Each Friday, we have two features-- a weekly wrap of posts earlier in the week and a church signs of the week. Starting today, we combine them.

Earlier this week at EdStetzer.com

• Reputations: What I Imagine Newt Gingrich Wishes and What We Can Learn from His Mistakes

• How Should We Remember Joe Paterno?

• Monday is for Missiology: Christopher Wright on Christian Mission

• "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus," A Video Worth Watching

• New Research: Nearly 70% of American Voters Take Religion into Consideration When Voting for a Candidate

• A Closer Look: Jesus and Atonement in the Old Testament

• T.D. Jakes, the Trinity, and Truth

• On Heretics and Helpfulness: Relating to Those Outside of Orthodoxy

Church Signs of the Week: When You Don't Like Your Pastor

Last week, I featured three signs that were nearly identical in their message and, in turn, declared them to be the Official Church Sign of January. This week's signs make it obvious that January is not pastor appreciation month!

As always, send me your pics on twitter @EdStetzer.

Thanks to Phillip Herrington, Pine Summit Baptist, and John Roberts for these.

As always, send your church signs via twitter to @edstetzer.

How do we relate in a helpful way with those who are (or are perceived to be) outside of orthodoxy? When you choose to interact with people with such views, there are certainly consequences to pay but, I propose, there can be benefits to reap in the right circumstances.

Bad examples exist where evangelical Christians have been used by those outside orthodoxy to legitimize their aberrant views. In addition, the scriptures warn us away from false teachers. Yet, I believe in interaction around the scriptures in a way that leads to helpful conversations and theological clarity when such people are considering (or engaging in) moves toward orthodoxy.

Probably the most prominent example in modern times has to be the Worldwide Church of God. They were once a non-Trinitarian, heretical cult (their term, not mine), and are now an evangelical denomination and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.

A couple of decades ago, I first learned that the Worldwide Church of God was on a theological journey, reconsidering some of its basic beliefs. Everyone had seen The Plain Truth magazine and knew of the teachings of both Herbert W. Armstrong and his son Garner Ted Armstrong. These teachings were largely considered (and rightfully so) to be heterodox. When I first met the local WCG leaders, they were a mix of views-- some orthodox, some not, and still on a journey.

At that point, some would prefer to condemn them and demand they recant and renounce their friends before further conversation. I did not and I am glad others did not.

Today, I have spoken at the Worldwide Church of God (now called Grace Communion International) annual meeting and consider their leadership to be friends. (I have blogged about them here). But the reason I could do that with only a little controversy was because some evangelical leaders chose to engage in relationship and conversation with those outside of orthodoxy in order to bring them to orthodoxy.

I asked my friends, Joseph Tkach (leader of the movement) and Randy Bloom (director of multiplication) to share some insights.

Joe explained:

We should never underestimate the importance of making good friends with people who we may consider less than orthodox in their beliefs. I can speak here from personal experience. In my journey from the fringe to the fold, I denied the Trinity, avoided birthdays and refused to have anything to do with Easter and Christmas. When I, along with some of my colleagues, began to understand the gospel of grace, we encountered some very strong resistance. Our denomination was split - shattered might be a better word. Many who had been lifetime friends became almost overnight, bitter opponents.

It was a lonely and rather daunting time. With old friends abandoning me, and wondering where the next attack would come from, I hoped to find some support among the wider community of faith. It surprised me to find that some who seemed to know the most about grace were very un-gracious when it came to accepting us. But it was also refreshing and encouraging to find that many who I had previously labeled 'false Christians' welcomed me and accepted me. Fifteen years later, I remain deeply grateful to those who had the humility and courage to help us 'come in from the cold'.

The very first to befriend me were some faculty members at Azusa Pacific University, Haggard School of Theology... This encouraged me to keep going on this new and unfamiliar path into grace.

Another person that I must mention is Hank Hanegraaff, who was unlike many counter-cult ministers that I had previously met. Hank was one of the first to accept me without suspicion. I discovered that he would come to my defense in his private conversations with others. Ruth Tucker is another person who was encouraging and also defended us from those who were a bit more than suspicious toward us...

I thank God for all those who follow the lead of the Holy Spirit to accept and make friends with those who seem to be coming from a different direction. Just as Jesus did and still does!

Randy added:

I have no doubt that the encouragement and non-judgmental support on the part [of] these fine Christian leaders was extremely helpful as I wrestled through the process of allowing the Holy Spirit to transform my relationship with Jesus as well as my theology and worldview . . .

I must say, there were occasions during my journey when neither I nor WCG were treated with grace by some of our brothers in Christ during our changes. Needless to say, this was both disappointing, hurtful and certainly not helpful.

Now, this transition was before shrill tweets and angry blogs shaped many conversations, but I can imagine the outcry would have been loud and sustained if Hank Hanegraff had defended leaders of the Worldwide Church of God as they were reconsidering their theological errors. I am sure we would have heard that evangelicals were being co-opted, they were being tricked, and were naive. But the reality is that instead, they were helping to move a movement-- and I am thankful for the courage.

I am encouraged some had the courage to actually engage in this conversation. I imagine they dialogued, they instructed, and then they defended as people were on a journey towards more fully embracing orthodoxy. It does not mean we are not clear in our statements and teaching (and I think Hank Hanegraff has never been a subtle man). However, it does mean we deal with people who are on a journey, we celebrate moves toward orthodoxy, and do so with grace and patience.

It's much easier to critique (and there is a place for that), but I also appreciate those who instead of simply speaking against the heterodox, engage and help people to become orthodox. It saddens me that some seem happier when they can label someone a heretic rather than rejoicing when they move toward orthodoxy.

At several points along the way, some Christians preferred to condemn members of the WCG. When they first began to embrace a Trinitiarian view, yet some were still holding to dietary and Sabbath laws, some Christians demanded that they condemn their friends still unsure on the Trinity and recant their other views immediately. It would seem a more patient and winsome approach was the successful one in this case.

Imagine if Priscilla and Aquila had blogged against Apollos, rather than helping him as he sought to understand the truth of the gospel. The decision to help and to celebrate growth made a difference.

Yes, there are heretics and most of the time they will not be persuaded and need to be resisted. Yet, when there is openness, I'm willing to talk to them, be friends with them, and hopefully persuade them-- and I hope you are as well.

I've never met Texas pastor T.D. Jakes. Not long ago, we both spoke at the same event-- we served as the co-keynote speakers for the Evangelical Press Association meeting in his hometown of Dallas, but did not meet-- and that was about as close as my association has been. He is certainly well known and influential... and in the "evangelical press" again this week.

In evangelical circles, few issues have been as controversial lately as James MacDonald's invitation of T. D. Jakes to an event called The Elephant Room. Many people expressed great concern and, to quote Mark Driscoll, MacDonald "must have felt like a piñata on Cinco de Mayo."

During the simulcast that took place yesterday, Jakes was paired with Driscoll for a discussion about doctrine. Quickly the question that was on everyone's mind was brought into the conversation-- something called modalism or Sabellianism. (For more info on Sabellianism, visit Justin Holcomb's Know Your Heretics series at The Resurgence.)

There is no official transcript yet, but Trevin Wax live-blogged the event. He acknowledges some content may be inexact, but an attendee who previewed this post attests to the substance of both the question and the answer. Thus, according to Wax, Driscoll asked Jakes:

We would all agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, is the issue one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?

To which Jakes responded:

I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God-- Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word 'persons,' though. You describe 'manifestations' as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. In 1 Timothy 3:16 he says, 'For God was manifest in the flesh.' Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn't think it's robbery to say 'manifest in the flesh.' Maybe it's semantics, but Paul says this.

Now when we start to think about that sort of thing, I think it's important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I'm with you. I've been with you.

Be sure to read the whole recap here.

You might be wondering why this would even be an issue for arguably the most well-known African-American pastor in the country. It's because Jakes has, in the past, been identified with Oneness Pentecostalism, which teaches that God is one God in three successive "manifestations," rather than one God in three Persons eternally co-existing. The issue at hand is not one of mere wording or terminology. Rather, the theological difference between Oneness (God in three successive "manifestations") and Trinitarianism (God in three "Persons") is a foundational distinctive. Where a person stands on this key facet to the doctrine of God will determine the rest of their theology.

The website for Jakes' church, The Potter's House, states, "There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit." This wording generally reflects the unorthodox view (though Jakes has explained why he prefers it) and causes concern for those who hold to an orthodox view of the Trinity--one God in three persons.

It is interesting that Jakes, as he also stated in the Elephant Room discussion, is no longer welcomed by some of his former Oneness friends. He jokingly said of his predicament, "In some new circles, I'm getting beat up. In other older circles I'm the heretic. I have to read the article to see what kind of heretic I am!" His predicament should say something to evangelicals, as now some in the Oneness movement no longer accept Jakes because they view his Trinitarian view as problematic. Jakes has indicated that his view has changed.

Think about who participated in the Elephant Room-- Driscoll, MacDonald, Jack Graham, and Crawford Loritts among them. It is telling that these men-- recognized as orthodox evangelicals-- readily received Jakes' statement, with Graham having been a prayer partner with Bishop Jakes for the last 10 years. Some might say they are all just naïve, but I've preached for Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald and do not find them to be theologically unaware or easily fooled on matters of orthodoxy. I think they are simply willing to believe the man at his word. It appears that some still do not, and, based on the response in blogtown and the twittersphere, it seems that more do than don't. However, some still do not.

Now, to be clear, I do not affirm all of Jakes' theology. But, there again, I don't affirm all of many other people's theology either. And there are probably a few misguided people who don't affirm mine ;^). However, at some point, you have to decide how (or whether) to respond to his statement on the Trinity.

Of course, some think his articulation here is just not enough. Actually, I believe that no matter what he says, some will demand more since they have already made up their mind. As James MacDonald indicated:

The issue of the Trinity is not a small thing. It is central to Christianity and a pillar of orthodoxy. However, when a man confesses his trinitarianism, and people say, "Is he trinitarian enough?" That's when we need to turn down the rhetoric and let a man's confession and fruitfulness speak for itself.

Yet, some are changing their view of Jakes, including one helpful letter like this one from Brandon Smith. Also, my friend Danny Slavich gives a well-nuanced review.

Ironically, Jakes has said much of this before. On an Australian radio program in 2010, he explained:

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three persons. I believe that in a way that persons is a limited word for the Godhead and even those that adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is there are distinctives - there are things that can be said about the Father than can't be said about the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that.

Yet, yesterday he was more specific (just as the Australian interview was more specific than this Christianity Today article in 2000).

Jakes has explicitly said he moved away from a non-trinitiarian position to a Trinitarian one as he studied the scriptures. You might want more, and I would have loved to hear several other theological issues addressed. Regardless, to be fair, you have to at least acknowledge a shift on views of the Trinity-- and that is a move in the right direction.

Feel free to comment-- you don't have to agree, but you need to follow comment rules. If you don't, your comment is just not posted. I look forward to interacting with the conversation.

This week we are taking a closer look at the atonement in the Old Testament. This essay, featured in the HSCB Study Bible, is penned by Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill. Dr. Merrill has likely forgotten more about the Old Testament than many of us will ever know. I'm thankful for his work and for his continued commitment to raising future scholars as he serves as Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

As I'm doing all year long, I am giving away a free HCSB study Bible to a commenter. To be entered to win this week's giveaway, share with us your thoughts on Christ in the Old Testament and how that has impacted you.

The word "atonement" occurs frequently in the Old Testament (OT) and represents a key concept of OT theology. Christians maintain that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT, especially the human need for atonement from sins. But what is atonement, and what does Jesus have to do with it?

Many Christians think atonement in the OT originated with the Mosaic law, but in reality humans recognized their need for atonement long before the time of Moses. When Adam and Eve committed the first sin, they hid from God because they were ashamed (Gn 3:8). Rather than giving them up as hopeless, God initiated a plan of atonement whereby the ruptured fellowship between Himself and humanity could be restored. Our English word "atonement" (at-one-ment) explains well the theology behind such restoration, for it suggests that God and humanity can relationally be "at one" again.

How does atonement work? The first (indirect) OT reference to atonement occurs when God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, an act necessitating the death of a sinless animal and hence the shedding of its blood on their behalf (Gn 3:21). This introduces a theme that runs throughout the Bible: atonement involves an innocent party taking the punishment that was due to a guilty party.

The Hebrew word translated "atonement" is kaphar, meaning "to cover." This suggests that through the act of atonement sin is covered so that God no longer sees it. Throughout the OT the covering is achieved, ostensibly at least, with the blood of an innocent animal whose innocence renders the repentant sinner innocent as well (Lv 1:4-5; 17:11). The New Testament (NT) term hilasterion, "propitiation," continues this OT concept, again in contexts of blood sacrifice (Rm 3:25).

What does any of this have to do with Jesus? While animals served as provisional sacrifices for human sins during the OT era, they could not ultimately atone for humans (Heb 4:10). Humanity needed one of their own, one who knew no sin, to stand in and take the punishment that is due to all sinners.

Genesis 3:15 gives the first prophetic glimpse at God's final solution to this need and hints at the central role Jesus plays in that solution. Speaking ultimately of Jesus and His role in redemption, it asserts that the seed of the woman would be crushed, but that He would in turn crush the head of the serpent (the Devil), achieving victory over sin and death. The crushing mentioned here is reminiscent of the crushing experienced by the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, a passage that has atonement as its central theme.

Jesus Christ is both the subject and fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. In the events that unfolded during His trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, Jesus was the Suffering Servant on our behalf. Though innocent of all sin, Jesus stood in our place to take our punishment, shedding His blood to atone for us. "He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). "By the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26) Jesus satisfied God's wrath against sin.

That OT atonement finds its culmination in Jesus Christ is put beyond question by John the Baptist who, seeing Jesus, proclaimed, "Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn 1:29).

Eugene H. Merrill
Ph.D., Columbia University

One of the underlying themes in the media coverage of the current race for the Republican Presidential nomination has been the religious beliefs of the candidates themselves. But should it be? Do Americans really take issue with a political candidates religious beliefs?

LifeWay Research has just released new findings in which nearly 70 percent of American adults say their votes are impacted, either positively or negatively, by the religious conviction of a candidate. In fact, the research shows that a candidates religion can be more of a detriment to their campaign than a benefit. Nearly twice as many (30%) voters are less likely to vote for a candidate because of the candidate's religion than they are to vote for them (16%). USA Today featured the research in the wake of Newt Gingrich's win in this weekend's South Carolina primary.

When asked, "When a candidate running for office regularly expresses religious conviction or activity, how does that impact your vote?", 16 percent are more likely to vote for a candidate who regularly shares their religious beliefs, 30 percent indicate they would be less likely to vote for a candidate expressing religious activity, and 21 percent of Americans say it would depend on the candidate's religion. 

In fact, just 28 percent say it would have no impact on their choice of candidate.

Some other highlights from the research include:

• Younger Americans ages 18-29 (24 percent) and ages 30-49 (24 percent) are more likely to select "depends on the religion" of the candidate.
• Those age 65 and over are the most likely (37 percent) to say a candidate's expression of religious conviction or activity would have no impact on their choice of candidate.
• Americans who consider themselves to be a born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist Christian are more likely (28 percent vs. 11 percent) to select "more likely to vote for the candidate" expressing religious conviction compared to Americans who do not share their religious beliefs.
• Similarly, these Christians are more likely to select "depends on the religion" compared to those who do not identify with these beliefs (36 percent vs. 20 percent). 
• Americans who never attend a place of worship are most likely (67 percent) to say a candidate's expression of religious conviction or activity would make them "less likely to vote for a candidate." Only 3 percent would be more likely to vote for the candidate. 
• African Americans are most likely to be put off by a candidate's religious expression - just 2 percent say they would be "more likely to vote for the candidate." 
• Hispanic Americans (41 percent) and African Americans (43 percent) indicate they would be less likely to vote for a candidate expressing religious conviction or activity. 
• Two-thirds of Americans who never attend a place of worship appear to flee from candidates who repeatedly put their religion in front of them and 4 in 10 Hispanic and African American adults take it as a cue that the candidate is not for them.

This video by Jefferson Bethke has already made the rounds, but in case you have not seen it, take a look. It's had 16 million views in a short amount of time and, after watching it, I think you will see why.

Several have critiqued it, and I would certainly want to nuance some of the language, but I'm thankful for Jefferson, his boldness, and his love for Jesus.

And, I love to see some of the conversations it spawns:

I've been writing on the mission of the church for a while, particularly on Mondays since, well Monday is for Missiology.  There is much to discuss on the topic and recent books on the issue have challenged, recast, and made the topic much more relevant.  

One of the most prominent writers on the subject is Chris Wright.  He is the primary drafter of the Cape Town Commitment, adoped by the Lausanne Movement as their guiding document. 

In a recent email exchange, I asked him to talk more about his view of people, creation, and God's redemption.  He and I agreed that it has been misunderstood by some, giving the impression that Chris believes that human's unique value is derived from creation. (Chris called it quoting his view "minimalistically.")  So I asked him to explain in more detail.  

Chris wrote:

My point... was to counteract the utilitarian kind of view of creation which thinks and behaves as if the only value that creation has lies in its value to us as humans, that we are the only species that God values or holds precious, and that the rest of the earth is there as little more than a necessary survival capsule for us until we get redeemed and go somewhere else.  So it was (is) necessary to counteract that by the reminder that we are creatures, part of the whole package that God had repeatedly declared to be good and blessed (and did so before we ever came on the scene).  This is not in any way to diminish our value or importance but to put it in its proper context, at the pinnacle even,  of all that God values.  It is not some kind of reduction of humanity to 'just one species among many'. I am equally strong in affirming the uniqueness of humanity as made in the image of God, for the purpose of ruling and serving the rest of creation, as kings and priests in God's creational temple-- the earth. Createdness is glory, not shame. And our final destiny is redeemed createdness, restored to the role we were created for, and enjoying it to the full with the rest of redeemed creation, with the eternally resident presence of our creator and redeemer.

Furthermore since the Bible affirms not only the great value of all creation and creatures to God (Ps. 104, etc), but also God's intention to redeem the whole of his creation, it is also important to stress that we are not redeemed out of a valueless creation, but along with the creation that God so much values that Christ died to reconcile 'all things in heaven and earth through his blood shed on the cross'. The value of creation lies not just in Genesis, but at Calvary, the resurrection, and Revelation 21-22 (not to mention Rev. 5, which portrays every creature (not just humans and angels) praising God and the Lamb. 

So again, by reminding readers of the biblical value of the rest of creation I am by no means simply equating human value with the non-human creatures (Jesus managed both to affirm the value of every sparrow to God the Father while simultaneously affirming that humans were of greater value), nor am I in any way reducing the crucial theological importance of our doctrine of humanity, the image of God, and the person-redeeming work of the cross.  All I am trying to do (as in all I do) is to encourage evangelicals to read their whole Bibles, and to see the great arc that spans from Genesis 1-2  to Revelation 21-22,  and to take Eph. 1:9-10, and Col. 1:15-20 with full seriousness-- for there it is clear that Paul sees personal redemption within a staggeringly cosmic and universal framework.

I will have more to say on this later, but I do think that it is important to consider the mission of God in the context of his full redemptive plan: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration.  In the center of his plan, we have the cross and gospel proclamation: God, Man, Christ, Response.

In the meantime, take a look at these videos from Southeastern Seminary (where I have the priviledge of serving on faculty-- and you should consider attending!).

In these two videos, Chris lays out a biblical framework of mission:

Joel S (name intentionally shortened for security purposes) provides a helpful outline which I have included with his permission:

 Outline of Wright’s Lecture

• God with a Mission
  • God’s intentionality and purpose
  • The four dimensions of God’s mission
  • The teleological narrative of Scripture
  • The biblical worldview is a missional worldview
• Humanity with a Mission
  • Man’s purpose and intention from God’s purpose and intention
  • All dimensions of being human are dimensions of mission.
• Old Testament Israel with a Mission
  • Old Testament vision of God: Missional Monotheism
  • Old Testament vision of God’s people and why they exist: Missional Election
  • Old Testament vision of God’s people and how they should live: Missional Ethics
  • Old Testament vision of God’s future for all nations: missional eschatology
• Jesus with a Mission
  • Jesus’ conviction of being sent in his birth and baptism
  • The Great Commission: comprehensive, beginning with an indicative
• The Church with a Mission
  • Key words rooted in the Old Testament show us that we must come to the NT theology of mission by means of the story from the beginning
    • Witnesses (Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43)
    • Servanthood (Acts 13:47; Isaiah 49:6)
    • Priesthood (1 Peter 2; Rom 15:16)
• What does it mean to read the whole Bible from the perspective of mission?
  • We have a Genesis to Revelation Bible. We can’t just go from sin to the day of judgment, thereby ignoring the cosmic realities of creation and new creation.
  • We read the Bible in light of God’s purpose for humanity.
  • We read the whole Bible in light of God’s historical election of Israel and promise to Abraham for the sake of the nations.
  • We read the whole Bible in the light of the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth, his messianic identity and his missional thrust for the church. We read the whole Bible as the missional community called by God.

Joe Paterno has died. Our condolences go out to his family.

Many do not know how to respond to his legacy and ask, "Will one mistake define him?"

Yes, in a sense, it will. Every story written will include three words: "coach," "fired," and "abuse." It is a terrible but unavoidable thing.

Coach Paterno reported the abuse to his supervisors-- but he did not do enough. Coach Paterno understood and said, "It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Should that one mistake define Joe Paterno? Perhaps not "define," but it will always mar his legacy. The fact that he did not do more will always tarnish his reputation.

Coach Paterno is more than that one great failure, but for the sake of future generations, we must not forget that failure. We must not forget that several boys were allegedly molested and no one risked reputation to protect them.

Coach Paterno will be praised as a great coach-- and he should be. He led the program marked by academic and athletic integrity. Paterno will always have a statue and an historic record.

Yet, the fact that this stain will be forever be connected with Paterno's legacy may, in fact, lead to the protection of future generations. People will remember, be more likely to report, and perhaps more children will be protected. If future "people in power" will remember what Paterno's inaction cost him and others, maybe they will be less likely to ignore the cry of an innocent victim.

As best we can tell, Coach Paterno was a great coach and leader who made a big mistake that allowed immeasurable harm. Yet, part of Coach Paterno's legacy may well be to remind people to protect children in a way he did not.

Coach Paterno wished he "had done more" to protect children. I think that through his tarnished legacy, he will.

Each Sunday (as of late) I have been sharing churches where I've had the opportunity to preach in the last year. I tend to take pictures of where I preach and then forget to post them-- but now I am catching up!

Last week we looked at Skyline Wesleyan and the week before that at a new church plant in Bolivar, MO called Freshwater Church.

When I write on a church, I try to share a litte about their journey (hence the title, "Church Journeys"). First Baptist Atlanta is unique in that it is pastored by Charles Stanley, but that is not the only reason. Since Dr. Stanley is internationally known, they draw people from a wide area. As such, they are asking questions about how to help people be on mission in their context. In other words, how does a commuter church engage its community. My message was built around that theme.

There are lots of things worth observing, but one is easy to "picture." For example, the church is intentionally traditional and is done very well.

A traditional church may not seem unusual to you, but I do not preach at many traditional churches. You have to be impressed with an orchestra and choir like First Baptist.

I was preaching during missions week and the missions focus was clear through the other speakers, which include missionary testimonies (pictured here) and booths to sign up in the hallway.

One of the things that stands out about the church is how multicultural First Baptist is. I was pleasantly surprised to preach to anglos, African Americans, Asians, and many others.

First Baptist is unique in that it is led by the internationally well-known preacher Charles Stanley. They record there so the church is designed so that everyone feels close but it is also televised.

Thanks, Dr. Stanley, for entrusting me with your pulpit. Thanks, Brian Hatcher, for the invitation and the hospitality.

My Spring conference speaking schedule is almost here. In addition to traveling to Australia and Washington D.C. to talk about church planting, I'm looking forward to speaking at the Velocity Conference in suburban Atlanta at the end of February. Hosted by Mountain Lake Church in Cumming, GA, this conference for church planters is put on by my friend Shawn Lovejoy and the good people at ChurchPlanters.com.

One of the great features of this conference is that is also has a pastor's wives track. So if you're looking for a relatively inexpensive conference (around $100), are interested in church planting, and would like to take your wife to a conference, I hope you can join me at Velocity as we focus on:

• Going missional by being the church in their community (Jerusalem).
• Making the Gospel accessible throughout their region (Judea).
• Launching church planting movement makers throughout North America (Samaria).
• Developing strategic partnerships for global impact around the world (ends of the earth).