I am an aural person.  I tend to hear and "catch" everything around me. I learn best by hearing something spoken or explained.

On Sunday we had a Peruvian brother over to our house for lunch.  Like many others, he came to America with an all consuming passion: to make as much money as possible of money.  In fact, one of the most obvious fruits of this brother's recent conversion was that he stopped working on Sundays.  

What do 9Marks, Danny Akin, David Platt, Mike McKinley, Josh Smith, Greg Gilbert, and me have to do with the Southern Baptist Convention and its future? 

Join us at the SBC in Louisville for 9Marks at 9 -- Monday night after the SBC Pastor's Conference; Tuesday night after the Convention.  Expect brief remarks, discussion, Q&A, free food, and maybe other free stuff.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Deepak,

Hey Dee,

I preach from a full manuscript.  It's nothing fancy, pretty much word-for-word what I intend to preach.  Though that never happens.

My main points are in bold, and sometimes sub-points as well.  I underline the first sentence of each paragraph in red.  If there is a cross-reference, I'll either bold the reference in the text, or if it's extended and I don't want people to actually turn to it, I'll include it as a block quote.

I think I'm probably a better preacher with an outline rather than a manuscript, but I prefer a manuscript at this point for four reasons.  One, I'm still learning to preach.  I got a ways to go.  Two, like Mike, I'm working on content and accuracy with the text.  Three, I want people drawn to the content rather than to personality in the pulpit.  Four, I don't know that the Lord would ever be pleased to use my sermons beyond the local church I pastor.  And I'm so thrilled to be a pastor, I won't feel any loss if He doesn't.  But one of the tragedies of the African-American pulpit is that so few men have left any considerable manuscript evidence of their labors.  Some of the greatest pulpit preachers in history are vaguely remembered but not studied.  In case my labors may be of use to someone at some point, I don't want to make the mistake of leaving little to nothing behind.  So, I write--but not with an eye to someone else's profit but for the profit of the people in my charge.

The manuscript helps me on these points.  But I'm not enslaved to it.  I'm happy to leave the manuscript whenever I think it's necessary. 

As for young preachers, I wouldn't presume that anything I'd have to say would fit everyone or even anyone.  But I'd encourage the young pastor to preach from a manuscript for their first ten years of full-time preaching responsibility.  That sounds like a long time, but it's not.  And there is so much to learn in that first decade (each decade really) that I think the discipline of writing the manuscript is worth it.  But I like Mike's example: know yourself and your tendencies.  If you go completely wooden with a manuscript, maybe that's not best.  If you go trivial and sometimes heretical speaking extemporaneously, then please write the sermon brother.

If you're thinking of using a manuscript, here's a helpful tip I picked up from Michael Lawrence: Write for the ear and not for the eye.  Remember you're going to preach the sermon; it's an auditory event.  The listener won't be reading with their eyes what you've written.  So, write like you speak.

Having said all that, I'm considering a change, though.  We may move to a teleprompter.  Then watch the ink spill at the 9Marks ejournal!

Hey Dee,

Mike, Thabiti, Greg, Jonathan, and Aaron,

I'm curious....when you preach, do you use a manuscript, an outline, or something else?  And, what would you advise new preachers/pastors to use when they first start preaching? 

Thanks (in advance) for your wise, thoughtful and humorous responses.

Check it out. It takes about 6 minutes.

For background and part One, go here.  For part Two, go here.  For part Three, go here. For part Four, go here.  For part Five, go here.

I'm pretty confident that the topic most discussed in our new members' classes is baptism.  We have folks coming from around the world and most every denominational background it seems.  And they want to know about baptism, our practice and their experience.

In the membership interviews, I've long suspected that about half the people coming for membership report that they were not believers at the time they were "baptized."  And, no, this is not simply all the Presbyterian brethren now joining a Baptist church; it's a lot of Baptists and other believers' baptism churches.

My anecdotal sense was given a little statistical support from John Hammett's book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches.  Here's an interesting paragraph:

The validity of many contemporary baptisms was further challenged by a 1993 study done by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.  In their study of adult baptisms (those over eighteen years of age) in Southern Baptist churches in 1993, they found that the majority of adult baptisms (60%) could be called rebaptisms.  Some were baptisms of those who had previously been baptized as infants, but 36 percent of these adult baptisms were of those who had been previously baptized in Southern Baptist churches.  When asked why they were seeking rebaptism, many said that it was because they had not been regenerate believers when they were first baptized (Phillip B. Jones et al., A Study of Adults Baptized in Southern Baptist Churches, 1993 (Atlanta: Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1995), p. 5.  Cited in Hammett, p. 112).

Hammett helpfully states the obvious: "This means that either these individuals were unusually deceptive or that some churches and pastors baptized these individuals without clear assurance that they were baptizing believers."  I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the latter.

First, if spell-check says "rebaptisms" isn't a word, it's probably a made-up idea.

Second, if you're reading this and it describes your pastoral practice: Stop that.  You're hurting the individual and the church.  Stop it.  Only baptize believers, or at least be a consistent Presbyterian.  We love you Lig!

Okay... Hammett is much more helpful than my comments above.  Here's his next paragraph (may the church in the West learn from these brethren):

By way of contrast, Baptists in other parts of the world do not have this problem.  In Romania, while there is no rule, no one would think of asking for baptism prior to the age of fourteen.  The same is true of many Baptist groups in Africa and Asia.  I was struck by the practices of Baptist churches I saw in Brazil.  Upon profession of faith, a new convert was placed in a new convert's class for from six to thirteen weeks.  The central purpose of this class was to make as sure as humanly possible that the individuals involved had understood the gospel and were making valid professions of faith.  After the class, the next step in the process of preparation for baptism was speaking to the congregation.  Candidates described their experience of conversion and answered questions from the pastor and congregation concerning what they believed about Christ, their experience of conviction of sin, and their understanding of the gospel.  Only then did the congregation vote to baptize the individuals.  The contrast with the lack of care concerning baptismal candidates in Baptist churches in North America is striking.  Regenerate church membership began to disappear when Baptist churches in North America began to baptize and bring in members who gave no visible evidence of regeneration.

Thank you to everyone who sent us 140-character presentations of the gospel.  We have some winners!

No, it's not fakejameswhite, who sent us the gospel in Greek.  Nor is it Jim Hamilton, who sent us a nice Gospel haiku.  Though props to you both for creativity!  I was honestly expecting one fakejohnpiper to tweet simply, "God #9m".  But he didn't.  Oh well.  Missed opportunity.

The first of our winners is actually a Representative Winner for all of you who sent in Scripture's own 140-character summaries of the gospel.  There were LOTS of those.  John 3:16, 1 Cor 15:3-4, 2 Cor 5:21, and several others.  So we took all those, threw them in a hat, and drew out one person to represent you all.  (If you're one of those who sent in Scripture, maybe you can tweet him and ask to borrow his book.) Here he is:

DougKAduBoahen, you're a winner!  Here's his tweet:

The other two winners stand on their own, and have proven themselves pretty masterful at packing LOTS of meaning into 140 characters.  So without further adieu---

GarrettWishall, you're a winner!  Here's his tweet (in which he clearly is using the word "men" in the classical gender-inclusive sense as a way to save characters over "people"):

But the man who packed the most important content in a comprehensible form into 140 characters, and did it by executing the equivalent of a triple-back-flip double-twist in Twitter style, was---

jimupchurch!  Here's his champion tweet:

Congrats to the three of you.  We'll be contacting you soon about the books.

Thanks again to everyone who participated.  I hope you come away from this little exercise edified, and with the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ firmly planted in your mind.

UPDATE:  Some of you have noticed that a huge number of comments didn't get published.  Honestly, we're not sure why.  The site just quit publishing the comments after a certain number.  We at 9Marks could see them just fine on our admin site, but for some reason the site just wouldn't make them public.  We're looking into it............

Thabiti,

Greg, who won the twitter contest? 

Aaron, thanks for the bits from Luther.  Good stuff.

A couple quotes:

1.  J.C. Ryle: "our best deeds are no more than splendid sins."

2  John Bunyan: "It is not the knowledge of the will of God, but our sincere complying therewith, that proves we fear the Lord."

3.  Jerry Bridges: "To forgive in love costs us our sense of justice.  To serve in love costs us time.  To share in love costs us money.  Every act of love costs us in some way, just as it cost God to love us.  But ware to live a life of love just as Chrsit loved us, and gave Himself for us, at great cost to Himself."

Jonathan, thanks for the observations on Romans and Job and the unity of Scripture.  It's interesting you describe the problem of evil as "one of the most intractable philosophical and theological problems of all."  I've been noodling on a post that I think I'll just make a question for you guys and interested readers:

What do you think is the most difficult doctrine of all for people to understand and personally grasp?

Consider the astounding theological consonance between the book of Job and the book of Romans (written in very different times, places, and languages) in response to one of the most intractable philosophical and theological problems of all, the problem of evil.

• Job 42:3-5 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. ⁴ "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.'  (also 40:1-5).

In 1522 at Wittenberg, Luther preached a sermon on John 10:1-11, a passage about Jesus being the good shepherd and the one through whom his sheep find salvation. Luther applied this text to the pastoral ministry, leaving his audience with several helpful lessons regarding what is necessary in a preaching pastor:

·      A commission from those in authority. This is an interesting argument for Luther to make considering he broke from Rome. Nonetheless, he was convinced that though every Christian is part of a royal priesthood and therefore “we all have the authority to preach” it is also true that everything in the church should be done in an orderly fashion. Thus, “in the matter of preaching,” said Luther, “we must make selection that order may be preserved.” 

·      A conviction to preach nothing but Christ’s Word. Entering by the door (John 10:9) implied teaching what Christ taught. Luther minced no words warning those who enter by another door in order to preach another message: “Those who enter not by the door—that is, those who do not speak the true and pure Word of God, without any addition—do not lay the right foundation; they destroy and torture and slaughter the sheep.” 

·      A commitment to understanding the Law before preaching the Gospel. The Law reveals our helplessness and humbles us. Those humbled by their sin will not welcome preaching that ends with the Law. Truly humbled hearts want to hear the voice of the Shepherd. “It [the heart] knows very well that nothing is accomplished by means of works; for one may do as much as he will, still he carries a heavy spirit and he thinks he has not done enough, nor done rightly. But when the Gospel comes—the voice of the shepherd—it says: God gave to the world his only Son, that all who believe on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Then is the heart happy; it feeds upon these words and finds them good.” 

·      A willingness to allow the hearer to judge the sermon. The sheep will follow the true shepherd. Before they willingly follow a preacher, they must be sure that preacher is preaching Christ. The hearer ought to say to the preacher, said Luther, “I am God’s sheep, whose Word I wish to appropriate to myself. If you will give me that, I will acknowledge you to be a shepherd. If you, however, add another Gospel to this one, and do not give me the pure Gospel, then I will not consider you a shepherd, and will not listen to your voice; for the office of which you boast extends no farther than the Word goes.” 

·      A confidence in the Word to change hearts. Luther addressed ecclesiastical laws requiring people to make confession and take the Lord’s Supper. Without confidence in the Word, the Church of Luther’s day sought to decree faith. Only Christ, he argued, can make someone believe: “Whoever lays hold of Christ’s word follows after him and permits nothing to tear him from it. The noblemen wish to drive the people to believe by means of the sword and fire; that is nonsense. Then let us see to it that we allow the pure Word of God to take its course, and afterward leave them free to follow, whom it has taken captive; yea, they will follow voluntarily.”

Almost 500 years later, these lessons hold true: Churches should commission pastors to preach. Pastors should only preach Christ’s word. They should know the difference between the Law which reveals sin and the Gospel which sets sinners free. They should create an environment where hearers understand that the only true preaching is in accordance with the words of the Chief Shepherd. Finally, they should believe that Christ’s word will be effective—it will change hearts.

  What can pastors do to involve their churches with Access Partners (AP introduced here and here)? 

A unique advantage of Access Partners’ Business as Missions approach is that you can involve non-seminarian “I’ve never done full-time ministry” members of your church in missions—using their professional skills to build platforms!

So SEND:

Access Partners needs solid Christian business people on the field.

• Short term—Pro bono Consultants. Form a stateside business consulting team that can use their expertise to help church planters in the 10/40 window. For more information, email consultants@access1040.com.
• Long term—Business Directors. Encourage solid Christian business people from your local church to join a church planting team in the 10/40 window as a Business Director: www.access1040.com/businessdirectors.

And PRAY

Sign up for monthly e-newsletters with stories and prayer requests: www.access1040.com.

And GIVE

To learn more about how your church could partner in the gospel financially, email giving@access1040.com.

Well, since everybody's talking about it, let's see how we do expressing the Gospel in 140 characters or less. I've got one sitting on my desk right now---it's precisely 140 characters.  

So here's the deal:  For the next three days, we at 9Marks are going to collect Twitter-like presentations of the gospel.  At the end of those three days, we'll read them and present gifts for the three best presentations of the Gospel.  The gift?  Any one book of your choice from the 9Marks book group, signed by the author.

Here are your options:

1)  Actually send a tweet on Twitter containing a presentation of the gospel.  IMPORTANT:  At the end of your tweet, include the hash tag, "#9M" (no quotes).  That's how we'll find them.  So you'll actually only have 137 characters.  Sorry.

2)  Leave your 140-character presentation of the gospel here as a comment.  IMPORTANT:  If you leave it here, make sure it is 140 characters or less.  If it's longer than that, sorry, you'll be disqualified.

I realize some might have questions about the propriety of "tweeting" the good news of Jesus.  Honestly, I don't.  Rob Bell's statement "You can't really tweet the gospel" notwithstanding, I actually think you can, and I also think it's not a bad thing to do so.  For one thing, it's no bad thing to be able to articulate the core truths of the Gospel in a very concise form.  Of course there's more to the gospel than can be confined to 140 characters; but that's not the point.  If we were to say everything there is to say about Jesus and the good news, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.  But there are some simple, easily articulated, easily understood truths at the center of it---truths that can be expressed even in 140 characters.  

On top of that, we should never let “I didn’t have enough time [or space]” become an excuse for inaccuracy.  Once we let concision become a defense for untruth, then we'll very quickly find ourselves explaining away much falsehood with the excuse that "I didn’t have time; it was only a quick encounter in the waiting room," or "It was only a 15-minute conversation" or even "It was only one sermon." (Selah.) The fact is, the gospel is pretty simple, and we ought to be able to express it accurately, readily, and concisely. Indeed, forcing ourselves to sit down and think about how to do that could go a long way toward helping us nail down those core truths in our own minds.

Alright, let's see 'em!  We'll stop the comments Wednesday evening.

9Marks supports the work of Access Partners because of its unique emphasis on biblical indigenous church planting. Access Partners offers its Business as Missions services solely to those who make healthy church planting their utmost priority in the field.

The other reason we like Access Partners is because of its strategic focus on the least reached region of the world, Central Asia—where only 0.016% of the population is Christian. This is a region where conversion leads to persecution and even martyrdom for followers of Christ. Governments are highly restrictive against Westerners living in-country, so the work of Access Partners has proved crucial to church planting there.

As pastors, you would be encouraged to hear the many stories of God’s work in Central Asia amidst such a seemingly dark spiritual environment. Take, for example, a young lady who heard the gospel for the first time last year. Access Partners provided her with a Bible during a trip in 2007, and over the past year church planters continued to share the gospel with her. Last year she became a Christian and was baptized.

Another church planting team supported by Access Partners have seen amazing fruit among locals in their region. They trained local Muslim background believers to bring the gospel to others in their community, and this past year alone these believers have seen over 100 people make professions of faith in Christ.

Through these examples and more, Access Partners is continually amazed at what God is doing among the nations. To learn more about God’s hand in Central Asia, visit www.access1040.com. Also, my next blog post will give you some specific ideas for how you, as a pastor, could uniquely impact the work of Access Partners.

1.  You can't say anything about this guy unless you've read everything he's written and spent a good deal of time in his church.

2.  You can't say anything about what this guy said (in public!!) unless you've gone to him personally and showed him his fault.

3.  God's doing good things with this guy [Read, "This guy has a big church."].  Therefore, we should give him the benefit of the doubt on everything he says or writes.

4.  He claims the name of Christ.  Therefore to criticize him is to rend the seamless robe of Christ.  You should be building up a brother, not tearing him down.

5.  You don't understand.  He's talking to Christians, so he doesn't need to present the whole gospel.  And furthermore, you don't understand!  He's talking to non-Christians, so he doesn't need to present the whole gospel.

6.  I'm totally sure he didn't mean it that way.

7.  If you squint really hard, the gospel is implied.

8.  Look!  He uses a common Christian term right there.  See it?  Clearly he's perfectly orthodox.

And my personal favorite:

9.  You're just jealous.

Find it here.

A new (and potentially controversial) 9Marks eJournal just came out on the topic of multi-site churches. Find it here.  We take this topic on not because we're in any way anti-growth, but because we love the church and want to protect and promote her for the good of all people and the expansion of God's glory in the world.  The multi-site movement, we believe, goes to the heart of the 9Marks message -- what it means to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ.  

We pray this eJournal grows your own understanding as you read as it has ours.

In my travels last week, I missed this interview of Rob Bell by Christianity Today’s Mark Galli.  I’ve interacted with some of Rob’s other materials on this site, and my conclusion has been that what he is holding out as the gospel of Christianity is something radically different from what the Bible actually says.

This interview in Christianity Today only deepens that concern.  There is so much one could say here, so many things one could profitably object to in this interview, but that would simply get unwieldy.  So let me focus on the point where Galli asks Bell to present the gospel.  Here’s the question and Bell’s answer:

How would you present this gospel on Twitter?

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

Really?  That’s it?  That’s the gospel?

Honestly, what does one say in response to something like that?  I suppose one could say a lot, like I did here, here, and here.  And kind of here, too.  Or you could just say what should be boringly obvious to any orthodox, not even to mention evangelical, Christian--

Bell’s answer to Galli’s question is sub-Christian.  It is not the message of Christianity.  It is not saving.  It is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is not even anywhere near it.

I know, I know.  Galli asked Bell how he would do it “on Twitter,” which forces one to say very little.  And I know, I know.  Bell says in the next paragraph, “You can’t really tweet the gospel.”  But call me crazy, I don’t think the little phrase “on Twitter” in Galli’s question quite gets Bell off the hook for offering something like that in answer to the question “How would you present the Gospel?” 

On another note, it’s surprising to me that Christianity Today, “a magazine of evangelical conviction” would think it was a good idea to run this interview in a positive light.  They don’t warn their readers about this sub-Christian “gospel,” and they do not challenge Bell on his understanding of the gospel.  From start to finish, this article plugs Bell's book and leaves the impression that CT is just fine with the way he understands and articulates "the gospel."  Look at the title of the interview, for example:  “The Giant Story.”  Or even more, look at this intro paragraph:

Rob Bell’s latest book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians (Zondervan, with Don Golden), is his most substantive yet.  It’s nothing less than a holistic, biblical theology of salvation—written, paradoxically, in Bell’s typical sentence-fragment style. CT senior managing editor Mark Galli sat down with Bell, founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to probe him on some of the more striking statements in his book.

“Substantive?”  “Nothing less than a holistic, biblical theology of salvation?”  Those are not words of warning; they’re words of acceptance, even celebration.

Is that really what the editors at Christianity Today think about what Rob Bell is presenting, that it is “The Giant Story,” “substantive” and “nothing less than a holistic, biblical theology of salvation?” If so, then I don’t know anymore what they mean by calling themselves “a magazine of evangelical conviction.”