to many men in the church between supernatural manifestations and internal capabilities. 1 Cor 12.28-30 seems to mix all the types of gifts, gifts of men to the church and gifts to many men in the church, both the ‘manifestation’ gifts and the internal capabilities gifts. Perhaps it might be better to list them all so you can see what I mean:

I have to concede that my analysis here is somewhat subjective and dependent on what I understand the various gifts to be. Regardless of the subjectivity, do you think my analysis of the categories is accurate: supernatural manifestations – that is, the ability to do something as a public display of the power of God; internal capabilities – that is, something that exists within the person that is displayed in ministry, not in public display; individual men – that is, particular men in particular offices within the church for the edifying of the body.

Now, to my thesis… where do musical talents fall in this grid?

I read a number of articles on the subject. Most writers seem to agree with my basic thesis: musical talents are not spiritual gifts, but they are physical gifts that can be used by a spiritually gifted person for ministry.

There are people who are very gifted musically but have no spiritual gifts at all. Name a big name opera singer for example, or one of the well-known instrumentalists of our day. They are very gifted musically. Most of them, the vast majority of them, have no spiritual giftedness at all. How could they? These men and women are not born again. How could they have spiritual gifts?

There is no doubt that physical gifts, like musical ability, are given by God, but they are not given on a spiritual basis. They are given to men in general, not to the church in particular. They are a matter of genetics, the ‘luck of the draw’ in parentage, God’s sovereignty, and training.¹

Should we decide how we will serve God in his church solely on the basis of musical ability? In other words, should someone refuse to serve in some other way if they are unable to use their musical ability regularly in church ministry? Suppose we have two or three pianists in a church (I always am thinking ‘small church’ when I say this!) They can’t all play at once, and often one of them becomes the regular pianist. Should the others just do nothing else, no teaching, no involvement in other ministries, child care, church cleaning, evangelism, what have you? Should they just sit and wait till they have a chance to serve on the piano? Should they look for another church where they can use their musical abilities and be the ‘first string’ pianist? Are these ‘spiritual’ approaches?

The reality is that musical ability can be used in a spiritual way for the edification of the body. But you should serve God where there is a need, not according to what you think your gift is. Perhaps God will give new gifts when a new opportunity needs to be filled by you. And surely God can use your physical abilities, like music, in almost every ministry of the local church even if you don’t get to use it every Sunday in the worship service.

1. Although some, like me, have so little musical giftedness that no amount of training will help, assuming I would submit to it!

And of course, I was interested in this clip because the headline talks about Matthews going after Obama. I don’t particularly like Obama’s politics either.

But take a look at the video, because I want to make a point about the ministry from something Matthews says about politics.

The big point Matthews is making is that politics is a people business. You have to talk to people, build relationships with people, spend time with people. His big complaint about Obama is that Obama is keeping his distance from the Congressmen of his own party.

I don’t know how valid Matthews’ complaint is against Obama, although it sounds true. But as I was thinking about it, I thought about our own ministry and how it is built and sometimes how it is hindered or torn down.

The Christian ministry is a people business also, or maybe, ‘moreso’. Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” He commissioned us to “make disciples”.

I have found that its really hard to make disciples by e-mail. You need to sit in coffee shops with them. You need to visit in their homes. You need to get involved in their lives.

You need to find ways to do the same kinds of things to initiate evangelistic outreach. People to people contacts. Spending time.

I love spending a lot of time with my interests, or even simply studying out passages for sermons or articles. Study time is important. But I’ve found that people time is more important.

And the e-mail counseling route often leads to disaster! You’ve seen flame wars online, no doubt. Whew! Wait till someone in the church starts going to it with you by e-mail. I’ve learned that it is crucial to stop e-mail ‘counseling’ sessions before they can get too personal. You can use e-mail to set up appointments. You can use it to distribute encouragement or generic devotionals. But if you have an issue you need to discuss… don’t do it online. Person to person – that’s the ticket.

It’s a people business.

From my perspective, it is less selfish to plant churches in America than it is too pride ourselves about a well-lit missionary board that is conveniently dark in the area right around our church.

In addition to his call for church planters, we need young families to go with them and give themselves to the task of fulfilling Christ’s commands.

One major concern I have is regarding the too common practice of missionaries serving as the long-term pastor of a mission church. I’m not speaking about the short-term practice of planting a church and serving it until it can call a pastor. I’m concerned about the practical reality that some men are essentially serving as a pastor on the mission field while remaining supported by churches back in their sending country. I’ve seen cases where the same man has served as the pastor of a mission church for decades—so long, in fact, that the church itself would no longer really consider itself a mission church. The congregation looks and acts mainly like an independent congregation, but its pastor is actually supported by other churches, not them.

In principle, I think I agree with Dave on this concern. His point resonates with me, because in many ways, “I resemble that remark.” I am a missionary pastor. I am (in part) supported as a missionary. I have served at our mission church now for literally decades (25 years this last August).

I say that I agree with Dave’s concerns ‘in principle’, but I would like to point out some factors that in my mind must be taken into consideration on this question. This isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ question.

Dave’s further points are these:

• The missionary pastor model is not consistent with the biblical pattern for missionary work.
• The missionary pastor model is not consistent with Baptist polity especially concerning local church autonomy and independence.
• The missionary pastor model is pursued apparently without thought to raising up a pastor from within the local congregation.
• The missionary pastor model is not honest when the ‘mission church’ owns its own building and supports other missionaries.

(Note: this is my paraphrase of Dave’s points. He might state them differently than I have here.)

Dave concludes:

This should not be happening, but it won’t stop happening until we stop supporting it.

Well, that would put an end to the practice, I suppose. Whether that is the right solution or not depends on varying circumstances. I have seen some churches where it seems little to no thought is given to raising up pastors from the congregation, the church is quite comfortable with pursuing its life with a missionary pastor and fails to take on responsibilities it should be taking on. In fact, some have been very resistant to taking on their responsibilities. They have developed a kind of “welfare mentality” of entitlement. I agree that such problems need to be addressed.

But let’s consider each point Dave makes and consider some other factors in the equation.

The Biblical Pattern

The pattern we see in the book of Acts for church planting is, to my knowledge, never followed anywhere. One of the reasons for that is our circumstances are entirely different from that of the first century. Paul’s example of church planting is the one of which we have the most information. We have a bit of information from the work of the deacon Phillip and even less information about the work of the other apostles.

Paul’s pattern was to arrive in a city, go to the synagogue and start preaching there until he was kicked out, then continue to preach to Jew and Gentile alike until he had a group formed. From these converts he would appoint elders for each church and would move on in his evangelistic efforts. From our records, the longest time he stayed in any one location was his ministry  in Ephesus where he only stayed 3 years at the most.

Paul traveled in the Roman Empire, benefited from a common trade language (Greek) and as a Jew had ready access to the synagogues where there were men already knowledgeable about the Scriptures. While I don’t think every elder of a local church in the book of Acts came from the ranks of the former Jews, it is quite likely that a number of them did. The Gentile converts might be capable men in other ways, but certainly would take some time to get up to speed in the Scriptures. This would be a factor in Paul’s pattern of church planting.

Consider our day… Do you think missionaries should enter a country and immediately begin an itinerant ministry preaching a few weeks in each place, upon leaving an area establishing a church and appointing an elder of maybe only a few weeks of Christian experience? Do you think the missionary should leave that fledgling church to itinerate in some other local, repeating the same process after only a few weeks or months, and them moving on again? Do you think the missionary should enter synagogues first (if there are any), attempt to preach to the Jews there, then preach to the Gentiles of that city?

It is a little too easy to dismiss a current practice by saying it doesn’t fit the Biblical pattern. I would challenge anyone to point to ANY missionary today who is really following the Biblical pattern. I don’t believe Paul’s methods are mandated as the only way to do it for all time.

Baptist Polity

The points Dave makes about accountability, autonomy and independence are (in my opinion) his strongest. It is an anomaly to have a church functioning for decades on missionary support. The pastor is accountable in this system primarily to those who are supporting him financially, not so much to those to whom he is ministering. The church isn’t being taught to take care of its responsibilities, especially when the whole operation is being entirely run out of missionary support. Different mission fields have different requirements, third-world is not the same as first-world, but the local body should be taught to take responsibility for itself and for its own ministry from day one.

One failing I have observed in this area is a failure to keep before the people the need for their own pastor and raising support for a pastor. (I speak mostly of my experience in Canada, I can’t speak so much for third-world countries.) There should be annual business meetings (and other business meetings) held in the local church where the people themselves are made aware of their needs and are led to make decisions concerning their financial responsibilities. A budget should be presented, the local church operation should primarily be funded out of the local church offerings. The missionary’s personal budget should not include too much support for the local ministry, other than his own tithe. (This may not be entirely possible at first.)

Rent, teaching materials, costs for group gatherings, outreach materials, evangelistic meetings and other evangelistic efforts, all of these should be funded locally. The local congregation should be led to have a “Pastor’s Fund” as well as a Building Fund. This fund should build up funds with which to call a local pastor at some point and fund his relocation or settlement costs. The fund may not need to be built up to some massive amount, but should be a regular budget item to remind the people of their need to take on this responsibility.

Having said that, one must bear in mind the requirements that each ministry might have for a future pastor. Suppose you take a man qualified to be an elder in a third-world mission church and transplant him to a first-world mission church (assuming no language barrier). Would the educational, financial, and cultural requirements be the same between a pastor in a third-world country and a first-world country? Would the costs be the same? A group of thirty believers in a third-world country might be able to take on a whole ministry there much easier than a group of thirty believers in a first-world country. This is not to denigrate believers in the third-world! There are, however, differences to the ministry in differing cultures and circumstances that must be taken into account. In some countries it seems easier to gather a group of believers together than in other countries. Some ministries take off faster than others. Who can explain it? We have to deal with the realities we are faced with. And of course, we do have to follow our polity as closely as we can, allowing for temporary situations. (‘Temporary’ should not normally be decades, I agree.)

No Thought for Raising Up a Pastor

I can’t speak for every situation, certainly. I suppose there are some who take no thought for raising up a pastor to take over the work. That is a foolish proposition in my opinion.

Some circumstances will militate against any soon arrival of a local man capable of leading the mission church, however. I know of a missionary situation in very small villages where there is rampant alcohol and drug abuse, not to mention all kinds of child and sexual abuse including every imaginable problem in these areas. I know that God can change lives, but really, in these villages, it will take a generation to raise up a little boy who gets saved, keeps his testimony clean enough to meet the Biblical requirement of blamelessness, and is qualified to lead the local ministry. At the same time, such a young man may still need outside support because the villages (and churches) are so impoverished that they could never support that young man, once he is qualified. He could take secular work as a supplement, perhaps, but should he work full time and be the pastor? What if there are no jobs available? Should villages like that expect that a missionary will come in for four or five years max, then leave? What would be left? Who could take over the ministry? Should the missionaries just not bother to go to such places? How long should we give the missionary to raise up a young man? Would you be willing to give him decades? (I would.)

In some countries it takes a long time and a lot of money to build up a local congregation. I have witnessed it first hand in my own ministry and in church planting efforts in Mormon country in the USA. Most of the missionaries I know in works such as these are actively encouraging young men to grow in the Lord with a view to seeing some of them called to the ministry, trained, and (hopefully) returning to the field from whence they came. One burden we have had is seeing young men (and women) head off to get advanced Christian/ministerial training only to have them get involved in some established ministry somewhere else and never return. It is especially heart-breaking when they settle down in the locale of the college or university they attended and never leave the comfort zone those regions afford.

In the meantime, it is a struggle in hard areas to build up the congregants in the faith. There are competing voices everywhere. If we are trying to build up faithful disciples we see an attrition rate of converts who are attracted to things they see in larger (and looser) evangelical churches, on the internet, or what have you. Often our ministries seem like “two steps forward, three steps back.” Should we bother with church planting in such areas? When there are relatively conservative gospel preaching churches in an area, should we leave it alone and seek some other place of service? Should we plant churches in North America at all, knowing that it will be costly, will take time, and may not produce local elders qualified to serve as pastors in five years or less?

With respect to North American church planting, one solution has been to offer a man support for a specified period of time (say five years) and then to cut him off, sink or swim, at that point. There is some merit to that approach, but it might be better to guarantee full support for four or five years, followed by a four or five year process of gradually reducing the support. In some areas that will be more realistic than simply cutting support at an arbitrary date.

Mission Church Buildings and Missionaries

On this point I have to strenuously object. The fact that a church has a building it owns as opposed to a meeting place it rents is irrelevant to the question. It costs money to meet anywhere. Often, after the down payment hurdle is overcome, it is less costly to own than to rent. Which is more prudent? Which furthers the ministry more? I can testify that owning one’s own building in Canada is a step up for a mission church and helps in the ongoing church planting effort. Our experience led us into a building at a certain point in our history that really was of the Lord. By virtue of having our building, our ministry is finally at the point where I would say we are 80% self-supporting. By God’s grace we hope to be able to reach 100% soon. But the building itself has been a step forward in reaching that goal. It is an asset in the process, and should not be denigrated.

And the fact is, if we didn’t own a building, we would have to rent somewhere. It would cost us more to rent than to own. So we should rent just to say we truly are a mission church? I don’t buy that.

And missionaries… I believe churches should tithe, just like we ask our people to tithe. We have a modest missions program. We have used it to teach our people that they have a responsibility beyond our four walls. We have been giving to others almost since day one. I think it is the right thing to do. Should mission churches be exclusively concerned about their own ministry until the can “afford” to support missions? When will that day every come?

Conclusion:

I am not writing to oppose Dave’s arguments. I think his concern is genuine, and I agree with it in principle. I just think there are a number of factors to consider in raising and receiving missionary support.

I also acknowledge that I might be just a bit defensive, because “I resemble that remark”, but I have to say that these concerns are not something that we are unmindful of. Our burden originally was for planting churches, plural. In God’s providence (and perhaps given my limitations) our burden has changed. We hope now to have fully planted one church before I die. We are taking steps even as we speak to make changes in our ministry to make that a reality.

And regardless of any debate of these points, I do thank God for the privilege of having been able to win some souls to Christ whose fellowship I will be able to enjoy for eternity.

I am wondering about the rationale for these types of services, however. I wonder if my readers may have thoughts to contribute on the subject.

I realize that such services are a bit of a staple in evangelical/fundamental church circles. There are several reasons why I am against them.

• They seem to me to be a holdover from the infant baptism error of church tradition.
• They seem to be entered into as a matter of superstition, especially among unchurched adherents or sporadic attenders of a church.
• They do nothing for the infant.
• The Bible nowhere gives any precedent or command for such services.

One of my former pastors seemed to sense the problems with a ‘child-dedication’ service, so would do a ‘parent dedication’ service. I suppose there is nothing wrong with this, if the parents are really dedicating themselves… but I am not sure what the show in front of the church has to do with a private commitment to our holy God. And again, many of those who seek this kind of service are doing it to satisfy some superstitious sense of obligation to God, but are really undedicated to living the Christ life on a daily basis. They are using the service as kind of a ‘good luck charm’ to compensate for their lack of personal dedication and discipleship. They reduce God to a tribal deity.

Yes, I understand there are sincere and devoted Christians who ask for these services as well. Why? Probably out of ‘tradition’. The fact is the presence or absence of such a dedication service will make no difference in the spiritual life of the child.

So… just wondering what others think. (And hoping to get our minds of the latest internet hysteria!)

Our keynote speaker was Dr. Fred Moritz, my good friend and former mission director. He is now ‘emeritus’ with the mission and on the faculty of Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

We had a great week … all in just three days! Lots of preaching and good fellowship. We are hosting the sermons at our church site, so I thought I would make the link available for anyone who might be interested.

Jeff and his wife Anna trained our people in The Exchange soul-winning presentation this week. The training involves two parts – a four session Bible study and a short gospel presentation distilled from the longer study.

The highlights of the week for me included a reminder that in conversing with lost people we need to direct the conversation to heart issues rather than engage head issues (deal with need rather than prove one’s point) and hearing two testimonies from two of our people who were able to share the gospel during the week.

One obstacle Christians face in soul-winning is lack of confidence about what they will say when they witness for Christ. The Exchange provides an excellent tool for presenting the truths of the gospel to a lost person. I heartily recommend it.

Bob Jones University Press is now publishing the soul-winning Bible study and leader’s guide, as well as a twelve week discipleship program to follow up on the evangelistic Bible study.

For an idea of what The Exchange is like, here is our friend Jeff Musgrave, presenting the content of The Exchange.

Renney [coach of the Oilers] said the captain has to be an extension of the coach.

"In terms of work habits, his own personal preparation from fitness, nutrition, his emotional state. That’s critical. He has to help deliver what’s required from a game plan and have a deep commitment to it."

That prompted some thoughts on pastoral leadership. Peter says:

NAU  1 Peter 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

Could we say that as examples of the flock we need to be “an extension of the Lord” displaying work habits that are committed to the kind of spiritual fitness the Lord expects of his people? Can we say the pastor must deliver what’s required from the game plan and have a deep commitment to it? In other words, if we expect the people of God to buy into what we are preaching, surely we must be at least as deeply committed as we are calling them to be, eh?

It may be that we are too much interested in our own agenda, our own game plan, than the Lord’s plan. Yield yourselves (voluntarily) to the Lord as the shepherd of His sheep – they are His, not yours, after all.

The question reveals, I think a faulty view of salvation and assurance of salvation. In light of our recent discussion of revivalism here, I thought the article asked an interesting question.

The whole idea of a “decision for Christ” is largely a revivalistic phenomenon. As the article says:

Much of American Protestantism has been influenced by revivalism, which places great emphasis on "making a decision for Christ" in a public, definitive way. These "moments of decision" often become the crucial evidence that one is saved. Other Protestant traditions, less influenced by revivalism (including some Reformed and Lutheran churches), may be content to leave the conversion experience unclearly identified, putting the focus on identification with the church. Both of these traditions have benefits, as well as potential problems.

In a recent comment, our e-friend Tracy makes a good point, I believe:

If I’m preaching to lost folks, I preach Christ crucified and call for them to close with Christ immediately and publicly. Before I close, I tell them if they have any questions, either they can come to the front at the invitation time or they can see me after the service. I always stress that Christ desires their immediate salvation. So I declare the gospel, spell out its terms, and call them to close with it.

I agree with that. We need to call folks to decisions.

But what about some who can’t remember the specifics of their decision? (Perhaps it was a long time ago, perhaps it was when they were very young, perhaps they remember bits, or perhaps they remember nothing at all.)

Sometimes we have the phenomenon of people (often young children) doubting their salvation ‘decision’. Did I really trust Christ then? Am I really saved? This can lead to multiple decisions – where someone suggests that there is nothing wrong with making sure of one’s salvation right now, so a new prayer is prayed and a new hope of assurance is formed based on a new decision. Or it can lead to someone assuring the concerned based on a past decision: Don’t you remember that prayer you prayed? Did you mean it then? Did God hear your prayer?

Both of these approaches, though well meaning, may lead to other problems. Some believers become very confused over multiple decisions and fail to progress because of a very unsettled mental state about their salvation. Others rely on their prayer as if it is almost a magic formula. As long as they ‘said the right words to God’, they are good to go.

The CT article concludes this way:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one’s life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God’s saving work in one’s life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

This is reasonably good advice, but I think more should be said. One searching question to ask is this: What are you relying on in order to have salvation? To put it another way, “If you were to stand before God right now and he were to ask you, ‘why should I let you into my heaven’, what would you say?” (To coin a phrase!!)

Why is this question relevant?

It is relevant because if one’s assurance is based on his works – his character, his visible love for God, his love for the brethren – is he relying on Christ or on his own works?

Or if one’s assurance is based on the prayer he prayed (the decision, or the memory of a decision), is he relying on the fact of having said the right words to God (a work) or is he relying on Christ?

For myself, I remember praying for salvation from sin on a certain occasion. My father told me that it came after weeks of spiritual turmoil and an inability on my part to understand that I was a sinner and needed to be saved, just like anybody else. (I wasn’t old enough to be that bad, or so I must have thought.) But at some point, I came to understand that I, even I, was a sinner and had no right to stand before God. I understood that I needed the work of Christ alone to save me from my sin, so I prayed to receive it.

Following that decision, I at times doubted my salvation. This usually came at points where I found myself under conviction for the presence of ongoing sin or under the periodic depressions associated with growing up.

Personally, I found assurance of salvation in two sources. First, in the promises of God in the Bible. The Bible says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Did I call? Yes. Then God’s promise is salvation. I depend on God’s word, not my own experience. Second, in answer to the question posed above, I would say I am trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, nothing else for my salvation. My answer to God’s hypothetical entrance examination is, “Jesus died for me.” I have no assurance based on my own experience. I have seen too many failures in my life and others to have much confidence in that route.

To answer the question of the CT article, “How can I know I’m a Christian if I can’t remember when I first responded to the gospel?” my answer is: Jesus Christ and the promises of God. Are you trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you from sins? Then rest assured. The promises of God say you have eternal life.