I came across this clip, and I sure like it.

Too bad he didn't take his challenge a bit further and say, "We need people who will start a church in their house."

In any case, thanks, Mark!

Tweet This Post

This past week I have gotten a few emails about Mark Driscoll's article in The Washington Post about boys who essentially never grow up and turn into men.  He writes:

Rather than moving from boy to man by this succession of sociological transitions, we've created something called adolescence. It's a third life stage in the middle between boy and man. We don't know what to call them so we just call them guys. These are boys who can shave.

Driscoll's basic argument is that we are growing a generation of boys who enter adulthood as… well, boys.  They don't make the transition to being "real men" who Driscoll sees "Creators and Cultivators."  He draws sharp distinctions between metrosexual and retrosexual men.  He states his ideal:

Men are supposed to be producers, not just consumers. You're defined by the legacy, the life, and the fruit that come out of you, not by what you take in. But most guys are just consumers.

I am the father of three young men and this issue does matter to me.  I do think we live in a culture which has become increasingly hostile to men.  Today, women outnumber men in college (57% of college freshmen are… freshwomen) yet we continue to provide women with affirmative action style placement preferences.  Boys are forced into a female mold in school, and gender confusion is the reigning theme in the entertainment we enjoy.

I am not sure how to evaluate all of this.  I do think that in the church world, pastors are, I hate to say it, plagued with wimpy-ness.  They study hours per week, counsel people, and do public speaking.  In my experience, the majority of our pastors are pastoral – they excel at relationships, writing and reflection, and the pursuit of people's hearts.  Those are all good things and are biblical.  They don't, however, equate with the types of traits we often see in our great leaders (for example, Churchill, Lincoln, Moses, or Paul).  They aren't, for the most part, "butt-kicking leaders."  The idea is, frankly, humorous.  We want our pastors to be caring.

I was just doing some wimpy studying and read about Luther's nickname: The Wild Boar.  He was beer drinking man's man if there ever was one.  Where is today's Luther?

Creators and cultivators?  Give me a break, Mark.  We don't need more artistic men nor do we need farmers.

We need men who will take risks.

I don't believe that there is any area of ministry which promises more risk than global missions. 

Unfortunately, American men are too wimpy for global missions.

Just in our organization alone, Pioneers (which I think is fairly representative of the larger missions world), 60% of our single staff are women.  In the hardest places I observe more women serving then men.  I challenge you to visit Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Pakistan, or any of the other "tough places" in missions today.  You will find more women than men.

From my exposure to the global missions world, women are the risk-takers.

Missions is a risk-taking enterprise.  I have lived in war zones, visited disaster sites, climbed mountains, trekked, biked, hiked, and explored all over the world.  When bringing the gospel to these places you are faced with opposition, hardship, and fear.  You need to be ready to go without encouragement, lead those who are fearful, and follow the Star Trek mantra; "Boldly going where no MAN has gone before."

Men, where are you?  I am really asking… Why are men missions-averse?

Tweet This Post

First, let me state unequivocally that I do not believe that Obama is a Muslim.  He professes to be a Christian.  There is no reason to doubt that this profession is not real.  Shame on Christians who say otherwise.  This is the President and we want him on our side!

However, a recent Pew report suggests that a growing number of Americans don't agree with me on this issue.  According to this Pew survey, between March 2008 and August 2010, the percentage of Americans who believe that Obama is a Muslim has increased from 12% to 18%.  The number who believe he is a Christian has declined from 47% to 34%.

Clearly, the idea that Obama is a Muslim is on the increase.

Why is this?  It could be the polemical push of the political right, of course.  This is the argument that the political left will be making.  According to this view, it's a right-wing conspiracy designed to win the fall elections.  There is much truth in this argument.

Another reason could be Obama's own actions.  I note the following (culled from online sources across the Internet – feel free to fact check this and I will make corrections if they are wrong):

• Obama offered no Easter prayer or offeratory statement on the White House website even though he did both for Ramadan.
• He did not participate in the National Day of Prayer in the way past presidents have.  In fact, he "disinvited" the prominent evangelical Franklin Graham for negative comments on Islam.
• He did participate at a Ramadan prayer dinner and made what I perceive as a positive, pro-Islamic speech at the dinner.
• He supports the very unpopular Ground Zero Mosque initiative.  I happen to agree with his first statement (that they have the right) but that doesn't equate with it being an acceptable project.  He should have stayed out of this debate but by entering he appears to be pretty pro-Islamic.
• He has made the decision to avoid joining a Washington DC-based church of any kind.  I think it's pretty obvious to most people that Christians tend to go to church, "good Christians" tend to belong to a church (however you want to define that).

The list could go on, and I have been sent some lengthy lists of quotations that sure seem to be anti-Christian and pro-Islamic.  I don't have the time or energy to research these and I bet some or most are taken out of context.  In politics, of course, that doesn't always matter.

When combined with his childhood exposure to Islam these actions are lending credibility to the claim that Obama is a Muslim in the minds of many Americans.  His support for the Ground Zero Mosque is just one more example of this.

To be sure, George Bush also made many conciliatory statements about Islam while in office.  The difference, to me, is that Bush did it out of a concern for national security against a backdrop of outspoken Christianity.  Obama's "canvass" is quite different.

As I noted in a previous post on the Ground Zero Mosque, I am concluding that a liberal pursuit of diversity is the real reason for Obama's Islamic push.  Because Christianity is the dominant, majority faith in America, this diversity must come at its expense.

This is religious affirmative action at work. No more, no less.

I invite your opinions on this… but let's keep it friendly if we can!

Tweet This Post

Ok, maybe not, but let me share my thoughts on this since I do often write about Islam.

I think that we as Americans must agree that President-O was correct in stating that it's "their right" to build a mosque in the USA.  This is, of course, one of the maddening things about being a free society.  There isn't a reciprocal right in most Muslim nations.  Islamic societies are not fair and open societies.  Islam cannot  stand up to the onslaught of free speech in which both secularism and Christianity have survived (in fact, thrived).

Thus, we are forced to conclude (correctly, I believe) that Muslims are taking advantage of us.

Many have pointed out that Muslims build mosques as memorials to battles they have won.  This is, of course, true.  To argue otherwise is disingenuous.  What's at stake is the ongoing claim of subjection that Muslims will make over the 9-11 site and America in general if they, in fact, build the "Ground Zero Mosque."

Liberal democracies like ours are not really good at fending off ideological warfare like this.  We don't have safeguards or other mechanisms in our legal system that protect us from ideology.

It is important to note that Muslims do not necessarily have a right to this particular spot. The New York Port Authority has not allowed a church to rebuild nor are they allowing them to build the sort of church structure they want to build (read about it here – if there is new info, please let me know) even though there was a church there before the terror act (the church was buried under the rubble of the two towers).

Why is it "no" to the church and "yes" to the mosque? There is evidently more going on than simple zoning and local ordinance issues being played out in a busy city context. Something tells me I don't have the whole story on this, but until I learn more, I smell a conspiracy.  President-O's statements over the past few days have only served to bolster my feeling that, for some reason beyond my understanding, he wants a mosque there and is going to help make it happen.

To be fair, there is no doubt that my views are prejudiced by what I perceive as an anti-Christian culture among the White House staff, on the part of the President, and for sure the left-wing political establishment in general. It seems to me that Democrats want to see an "affirmative action" plan for religion.  I think they believe that Christianity needs to be taken down a few notches to make room for minority religions in the USA.  If that is true, it is an unwanted government intrusion into religion.

So… my view regarding the 'Ground Zero Mosque?"  No thanks… but I am way open to hearing other views.

What do you think?

Tweet This Post

Top-of-the-food-chain carnivores are never popular with others in the food-chain.

Wolves, for example, used to roam North America in great numbers.  Feared predators, they were able to sustain a large population in vast tracts of wild lands rich with prey.  When European settlers moved in with their cattle the number of human predators (and their efficiency in killing) grew substantially.  These new neighbors were threatened by the wolf and ultimately hunted them to near extinction.  However, an echo sounded forth through the delicate ecosystem.  The coyote became the new king.  A rise in the coyote population was disastrous for the fox, badger, and marten – those that were competing for the small animals that make up their diet.  Without the wolf, the number of elk rose substantially resulting in a loss of vegetation in the highlands.  Scavengers were having a hard time finding the once abundant remains of the wolf’s dinner.  One biologist calls the wolf a “keystone species” because of the unique role it plays in the ecosystem.  

An ecosystem is defined as “…organisms living in a particular environment, such as a forest or a coral reef, and the physical parts of the environment that affect them.”   It is a systems view of the interdependencies and relationships among not only things living together, but also their environment.  Studying ecosystems has helped biologists to understand the ripple (sometimes tsunami) affect that their various components have on one another.  Most of us learned way back in our first days of school about ecosystems.

This way of thinking can also be applied to the daunting task of missionary recruitment (which we in PIONEERS call “mobilization”).  When I first arrived from the mission field to begin my work as a mobilizer. The numbers were down all across the board among missionary agencies with a few bright spots. 

“Why is this happening?” I asked myself.  My initial thought was, “it must be those Bible schools and seminaries.”  Subsequent research did indicate that many schools were cutting back on missions programs.  I began to discuss this with educators and found that they were only too willing to offer these types of courses but students were not interested in taking them.  “Why would that be?” I asked.  I was told to check with the churches because often the churches are the ones who recommend the schools.  “Ahh,” I said to myself, “it’s those pastors! They’re not emphasizing missions in their churches.”  I set my sights on a number of pastors and began to ask them about missions in their church.  I soon discovered that most pastors have a genuine desire to see a more effective missionary effort happen, starting with their congregation.  There was no lack of commitment to the great commission, and they were certainly encouraging any kind of ministry interest, including missions.  Yet again, I asked, “Why, then, are we not seeing more candidates interested in overseas work?”  One pastor shook his head and said, “It’s the pursuit of materialism.  Mothers and fathers tell their children to go to college in order to get a job that pays well so that they will have a secure future. From an early age kids are encouraged to pursue those types of vocations that will bring them the greatest material gain.”

Why is mission mobilization so difficult?  As is often the case, there is certainly more to this question than what lies on the surface.  I have concluded that we must see missionary mobilization from a “systems standpoint.”  Obviously, God has this “big picture” view!  Capturing His perspective must be a part of our mobilization philosophy.

Mobilization happens in the context of “the eccliosystem” and missionary agencies are the predators at the top of the food chain.  “Ekklesia” is a Greek word most often translated in “church.”  The eccliosystem refers to the “people and relationships lived out in the church and the environment in which the church exists.”  I am using the term to not simply describe the Christians (this is that theologians have called the “church universal”).  Rather, it is the organized fellowships, organizations (both secular and non-secular), agencies, schools, families, and other associations that interact with each other.

Component pieces of the eccliosystem include local churches, associations, denominations, para-church ministries, Internet prayer groups, secular governments, families, and culture itself.  All of these impact each other in an interdependent and dynamic system.

Missionary candidates live at “top of the food chain” within the eccliosystem.  The mission agency is a “keystone species.”  Missionary mobilization is predatory not because missionary agencies take an aggressive or vicious approach!  No, it’s because they are recruiting the eccliosystem’s “highest impact” resource.  They want to recruit people who are high in character qualities, have ministry experience, willing to sacrifice for the cause, know their Bible well, are humble learners, can teach and influence, are flexible, and are able to represent the Great Commission to churches.  In short, they are looking for the best and brightest that the eccliosystem produces.  Most often, mission agencies get the benefit from this “ultimate resource” after others in the eccliosystem have invested many years into these precious people.  Thus, like the wolf, missionary mobilization requires health along the entire spectrum of the system.

Missionaries, as a “keystone” species, depend on the entire eccliosystem for survival.  If we are seeing disease or sickness in missionary recruitment, chances are that it is an indication (and possibly causal factor) in a greater malady “down the food chain.”  For example, if the eccliosystem doesn’t produce people willing to sacrifice for the gospel, mobilization will wane.

To take the wolf analogy further, the eccliosystem is also dependent on its “keystone” predator, the missionary agency.  Although it may not be evident to the casual observer, missionaries enforce and enrich the entire eccliosystem.  The expansion of the kingdom’s borders is a Biblical core value that missionaries reinforce.  Failure to recognize the call to “kingdom expansion” is abject rejection of at least one of God’s purposes for the church.  Even environmental components of the eccliosystem that are hostile to evangelistic endeavors, such as secular or Islamic governments, benefit from the presence of a healthy missionary community.  Hospitals and literacy rates are examples of these often overlooked blessings from an expanding church.

The implications of this way of thinking for day-to-day ministry are significant.  The decline in biblical literacy as well as a rise in divorce have a direct impact on missionary mobilization and cannot be ignored by mobilization leadership.  We need to recognize that mission agencies (whether they are organizationally distinct or an integral part of a local church) are among the most vulnerable parts of the eccliosystem.

First and foremost we need to check our personal involvement in the eccliosystem.  We should not only regularly attend a local church – how are we investing personally in its ministry?  Are we professional ministers or are we in fact part of the grassroots movement of the Spirit of God in our communities?  Are our children a part of the youth group?  Keep in mind that youth groups are producing many who will be the next crop of missionary candidates.  Are we using our leadership skills in ministry education to further the cause of Christ in our own home churches?

I recently had a conversation with a pastor whose church sits in the shadows of a very large para-church ministry.  “I don’t like it when they come to our church,” he said, “I know that if they’re here they’ll have plenty of great ideas but their schedules are too busy to contribute to the realization of those ideas. They’re often full of criticism for what we’re doing but short on any kind of real assistance.”

Mission agencies reap the benefit of many years of investment on the part of other people in the eccliosystem.  When a new candidate joins a mission agency, they often represent strong families, healthy churches and strong educational institutions.  Again, we need to look at how we are improving that system of preparation.  One way I’ve heard missionary agencies described by educators is that the agencies are predominantly “takers.”  We come looking for people and money.

How can a mission agency become a giver?  We need to apply the kind of creativity and strategizing that we use overseas to this context.  One area of great concern for many mission agency leaders is the rising number of students with substantial outstanding student debt upon graduation.  While it would be easy to criticize the educational institutions for this problem, perhaps a better alternative would be to consider scholarship programs or alternative means of education in order to alleviate that pressure.  Are we actually ministering to the students on campus or do we view them as potential job applicants?  Educational institutions have a desire to produce the next generation of missionary candidates.  There is much that we in the mission community can do to assist them.

In less than one or two generations, we have lost the background teaching and training of Scripture in most households.  This will certainly be felt in the mission community for generations to come.  What can be done about it?  In addition to participating in churches and encouraging educational initiatives, mission agencies can use their skills in teaching to assist the church in this area. We should be just as excited about a church growing deeper in its relationship to the Lord as we are about reaching people groups with the gospel.  Too often I personally have been guilty of elevating the needs of the unreached above the needs of those who sit in our pews from week to week.  This is a shortsighted understanding of the environment in which we live and work.

One final application regards cooperation.  As a “keystone species” we should together work for the health of the eccliosystem.  Benjamin Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, said, “If we do not hang together we will all hang separately.”  Why is it that mission agencies can work hand-in-hand overseas while the average church attendee continues to ask, “Why don’t you agencies work together?”  We are somehow being seen as not cooperating with each other.  Experience indicates to me that this is more than an uninformed opinion and the problem starts with senior leadership positions in our mobilization organizations.  I have little patience for the “church” versus “agency” arguments being waged in our books, periodicals, and conferences.  To waste our energies in this way indicates a lack of understanding about the basic need the lost have for the gospel.  It focuses on our man-made institutions rather than the task at hand.

As we seek to reach the lost for Christ we need to continue to build up and make the eccliosystem a healthy place for all ministries.  We need to invest in our local communities as well as our local churches.   We must spend money on families as well as advertising, educational institutions as well as trade show displays, and cooperate rather than compete.  The often-quoted phrase “a rising tide raises all ships” is worth considering.

Many organizations have adopted ever shrinking planning horizons, substituting three-year plans for ten and twenty year plans (which were much more common a generation or two ago).  We fool ourselves by saying that there is too much change for longer planning horizons.  Leaders are to be the architects of change.  I recently saw an Internet forum devoted to the question, “Where are the missionary leaders needed to mobilize the next generation?”  Leaders with compelling vision will answer that question.  Instead we are fed a steady stream of books observing the latest “paradigm shifts” to which we must react.

The wolf that once teetered on the edge of extinction is now making a comeback in North America.  This has happened at least in part through the careful and deliberate planning of ecologists.  Some have already written the obituary for the North American missionary movement.  It’s time for us “ecclio-ologists” to fall prostrate in front of God, beseeching Him for the wisdom needed to navigate the turbulent waters ahead.

Tweet This Post

Next year we want to significantly expand our recruitment, by a full one third. The question is, how?

You be the boss: How would you direct this increase in mobilization?

Increasing prayer is an obvious one. Here are some other options I have been thinking about:

1. Increase staffing on the mobilization team (Why? More calls, emails, etc. will produce more contacts and whatnot).
2. Put great effort into social networking (Why? There is a big shift in culture toward social networking which we are only beginning to utilize).
3. Do more mobilization oriented events (Why?  Greater exposure and the US church seems to like events and conferences).
4. Add staff to visit more churches (Why? The theory here is that churches hold the key to recruitment).
5. Execute a "broad exposure" campaign via advertising (Why? Because Pioneers is not well known outside of the missions community).
6. Partner with Bible schools (Why? It's often stated that this is like "fishing in a barrel" – folks are already interested in missions).
7. Increase training programs (Why? Often, recruits come from training programs like Perspectives, or Encountering the World of Islam).
8. Other?

Let's assume that money is not the issue.

Where would you invest your resources?

Tweet This Post

Please click on over and give it a read.

Comments are welcome.

- Ted

Tweet This Post

Read this in a spirit of prayer and meditation and it will bless you to consider God's excellencies:

There is none like him, who is infinite in glory and excellency. He is the most high God, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders. His name is excellent in all the earth, and his glory is above the heavens. Among the gods there is none like unto him; there is none in heaven to be compared to him, nor are there any of among the sons of the mighty that can be likened unto him…. God is the fountain of all good, and an inexhaustible fountain; he is an all sufficient God, able to protect and defend … , and do all things … He is the king of glory, the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle: a strong rock, and a high tower…. He is a God who hath all things in his hands, and does whatsoever he pleases: he killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up; he maketh poor and maketh rich: the pillars of the earth are the Lord's.

God is an infinitely holy God; there is none holy as the Lord. And he is infinitely good and merciful. Many that others worship and serve as gods, are cruel beings, spirits that seek the ruin of souls; but this is a God that delighteth in mercy; his grace is infinite, and endures for ever. He is love itself, an infinite fountain and ocean of it.

From Ruth's Resolutions, 1:665, first pointed out to me by Dr. Michael Haykin.

The last paragraph of this quote has really hit me these past few days (I am currently traveling in Asia).  The extent to which the enemy is "cruelly ruining souls" is apparent amidst the poverty, ethnic hatred, and religious bondage all around me.  I do praise Him, that His love is an infinite fountain.

ENJOY HIM!!

Tweet This Post

Eliot was a theologian, Bible translator, and political writer.  He translated the Bible into Algonquin, or Massachusetts, in 1661 (that's right, I just wrote 1661).

He is most known for his efforts to create a new civil order among the Indians he served as a missionary.  He emphasized the need to protect indigenous culture while at the same time organizing the Indians into towns focused on living a Christian life both privately and publicly.  He was known for leading the "Praying Indians"

Ultimately, his vision of a Christian society among the Indians would be destroyed by English settlers who didn't like to see the advancements in Indian culture that missionaries were introducing (literacy, health reform, and a respect of basic human rights) and were threatened by the Indians' alliance with France.

Wikipedia notes that Eliot's book was the first book to be banned by an American government (not the US government as it didn't yet exist).  He proposed a system of government based on Exodus 18 which proposed dethroning the King.

That can get you into trouble.

You can download the whole book here.

Sources:  Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. by Moreau, The Christian Commonwealth by Eliot, and Wikipedia.

Tweet This Post

If you were Chinese, what religion is a better political option for you?

Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam?

Yesterday I had a conversation with somebody who has been living and working in China for the past ten years or so. We were talking about the incredible growth of the church there. I asked him about government repression and his answer was a bit surprising to me.

He said, "The Chinese government thinks religion is a good thing for the people."

Huh?

Then today, I read this article on NPR which states,

Since 2006, the position of China's government has been that religion can be a force for good toward the ultimate aim of creating a "harmonious society."

My friend also noted that for the Chinese government, Christianity is the best option politically.  Why?  Both Islam and Buddhism have growing opposition movements in them.

If you were a Chinese government official, Christianity is much less threatening prospect.

Tweet This Post