I know a number of you guys like to talk about this development in some churches, so I thought I'd link to some thoughts from James MacDonald and ask what ye think.  It's part of his contribution to a recent book on multi-sites, giving some guidance to those considering (part one and part two).  And here is a video, "Multi-Campus Ain't for Everyone," about a two-minute summary.  What say ye?

A while back, Justin Taylor posted links to two Ken Sande articles on leadership.

You can find them here. (Link fixed)

Recently, the elders at Capitol Hill Baptist put together a process for recruiting and sending out church planters.  I found it interesting and helpful, you might too.  Here's a link for you to download a one-page summary:

You may have seen this already, but in case you haven't... check out Tim Keller's Leadership and Church Size Dynamics.  In it he argues that church size shapes the church culture more than we normally think, more than even denominational affiliation.  I found it helpful as our church needs to contemplate adding more staff.    

A few days ago, we received the following question.  Lord willing, this week we'll take some cracks at answering it.

I would love to see an exchange on the blog or an article about  when it is time for a traditional church to make the move structurally (by-laws changes, votes, etc) toward elders? 

I’m in a traditional church with a growing number of pro-elder members who can sometimes get impatient with our slow progress toward elders.   I’ve addressed elders many times over the years as we have run into them in the scriptures, I’ve also had a professor from SBTS come in and make a Biblical defense for them.    I’ve also taught some classes on  the 9marks in small groups.    I’m also at the 7 year mark as their pastor, so I’m not a newbie anymore.

What kind of church support should a pastor look for to begin the formal and political process of changing the structure.    IE.  If 66% of the church is for it, which is the amount needed to change a by-law, is that the time.  Or, should a pastor wait and teach and preach till there is more like 90% approval for the move. 

The best way for me to contribute to this very important question would be to relate something of the history here at FBC Grand Cayman.  In God's kindness, after a couple of failed attempts, the Holy Spirit did a wonderful work.

First, a short history.  The church was founded in 1977.  It's first pastor, a retired IMB missionary, served until 1992 and governed the church by a democratically elected council of men and women.  There were no elders or deacons.  But the church would have regarded itself as a traditional Southern Baptist church, receiving Lottie Moon support and keeping abreast of some convention concerns.  In 1992, the church's second pastor, a graduate of SBC schools, began serving.  Apparently, he made some efforts at moving to an eldership but without success.  He served nearly eight years.  The church's third pastor, also SBC, served from 1999-2003.  He, too, made some efforts at establishing elders and deacons.  As I recall, he taught about elders from the pulpit and held a retreat with leader-type men in the congregation.  But his efforts didn't materialize in change either. 

One of the main issues was the role of women in the church.  Women had served on the council and it sounds as if getting productive elder conversations off the ground were hampered by this issue.  Then, for three years the church found itself without a senior pastor.  This is when the Lord began his wonderful work at reforming the church's polity.

The church formed a study commission to examine the Bible's teaching on church governance.  That commission met for over a year with lots of time for discussion, questions, objections, and so on.  At the end of the study process, the congregation voted unanimously to adopt an elder-led governance with deacons.  Because the church accepted the authority of the Bible on these issues, folks with concerns about women in leadership submitted to an eldership of all men once they understood and interacted with the Scripture.  Appropriate changes were made to the church's by-laws, etc.  The then only staff pastor led the church through a process of selecting its first elders.  In the end, six men were chosen and very effectively led the congregation through a couple years of very had providences.

When to make the change: When your people 'get it,' when your motivations are pure, when the change will be deep and lasting, and when you're bringing the entire church along joyfully with the change.

Just to unpack that a little:

1.  Sometimes when you think you've taught something, turns out you really haven't or the people didn't get it.  One series or a few sermons on the subject in a seven year period isn't enough.  If the folks have only heard it once, chances are you have folks who have come since then, some have forgotten, some didn't get it, and some have questions that are still unanswered.  In most cases, we need to teach some more, and teach until people (a) have their questions answered, (b) have their objections resolved, (c) assume the change you're trying to make, and (d) are probably asking you "why haven't we done this yet?"  One thing that helps with this is putting some things in writing.  Develop position papers as you go along and settle things.  Distribute 'frequently asked questions' with answers and supporting references/materials.  Teach in print as well as in word.  The guys with the study commission did an excellent job at that.  Change when you've made sure your people "get it."

2.  Sometimes when you think you've been patient, turns out you probably haven't.  A slow, deep move to a structural change is better than a rapid shallow one that can be ripped up by the roots.  Personally, I find patience tricky.  How to discern between my impatience and my lack of courage or resolve.  The men at FBC were to be commended for their patience because, as is often the case, patience produced a slow but deep and now unquestioned change for the good of the congregation.  If the guys who are with you are impatient, it's probably time to stop and pray, to examine your own hearts and motivations.  Since impatience is a fleshly response, it's never a sufficient reason to push change ahead.  Make the change when your motivations are as holy as possible.

3.  Sometimes we settle for some when we should strive for all.  Our highest hope should be unanimity.  And before we too quickly say, "But that's ideal," and settle for something less, we should really craft a plan to win the entire congregation if the Lord wills.  We shouldn't think and work in terms of "winning" by a simple majority or some other political expedient.  In the first instance, we should seek to win the entire congregation, to be of one mind and purpose.  That's why the frequent Q&A sessions and discussions were so helpful and wise in the FBC case study.  But in the second instance, it may be that you've done all you can to answer questions and objections and some people are simply unwilling to align themselves with Scripture.  I'd say consider two things before making the change: (a) what percentage does your current constitution require to make a change; that'll give you a floor; and (b) what percentage of your folks need to be won in order to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."  The constitution may only require 51%, for example.  But acting on that simple majority may carry the vote and lose the church.  Personally, on a structural change like this, I'd want a very clear super-majority or "mandate" of better than 80-85% or so.  Perhaps a 2/3 support level would be enough to support to announce a year of study and reflection on the issue.  And hopefully, you'll have the other 1/3 with you when the process is done.  Make the change when you're carrying as many people as possible along with you.   

4.  Sometimes we think we've finished the issue once enough votes are in hand, and can move on when the "Ayes have it."  But, I think there's an opportunity to serve the minority when you have a 2/3 vote in hand by waiting to gain the higher percentage.  You can demonstrate your concern for the people, for their understanding and the joy of their unity with you, by saying, "I know we have enough votes to make this change.  And I think this change is in keeping with God's word and therefore for the health of the church.  And because it's good for us, I want as many people as possible to joyfully come along with the change in full support.  I want us all to see that following God's word is 'win-win,' not primarily a political fight designed to produce 'winners' and 'losers'."  Or something like that.  Graciously make the position and direction known, while still patiently trying to bring others along with you.  Use your strength to serve the weaker brothers.  Sometimes votes carry, but the "losers" are simply waiting to fight another day.  Remember, you're laboring not only for this congregation but also so that future generations will enter into a healthy church should the Lord tarry. On structural changes, work very hard to eliminate that by giving every opportunity for people to join the "winning" side.  Then make the change.

Brothers, those are some first thoughts.  But I inherited healthy reforms achieved by others.  What say ye who have worked through some of these issues?

You know I'm a sucker for polysyllabic words... so when I heard about triperspectivalism, my first thought was, "Now, there is an ecclesiological principle I can get behind!"  But it's more than just a wonderfully pretentious name.  It's also a pretty helpful way of thinking about church leadership.

--

To over-simplify, the insight is that church leaders tend to be prophets, priests, or kings.  Prophets love to proclaim the word of God and dream about where God is leading the church.  Kings love to put systems in place to make it happen.  Priests make sure that everyone is cared for and feels God's love along the way. 

--

Understanding your church leadership in light of those strengths (and attending weaknesses) can help you identify blind-spots and make good decisions about staffing and new leaders.  I have found this really helpful as our church incorporates new elders and thinks through how we can do things better.

--

If you're interested in more information: 

--

Here is a longish primer on triperspectivalism by John Frame.  It speaks to church leadership on pages 8 and 9.

--

Also, two helpful talks from a 2008 Acts 29 boot camp:  Triperspectival Leadership and Prophet, Priest, and King by David Fairchild. 

--

For those with limited attention spans: here's a chart summarizing the some of the key ideas.

--

I haven't read it, but I've been told that chapter 14 of Leading With a Limp by Dan Allender addresses this issue.  

--

Also, Mark Driscoll gave a very practical message on this topic at the 2008 CCEF National Conference, particularly applying triperspectival leadership to ministering to addicts in your church.  You can listen to it here.

Brothers, from a safe Caribbean distance, I've been very thankful to hear the reports of the recent SBC meeting.  It seems the place was awash in a spirit of "friendly cooperation."  The report of the death of the Arminian-Calvinist tension, I pray it's not premature, sounds like a very healthy thing.  I can't help but wonder if the discussion between Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson at the Greensboro convention in 2006 might have been a turning point.  Many were dismayed that the gloves didn't come off in that discussion, and some predicted the doom and ruin of the convention.  But it seems those two men were wiser than most in modeling how to engage and disagree as Christians giving honor to the other. 

Now to hear the reflections coming, frankly, from rather a rather cantankerous and easily disagreeing lot... well, that's just flat out hope-giving.  Perhaps we're learning to agree and disagree--even Southern Baptists.

And tonight, I listened to the discussion on ordaining women as deacons between our brothers Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan (HT: Ref21)  That certainly has the potential for being a divisive discussion.  But like Mohler and Patterson in 2006, Keller and Duncan demonstrated remarkable charity, joyful agreement, and gracious disagreement.  I pray it yields marvelous fruit throughout the PCA.

In fact, it seems that the Lord is graciously creating among His people wider, deeper, more joyful and energetic unity across denominations, ministry styles, generations, etc.  Witness the participation of pastors and churches in The Gospel Coalition and the cross-generational and largely young assembly of pastors at T4G. 

And one sweet aspect of all of this is that the deepening, widening unity does not come at the expense of truth.  Men like Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon witnessed their generations flirtations with false unities and downgrades.  Those were hollow cries for unity--hollow because the bone and marrow of truth had been withdrawn.  But in God's kindness, the efforts at cooperation focus on the gospel and missions and build upon Scripture and protect inerrancy. 

What will be the effect of Christians learning to joyful agree and disagree and continue focused on the main thing? 

Thanks for the visual, Mike, and for participating in the 9Marks at 9 discussion last night. It was very helpful and encouraging. Mark, I appreciate you putting it together and winsomely helping us think more about cooperation. For those of you following the SBC, yesterday was a significant day with the approval of a motion to establish a task force to address the issues raised by the GCR declaration. Here are a few observations I have as one young pastor, in no particular order:

Growing up in a non-Christian home in the pacific northwest, when I heard "Southern Baptist" I thought black gospel choir. That says more about me than the SBC, I know. Now the words "in friendly cooperation with and contributing toward the causes of" flow easily off of my lips. I am the recipient of not just one, but two degrees from a Southern Baptist seminary and am very grateful for the support of Southern Baptists in subsidizing my education. I pastor a church just north of Atlanta that has been Southern Baptist from its beginning. I am a Southern Baptist.

Dee, great list, brother.  I'm not sure anything prepares you for many of the things you list except having to do many of them.  Doesn't this argue for pastoral training to include greater emphasis on service in the local church?  I'm not seminary trained (he says with a twinge of "what if"), but a good deal of what you're listing I feel like I've gotten a dose of in the local church herself, by God's grace (and design?). 

So, the money question: If a man agrees with you and feels ill-equipped for these things following his seminary training, any suggestions for getting better prepared to handle these issues?

Adrian Warnock is asked if Mark Dever is an apostle. Here's his answer.
Please do NOT let Dever see this post; he'll be impossible to live with! :-)

I sat down this morning to write a post on procrastination. But a quick Google search revealed the CJ Mahaney has been blogging on this topic for over a week now, so instead of writing something new (and inferior) I will commend those three posts (so far) to you.

I am a reforming procrastinator. I hate details, I eschew schedules and calendars. I would rather stick a fork in my eye than sit in a planning meeting. My thinking is that people of extraordinary talent and brilliance simply don't have a mind built for grasping petty details, like whether or not NFL games can end in a tie. Hold on, everyone knows that. Never mind.

But recently I've come to grips with the fact that my procrastination does not serve well the people I lead. It works out OK for my sermons since my family has learned to adjust to my way of doing things (yikes... I don't like the way that sounds). But I notice that large administrative tasks that I must address as the pastor (e.g., the church budget) often get done at the last minute, with unnecessary stress to people who are more organized and scheduled than I am.

As I said, I am reforming. In God's wisdom, I am married to the most organized woman ever to walk the earth. So she's running my Google calendar for the time being. I find the seven (7!) to-do lists a bit overwhelming, as it's stressful to see all of the tasks that you don't have time to do listed out in black and white. But I think that I've accomplished more administration (including administrating the church administrator) this week than I have in the last three months.

If you're at all like me, take a look at CJ's posts. Don't wait. Dig around in your soul and you'll probably find a lot of selfishness and escapism. But the good news is that Jesus died to deliver us from those sins as well!

Greg, I look forward to your post about being a self-righteous Type A calendar fascist.

A common question that church planters face is "How can you develop a God-centered church when most of the people attending aren't mature believers?" Assuming that you're not trying to fill your seats only with believers who are already mature, you're going to face this question. How do you create a God-centered culture?

A week back, Mark Dever gave five suggestions to church planters in Baltimore:

1. Prayer
-- Specifically, prayer in the public gatherings.
-- Prayer makes it clear that God stands at the center of everything we do. Prayer acknowledges that God is in control and that all of the fruit we hope to see comes from God (I Corinthians 3).

2. Set an example of God-centeredness.
-- Part of pastoring is modeling. Live a God-centered life and disciple other believers so that they can do the same.

3. Preach the Word of God.
-- Because, after all, the Bible is a pretty God-centered book. People will probably catch onto that if you keep preaching the Bible to them.

4. Patience
-- God's timing tends to be different then ours. But since He's God, let's go with His timing.

5. Confidence
-- We've all read the end of the story. God wins.
-- The Word of God is very powerful and effective. God uses it. You can trust it and trust Him.
-- God loves the church more than you do. He's more jealous for the love and affection of your people than you are.

Just to be clear, the five points are Mark's. Some of the notes below the five points are my thoughts/recollections. Thanks to Philip Van Steenburgh for helps with the notes.

During our visit to beautiful Scotland, our kind host gave us something of a Scottish Christian history tour. It was a wonderful time.

I pray that my ministry--however long or short--would be a stone of witness for the supremacy of Jesus and the glory of the gospel and against ministerial unfaithfulness in all her varied forms. I pray that everywhere a faithful pastor stands and labors there an Ebenezer is raised, and the congregations of their charge take seriously their responsibility for safeguarding the gospel and calling men of sober, holy, and joyfully reverent character.

How horrible it is when the Lord's bride forsakes her first love! He surely holds that against her (Rev. 1:4). What a great height from which to fall (Rev. 1:5)! The sound of cracked and crushed bones from such a fall is eternally deafening.

The Christian world's love for novelty and fad, for ease and comfort, for popularity and influence, for entertainment and play, for riches and monuments conspires against her, and eases her ever so surely toward irrelevance and destruction, toward the crypt and rigamortis of worldliness. In so many places, Christians are, as C.S. Lewis put it, "men without chests." We are, in too many cases, phantoms rather than rock-solid, rock-ribbed, living girders and pillars holding forth the Truth.

Jesus calls us to repent and return to our first love (Rev. 1:5b) wherever unfaithfulness exists, being fearful that anyone should ever stand over the heaped ruin of our lives and ministries. Better that we be like Thomas Hog:

• Scottish divine ; M.A. Marischal College, Aberdeen;
• minister of Kiltearn, 1654-1661 and 1691-2;
• deposed as protester, 1661;
• imprisoned for keeping conventicles;
• fined and banished, 1684.

Even if it means witnessing against our people on behalf of the truth.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (Rev. 1:7).

Jonathan, great question.  Just last night I sat with 3-4 other pastors and deacons discussing this very issue among others.  It was a spirited conversation, with some interesting differences emerging depending upon whether the men in question were from elder-led or elder-ruled congregations.

Why do we call these things "pastor searches" when it seems to me you don't have to do a lot of searching for pastors (they're everywhere, it seems) and few committees seem to really carefully search?  Want ads shouldn't be confused with searching.  They can have a certain graffiti on the bathroom wall quality.  And some of the things potential-pastors are subjected to aren't really searches as much as they are Gitmo-styled interrogations.

So we need something between want ads and witch trials.  Some quick thoughts not necessarily gathered from last night's conversation:

1.  The church's leaders, its elders, should lead the process for finding the new pastor, including examination of the man according to 1 Tim. 3, etc.  Personally, this rules out the traditional search committee.  I think you want the men most acquainted with the calling and work of pastors to examine the prospective candidate.  And perhaps the elders will have the demeanor that helps avoid the interrogation aspect that sometimes develops. 

2.  Running want ads seems a really bad idea to me.  Anyone who has had to hire someone in the work world using want ads knows how completely bogus the entire process can be.  Whatever the elders and congregation can do to avoid the "big prize bonanza" of the want ad lottery has got to be a good thing.  It seems this process holds a lot of potential for encouraging men to "audition" and "perform" and places the congregation in the position of pretending it knows more about a potential pastor based on his resume than it actually does.

3.  Instead of want ads, call like-minded churches and pastors you respect and ask for recommendations of faithful men they would be happy to see pastoring a church like your own.  It's more efficient and you increase the chance of learning something meaningful about potential pastors.

4.  Take the time to observe the men where they are currently serving, in their "natural environment," if you will.  Observe him preaching and serving at his current church.  And in this media-saturated age, a group of elders can listen to a man's entire preaching corpus before ever speaking with him.

5.  Consider one man at a time.

6.  The Lord's people need shepherds, but take your time to find one.  Don't be in a hurry to "get a pastor."  Consider the man's theological commitments, his practical commitments, his life and reputation, and so on.  That's not easily done in a couple of interviews.  It takes time.  If a congregation had no pastor and no prospects, it would do what it could to continue serving the Lord, preaching the word, administering the sacraments, etc.  It could not rush things, even if it wanted.  It's helpful to borrow some of that mentality when you do have options.  Pretend you didn't, slow down, and really ask the meaningful questions, the hard questions, and without becoming the Salem witch trial examine the man.  The next pastor will do much to press his own character (or lack thereof) on the congregation.  Don't skimp on testing his character.

Carrying on last week's discussion on "cool" and "edgy" I nominate two men - both in their 60's - for edgiest evangelicals alive today:

1. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

2. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church and leader of Desiring God Ministries

But you won't find these men with exploding graphics and sound systems wrapped around them when they walk onto a platform--at least not by request. You won't find them spending a lot of time on their clothing. You won't find either of these men shortening talks and lightening the truth to accommodate anyone.

These men are edgy like Jesus and Paul were edgy. They take the whole truth of the gospel and stick it right in your eye.

Paige Patterson had the audacity back in the '70's to question the theology and practices of the leadership of an entire denomination (SBC) and then had the courage and energy over the next two decades to move out the liberals and bring in those who believe the bible to be inerrant, sufficient and trustworthy. Note that he didn't walk away and start his own church. He confronted the establishment and said "You're wrong...according to the Word of God." That is edgy.

John Piper for 30 years now has been using his mind and voice to make the Word alive. Creative? Yes! But not the way the marketers and emergents do "creative." He unpacks God's Word and then boldly puts it right in your face. Nothing about Piper will make you think the Christian life is a game. He doesn't offer "Your Best Life Now" but uses words like "suffer" and "sacrifice" as he holds up all the pleasure that can only be found in Jesus Christ.

Keep your boy bands and church coffee shops. I'm going with truth presented boldly and without embarrassment. I'm going with the 60 year olds for edgiest evangelicals in America today. Give me Piper and Patterson!

Many thanks to all of you who publicly (comments) and privately (emails) criticized my being critical of WiBo.

A couple of thoughts:

1. I agree with Mike McKinley that Ben A. did a great job organizationally and must live a mysterious life that allowed him to pull together such varied speakers.

2. I agree with Ben A. (see his comments) that any meeting or conference is going to have highs and lows.

3. For the record, I think 9Marks, the organization I lead, needs to do a better job in presenting its ideas. I think we are probably one of the most boring conferences around. The material is too often dense and can become tedious to listen to. I think the material is very good. I just don't think a normal person can listen for 12 hours without an intermission, graphics or a bathroom break.

4. I know it is common for this generation of parents to rarely criticize or correct their children, but that is ultimately hurtful. It is deceitful. It is not preparing the children well. Faithful parents and pastors need to be able to criticize and correct without having a critical spirit. We work hard in our little corner of the world to learn to take criticism. It is for our good. We grow by it. The goal of criticism is to bring discernment. So we invite and even seek out criticism. At Capitol Hill Baptist Church we have built it into our weekly schedule with a "Service Review" that is done among the staff and interns. We spend hours evaluating events and rehashing talks. We have changed some things we do and think because of it. Impossible without godly, constructive criticism.

5. Finally, we cannot simply think that all the different models and techniques that are being thrown at us are equally valid. I want to write more in the future about Hebrews 13:17. If you think you (pastor) are really going to give an account someday to God for how you cared for his sheep, then you must discern what is being offered up in the name of "church." There are vastly different models being floated. You have to pick. Traditional? Willow Creek? Purpose Driven? Emergent? Missional? You're not picking between five different brands of detergent that essentially get your clothes clean. It's not paper or plastic; either one caries the groceries. You, pastor, are picking a model that very well can change the message and in so doing lose the gospel.

Thanks for the criticism. Keep it up!

I couldn't agree with Mike McKinley more. We've lost our faith in the power (and even necessity) of God's Word, and we've put our faith in method.

And here's one reason it matters. In abandoning God's Word for method and experience, we're playing into the hands of a growing segment of our culture that is perfectly willing to make room for transcendent experience but is utterly opposed to the notion of a personal God who reveals Himself with truth claims on our lives.

This week I was listening to the Kojo Nnamdi show on my local NPR station. Kojo was interviewing Stuart Kauffman, a bio-physicist who on the one hand argues against the reductionism of modern physics, but on the other hand rejects the traditional notion of the God of the Bible.

Then there's the article by NYT columnist David Brooks that a church member just sent me, The Neural Buddhists. Brooks, with people like Kauffman in mind though he mentions a different list, describes a new atheism that, like Buddhism, is quite comfortable with a spiritual transcendent reality, but is completely at odds with a notion of Deity that is personal and able to reveal specific doctrines that have universal application.

What does all this mean? It means that in a post-modern world, in which science itself is increasingly comfortable with the notion that it cannot explain everything we experience, people are going to be at ease with our talk of spiritual reality and attracted to our services designed to produce an experience of the transcendent. What they are not going to be comfortable with is the exclusive claims of Christ (when have they ever been?).

As Brooks notes, that means the debate is likely to shift. It will shift from a discussion of the existence of God to a debate over "faith in the Bible." If he's right, and I think he is (we've been in one form or another of this debate ever since the hermeneutical turn of the mid-20th century), then ironically, our attempts to redefine and recommend the truth of Christianity through spiritual experience, or social engagement, or aesthetic innovation will simply give comfort to the new Buddhists, who

"feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits."

Where do we learn that behind our experience of the transcendent stands a personal God who has revealed himself concretely in the person of Jesus Christ? Where do we learn what the will of this personal God is? Where do we discover the objective means to experiencing a subjective relationship with this God? We don't learn it from our experience, our aesthetics, or our social engagement. We learn it from Scripture, which alone is "able to make us wise unto salvation." (2 Tim 3:14-16) If in the midst of the cultural shift which this new scientific revolution is precipitating we abandon the Bible, then we will discover that we have lost the battle before it's even been engaged.

Several folks at the Gospel Coalition responded to this question (HT:JT).  I wonder what you brothers would say in response.

Here's Mark's two cents:

"For pastors to know and understand what a local church should and can be and for pastors to teach this to their congregations. Much of the blessings and benefits of good teaching in evangelical churches in America goes into the hearts of individuals and then perhaps into the lives of their family and friend but is then largely lost in the sands of American individualism. If the preaching of the gospel and expositional preaching are the glorious founts of life, the local church is to be the bowl, the container, in which that life is caught and held up for display to a thirsty world. That pastors should know and understand and teach this is the most crying need in evangelical churches in America today."

Americans have a nasty addiction to success. Still worse, success seems only to be defined as growth, i.e. getting bigger and having more. In our addiction we want to measure our growth with better attendance, more programs and products. We see this in business, schools and churches.

It is the wise man who knows when to say enough is enough. Growth is not always good. Growth can distract and deplete.

Last Saturday night I was asked to "leave a charge" with the remaining board members and faculty of my children's school as I had come to the end of my term serving on the board.

I charged them to remain mere. It is defined as "being no more or better than what is specified." Do not become laden with programs. Do not bend to the pressures for more. Stay focused on the work specified.

If we can do this, we will mirror our Savior's life and work. Jesus was not about to accumulate things in this world or fight a war that was not his. He was about his Father's work. And only his Father's work.

Jesus said, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working." John 5:17

He also said, "As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work." John 9:4

So as the pressure comes to adopt this or that program, hire this or that specialist, attend this or that meeting, consider the charge to remain mere and in so doing mirror the One you serve.

"As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor." Ecclesiastes 10:1

This verse came to mind when I heard the announcement of NY governor Eliot Spitzer's resignation upon revelation of his adulterous activity. I don't mean to suggest that his behavior equaled "a little folly." Nor do I mean to suggest all his "legal" activity as attorney general and governor was above reproach; I have no comment on those issues.

I'm simply saying to all of you pastors, elders, deacons and seminarians that it doesn't take much folly -- just a little -- to wipe out years of otherwise faithful service. Folly is weightier, it seems, than wisdom and honor. We're called to avoid even a little of it.

How many pastors have been wiped out and sidelined from the gospel fight because of a little folly? I pray that this rising generation of men would be different. Flee, brothers, flee from folly!

Psalm 119:1 says, "Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord."

Aaron and Mike, thanks for helpful comments and guidance on a really good question.  This can be a tough issue because many of us are prone to equate some cultural position with the teaching of Scripture, or to argue that said position is the logically necessary outworking of some "biblical principle."  It's funny how often the position is associated with an abstract "biblical principle" rather than clear teaching.  So, Aaron, I'm really thankful for your emphasis on good exposition as an innoculation that undermines "better"/"worse" Christians. 

And Mike, I'm thankful for your example of leadership warding off these issues.  I don't address this kind of thing (alcohol being the exception) in membership interviews, but you've helped me to think about doing that.  And it's really important in this very diverse context. 

You've also brought to mind the importance of leadership (elders) who model charity and unity in non-essential and secondary issues.  As Mark has said on many occassions, a former elder at CHBC, Jim Smith, was great at that.  He had fairly strong views on an important but secondary issue, but was exemplary in how he extended charity to others, avoided prosletyzing in any way, and supported the church's leadership and direction in every way.  It reminds us that it's important in selecting leaders of the church to find men who are likewise committed to the essentials while modeling liberty and charity in secondary issues.

I think I agree with the folks in the comment section on the elders' wives question.  The question is posed as if the wife is a problem, but the description sounds pretty good to me.  I'm not sure what's being described there.  Any more background or clarity on the question?

Gents,

You probably saw that the new 9Marks eJournal is out. In the David Wells' interview, we asked him about the claim that churches frequently make about "same message, new methods" if in fact "the medium is the message." At one point in his answer, Wells says that,

I'm not saying that the Word of God absolutely cannot be preached from a barstool or with a cup of coffee in hand. But as a former architect, I think I understand how environments--that is, architectural environments--affect people. There are ways of confirming what is being said by what you see. Now what you see is not a substitute for what is said. So some of the beautiful gothic cathedrals are lifeless and dead spiritually, and all the beauty of those cathedrals can never substitute for the truth of God. But the other side of that also plays out. If we have nothing but Starbucks and light conversation around the Word of God, we will find that the Word of God disappears.

Do you agree, or is he pushing into adiaphora? Are there other places where you wonder if our attempts to be relevant compromise the message?