It's been a while since I posted. I've moved to Atlanta to begin pastoring a church. I'm very thankful to be here. Anyway, here is one thought that seems to relate to a thread I see below.

I'm noting a hunger for community among the members and attenders of the church I pastor. It is not a particularly large Southern Baptist congregation (especially by Atlanta standards) but it is large enough that someone can come Sunday morning (the only service on Sunday) and easily not see another member. For the summer we took our weekly meeting (usually divided among topical studies) and combined it into one class. All ages are together. Seniors are sitting with youth for a Bible study. Several people are commenting to me how much they love getting to know Christians of different ages, hearing them talk about Scripture, having their lives overlap. There is something to be said about our congregational lives overlapping enough for us to know one another. Some members seem genuinely perplexed about how to encourage and experience community.

I still remember my first experience of church community. It came in September of 1994 when Helen and Hardin Young, now deceased but longtime members of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, invited me to their home for lunch after church. It wasn't just me, they invited a several people of all ages. Sitting in that living room and being a part of their lives changed my life. After that one lunch, the Youngs felt like my grandparents. Every Sunday I would see them and other seniors at church and feel like I was a part of a family.

Thinking back to Mark's post below, I know that I joined Capitol Hill for the teaching and the community. Writing about it now, it seems a little corny--I've learned more about the church in the past few years. I understand that some churches grow so large that they have to make decisions about what to do (multiple services, multiple sites). The church I pastor isn't at that point and may never be at that point. Nonetheless, I want to be a part of a church whose members see one another, whose lives overlap. Part of my reasoning is biblical. So Jesus says that they'll know who his disciples are by the love they have for one another. An implication of this is that the lives of the members of a church overlap enough for this love to be evident to others. Admittedly, part of my reasoning is pragmatic. I was so affected by that community life that, as a pastor, I want to do anything and everything I can to encourage it for others. For now, I'm trying to encourage the lives of church members to overlap. I'm trying to do what every pastor is trying to do: to encourage a community that is both inviting (and perhaps perplexing) to the non-Christian and edifying to the Christian.

Since Jonathan emailed me directly demanding that I respond to the questions he posted, I thought I'd interrupt my vacation in the "barbecue capitol of the world" (Lexington, NC--which, by the way Greg, is where you vacation when you live on a tropical island) and chime in.

First off, thanks brothers for engaging these ideas.  For me, there's something about "iron sharpening iron" in the comments and questions.  I appreciate all of you for the thoughtful encouragements and questions and suggestions.

Second, the questions....  Jonathan first, since his were so important to interrupt my time with my lovely wife and adorable children... who are with their husband and daddy on their first vacation since entering the pastorate full time. :-)

1.  The differences in skin color are biological or genetic.  But "race" is a much bigger idea/social theory than skin color.  When most people see a person of a differing skin color, they think "race" not just skin color.  By thinking "race," they are calling on a whole bunch of assumptions and ideas that make up the notion "race."  That is not biological but social and cultural.  It's linked to skin color in most people's thinking, but it's not caused by biology in any way.   We need to break apart "race as biology" from cultural and social assumptions/ideas in order to be free from the imprisonment that "race" is.  Here's how I tried to put it in the talk:

The emphasis in the OT and NT wherever the Bible speaks of creation of humankind is mankind’s common biological descent from Adam.  Our common ancestry is underscored.  The most fundamental recognition is not our difference labeled as “race” but our oneness, not our discontinuity but continuity.

To put it another way—This obvious truth that all men are descended from Adam and Eve through the line of Noah… demands complete abandonment of “race as biological distinctiveness.”  “Race” in the way we commonly use the term, as a proxy for explaining phenotypical differences—differences in appearances, does not exist in truth.

I want to be clear.  I am not saying the differences in skin color, hair texture, etc. does not exist.  I am saying that the theory we use to explain those differences is completely false, non-existent.

2.  I'd ditto Greg's comments re: the necessity to think about, evaluate, appreciate, and use the best (that is, most godly) aspects of ethnicity.  If we're to recognize or appreciate skin color, then it should be done in the way we recognize and appreciate the diversity of cloud configurations, differing colors and smells of roses, the brilliant array of colors in a stunning sunset or sunrise.  In other words, God purposes to be glorified in the fact that He has made all men in His own image from one parentage and yet made them incredibly diverse. We need to stand in awe of that... not try to look into the secret things of God that belong to Him alone. 

Greg, by God's grace,it's not a hopeless dream to see people from varying ethnicities worshipping joyfully together in the same local church.  By God's grace, I think there are an increasing number of such churches.  We should pray and work for more.  To do otherwise would be to settle for dividing Christ's body in a way that He never does.

One final and very important question that needs to be answered:

WHEREAS he has compelling knowledge of Public Enemy and hip hop,

WHEREAS he demonstrates a remarkable ability to roll with da bruthas,

WHEREAS he is no less cool than C.J. Mahaney,

WHEREAS grace and empathy fill his heart, showing itself in mercy and love for all,

WHEREAS God has granted him the privilege of serving a multi-ethnic church, which he does with joy,

Be it henceforth and forever RESOLVED, that Mike McKinley is a true brutha, down with the cause, and granted a lifetime, irrevocable ghetto card.  He can roll with me anywhere, any time.

Matt,  before we move past your post, I wanted to make sure I noted how thankful I am that you stayed.  I'm one of those people who came, and it changed my life.  Though I had Christian friends prior to my experience at Capitol Hill, I didn't really understand what it meant to commit to a church.  When I was in college, my college pastor approached me about joining the church.  I said to him, "Why should I? I'm only going to be here four years!"  I had no sense of my need for the church and the church's need for people to commit to her.  All that to say, I learned so much about following Christ during those years in DC.  All that to say, thanks for staying!

The definition of dilemma is:  a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.

"Joe's" situation, by definition is a dilemma.  On the one hand to leave is to leave people (sheep) he loves seemingly unprotected, without the right preaching of the Word.  To stay is effectively to place yourself in the middle of a spiritual fight -- inside the church -- when the fight is to be on the outside. 

There's no right answer.  (I hate when I get that answer!)  Here's what I did with my dilemma.

In January of 1993 I found myself at Capitol Hill Baptist Church having just received the resignation of the pastor (his sin disqualified him from continuing on in the pulpit).  This was the fifth failed pastorate in a row dating back to the 1970's.  To use an O.T. term:  our church was a "byword" in the neighborhood.  Right after the scandal that called for the pastor's resignation I was following two men from our neighborhood on my way to the local market.  They didn't know I was near enough to hear.  They were mocking my church.  It was well deserved.  The odd thing was that the two men were gay and lived together across the street from the church.

Our congregation was demoralized.  My young family and I were left standing with a majority of senior citizens who had toughed it out over many decades of decline.  The few young people who were present prior to the fall exited quickly.  What should I do?  I was 30 years old with a wife and two little kids.  There was NOTHING attractive about Capitol Hill Baptist -- tough neighborhood (in those days), tough place to grow a church (according to the so-called specialists) and a very tough reputation to overcome.  We lived in church-owned housing on the same block as the church.  The nearness of my dilemma was constant.  I had to decide.  Stay?  Go?

Within a few weeks of the pastor's departure our house was broken into and ransacked.  My wife and kids spent the night out of the city until I could get the doors secured again.  The first night back, laying in our bed with the lights out my wife asked the million dollar question, "Why are we here?"  I was quiet and then gave my answer knowing that her response would determine whether we stay or go. 

I said, "We're here for the people who will come." 

Nothing inspiring, yes?  It was simply a conviction I had believing that Satan had overplayed his hand.  I don't want to blame Satan for all our sin, but it seemed as though the pressure on this little church was great.  Five failed pastorates!  Then my house gets ransacked!  It seemed to me that Satan had his thumb on our church and we needed to peel it off with God's help. 

So we committed to stay until we found the next pastor.  It was a very difficult 18+ months until the young and energetic newly minted PhD named Dever showed up. 

What conclusions can you draw from this story?

1. God knows and loves his sheep and wants to provide for them (read John 10)
2. As under-shepherds we must protect the sheep and not act like the "hired hand" and depart at the first sign of trouble.
3. Expect trouble.
4. Know that you are almost certainly fighting for ones you have yet to meet..."We're here for the people who will come."

So, "Joe," work hard for the sheep.  Warn them.  Call them out using God's word.  If in the end you conclude you are in a place where the people reject God by rejecting his word and his ways, then depart in peace and start again. 

If you go, go lovingly, charitably and with the promise that you will pray for them.         

Brothers,

Several of us recently received an email from a dear brother and former CHBC intern—I'll call him Joe—asking for advice. I asked him if I could generalize his request and get your thoughts. As briefly as I can:

• The senior pastor of his church resigned a little while ago.
• All but one of the remaining elders have successfully pushed forward (the decision is made) a program to be adopted by another church as a "restart." This restart includes receiving a new senior pastor and staff from the church which is adopting them. It also involves the current elders and members resigning, so that everyone begins afresh in a new membership process.
• The one other remaining elder is planting a new church because of a drastically different philosophy of ministry than what is occuring with the restart. Joe will be joining this elder as a leader in the plant.

The plant hasn't occurred yet, and everybody presently remains in the one church; but here's what concerns Joe, even though he and others will be leaving.

• The adopting church is technically conservative, but of an emerging variety.
• The adopting church doesn't believe that in this "new" culture that preaching works, so they don't preach.
• The adopting church believes you need to "belong" in order to "believe" (faith comes from belonging according to their view rather than from by hearing the Word of God).
• When representatives of the adopting church do speak, the gospel is very unclear. When Scripture is quoted, it's typically out of context.
• Many of the members of the congregation being adopted are very excited about this move.

Here are Joe's words:  "My heart has been burdened for the sheep that are being led astray. This situation is different than if people just went to another church that preaches the gospel, because the gospel will not be preached at the new church. How do I interact with the new church? Many people I thought were solid and committed to the Bible are choosing to go in this direction. It seems that what is at stake is not a secondary issue, but the gospel itself, which reminds me of Paul in Galatians 1. And there are seemingly genuine Christians involved who are my friends. It hurts emotionally, but my concern for a clear gospel witness from Christians seems to be a bigger burden. I don't want my emotions to drive what I do, so if you have time, counsel would be greatly appreciated. HELP!"

I'm sure you'd all want to ask questions before answering. But maybe treat this like a case study and simply assume Joe is giving us all the relevant details. What counsel would you give? 

I don't think Matt is suggesting that this is the only criteria one should heed in choosing a location. Presumably, there are other, sometimes competing criteria. These might include calling, giftings, heart passions, providential arrangements (open and closed doors), counsel from friends and mentors and wives, and so forth. In that sense, I would think the location question bears some analogies to the vocation question, as all of these criteria will feed into our choice of vocation or ministry. All Matt is saying, I think, is "Add to your list of criteria "what's strategic.'" This has been a thought provoking conversation for me due to both blog posts and comments. Thank you!

Speaking of, Matt, your pictures made me feel called to the beach.

Does jerk chicken, beans and rice, and plantains count for a strategic location?  I'm swelling up like Chris Farley on the stuff!  I hope it's at least a "strategic" investment in somebody's sight.

Matt, your question really does seem to intersect well with the previous conversation about reform and church planting.  I know where Justin Childers (the commenter on Greg's response) is laboring; it's my wifes ol' stomping grounds.  And he's right; not a lot of strong churches in the area.  Churches a plenty, but not churches a preaching the gospel very well. 

I do struggle with the sometimes too easy association of "strategic" with "large city."  I understand the crossroads argument, but some small college towns are as influential in setting cultural ideas, etc. as any urban epicenter.  Also, I sometimes struggle with whether or not "strategic" is the 9Marks/Reformed equivalent of the pragmatism we dislike and find unhelpful.  Of the two options--look for a strategic location or go to any location--I'm gonna go with "go to any location" and trust the Lord has a strategy beyond what we can see.

Dear Jonathan,

When I talk about going to Oregon to pastor, a lot of people ask me whether I'm interested in planting or reforming a church.  I kind of laugh and say I really wouldn't know how to plant a church!  I came to Capitol Hill Baptist in 1994 and watched the work of reform start under Mark and then in 2000, I went to Louisville where Bruce and Jennifer Keisling  had begun to attend a small church near the University of Louisville and Deana and I joined them.

Are there disadvantages to church reform?  I can think of one:  It takes time. Being at Capitol Hill from 1994-1999 was such a joy -- listening to excellent preaching, establishing lifelong friendships, growing in the faith, and being called to ministry.  Furthermore, when I left, it seemed like CHBC was only really beginning to explode spiritually.  We are experiencing something similar at Third Avenue in Louisville.  2000-2007 has been some tough years.  It has taken this long for us to adopt a constitution (with a plurality of elders) and revise our statement of faith.  For the last two years we've been without a pastor.  Why has it taken so long?  Because we started with roughly 700 members but only 100 in attendance and those 100 were not like-minded.  Some were warm and loving to visitors, some cold and hostile.  Before we could begin to think about "reforming" the church we had to sort out who, exactly, the church was.  All that took time.  Why bother?

Still, overall the advantages are legion.

• It fosters patience.  Being part of two works now, CHBC and Third, I've come to realize and appreciate that the work of seeing a church grow spiritually takes time.  Paul told the church that love is patient.  Church reform at Third has forced me to exercise patience and it has born such terrific fruit.  There are older couples who have persevered at Third even though a few years ago they really did not like the changes.  Furthermore, their very presence forced the leadership to slow down.  Love is patient.  What a joy it is to have them in the church.
• It provides unusual evangelistic opportunities.  A few weeks ago, Bruce Keisling preached a member's funeral.  Many former members came (including her kids).  Last week, I preached another member's funeral and had a similar opportunity.  The gospel was preached, relationships were made, and many of those in attendance were surprised to know "their" old church was alive and prospering.  What a great opportunity.  Choosing to reform makes events like these possible.
• Growth may be slow, but it is deep.  At least at Third, where we have been without a full-time pastor for a couple years now (our elders share the pulpit), the numerical growth is slow, constant, but slow.  But every week I'm amazed how deep and solid the growth is.  Today, many of the newer members don't know of the work that went before them, the controversies, the long nights spent debating the constitution, etc.  Still, it seems like a week does not go by where someone does not come up to me and note that they are struck not only by the solid teaching but by the seriousness with which we take relationships, the deliberateness with which we pray, and the overall intentionality of the body.  My first response is to be surprised, I think to myself, "What have we done?"  Then I remember, this is the fruit of years of patient toil.  In other words, I'm convinced that all of the hard work we have put in making membership meaningful, reaching agreement on elders, has by God's grace made these conversations possible. 
• It usually assumes a building.  At Third, we have been blessed with a great facility in a great community.  We don't take this for granted and trust that our location is no small part of our identity.  Church planters have so many obstacles to overcome when it comes to location--those are headaches we don't have.  Our headaches are different--the bricks on our 100 year old walls are falling down!

Jonathan, I'm sure I've said enough--though I love this topic and am so thankful to be at a church that is spiritually alive.  Once again, when I'm done with my degree here at SBTS my family and I will be leaving another church that has laid a good foundation.  Then it will be on to church number three and, Lord willing, the last.

Like a lot of the commenters on the Don't Just Plant, Reform post, I was struck by the former-church-turned-Nation of Islam-mosque photos.  My sister-in-law lived blocks from that site, and I was grieved every time I drove by it.  The church was for sale for some time before the mosque purchased it, which lends support to Jonathan's pictoral exhortation to revive dying churches.

Europe has many such sightings, former churches turned mosque (see here and here, for example).  But here's my question, especially for those who observe the church scene both here in the States and across the pond: What might the church in the States learn from their experience and are we on the same path?  Why or why not?

Mark, on your togetherness post, I think you did a nice job outlining the need for togetherness across appropriate theological categories.  Are those the only categories that we need be concerned with?  Could you suggest some other categories where togetherness might be healthy or harmful, and some possible criteria for evaluating?