Mondays are probably the worst day of the week for pastors and preachers. I don’t even do it full time, and I’ve experienced the roughness of Monday. Whenever I’m in the pulpit, I tend to experience an interesting combination of being energized and completely exhausted. Preaching the Word and seeing people “get” it is awesome—but by the time I get home, I’m ready for a roughly 100 hour nap. For me, it usually takes until mid-day Tuesday before I’m feeling back to normal.

Because I’m not in vocational pastoral ministry, one of the things I don’t have to deal too much with is criticism. I parachute in and out, so I don’t get criticized (at least, I don’t get to hear it in my inbox). But I’ve no doubt that many pastors dread looking at theirs on Monday.

It’s easy for us when we leave on Sunday morning to start picking apart the message. As we consider, it and weigh the pros and cons, sometimes the things that stick out as a negative start eating at us. And so maybe we fire off an email and feel a lot better, having got it off our chests.

Now, I’m not against criticism, obviously, but I’d be careful sending that email. As Mark Dever & Greg Gilbert point out in their book, Preach, your criticism of your pastor’s message “should always be gentle, even if they are firm.” Speak well, speak clearly if there’s something legitimate, but don’t fire off a long list of problems and fail to leave any room for encouragement.

Your pastor doesn’t need to hear how you don’t care for the Bible translation he used; he probably doesn’t need to be engaged on a lengthy debate on a nuance of a difficult to interpret text. You can probably cut him some slack if he preached a right message but made an unusual choice of text for his launch point.

If you must offer critique (and it is an “if”—many churches have an established sermon review process in place, so you may not need to worry about it), do so carefully, charitably and out of a desire to see your pastor improve. Tell him what you appreciated about the message, what God is teaching you through it and, if there’s something that is bothering you, ask about it in an open-ended way.

And… maybe wait until Tuesday to send that email. It might make Monday a little easier to get through.

The last couple days have been pretty big ones as far as news about transitions is concerned. Jason Meyer was named as John Piper’s successor at Bethlehem Baptist Church (pending congregational approval), Mark Driscoll stepped down from the TGC Council and Matt Chandler has been installed as the President of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network. The news broke the night before last but remained unconfirmed until Wednesday, March 28. At the same time Sojourn announced that they’re leaving Acts 29 to start their own church planting network.

When I first read the news, honestly, I was very excited (and it’s not because I have a major beef with Driscoll). I’ve met a few guys who are part of A29 and I’ve been impressed by their passion for Jesus and seeing people grow as disciples. This is a really good thing that we all need more of, whatever network, denomination or other affiliation we’re a part of. And as I’ve reflected on the change with A29 throughout the afternoon, I’m hopeful that this could be a really, really good thing for the network. Here’s why:

1. Matt Chandler seems to bring a different kind of mindset to the table. Every time I’ve heard Chandler speak on topics like church growth, building campaigns or any of that stuff, you get the sense that it makes him a bit uncomfortable. He seems to be a guy who is much more concerned with growing people deep than just gathering a large crowd. This could be a very good thing as it could see the network become increasingly more concerned with the depth of the people and leaving the breadth to God. (Note, I know “seems” is a bit weasel-y, but my personal interactions with Chandler don’t qualify me to say much definitively about his character.)

2. The change in focus could be very healthy for Mark Driscoll. Over the last while, many of us have no doubt seen numerous blog posts, tweets and such about renewed concerns over Driscoll’s character and fitness for his position. While I don’t want to come across as though I agree with those allegations, when I see someone running full tilt like Driscoll has been over the last few months, I do get concerned, particularly as someone who has hit the wall in the past. Cutting back, chilling out a bit and focusing on doing a few things really well is likely to be very healthy for Driscoll and (as it does for all of us) give more room for reflection and growth in maturity.

3. This could be the start of something bigger and better for A29. Perhaps this should be point 1b, but here we are. From what I can see, people seem to find Chandler much less polarizing than Driscoll. It’s not because he’s not afraid to say very hard things, but he doesn’t come with the same baggage that Driscoll does. If they do a really good job with the transition, there’s a good chance that there could be new opportunities to further glorify Jesus and be welcomed within groups that may have been leery in the past.

Looking forward to seeing how things develop over the coming weeks and praying that there will be much good fruit in the end.

Maybe it’s me, but the idea of “naming names”—calling out a specific pastor, teacher or author as promoting false doctrine and heresy—has increasingly felt awkward to me. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that I’ve seen very few examples of it done well. Generally, those naming names seem to be folks that Paul warns about in the pastoral epistles—men who love to stir up controversy and division who we should have nothing to do with (1 Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:10). They appear to jump on a video clip, a poor choice of words, or a seven year old blog post and go to town. This is why on any given day, you can find everyone from James MacDonald to John MacArthur declared heretics on the Internets. Frankly, it gets so ridiculous at times that I can completely understand why people would never want to say anything that would even suggest that someone might be a false teacher.

Yet, as I study the Scriptures, I find that I cannot go there. The authors of Scripture take false teaching very seriously and so must we. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, we see numerous examples of specific men named as false teachers—as traitors to the gospel.

Paul tells Timothy that Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus are among those who have made a shipwreck of their faith and swerved from the truth (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). Their “irreverent babble,” he says, will spread like gangrene among God’s people. Their false teaching is like an infection that must be treated with the utmost seriousness and efficiency. Failure to do so will result in the infection spreading. The apostle John warned his readers of Diotrephes, “who likes to put himself first, [and] does not acknowledge our authority” (3 John 9). This man, who was apparently influential among John’s audience, refused to acknowledge the authority of apostolic teaching, becoming an authority unto himself (sounds familiar, doesn’t it). And Jesus himself warned of the Nicolaitans and their presence in Ephesus and Pergamum. He hated their works and commands those who hold to their teachings to repent or be caught on the wrong side when he would come to make war against them (Rev. 2:6; 15-16).

So if we look at these New Testament examples, we can say with reasonable confidence that the answer is yes—it is right and biblical for a pastor to warn against a specific teacher. But also notice that the answer isn’t quite as simple as we’d like it to be.

First, we must be careful to not declare a particular individual a false teacher unless the body of evidence warrants such a charge. Paul commanded Timothy that he should not “admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim. 5:19). This is good advice. In our context, that means that an out-of-context quote from six years ago cannot qualify as confirmation of a teacher being a heretic. However, if the body of evidence strongly points in a particular direction, then it may be prudent to openly condemn that teacher’s doctrine.

Second, while the biblical authors clearly treat false teaching and teachers with dreadful earnestness, it is always addressed within the context of a specific local church. When Paul warned Timothy of Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus, he was giving him warning of men who would impact Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus. He didn’t warn Titus of these men. John, likewise, wrote specifically to Gaius. And Jesus said nothing of the Nicolaitans in his messages to the church in Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia or Laodicea. Their error didn’t directly affect these churches in the way that it did Ephesus (with their positive rejection) and Pergamum (with their foolish acceptance).

This is instructive for our own day. While there might be a very real threat to the gospel, it may not actually be relevant to our particular local church. If we know that a particular author is widely read among our congregations and we know that he or she holds views that are opposed to the gospel, then it is right to warn the congregation of their teaching. But to name a particular individual who has no influence within our churches may have more in common with gossip than contending for the faith.

Finally, we should always remember the goal of “naming names”. You’ll notice that I repeatedly advise condemning a person’s teaching, rather than the person. This is intentional and, I hope, biblical. While Paul names names, even saying he has handed them over to Satan, it is to that “they may learn not to blaspheme.” Jude likewise commands us to show “mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23). Simply, the goal is to bring those who promote false doctrine to repentance, and not simply say “They’re traitors and blasphemers, may they burn in hell.”

While we must always be willing to call false teaching what it is—heresy—we ought to be thoughtful about how we express it in relation to the person propagating that teaching. Hate their teaching, hate the lies they spread, hate the mockery they make of the gospel—but do not transfer that hatred to the person. Rather, pray for them to come to repentance and if you have the means, plead with them personally to return to sound teaching.

So, is it appropriate for Christians to name names? Yes, if it is to the benefit of our congregations and that our desire is to see those false teachers return the fold as faithful followers of Jesus Christ.

This past week I spent a lot of time blogging through the messages of the truthXchange’s Think Tank and some of you might be wondering, “What’s the deal with this One or Two thing they keep going on about?” The big idea behind this concept is that fundamentally, there are only two worldviews—there is the Truth and the Lie. This is essentially what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:25 when he says that “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Take a look at this quick video:

The language of One-ism vs. Two-ism is a really helpful tool to unpack this truth and how it affects the world around us today, where increasingly our culture and even our churches have succumbed to varying degrees to the Lie. Recently I was asked in an interview about how it’s been helpful for me and probably the biggest has been having a really helpful tool to begin to teach my children the most basic concepts between different worldviews. The grid of One or Two allows us to ask questions of the shows we watch with the girls and even the marketing they’re exposed to in the stores, asking what it is that they’re trying to teach, what do they think it says about God and about us. For us, it’s about critical thinking and not simply telling our kids what to think (because we can’t really do that in any long-lasting way), but how to think. We want them to think carefully about all they are exposed to both outside the church and inside it; to understand, should the Lord open their minds and hearts to understanding such things, that the distinction between Creator and creation is a thing of beauty and really what makes this world and the good news of the gospel make sense.

I hope you’ll take some time to learn more about truthXchange’s ministry by checking out Peter Jones’ most recent book, One or Two, and reviewing the articles and audio/video resources on truthXchange.com. And if the Lord leads, please give financially to support this fantastic ministry.

What is the one thing that will kill your ministry faster than anything else?

Consider that question as you read. I frequently love to read Proverbs. Reading these principles of life and godliness often serves as a corrective for me as I work and pursue ministry. Something I mentioned a few weeks back was a tendency toward performancism—that is, a tendency to turn the gifts and abilities that God has given as the measure of my worth. So when I’m doing lots and being productive, then I’m great and God’s favor is upon me. When life starts to turn to a subtle shade of Milhouse, well…

As I look around the “celebrity pastor” scene, it seems I’m not alone. One pastor’s Twitter feed has turned into a commercial for his current book. Another shares on his blog how many baptisms his church has seen since its inception whenever criticism starts to come his way. A third’s staff mocks a blogger who voices concern about their boss’ theology. I could go on, but you get the idea and probably have your own experiences.

But this isn’t really a post about celebrity pastors. Other men like Mike Cosper and Thabiti Anyabwile have written on this in the past and I’d commend their work to you. Instead, let’s get back to the question I asked about two paragraphs ago—what will kill your ministry faster than anything else?

Pride. 

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Proverbs. There is nothing that kills effective ministry faster than pride (even if that ministry seems to be thriving on the outside). Consider the following:

1. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Prov. 16:18)
2. Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin. (Prov. 21:4)
3. “Scoffer” is the name of the arrogant, haughty man who acts with arrogant pride. (Prov. 21:24)
4. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. (Prov. 8:13)
5. When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. (Prov. 11:12)
6. Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor. (Prov. 18:12)
7. One’s pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor. (Prov. 29:23)

Seven times in these passages, God’s Word says the same thing:

• Pride is an abomination.
• It leads to destruction.
• It brings disgrace.
• It humiliates.
• It is hated by God.

We dare not pass over these words quickly. If God truly hates pride this much, then we must consider our actions in the face of criticism and in light of success. If we follow the wisdom of Scripture we see that seeking celebrity will kill our ministries. Bad company will kill our ministries. And failing to listening to wise counsel will kill our ministries.

Do we get the picture, yet?

To be proud in ministry is to jeopardize our ministry—to risk God, in his loving kindness, humiliating us if we start foolishly believing that the number of people who show up matters, how many copies of our books are sold or that we’re above being corrected (even by nobodies who apparently attend Star Trek conventions and live in their moms’ basements). Brothers in ministry, let this never be said of you. Surround yourself with godly men who love you enough to tell you the truth, accept criticism well and fear God above all else. Wisdom and humility will save our ministries—pride will destroy them.

Artur Pawlowski. Street Church. Are these names ringing a bell? Depending on your theological convictions, they may be actually sounding an alarm. Many Canadian Christians already know about brother Artur’s “evangelistic escapades” in Calgary, Alberta, over the past six years—actions which have lead to his repeated injunctions, fines, and arrests. A recent National Post article gave him national (and international) attention as he voiced his frustration over the treatment he’s received from police versus that of the Occupy movement protestors.

Though this article is not in an endorsement of Artur’s ministry, it seems that he and I do share something in common: persecution for our faith right here at home.

As a minister of the Gospel, I too have been forced from street corners and threatened with arrest by local law enforcement. I have also been sucker punched while preaching open air. Doing spiritual battle always carries a cost…even when the mission field is right here in Canada.

But how does a good soldier of Christ Jesus both tactically and tactfully please the One who enlisted him, effectively reach out to the lost, sincerely respect authorities, and do so all without compromising the core Truth of the mission?

After years of experience, I have come to believe that biblically and culturally balanced street ministry in North America may be best modeled after what have been called the “three worlds” of Paul the Apostle.

Paul’s “Three Worlds”

The Cross Current (TCC) equips local missionaries to preach the Gospel specifically in the context of our increasingly complex North American culture.

TCC’s training is based on the ministry demonstrated by Paul the Apostle. As an evangelist to the Gentiles, Paul has been appropriately called the “man of three worlds” – an expert in the Scriptures, false beliefs, and rights of Roman citizenship.

This “tripod” of training expertise enabled Paul to be a fruitful and faithful witness predominantly in the context of a Greek (Acts 17) culture, much like ours today.

First, street ministers need to accurately apply the Scriptures. As a Jew, Hebrew of Hebrews, and former Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), Paul was masterful in his handling of Scripture in both evangelism and discipleship. As faith and regeneration come only by God’s sovereign grace through hearing His Word (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:17; 1 Pt. 1:23), street ministers must resist the pull towards pragmatism and “culturally relevant” preaching by constantly placing their trust in the power of the foolish preaching of the cross.

Second, street ministers need to biblically defend against false belief systems. As a Greek thinker, Paul demonstrated exceptional dexterity in boldly confronting the false belief systems of his day with the truth of Christ, yet always doing so with sensitivity and diplomacy (Acts 17). As ones called to bear witness to exclusive Truth amidst an academically charged culture steeped in philosophical/religious pluralism, street ministers must develop an appropriate balance of both presuppositional and evidential apologetics.

Preaching Christ in Canada, eh?

Granted, while the first two aforementioned Pauline “worlds” are hopefully very obvious to today’s street ministers, it’s been my experience that the third is rarely (if ever) explored. And that is that street ministers must know how to legally leverage their rights as citizens. In several instances, Scripture testifies to how Paul’s timely appeal of his Roman citizenship not only spared him further persecution, but also furthered His God-given mission of evangelizing the Gentiles (Acts 16:37; 22:25). Undoubtedly, this vital component of Paul’s public preaching ministry is the most often overlooked. Continue Reading…

I found this discussion between David Powlison and Nancy Guthrie on the need for counselors to find a balance between helpful safeguards and unhelpful rigidity that undermines the potential for fruitful interactions between men and women.

HT: TGC

As I’ve been continuing to process For the City along with a number of other books on engaging our cities and culture there’s something that’s been bugging me.

Is it my imagination or does the conversation tend to overlook the importance of prayer?

A lot of time is spent discussing techniques and programs designed to engage people (which is good), but little time is spent discussing prayer’s role. Perhaps it’s simply assumed that we would be praying for our cities, because, well, why on earth would we not? (But you know what they say about assuming…) Is it possible, though, that by assuming that we’re praying for our cities, we might actually forget to do it? Do we really get the importance of prayer to all we do to reach our communities?

In Acts 1:14, we find the early church (then perhaps 120 people), gathered in the upper room where they were “devoting themselves to prayer,” and waiting for the Holy Spirit to come. When He did descend upon them (Acts 2:1-4), they were again together and in prayer. The apostles themselves were devoted to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4). When Peter was imprisoned, the church made “earnest prayer” for him (Acts 12:5). Prayer and fasting guided the appointing of elders (Acts 14:23).

In Paul’s epistle to the Romans, we see him command that they “be constant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12). To the Colossians he says, “Continue steadfastly in prayer” (Col. 4:2) and he says the Thessalonians are to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). And, of course, Jesus Himself commands that we “pray for those who persecute [us]…” (Matt. 5:44).

The point, obviously, is not to just chuck a pile of verses, but we do have to recognize this pattern that appears throughout Scripture. What made the Church’s ministry so powerful and effective in its early days was not programs or technique, but a commitment to prayer. It’s not that programs, starting non-profits, appropriate contextualization or any number of points made in any of the “being missional” books are bad things (they’re not), but we always need to be careful of the snare they can represent. Our hearts are so easily turned away from the truth of the gospel, “prone to wander” as the song says, that we can turn to these good things and see them as the secret to being for our communities—that we become dependent upon technique for success instead of God and His grace for fruit.

That takes me back to these commands to “be constant in prayer,” to “pray without ceasing…” Could this be the reason why the Church has in the West has floundered so greatly in the last century? Not because we’ve not kept up with the times, but because we’ve failed to rely upon the power of God and His gospel?

This is not a post pointing fingers at anyone, expect probably myself. I’m certainly no expert in this matter; in fact, I’d say my prayer life is pathetic. But when I see what’s going on in my city, with a population that’s increasingly hostile to the gospel, I don’t find myself trying to figure out how some new technique—I find myself desiring to pray more. To pray that the churches in our city would be faithful to the gospel, which is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16), and that our congregations would not just being people that say they are for the city, but people who are praying for the city.