Answering the fifth and final church planting question (if you don't know what I'm talking about, see here): How important is the assessment process and should the sending church be involved?

Answering the fourth church planting question (if you don't know what I'm talking about, see here): In your opinion, is it better for a planter to be fully funded or to work at least part-time?  Why?

Answering the third church planting question (if you don't know what I'm talking about, see here): How can a sending church best serve a church planter?

I like your comments, Mike. More than that, I like the fact that you led your church to plant another church. I, perhaps naively, don't tend to think about working with denominations to plant churches. I think of cooperating with other churches to plant churches.

Answering our second church planting question: What role should denominational structures play in the church planting process?  How can they help or hinder the process?   (If you don't know what I'm talking about, see here.)

Answering the first church planting question (if you don't know what I'm talking about, see here).

I just got back from talking to Spanish speakers in Herndon, the next town over from ours.  Herndon has been a hotbed of ethnic tensions in Northern Virginia, and it's the site of our second church plant for Spanish speakers.

A Lutheran pastor living in Idaho decides to oversee a basketball blog in his free time. Seriously, his name is Dave and he has put together "the" fan blog of Portland Trailblazers basketball. I discovered he was a pastor about a year ago. After building up the blog to quite a base, he invited readers to check in one night to talk about anything. Someone asked what he was reading. He mentioned Tolkien and Lewis. Then, somehow, it came out he was a Christian and a pastor.

The July/August 9 Marks eJournal on missions went out a week ago.  And, frankly, I’ve been a little discouraged by the flood of “encouraging” agreement from missionaries who read the article "Pragmatism, Pragmatism Everywhere."  That article warns of the replacement of Biblical faithfulness with pragmatic results as the new measure of missionary success.  Thus far we’ve gotten appreciative emails from Turkey, Singapore, Japan, Thailand, India, "East Asia," Bangladesh, Australia, the United States, and even from Texas.  Many have added their own anecdotes illustrating the eJournal's assessment that "whatever gets immediate, visible results" has become the new authority for many in missions.   All of the responses have meant to be encouraging and thankful, I think.  And I really have appreciated them.  It’s good to know that folks are glad we're raising these difficult issues.   

But frankly I’ve found myself a little depressed by them all the same.  When you essentially suggest that someone you love (Western missions) has a cancer the last thing you really want is lots of agreement, especially if many add that things are even worse than you suggest.  I think I was honestly expecting (or at least hoping) to get several cranky emails saying “Andy, you’ve totally missed it.  Every missionary I know in my country is primarily concerned with faithfulness to the Bible’s teaching.  I’ve never seen large numbers of missionaries chasing after immediate, visible results - indifferent to Biblical instruction on missions and church planting.  You’re way off base!” 

Of course I know silence doesn’t mean consent.  I’m sure there are many folks on the mission field who must have a different experience and opinion.  Somewhere?  And I suppose such folks might simply not be regular readers of the 9 Marks eJournal.  Still the immediate and broad-based agreement from all around the world has been something of a shock and, frankly, a bit of a downer.  It’s certainly made me redouble my efforts to pray for a resurgent confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture among Western missionaries…and to hope for a little disagreement about the overall premise…just to cheer me up?

From John Stott's "The Cross of Christ":

I’d like to take my next three posts to introduce 9Marks readers—pastors especially—to an organization you need to know about: Access Partners.

The name says it all: they partner with missionaries for the sake of helping them get access to countries closed to the gospel, particularly those in the 10/40 window.

As Paul wrote, “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?” The problem is, the worldviews, cultures, and governments are hostile to Christianity in many nations today, rendering those nations effectively “closed” to the good news.

Missionaries have found that business is one of the few avenues by which closed governments will allow Christians to live within their borders. To serve this need, two members of Capitol Hill Baptist Church created an organization in 2005 called Access Partners.  Access Partners comes alongside church planters to do business for the sake of access into restrictive nations. They build businesses to enable church planting among people least reached by the gospel.

I will post additional information on how you, as a pastor, could become more involved in the work of Access Partners.  For now, take a look at their introductory video.

“Capitol Hill Baptist Church supports Access Partners because they uniquely provide us with an important service. Their knowledgeable and experienced staff enables us to establish new churches in some of the most difficult places in the world.”

- Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church

“I love the mission of Access Partners. Their zeal for the gospel is matched by their expertise and skill. They’ve given us a practical way to leverage the resources and gifts in our local church to help spread the gospel in closed countries.”

- Joshua Harris, Senior Pastor, Covenant Life Church

I haven't been able to get one sentence from Mark's last sabbatical update out of my mind: I think we've seen more conversions at CHBC this year than any year I've been here.  That statement is coming now after 14 years of ministry at CHBC! 

And I am too.  But Trueman is more eloquent commening over at Ref21:

Am I alone in being sick to death of all the trendy talk about `culture'?   A biblical approach to reality seems to involve, first and foremost, a commitment to the notion of essences.  Culture is very real but, as a social construct it is not the ultimate reality; nor is it, therefore, the ultimate reality.   This seems to me the problem with much postmodernism: it's obsession with culture at the expense of essence has created moral chaos.  For example, how can one have inalienable human rights when there is no inalienable human nature?  Hence the silliness on the left these days where -- surely to Marx's horror! -- moral equivalence arguments are made between feudal genocide, as in Saddam's Iraq, and poverty in post-feudal democracies.  Any Marxist knows that capitalist democracy, for all its faults, is superior to feudalism in every way.  Christians should take a leaf from the books of the palaeo-Marxists and return to talking about nature and essence, not culture.

What about you?  Are you with Trueman, or do you think the current Christian fascination with 'culture' and 'engaging culture' has merit and steam?

Okay, McKinely, you get the award for the most faithful blogging pastor.  While everyone else either rejoices or mourns trivial matters like the election, you offer book plugs for the pastor who wants to evangelize and a swift kick for those of us anti-social hermits who hide in our studies refusing to meet with other pastors.

Brother, I'll take your "get out the pastor" challenge.  Good counsel.

And thanks for the plug on The Pastor Evangelist.  It's in my stack of things to read on evangelism this year, and you've just moved it up a notch or two.  Actaully, you've just moved it up to the top of my "next" list, but I didn't want your massive influence to undermine your deep sense of humility.  Just trying to serve you, brother.

You mentioned C. John Miller as one of the contributors in The Pastor Evangelist.  This morning I finished reading his A Faith Worth Sharing: A Lifetime of Conversations About Christ (P&R).  It's something of a biography told through the lense of evangelistic conversations--failures and successes--he had over his Christian life.  It was like eavesdropping on restaurant conversations... filing away the juicy and helpful bits.  Good stuff for others who want a friendly, encouraging, easy and quick read.

As a Baptist studying at Westminster Theological Seminary, I often felt like I was in a foreign country. The Presbyterian brothers had their own language (memo to self: "session" means "elder board"), their own understanding of whether household servants are meant to be in the covenant, and their own cascade of angry looking Scotsmen frowning down on me in disapproval.

But one thing that I discovered is that there was a vein of friendly, happy Presbyterians who were doing some great thinking on evangelism and missions (think Harvie Conn). And one of the best resources to come out of that group is The Pastor-Evangelist, edited by Roger Greenway.

The book contains fourteen chapters, written by (among others) Edmund Clowney, T.M. Moore, Jack Miller, and Harry Reeder. Particularly helpful are the chapters on "Prayer and Evangelism", "Hospitality Evangelism", and "Equipping the Church for Lifestyle Evangelism". Even though it's 20 years old, the principles hold largely true today.

If you're a pastor and you would benefit from some practical, Biblical advice on how you and your church can do a better job spreading the gospel, this is a great place to start. Even this guy would approve.

A new church is launching in our town in a couple of weeks. Nothing new about that, new churches pop up here about every 15 minutes.

This church has bombarded our mailbox with 8.5"x5.5" glossy cards extolling the virtues of their as yet unlaunched church and encouraging us to attend. Nothing unusual about that, pretty much every church plant does that as well.

I stopped to look at this one, however, because I knew there was some controversy a-brewing. You see, they used the "s*ck" word on their postcard (except, obviously, without the asterix that for some reason makes it OK). In big letters the postcard asks if you'd come to church if the music didn't... well... you know... "s*ck". Christians have been calling to complain. Personally, my scruples don't bruise quite that easily, but I wouldn't use the word in any of our church literature.

But that doesn't mean that the mailer wasn't objectionable. Here's the copy off the back side:

We're with you. That's why we started _____, a new church where our music sounds more like what you have one your iPod or listen to in your car. Every week we also cover some of your favorite Guitar Hero and Rock Band classics, along with current songs by bands like : Coldplay, All-American Rejects, Daughtry and others.

Yes, we actually play those songs. And no, we don't "Jesus-up" the lyrics.

OK, first of all, let me say I appreciate the impulse to reach those who are far from God. I have no doubt that this church is totally sincere. I will pray for this church and I hope they are the instrument by which God brings thousands to himself in our area. Really.

But come on. Seriously?

First of all, does this work? I'm telling you, if I didn't love Jesus you'd never get me out of bed on Sunday morning. The paper, a cup of French Roast, and the NFL pre-game shows... that'd be it for my Sunday morning. You'd certainly never get me out of bed to listen to a second rate cover band play music you couldn't pay me to listen to in the first place.

Second of all, have we no shame? It really won't be much longer until we just say it: come to our church and we promise not to mention Jesus at all! Do we have nothing attractive to offer the world except what they've already got?

*sigh*

The good folks over at Ref21 have posted a good 10-minute video of Ligon Duncan and Derek Thomas discussing evangelism.  It's a good, short, recent history of changes in our understanding of evangelism and the weaknesses in our connection of evangelism, discipleship and the local church.

Here's a section from Stetzer's first talk at the Founder's Conference.  Apparently there is some misunderstanding and controversy regarding what he meant when he referred to some folks as "functional hyper-Calvinists."  I suppose functional hyper-Calvinists are better than dysfunctional hyper-Calvinists (whom we should really refer to Dee for counseling), but as I read this quote I wondeed whay you functional or dysfunctional types thought?

Fundamental to the nature of the gospel is the proclamation of the gospel.

We need to be in the world to tell the world about Jesus. We hear much from our Reformed brothers about holiness... but I warn you: holiness is separation from sin and not separation from sinners.

We need to be known for being passionate evangelists.

Let me encourage you as friends here:

Don't make heroes of pastors who are great preachers and theologians, but whose churches are not evangelistic. They are talking about the gospel without living it out.

What we celebrate we become. And if we celebrate those with strong theology but week witness, that is exactly what we will become.

Churches with strong theology but little mission are like a bodybuilder with huge theological arms, but tiny, spindly missional legs. Don't make that exciting. Don't celebrate that.

I know that claims of "hyper-Calvinism" are a straw man. I know no hyper-Calvinist in my denomination. If I did, their church should discipline them and the denomination should dis-fellowship them. But, I know that Bill Ascol cautions his church here to not be "functional hyper-Calvinists."

Watching out for functional hyper-Calvinism is a good caution for all of us.

I know many who are "functionally hypercalvinist," Reformed and not-Reformed.

But, here is the important thing: Hyper-Calvinist or functional hypercalvinist, the result is the same: God is not honored and given the glory he is due.

One more reason why it is good to live near your church: Evangelism.  For example, I'm much more likely to convince an unbeliever to come to church with me when it is close.  Contrast, "Hey, would you like to come to church with me...it's only 40 minutes away?"  with "Hey, my church is two blocks down the street.  Would you like to come?"

Mike Gilbart Smith has a helpful review and introduction to the  "Introducting God" evangelism material, produced by an Australian group called Christians in the Media.

Jim Hamilton recommends the new Dever book on evangelism.

I love the local church. In many ways, the Lord used her as the main instrument of my conversion 9 ½ years ago, when I was 22 years old. Many people had personally witnessed to me beforehand, and no doubt each of these personal witnessing experiences was important in my conversion. But I think the Lord used the local church, and its corporate witness of love, purity, and unity, to convert me. I had known many individual Christians my whole life, and had extensive conversations with them about the faith. But God converted me only after I experienced those conversations and relationships within the corporate context of a local, biblically healthy church. And this leads to my main question:

“What is the role of the local church (i.e., corporate witness) in our personal evangelism (i.e., individual, personal witness)?” As I read books on evangelism, survey the landscape, and observe the “success stories” of people coming to faith, it all seems to center on “Personal Evangelism.” Is the focus on Personal Evangelism faithful to the Bible’s teaching on this topic? I fear that the importance and role of the local church is so much assumed in our evangelism today that it’s largely forgotten, or at best, not relevant to a non-Christian until he “makes a decision for Jesus.”

In light of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:16, Peter’s words in 1 Peter 2:12, the message of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians – indeed the whole New Testament – perhaps Christians, pastors, and local churches should consider personal evangelism within the context of our corporate evangelism, so that we testify and witness to the whole gospel. I’d love to hear any thoughts you all have on the relationship between personal and corporate witness, as well as some practical ways that the local church can develop a biblical understanding of corporate evangelism.

A reader of the Pastors' and Theologians' Forum in the new issue of 9News eJournal just wrote in, asking about one of our author's use of the name "Allah" in place of "God" in sharing the gospel with Muslims. Here is what another one of our very well-informed and linguistically-capable friends in central Asia has to say about this matter:

As for the use of Allah for God – I have no problem with it where it is the natural word for God in a given language.  I don’t tend to use it in English, but there are languages in the Islamic world where it is the only word available, and in such languages, it is altogether appropriate.  Arabic, Indonesian and Tatar are such languages.  Allah is actually from the same Semitic root as Elohim, and is pronounced almost identically to the Aramaic word Jesus would have used for His Father.  It is also the word that Jewish and Christian Arabs used for God long before Islam came on the scene, and they still use it to this day.  In Turkish and Persian I tend to use a more neutral word for God, since such a word is available in each of those languages, but when I am using Arabic phrases that have passed into Turkish and Persian, I use Allah as well.

We thought this might help our readers.