Not Your Father’s Church?

On April 3, 2009 a Newsweek article entitled “The End of Christian America” floated some pretty startling facts about the traditional makeup of our nation. “The number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990.” The question then arose, if the national average of nonreligious people doubled in 10 years, will we still be able to call ourselves a Christian nation in a decade? As Newsweek put it, “America’s religious culture was cracking.”

People who study church growth... say that 80 to 85 percent of the churches in America are in decline. As many as 100,000 churches could close in the next 5-10 years.  That is a startling prediction, since there are about 314,000 traditional, conservative and evangelical churches in America, that would mean nearly one-in-three will close their doors in the next decade.  

Well it’s 2016 and sure enough, many many churches are nearing empty. Millennials are the largest generation of Americans to date and according to a fairly recent Pew Research polling... “millennials are less religious,” and the least likely to be found warming a pew.

At one point, the church experience offered young adults everything they needed: community, networks, a common lingo, automatic friendships, structure, discipline and a place to be social. Think of it. Once upon a time Robert, the bible toting, blue collar worker married Lisa, the budding pianist because they both went to and met at the same church. Today there are dating and match-making apps like Tinder and OKCupid. As for community and social events, we read our news on our phones and keep track of the world around us on Facebook and Twitter.

We find everything we possibly need in venues that aren’t the church. We take classes online and work from home offices.  This is all to illustrate that those structures that used to be necessary to bring us together are all as invisible as the internet waves and as ephemeral as pop up beer gardens.

Pew Research identifies that while Millennials are much less religious than their parents and grandparent’s generations, they are no less spiritual. In fact spirituality is on the rise.

“Millennials are more likely to have a “do-it-yourself” attitude toward religion.”

What does “do it yourself” spirituality look like? Well maybe it looks like an app. To date, Bible apps have been downloaded around the world more than 1.2 billion times. These apps are unique in that they offer many versions and translations of the Bible. They’ve partnered with publishers and conservative media outlets to offer devotionals. 

Millennials are critical of the Bible apps, saying the media is pointed at Christians only who identify as the alt-right or conservative. The apps project an idea of spirituality surrounded by too much religious packaging like dogma, church denominations, rigid moral consequences and theological interpretations. That is so not millennial thinking. Millennials don’t want to be told by an institution what to believe about abortion, gay rights, and the death penalty. They don’t want to be hit over the head by yet another person’s personal beliefs.  Try telling a millennial that the institutions... the Church... is only passing on what God says about living in harmony with Him, and they will turn a deaf ear to what they see as out-dated, old fashioned, irrelevant dogma. 

This generation, walking away from the church, are counter culturists, independent thinkers, self-starters, off-the-grid entrepreneurs and anything but conventional. 

Millennials are trying to understand their identity, their worth and where they fit into this world. They of course want to do it morally [self-defined of course] and with the sense that they are not alone in their quest. They want to know less about religious structure and more about spiritual application.  That sentiment is more about self and feeling good about who they are, what they do, what they believe, i.e. mutual validation... akin to another generations deception... “You’re okay... I’m okay.”

Church becoming accessible by an app on a phone maybe a radical idea, but it’s NOT a replacement for a relationship with God.  Nor does technology offer any semblance of grounding in the blueprint for His Church... how it is to be and how it is to act. (Acts 2:41-47)

The mobile Bible is just that, only words in digital form accessible anywhere.  Convenient, yes, but it is NOT an assembly of like-minded believers in God who seek to conform their lives to Biblical ways and means of living.  If one does not apply what those “words mean” to their lives, then one’s efforts to be spiritual will be a big waste of time.

Technology does not replace the fellowship and community of a church assembly.  

YOU... no matter your age or generation –– are the Church!  You don’t get there, by self-declaration that you are “spiritual” and interested in spiritual things.  YOU get there, by giving your life over to Christ... in total and complete unwavering commitment.  (Acts 2:38) YOU accept God on His terms, not yours! Then you live for Him, guided by Him!  YOU do Church, YOU be the Church... HIS way, period!

New Book: History Is 'Entirely Incompatible' With Islam

A NEW BOOK REVIEW...

An American Muslim who investigated the historical evidence for Islam and Christianity discovered an astounding truth: the evidence is "entirely incompatible" with Islam, while it supports the three greatest arguments for Christianity.

"It was not just that history did not support the traditional narratives of Islam, but rather that history proved to be entirely incompatible with Islamic origins," writes Nabeel Qureshi (emphasis his), author of the book No God But One: Allah or Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam & Christianity. The book, released Tuesday, provides a deep investigation of the key differences between the two faiths and delves into the historical evidence (or lack thereof) for each.

Qureshi investigates five basic claims, each disputed by either side. He asks the question of whether there is enough evidence that "an objective observer" would conclude in favor of Christianity or Islam. The arguments for Christianity: that Jesus died on the cross, that his disciples believed he rose from the dead, and that he claimed to be God. The arguments for Islam: that Muhammad is a prophet of Allah, and that the Quran is inspired by Allah.

As the Quran is the "why" of the Islamic faith, I will begin there, and move to Muhammad. Then, I will dive into Qureshi's arguments for Christianity.

1. Is the Quran the word of God?

The Quran is more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians — so much so that burning the Quran invites anger and even violence, while no one riots when the Bible is burnt. Qureshi lays out five common arguments for the inspiration of the Quran: its literary excellence, its fulfilled prophecies, the miraculous scientific knowledge in the text, mathematical marvels, and the perfect preservation of the book across the centuries.

Most of these arguments come down to a subjective twisting of the Quranic text. Many so-called prophecies are quoted out of context, and the one clear prophecy was predictable and took too long to occur. The miraculous scientific knowledge is also used out of context, and relies on rejecting specific scientific statements which have been proven false. Finally, in order to argue for mathematical wonders in the text, Muslims have to reject the rules of Arabic grammar and discard entire verses from the Quran.

This draws the literary excellence of the Quran into doubt. Qureshi quotes the scholar Gerd Puin, an expert on the Arabic of the Quran: "Every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense." At every turn, when a challenger would attack the literary excellence of the text, Muslims would redefine the test to protect it from scrutiny. In the end, this claim to literary excellence is subjective — it will not convince someone who does not already believe it.

Finally, the history of the Quran is fraught with mistakes. Qureshi tells the story of the Caliph Uthman (ruled 644-655 A.D.), who recalled all Quranic manuscripts, burned them all, and issued official, standardized copies. Records of dissenting Muslims persist to this day.

Also, when the Quran — which was originally oral — was first being written down, some chapters were nearly lost, and great reciters of the Quran such as Ubay and Abdullah ibn Masud (who was named by Muhammad as one of the four best teachers of the Quran) disagreed with the final written text. Some of the Muslim world still has Qurans with readings different from the best known version, which was promulgated in 1924 – the Royal Cairo Edition.

2. Is Muhammad the prophet of God?

The Shahada, or Islamic statement of faith, is one of the five pillars of Islam, and it declares, "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." Qureshi listed three main arguments for Muhammad's prophethood: his excellent life and character, Bible prophecies about him, and miraculous scientific knowledge.

As stated above, the claims to scientific knowledge are very problematic. One particular section in the Quran which Muslims argue to be uniquely ahead of its time deals with embryology — how a baby develops in the womb. Yet the terms in the verses are far from scientific, and the requisite knowledge long predates Muhammad: Aristotle's On the Generation of Animals is more scientific and detailed, and came 1,000 years before Islam. Also, the Greek scientist Galen shows a similarly nuanced scientific description clearer than Muhammad's.

The Bible prophecies that Muslims claim to be about Muhammad are clearly about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, when studied in context. In Deuteronomy 18, God promises to lift up "a prophet from among their brethren," which Muslims interpret as meaning "from the tribe of the brother of Isaac, i.e. Ishmael." But the text in question clearly refers to the Israelites, and the word translated "brethren" means "countrymen." Indeed, a section right before this promise explicitly differentiates between foreigners and Israelites. This verse promises a Jewish prophet, not an Ismaelite one.

Similarly, Muslims point to John 16:12-14, where Jesus says that he has many things to say to the disciples, but they cannot bear them. He will therefore send "the Spirit of truth" to them. The word for spirit of truth is parakletos, which Muslims claim is similar to periklutos, which means "the praised one," which is what Muhammad means in Arabic. The problem with this should be evident to any Christian — The Holy Spirit is not Muhammad, but the third person of the Trinity. The context makes this very clear.

Finally — and most importantly — the records for Muhammad's life are late and historically unreliable, but the image they show is not that of a virtuous founder. Qureshi takes only stories from one of the most reliable texts, the Sahih Muslim, to demonstrate this. When Muhammad learns of his prophethood, he becomes suicidal, something no prophet in the Old or New Testaments did upon seeing an angel.

Most strikingly, however, Muhammad embraced warfare, saying that "fighting is literally the best thing in the world." He led battles against unarmed cities, he allowed women and children to be killed in raids, and he even consummated his marriage with his nine-year-old bride Aisha at the ripe old age of 52. He allowed his men to have sex with female slaves, he declared women mentally deficient compared to men, and he said women are the majority of hell's inhabitants because they are ungrateful to their husbands. Those don't sound like the acts of a moral exemplar to Qureshi.

3. Did Jesus die on the cross?

Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet, and that he did not die on the cross. Qureshi presented two arguments for this position: the theistic swoon theory and the substitution theory. The Quran states, "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them." (Surah 4.157) Some Muslims argue that Jesus was put on the cross, did not die there — he was miraculously sustained by Allah. Others claim that another person, most likely Simon of Cyrene, was made to appear like Jesus and died in his place.

The problems with these theories prove to be manifold. Atheist and agnostic scholars conclude that Jesus did die on the cross, and Qureshi quotes three of them on the subject. John Dominic Crossan, in particular, wrote, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." Jesus' death by crucifixion is reported by Christians (in the Gospels and the Epistles), a Roman historian (Tacitus), and a Jewish historian (Josephus).

Furthermore, the stigma of crucifixion was not something Christians would have chosen in order to convert skeptical Romans. Not only is the method of death literally excruciating (it would take hours to die), no one had ever survived it, and it was also fundamentally degrading. Qureshi notes the ancient Roman graffiti which mocks a Christian known as Alexamenos by showing him worshipping a crucified man with the head of a donkey.

"No one has ever survived a full Roman crucifixion, and had Jesus done so, that would have been a much more appealing message for the early church to proclaim than was the stumbling block of a crucified Savior," Qureshi concludes.

4. Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Similarly, Qureshi argues that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation of three important historical facts: Jesus died by crucifixion, Jesus' followers truly believed the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and that people who were not followers of Jesus at the time truly believed the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

These facts are fairly straightforward. The crucifixion is well-documented, and the New Testament includes the stories of disciples believing that Jesus appeared to them, and encouraging an investigator to ask the surviving witnesses. The story of Jesus' brother James corroborates that people who did not follow Christ at the time of his crucifixion later believed his resurrection, sincerely enough to die for their beliefs.

The story of the Apostle Paul, who went from killing Christians to leading them, and who gave up a position of great authority as student of Gamaliel — and ultimately, even his life — to lead a fledgling persecuted movement also provides strong evidence for Paul's sincere belief in the resurrection. Muslims claim that Paul invented the doctrine of Jesus' resurrection and his godhood, but the book of Acts shows him submitting himself to the teaching of the other disciples.

While some arguments aim to deny the resurrection, each fail. Bereavement hallucinations do indeed occur, but never for five hundred people at one time. If the disciples had stolen Jesus' body from the tomb, they would not have submitted to death for their belief in him. The only theory that best fits the facts is the resurrection.

5. Did Jesus really claim to be God?

Jesus' divinity is a central point of tension between Islam and Christianity. Muslims accuse Christians of being polytheists, of worshipping more than one God. They claim that the real Jesus did not identify himself with God, but that was a later Christian corruption. One of Islam's fundamental beliefs is tawhid, the idea that there is only one God, and He does not have distinct persons. Therefore, if Jesus was a real prophet (as Muslims admit), he cannot have claimed to be God incarnate.

This argument does not stand up to scrutiny at all. Not only do all four Gospels clearly argue that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, but the oldest part of the New Testament — a hymn in Philippians 2:5-11, known as the Carmen Christi — declares, "Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

These verses not only clearly reference Old Testament passages about Yahweh Himself (Isaiah 45:22-23), but they also use un-Pauline vocabulary and grammatical structure, which is not even found elsewhere in the Greek language. Scholars concluded that the hymn was composed at the end of the 30s A.D., just a few years after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. Qureshi concludes that "it is impossible to argue that Jesus' deity was a late invention."

Muslims argue that Jesus never declared outright that he was God, and very clearly emphasized that the Father is greater than him. But this argument overlooks the clear context of Jesus' words in the New Testament. In the climax of Mark's Gospel, Jesus is questioned by the Sanhedrin, and he openly declares, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)

This declaration is a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1, and each of those sections make it clear that the "Son of Man" in question will be given authority, glory, and sovereign power that are due to God alone. The Sanhedrin decided to put Jesus to death for these words, precisely because he was claiming to be God.

Qureshi's book fleshes out each of these arguments, along with many, many more, and I cannot recommend it heartily enough. His understanding of Islam is deep and enlightening, and it informs and deepens his appreciation of Christianity all that much more. There are some deep Christian truths revealed to him because he was once a Muslim, and Christians who read this book will not just learn solid arguments for the faith, they will also understand both religious better.

_______________________________________________

Church Government... designed by God, for God and His People

Government and politics, like two prongs of a horn, have been at the forefront of human existence since the beginning of time.  Mostly in modern times, the two have not performed as advertised, and certainly not as people hope for.

That would appear to be the situation in 2016.  High in everyone’s mind these days, are the two candidates representing their respective political parties, each hoping to govern the United States of America.  Seems only reasonable that two such people would be of stellar character, imbued with an abundance of credibility, trustworthiness, skills and qualifications to do the job they’re being elected to do.  Not the case... based on the evidence of conduct and behavior.

Thankfully, God did not leave His church, the body of Christ, in such uncertainty when it was born and would need to be governed to carry out its mission of proclaiming the gospel.  The Lord was very clear in His Word the Bible about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed. 

First, Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18). Second, the local church is to be autonomous, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). Third, the church is to be governed by spiritual leadership consisting of two main offices—elders and deacons. 

“Elders” were a leading body among the Israelites since the time of Moses. We find them making political decisions (2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:4, 15), advising the kings of Israel in later history (1 Kings 20:7), and representing the people concerning spiritual matters (Exodus 7:17; 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24-25). The early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, used the Greek word presbuteros for “elder.” This is the same Greek word used in the New Testament that is also translated “elder.”

The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and apparently each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4).

It seems that the position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, who a man is within the governance of a congregation, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes the authority and duties fo said elder (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the overseers and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the overseers. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of overseers and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.

The position of “deacon,” from diakonos, meaning “through the dirt,” was one of servant leadership to the church. Deacons are separate from elders, while having qualifications that are in many ways similar to those of elders (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Deacons assist the church in whatever is needed, as recorded in Acts chapter 6.

Concerning the word poimen, translated “pastor” in reference to a human leader of a church, it is found only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” Most associate the two terms “pastors” and “teachers” as referring to a single position, that of elder, who would be a pastor and a qualified teacher. 

It would seem from the above passages that there was always a plurality of elders, but this does not negate God’s gifting particular elders with the teaching gifts while gifting others with the gift of administration, prayer, etc. (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11). Nor does it negate God’s calling them into a ministry in which they will use those gifts (Acts 13:1). Thus, one elder may do the majority of visiting members because he has the gift of compassion, while another may “rule” in the sense of handling the organizational details, while yet another may be gifted in preaching and teaching. 

Many churches that are organized with a governing board can guide the administrative functions of the church, leaving a plurality of elders  to care for the spiritual needs of a flock and watch over the adherence to true doctrine.   In Scripture there was also congregational input into major decisions. Thus, a “dictator” style leader who makes all the decisions is unscriptural (Acts 1:23, 26; 6:3, 5; 15:22, 30; 2 Corinthians 8:19). So, too, is a congregation-ruled church that does not give weight to the elders’ or church leaders’ input.

In summary, the Bible teaches a leadership consisting of a plurality of elders (overseers) along with a group of deacons who serve the church. But it is not contrary to this plurality of elders to have one of the elders serving in a major “pastoral” role. God calls some as “pastor/teachers” (even as He called some to be missionaries in Acts 13) and gives them as gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11).  Therefore, a church may have many elders, but not all elders are called to serve in the pastoral role. But, as one of the elders, the pastor or “teaching elder” has no more authority in decision making than does any other elder.

Thank God for a blueprint of leadership and church governance that works... not perfectly, but a far cry better than the machinations of man-made governments and politics.

Saving, Growing, Sustaining God’s Precious Church

Todays installment shares the thoughts and observations of a longtime minister of the gospel.  It is presented in a Q&A format and discusses his personal perspective on the strategies, priorities and prayer that are essential for a church to grow and survive.

Meet Wayne Kilpatrick.  Wayne is a child of the South, and an extraordinary preacher whose ministry skills and heart for building strong churches and evangelizing the lost have enriched thousands.  Occasionally you hear of a pulpit minister who completes a tenure of a quarter-century with a single congregation. Rarer is the story of a minister who goes on to another long and successful ministry with a second church in the same city.

Kilpatrick served 27 years with the Homewood Church of Christ in Birmingham, Ala., and nearly 10 years with the Heritage Place Church also in the Birmingham area.  He claims 50 years of rewarding, faithful full-time service to God’s Church.

Where Kilpatrick has been, local congregations have grown.   He also witnessed firsthand the natural decline of congregations over time.  Attendance at the Homewood church grew from a few to thousands, but then plateaued.  Growth stalled.  Homewood became a cutting-edge church, developing an extensive mission plan, including a long-running weekly television program.

Even with all of its outreach focused activities,  and years of steady growth, the church began to plateau and then slowly declined over time. Understanding what happens to churches is critical to changing the course of decline.   Now, enjoy these questions posed to Pastor Kilpatrick and consider his answers in light of what you may be experiencing in your own church.

Q: What are some early warning signs that a church may be on a growth plateau?

People who study church growth have discovered that 80 to 85 percent of the churches in America are in decline. This decline is not limited to liberal, mainline denominations. Many conservative and evangelical churches have plateaued, and many conservative denominations are in serious decline.

A plateaued church is not extending and expanding in reaching and assimilating new people. Therefore, growth ceases. Plateaus are part of the life-cycle of any organization, including the church. A plateaued church is in a period of inertia where the church has little movement forward in the area of growth.

Accurate record-keeping is very important in helping to know if a church is growing, plateaued or declining. Churches need to keep and examine their records from month to month in order to know the health of their church.

Q: Can plateaued churches grow again? How?

The church must choose one of three possible responses to this eventual decline.  One choice is to do nothing, maintain the internal status quo, allow cultural forces to run their course and let the church disappear from American society. This is the choice of church members who like their churches the way they are and will not tolerate change.

A second choice is to plant new churches, even if it means abandoning extant churches. C. Peter Wagner, a church growth specialist, says, “Without exception, the growing denominations have been those that stress church planting.” Many church growth advocates doubt that existing churches can be revitalized. Church researcher George Barna, in his book “Turnaround Churches,” states, “The good news is that some churches can reverse a rapid decline and make a full comeback to health. The bad news is that the odds of experiencing such a turnaround are slim.”

There is a third option to the church’s plight in America — revitalization.

If established, declining churches can be revitalized, then the combined membership, the accumulated wealth, the buildings, property and furnishings in those churches can be reclaimed and brought to bear on the task of evangelizing America.

I believe the key issue for churches today is church health, not church growth. When congregations are healthy, they grow the way God intends.

In his book “Your Spiritual Gifts,” Wagner says, “Church growth and church health are interrelated. 

Only healthy bodies grow well, and only healthy churches grow well.”

Q: Can churches become evangelistic if they currently are not? How?

The major reason for church decline is that churches ceased doing the things that caused them to grow. When we were experiencing our greatest growth during my lifetime, we were involved in many evangelistic endeavors. We had gospel meetings at least twice a year, taught personal evangelism classes and equipped our members in the use of the Jule Miller filmstrips and Bible charts in converting their neighbors.

We had Monday night visitation and zone programs that cared for the members and provided assistance to the community. We hosted a five-day Vacation Bible School and urged our members to invite friends to come worship God with them.

The church has almost cut out every single thing that caused growth and has not replaced these things with more successful ministries.

One of the most important things churches can do to grow again is to create an atmosphere in their worship services that causes people to want to come worship God. Many members are ashamed to invite their friends into their local church due to boring services, buildings that are rundown and unattractive and unfriendly members.

The difference in a growing church and a dying church is one word — invite! We are not inviting our friends and associates to come worship God with us.

My suggestion is to sit down with some of the leading members of your church and ask them, “What would we need to do to cause you to invite your friends and associates to come worship with us?”  Then take their ideas and do whatever is Scriptural and right to become a place where people are excited and thrilled to want to come.

Church growth occurs when the local church supernaturally and faithfully fulfills the Great Commission in its unique context and with a vision for the world.

Q: What do you see as elements of growth in a new church plant?

Many of the new church plants have more passion to win the lost. They begin with a lot of hope and enthusiasm and spend much time in prayer. They understand that no work has ever been accomplished for God outside of much time in earnest prayer.

New church plants begin with a structure to not only bring people into their church but also structure to keep them. Churches must constantly structure and restructure to allow for continued growth and to maintain growth that has taken place.

New churches realize their meeting places and facilities have to be up to par. No matter what type of building they have, they strive to make it look the best it possibly can.

They understand the importance of advertising. They use media and publications in their area to let others know about their ministry. They also understand the importance of signs and church information. Times of services are clearly displayed.

New churches focus on accessibility. They give thought to their location and make themselves available to their members and guests. Since they are a new church, they often pursue excellence in all they attempt to do. They understand the importance of visitors and welcome them without embarrassing them. They get information from their guests and then follow up with letters, phone calls, cards from various members and, if they are open to it, a home visit.

New churches put lots of emphasis on special events. A church needs to have at least four big events each year. These give the members opportunities to invite friends to attend with them.

Q: Do new congregations need to be planted in order to pursue growth?

Wagner observes, “Without exception, the growing denominations have been those that stress church planting.” Lyle Schaller, another author who studies church vitality, states that church planting is “the most useful and productive component of any denominational church growth strategy.”

New churches operate with an almost panicked urgency. If a church planter wants to preach to someone on Sunday, he has to go get them. Whereas many established churches end up relegating outreach to a single night during the week, the new church focuses on going after new people. And without a calendar full of committee meetings and counseling appointments, that’s what gets done. New churches reach people.

New churches are versatile within their communities. A new church is not encumbered in its methodology but can quickly adjust in order to take advantage of newly presented opportunities. 

They have a freedom that many established churches do not. They never run up against the dreaded, “We’ve never done it that way before,” because nothing has ever been done.

A church planter is able to look around and ask himself, “How can I best get the Gospel in front of these people?” New churches make the most of their circumstances.

Q: What is the role of the preacher in the growth of a church?

Church growth must begin with the preacher. No church can outgrow the preacher. Here are some suggestions as to what the preacher can do to assist the church in growth:

There can be no growth if the preacher [and elders] fails to embark on the journey of personal growth. The day he stops growing, the church stops growing. Lack of personal growth will show in pettiness, narrow-mindedness, inferiority complex, fear of offending and carnal attitudes. The minister needs to grow spiritually, emotionally, mentally, socially and in his ability to become a more effective communicator.  Personal growth is the key to ministry growth.

• Preachers need to take courses in church growth. Bible college and seminary training has little or nothing to offer in real church growth study. Bringing growth to their church means they must unlearn some things and learn new things. They will need to attend quality conferences, buy books, search the Internet and take a practical course in church growth.

• Preachers need to believe in the theology of growth. One minister said, “God did not call the church to grow. He called it to be faithful.” Yes, God did call the church to be faithful. He also called the church to be fruitful.

Theology of growth is believing that growth is the sign of life in the church. So, everything will be done with growth in view. Whatever does not contribute to growth must be scrapped.

• The minister needs to analyze his local congregation. Ask relevant questions such as: How many were converted in the past year? What is our growth rate? How many came from other churches? What growth do we have — conversion, biological or transfer growth? How many were assimilated? Are the people becoming disciples or nominal Christians? What is the strength and weakness of this church? What percentage of our programs are maintenance rather than evangelism oriented? At our growth rate, compared to our birth rate, where will the church be in 10 years?

• The minister needs to pray for church growth. Share the vision of growth. Create time for

intercession for growth. Plan and set goals for growth. Be willing to initiate change. He never changes the Gospel but must be willing to change his methods. Pinpoint the areas that need change. Communicate change to his leaders. Gain the authority to lead.

Gradual change is the key. Change leads to growth. Without change, growth will be difficult. Be able to know where your church is and how much time is being spent on evangelism and missions. Be abreast with these facts and then communicate wisely, consistently and continuously to your people. In your communication, demand commitment to God, to the church and to outreach.

What is the role of the elders in the growth of the church?

Christians understand that their job is to sow the seed of the Kingdom and depend on God to give the increase. He has promised that his word will not return unto him void and as we sow, we reap. God gives the increase in the church. We know that.

Elders must realize that the man who stands in their pulpit is the most important factor in how the seed is sown and whether the church grows or not. If elders want the church to grow, then they must have a preacher who wants the church to grow and is willing to pay the price to see that it grows.

Elders also must want the church to grow and be willing to pay the price for growth.

Elders need to insist that their ministers attend quality lectureships and conferences, buy books, listen to tapes and talk to ministers of growing churches. They must insist that ministers think, pray, live and breathe how they can reach more people with the Gospel.

Most Elders have full-time jobs and have little time to study and learn how to grow a church. With their work, family responsibilities and shepherding God’s flock, their hands are full. They need to unleash their minister and urge him to lead in the matter of church growth. Provide him with the resources and back him in his attempts to lead the church in reaching the lost.

I am a firm believer in church growth. I know we can reach many lost people today if we are willing to do what God has taught us to do. May the Lord strengthen us in our resolve to save the lost, edify the saved and help the needy.  END of the Interview.  

Final Thought...  I hope this perspective offered by longtime preaching minister Wayne Kilpatrick, might be helpful to you in understanding the steps necessary to infuse new life and spirit into an ailing church.  God’s Church will survive until His return... will your congregation?

Sureness of Hope

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3)

The Bible has quite a lot to say about faith and hope. Biblical hope has as its foundation trust in God. The word hope in English often conveys doubt. For instance, “I hope it will not rain tomorrow.” In addition, the word hope is often followed by the word so. This is the answer that some may give when asked if they think that they will go to heaven when they die. They say, “I hope so.” However, that is not the meaning of the words usually translated “hope” in the Bible.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word batah and its cognates has the meaning of confidence, security, and being without care; therefore, the concept of doubt is not part of this word. We find that meaning in Job 6:20; Psalm 16:9; Psalm 22:9; and Ecclesiastes 9:4. In most instances in the New Testament, the word hope is the Greek word elpis/elpizo. Again, there is no doubt attached to this word. Therefore, biblical hope is a confident expectation or assurance based upon a sure foundation for which we wait with joy and full confidence. In other words... “There is no doubt about it!”

One of the verses in which we find the word hope is Hebrews 11:1... “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This verse at the beginning of the faith chapter (Hebrews 11) carries with it all of the confidence that comes with knowing for sure, with no question, what we have been promised by God in His Word. Our faith is confident assurance, for it is founded upon the Rock of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the actions of the heroes of the faith recorded in Hebrews 11 were made possible because they had this faith based in their confident assurance or hope in God. As believers, we are also called to give an answer for that hope that is within us to any who would ask (1 Peter 3:15).

Therefore, biblical hope is a reality and not a feeling. Biblical hope carries no doubt. Biblical hope is a sure foundation upon which we base our lives, believing that God always keeps His promises. 

Hope or confident assurance can be ours when we trust the words, “He who believes on Me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). Accepting that gift of eternal life means our hope is no longer filled with doubt but, rather, has at its sure foundation the whole of God’s Word, the entirety of God’s character, and the finished work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Politics and Christianity... They don’t Mix!

You can look back in history and criticize Christians for failing to follow the commands given by Jesus during some of the world’s darkest periods.  Today is no different. Christians of the 20th and 21st century will also be judged according to their actions. There are many issues facing today’s Christians, issues that form questions that Jesus himself will expect an answer from all those professing his name.

Today, the world is in the midst of a historically horrible refugee crisis.  So the question Christ is going to ask... “why didn’t you actively help the poor, the destitute, and those in desperate need?”  Afterall, Christ himself said these things about such matters of human compassion...

Matthew 25: 34-40: “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Jeremiah 22: 3-5: Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then there shall enter the gates of this house kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their servants and their people. But if you will not obey these words, I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.

Are followers of Jesus supposed to forsake compassion, sacrifice hospitality, and abandon love in favor of a political policy, national security, financial stability, and personal comfort? Not according to what Jesus said.  God is perfectly clear as to what the mandate is for helping those in need, and yet today... Christians continue to remain apathetic, passive, and even aggressively hostile toward the notion of aiding such victims.  Christians today have been lured by the prevailing politically driven hysteria that has set up racist barriers to the compassion we are to extend to those in need.

How could any so-called Christian promote a gospel of hope, peace, joy, and love while simultaneously supporting restrictive policies preventing people from possibly obtaining these exact same things by denying them entrance into a safe haven, and why would you go one step further by punitively deporting people back into circumstances of poverty, violence and quite possibly death?

God has never been racist about his creation. He has never set one race above another. He loves everyone of every color and ethnicity.  He made his human family, why wouldn’t he love everyone?  So... why aren’t Christians recognizing and vigorously fighting systemic racism and inequality?  What does God say about this....

James 2:9: But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Proverbs 17:15: He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

1 John 2:9: Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.

The Christian faith and doctrine clearly promotes the virtues of justice, equality, and fairness for all people, especially for those who are ostracized and mistreated... surely God will ask his followers about this... “why didn’t you help the victims of systemic racism, abuse, and oppression?”

How can Christians ignore and even criticize, a large segment of humanity that’s being victimized by authorities, institutionally incarcerated, professionally repressed, governmentally mistreated, educationally stifled, financially subjugated, and socially rejected?  You know who this speaks of... Muslims.  God loves Muslims and desires that they come to know, trust and love Him.  It’s our job to be part of the solution to that goal, not an obstacle and a passive, oppressive bystander.

Massive abuse on an epic scale is being systemically waged against people simply based on their race and gender, and what are Christians doing to help those abused? 

God has never said Christians should become actively immersed in the machinery of governmental politics, but He does expect His followers to stand up for Him and those oppressed.  Christians have a chance to be on the forefront of a civil rights movement, fueled by a righteous and holy God who despises corruption, unjust scales, exploitation, bigotry, and racism. That is not political... its just the right and moral thing to do.  

Why don’t the leaders of evangelical Christianity desperately and passionately call upon God in these divisive times, why don’t all professing Christians publicly condemn such evil, and why don’t we act, even in small ways, to right such blatant wrongs?  Don’t be blinded by self-righteous attitudes... these wrongs are being perpetrated by the political machinery and governments of our world, who like to project themselves as so-call Christian nations.  The wickedness being done towards racial minorities around the world is not justified simply because a so-called Christian nations endorses such attitudes as policy.  Christians have been suckered into buying that politicized form of religiosity!  Christians are not "better" than any other people on the planet!

Christians... think, think about your rotten thinking!!! Why are you so supportive of national and political agendas associated with violence, destruction and death?  Is the oppression of peoples you don’t understand okay because they’re not Christian?

Matt. 26:52-54: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

Psalm 11:5: The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence,

Since Christians represent a God that died for ALL humanity, how could anyone one us actively participate in national agendas that so actively killed, hurt, and neglected any part of humanity? History will testify for God... that one human group destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives through militaristic actions and wars that offered little peace, resolution, or stability.

Christians have watched, passively turned a blind eye, and even cheered as various governments violently intervened throughout the world and selfishly, fearfully, and hatefully supplied weapons, technology, and the means to miserably kill, eradicate, and create humanitarian tragedies across the globe on an unparalleled scale.

What moral gain was achieved? What specific need or goal was so vital that it necessitated such outrageous and rampant destruction? Church, Christians living in the year 2016, please answer these questions and explain yourselves.  First, do it quietly in your mind and heart, and then prepare yourself for a day of reckoning with the God of the universe, who will ask for your answer.

Maybe the most disturbing aspect of contemporary Christianity is what appears to be the desperate desire to be politically involved.  To believe in the political agenda and be consumed with emotions over the political process... who will be the next president, who will serve on the supreme court and all the machinations of man’s deeply flawed concepts of governance.   Why do Christians crave material, economic and political power when God has already warned us against putting faith in such foolish and temporary things?

Matthew 16:26: What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

1 Peter 2:11-12: Dear friends, I warn you as “temporary residents and foreigners” to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against your very souls. Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world.

Do you not trust in God’s sovereignty and His plan for your future?  Evidently not, since you devote so much mental energy, time, and resources into supporting candidates, a political party, in the hope that they will prevail in elections, thereby ensuring you will be able to pursue more personal fortune, protection, and influence.  

Christians have boasted of a counter-cultural gospel and yet what has actually happened?  We fell into the same pitfalls of countless civilizations before us... a desire for carnal power, personal safety, comfort, luxury, fame, and wealth.

Christians have divisively judged, shamed, alienated, hurt, slandered, and attacked others under the banner of “Christian morals,” all in an effort to gain additional political clout and control.  

Have we lost so must faith in God’s promises that we’ve abandoned the ways of Jesus for the ways of a worldly empire? Are we so ashamed of identifying with a Divine God who died on a cross that we would rather align yourselves with oppressors, war-mongers, and corrupt rulers?  

Okay, that’s a lot of Christian bashing, albeit justified.  Is there any good news in all of this?  Yes!  These issues and provocative questions are still in the process of being answered, and God can still greatly be glorified by how we Christians serve the world around us.  God knows his people drift of course and miss the mark.  He calls us back to focused purpose and intent, on message.  It is “our choice” to follow His way, or continue down this path to oblivion.  

By focusing on Christ and refusing to become co-opted by ulterior motives, modern Christianity can leave a mark on this period in human history that can show what millions of believers can do together in the name of Jesus — helping, serving, protecting, and loving everyone!

Our world isn’t without hope because Jesus is alive, and the Holy Spirit can empower us to be the change we’re so desperately in need of. God help us.  Get on with the Mission at hand... HIS MISSION... HIS WAY!