12 Witnesses

Keeping with the theme for the week, here are some pics from the TMABC meeting. I took this with my Canon Rebel XTI, DSLR at 1600 iso, but with no flash, because I didn’t want to be a distraction to the meeting. I’m afraid some of the quality suffered because of that. Nevertheless, here they are…

Frank Page

Milfred Minatrea

Various other TMABC images…

Milfred Minatrea (pronounced: men-ah-tree) gave us so much last week it may take me a year to digest. In the mean time, rather than dumping the highlights into a post or two, I thought I would post a few thoughts from the session on Thursdays and see what discussion comes from it.

Not in terms of today’s political definitions within the convention, but in terms of classical definitions, he produced this formula:

Rules of engagement

Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch

Church + Culture - Gospel = Liberalism

Church + Gospel - Culture= Fundamentalism

Church + Gospel + Culture= Missional

I thought I also remembered him separating Emergent and Missional by the priority of culture and Gospel. I may be wrong in my remembrance, or it could have just been me thinking on a tangent. I think I remember him saying that the Missional church prioritizes the Gospel and seeks to communicate it in a manner that connects with culture, while Emergent (he didn’t separate streams - if he even said this) prioritizes cultural relevance first and adds the Gospel as it can.

I realize that if you are Emergent, you are likely to object to that generalization.

Well?

What do you think?

The Q&A with Dr. Page was recorded and I am looking to procure that recording at the end of the week. Since I hosted the Q&A, along with Jim Stratton, I was not able to take notes.

I don’t want Dr. Page held responsible for any misrepresentation, however unintentional, I might make if I blogged it from memory.

In the meantime, enjoy this picture of Dr. Page preaching on Sunday night and a few thoughts of mine.

I am always impressed by Dr. Page’s sincerity and lack of sinful pride. One of the questions was about what he hoped his legacy would be. His answer was something along the lines of, “I don’t want a legacy. I mean that. When my time is done, I hope to slip back into obscurity and go back to pastoring my church. There are things that I hope continue, but I don’t need them to be attributed to me.”

Also, I always appreciate his candor and lack of polish when it comes to convention politics. He’s pretty honest about the way he sees things and doesn’t try to sugar coat them, all the while trying to avoid speaking negatively about anyone. He reaffirmed his commitment to that.

I’ll post the whole audio when I get it.

During a recent conversation, I compared the SBC President’s job after the election to that of someone running for the US Presidency prior to the election. They travel constantly, fit their job in as they are able and deliver a stump speech wherever they stop. I’ve heard a couple of stump speeches from Dr. Page, and, to his great credit, he keeps them as fresh as possible. They are never exactly the same and it is clear that he believes what he is saying. Below are the notes from the sermon delivered at the TMABC’s annual meeting on Sunday, October 7, 2007. I’ll give more detail to the introduction and then outline the sermon.

80% of churches in America, regardless of denomination, are plateaued or in decline.

When I arrived at FBC Taylors, they were among the 80%. They had never split or had any major catastrophe, but they had nto done anything of much note either. They had never started a church, either intentionally or unintentionally. Now they start one new church a year. Now they are 2 1/2 times what they were when I came. Last year was the greatest year in baptizing, ever, and that was with me gone all the time. I think I found the secret, it’s for me to be gone more.

We started a free medical clinic - FREE. Everything that happens there is free. We have a Hispanic work and several of the first families the we reached through that start came from the free clinic.

We have a partnership in Calgary, Canada. We have a partnership with the 18 (?) SBC churches in Maine.

I’m here to tell you, that God can resurrect a church.

I don’t play golf. If you want to waste your time, you are welcome to do it. I did hear a great joke, though, recently. A guy was playing golf and rared back to swing. He swung so hard he missed the ball entirely, but hit the ground - in fact he hit an anthill. Thousands of ants met their doom. The man got frustrated, rared back again and swung even harder. Again he hit the anthill, killing thousands more innocent ants. Before he could swing again, one of the two surviving ants looked at the other and asked, “What are we gonna do?” The other ant replied, “If we don’t get on the ball, we’re gonna die!”

If we don’t get on the ball, we are going to die!

Referenced Luke 13 where Jesus cites two horrific stories and then the question if their suffering was because of their sin? It was common at the time to assume that where there was much suffering, there was much sin. Also referenced Job’s friends, who baited Job, asking for a confession. Referenced his daughter’s cancer last year (doing fine now) and asked, was it because of sin?

No.

Nevertheless, I say to you, repent or you will perish. We must repent or we will perish.

A recent projection shows that 40 -50 percent of our churches could be gone in just 20 years.

We need to get on the ball.

Luke 13:6-8 The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree

6 And He told this parable: ^(F) “A man had a fig tree that was planted in his vineyard. He came looking for fruit on it and found none. ^(G) 7 He told the vineyard worker, ‘Listen, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! ^(H) Why should it even waste the soil? ^(I) ‘

8 “But he replied to him, ‘Sir, ^[b] leave it this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. ^(J) 9 Perhaps it will bear fruit next year, but if not, you can cut it down.’ ” -HCSB

The fig tree was planted, not volunteer (in a vineyard, not wild on the property)

• It was there for a purpose
• It was not ornamental
• It was not for shade
• It was there to bear fruit

The result of failure was drastic

• It was to be cut down and cast out
• It was useless
• The greatest condemnation is not for those who do wrong, but for those who do nothing
• It took up resources that others could have used (KJV - It cumbereth the ground)
• It was a hindrance

Though it deserved to be cut down, it receives one more chance

• The vineyard worker intervened
• It was spared not for the value of the tree
• It was spared not for the Master’s inbility to evaluate it’s worth
• It was spared at the intervention of the vineyard worker
• Praise God, we have a vineyard worker, Jesus, who is ready to dig out and fertilize the roots, prune what is dead, and draw fruit from unproductive trees

We are in the midst of God’s resources and, though we don’t often recognize it, He surrounds us with all that we could ever hope for, if we would be obedient and trust in Him.

This past Sunday night, Tulsa Metro Association had its annual meeting at Evergreen Baptist Church - planted here almost 8 years ago - in their new building.

The cool thing about TMABC is their Missional Posture. I’ve blogged about this before, so if you want the full detail, check it out. If you don’t want to read the whole deal, it boils down to downsizing bureaucracy and re-investing our partnership money back into the churches. It’s based on the idea that churches are effective in ministry and bureaucracies aren’t.

We have four priorities around which we are organized: Church Strengthening, Staff Support, Leadership Development and Church Planting. We own no entities and are about to sell our building. We have no line items in our budget - each of the priority teams have lump sums that they distribute throughout the year.

One of the best things that we do is continue to equip our Pastors (and therefore our churches) by bringing in phenomenal missional speakers like Ed Stetzer last year, Reggie McNeal a month ago and Milfred Minatrea at this year’s meeting.

We also had Frank Page in this year. He spoke Sunday night and fielded questions for a lunchtime Q&A on Monday. I am always impressed when I talk to Dr. Page. He is honest, humble and kind. He has great hope for the SBC and for the world.

This afternoon, I will post on both of Dr. Page’s sessions. Tomorrow, I will post on Milfred Minatrea’s sessions with us. In fact, I may turn Thursdays into Missional Minatrea Day for a while and unpack some of the things he gave us during the day long session.

[Note: I'll be blogging the Tulsa Metro Association (The World's Most Missional Association) Annual Meeting on Wednesday and Thursday. It is not a LIVE blog (does that make it dead blogging?) but it will be fairly extensive. I will not blog the reports in detail. You're welcome. I will blog the interaction with Frank Page and Milfred Minatrea. There is some pretty good stuff there. See you back here tomorrow for the details.]

Never forget that several folks continue to blog the disciplines, and you cna find the full set of really good stuff at Words Are Not Enough: Live From New Orleans, the blog of Joe Kennedy.

Worship.

I really don’t know where to start. Worship has been a subject of tremendous study and growth for me. As a result, there is more than I can say than you will read on a blog.

The root of the word is wrapped up in “worth” or “value.” I have heard that the etymology of the word is “worthschype” in “ye olde english,” which is to say, that to which you give worth, or value.

We were created to value God. If we don’t give God the ultimate value in our lives, we will merely substitute something else into that place of priority. In short, we are always worshiping. The question is whether or not we are committing idolatry or worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth.

One of the most important thing any child of God can do within the context of their walk with God is evaluate what it is they are centering their life on; what it is they are worshiping.

That is an introspective side of worship.

The other great extrapolation of the truth that we were made to worship God is that when we do that, we fulfill our designed purpose. We will always be out of joint and uncomfortable with ourselves when we fail to fulfill our designed purpose.

On the flip side, we will always have a sense of comfort and being “at home” when we do fulfill our designed purpose. The world may be chaotic, we may be in pain or we may be on top of the world, but valuing God at His appropriate worth will bring us to the point of peace and give us the appropriate perspective.

We are never to low when we realize that God is in control and has not and will not leave us - we are not alone. We are never to high when we realize that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, and that we are not responsible for creating our own blessings. Worship affords that perspective.

Finishing up from the previous discussions, Inviting the Lost to Church 1, and Inviting the Lost to Church 2…

I probably tipped my hand to some degree in the second post. I am not opposed to inviting the lost to church, given that you do it at the right time. Most of the people who are adamantly in favor of inviting the lost to church - “I know that they’ll hear the Gospel preached…” - betray a worldview that is rooted firmly in the churched culture of years gone by.

I grew up - and so have they, it would seem - in a time when church was a part of American culture, particularly in the south. When church is something everyone does, then inviting the lost to church is not unfamiliar ground for them and they are apt to possibly accept your invitation.

I never will forget our DOM in Kentucky inviting a guy to a tent revival our association was having. First of all, the fact that we were having a tent revival was celebrated wildly by the old country churches of the association. They were reveling in the past as if by re-enacting it would bring the results they once also enjoyed. The plan was to get all of the lost of the county to come to the revival so they could hear the message, but they weren’t interested. The churches were a bit perplexed, but they enjoyed themselves immensely, so they considered it a success.

The young man was a new manager at Wal-Mart and had just moved in to town. We had hooked up with him on the golf course. The DOM said, “Hey you ought to come out to the tent revival we’re having. You’ll hear some good singin’ and good preachin’.” The guy looked at us like we were aliens and sighed deeply. That’s not the end of the story, but I’ll move on at this point.

The reality is that, as Thom Rainer has pointed out (quoting Reggie McNeal) less than 10% of bridgers/millineals have ANY connection to church. It makes no sense to invite people to a place that is completely foreign to them in order that they should hear the Gospel.

Are we going to require them to adapt to our church culture before they can become Christians? That is what it is to ask them to attend church to hear the Gospel. I want to move on, but that is just what Paul was arguing against when he argued against the Judiazers. You don’t have to come to culture - even church culture - to come to Jesus. Even those who argue for inviting them to church aren’t sold on the idea. They say they wouldn’t invite them to business meeting. Why? Because it is not interesting or relevant. Well, that is the way the lost perceive all of church in a culture that is no longer church based.

Why is it that we can’t have a conversation with them about God right there? Why must they come to church to hear the Gospel. Why can’t the church come to them? When you have a conversation shaped toward God, you are being the church instead of doing church. In that light I would say, sure, invite the lost to church - have a conversation with them about God and they’ve been to church.

Barring that, though, it doesn’t make sense to expect that the lost of our society would have any reason to be in church. Since it is foreign to almost all of the upcoming generation, they are not likely to be interested, they don’t need to be there to hear the Gospel since you can share it with them, but, finally, the lost are incapable of worshiping God or enjoying the fellowship that the body has with itself, since they aren’t part of the body.

When a person accepts Jesus as their Lord, they are going to be drawn to the body. They will want to be with the body and they will seek it out already formed or they will attempt to form a version on their own. It is only natural for a Christian to seek out other Christians for fellowship, inspiration and nurture.

In other words, we are putting the cart before the horse - especially now that church is not something that is a part of their personal past.

Rephrasing what I said before, I am not against getting the lost into church, but asking them to the institution rather than taking to them the organic body (that’s you) is not likely to be successful. Moreover, as Bart said in the comments of the first post, it is most likely to kill the conversation. According to statistics, I think you will find that to be the case in increasing fashion as the years go by from this point on.

[edit: late addition]

I wanted to add that churches that are having small group meetings in homes throughout the week are much more likely to actually get someone who is lost to that meeting of the structured church. House churches are a distinct alternative, but not necessarily more likely to be successful in drawing lost people into their organized worship time without tricking them - and anyone that thinks that falsehood is going to win over the lost is out of their mind, as well as being out of the direct command of God for the way we should live.

[/edit]

This is a series of self pictures my daughter took of herself over a couple of days. The funny thing about it is that she didn’t tell us that she did it. We just went to take some snapshots and the memory card was full of these funny and personality filled pictures. I hope you enjoy them as much as we did.

Let me say that I will post the full rundown on this over the weekend - maybe even tomorrow night and let it run until Monday. I’ll blog - not live blog - about the TMABC meeting with Milfred Minatrea and Frank Page. We also have a pastor’s meeting with them both on Monday, which I will blog later as well.

In the meantime, let me say that I have noted a distinct difference in the responses to the original post. Those who I know to be or I suspect to be from a traditional church background - rather, I should say are integrated in the traditional church structure - are all for inviting the lost to church right away.

Tim Guthrie is pastoring a church that is innovating and so betrays a slightly different approach. Bart is a layman church planter and now a member of my church. He is the only one that I know - in all of my life - that has really sought to invest his life into the current younger generation, even though he is not IN that generation.

Please note what he said, “For the past 5 plus years I have had a burden for young adults. In that short time I have had to change how I approached them with Jesus. An invite to church almost always shortened the conversation and sometimes ended it. I found that in both ‘lost’ and ‘believers’.”

Then he goes on to say, “If I built a relationship with them and I was able to bend the conversation towards church, where I went was always asked. Then I always told them how friendly, loving, and an example of what the church meant to me.

So it wasn’t a matter of whether or not the lost get invited to church, but when it gets placed in the whole of the conversation.

My thoughts tomorrow afternoon, after the Phriday foto in the morning.

I’m sorry, but the answers I had hoped to post aren’t ready. Pastoral Ministry has most of my time right now.

It may be tonight or may be the weekend.