Everyone has had something to say about "The New Atheism." The New Atheist movement has been characterized by intellectually robust, agressive public discourse contra Christianity. Christians, in some cases rightfully so, have been outraged by comments that atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens have made. The center of Christian apologetics for the past decade, for some, has centered around Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

In a recent issue of Outreach Magazine we were asked to share our testimony of transformation.  I shared how Christ saved me and gave me new life. Here is my column.

To Trust and to Follow

I grew up on Long Island, outside of New York City, in an Irish Catholic home. (Actually, to be fair, the Catholic church was the church we did not go to on Sundays.) We would make our twice annual trips to the cathedral on Easter and Christmas but matters of faith were not part of our daily lives.

As my mother tells the story, my sister was the first one to hear the Good News and trust Christ. After being invited by a school friend, she rode a church bus from our home in Levittown to a small church nearby. My parents let her ride the bus -- which, for the record, seems strange to me, but New York City and Long Island were strange in the late 1970s. Invited by a friend, she heard about grace and mercy first and began to share the Gospel with the rest of our family.

In many ways, New York was coming apart in those days. There was a financial crisis, and that was before bailouts. The city was going broke, but it was not just a financial breaking-- it was a spiritual one as well. As you looked into the eyes of your neighbors, it was obvious that families were disintegrating, marriages were failing and hope was dissipating.

My dad could not find work. Levittown was in trouble. Drugs and crime were common. And, as I remember it, nobody had much hope.

A New Start
For my family, we just left-- moved to Florida to a home my grandfather owned-- and started over. My father quit being a union construction laborer and went to college in his 30s. My mother just tried to keep up. But it didn't work out well, as my sister got cancer and my parents divorced. My mother worked hard, we got some government help, and we tried to start over again.

By this time, my mother was a new Christian. Not willing to be Catholic anymore for personal reasons, she had started attending an Episcopal church in East Meadow, NY before we moved to Florida. There, she heard the Gospel and trusted Christ-- and was changed.

I saw something in her that I lacked and I wanted-- transformation. Yet, her world came apart. A daughter with cancer at age 12. Moved far from home and family. Divorce. But a new life emerged from the rubble. It was her new life in Christ that gave her the strength to make it through her new life in Florida.

A Transformation
Mom started attending a mainline Protestant church in Florida and then encouraged me (forced me, really) to go as well. My father would have nothing to do with it, and I hardly wanted to be the only guy around. It seemed to go against the grain of my New York upbringing. I resisted the pressure, but I couldn't resist the work of God in my life. My mother I could ignore. The church I could write off. But the fact that Jesus offered me new life I could not.

You see, I was quite empty. This new life in Florida was just not panning out. I did not fit in--a loudmouthed New Yorker in what was then rural Florida. Friends--the ones I had--were not the best influence. And they might say the same about me. But there I sat and listened to the message of the Good News. In the back of a camp chapel (where the boys who did not want to be there sat), I heard the speaker invite me to trust and follow Christ. And, on Aug. 13, 1977, I did.

It was, well, transformational. When God gave me new life, everything changed--the kind of change that only can come from God.

As a follower of Christ, sharing our testimony is always new and fresh.  Yes, it was over 30 years ago, but I still remember it-- not because my memory is great but because Christ change me.  It started that day and continues every day.

If you aren't already subscribing to Outreach, it's a great resource.

Suddenly, name changes are in the news-- everywhere. Name changes are a big deal and I have been thinking about how to weigh in on the Campus Crusade controversy. So, I wrote this post a week ago to reflect on the Campus Crusade name change. Since many people are now discussing a potential name change for Southern Baptists, I have also posted about that at the Between the Times blog, where I blog about denomination-specific issues, on that issue. Yet, this blog is about Cru and Campus Crusade.

In July, the organization formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, founded over half a century ago by Bill Bright, announced the changing of its name to "Cru." And, in less time than it takes a seraph to say "holy, holy, holy" the condemnation began. Some accused the leaders of kowtowing to political correctness while others saw it as part of a continuing trend to remove Christ from the public discourse.

How exactly a thoroughly evangelistic, solidly biblical organization removes Christ from public discourse is well beyond my powers of reason, but this was exactly the interpretation that came from none other than Fox News. With the headline "Prominent Christian ministry drops 'Christ'" and in an interview with Cru's U.S. Vice-president (Steve Sellar); Fox made the charge that the decision was specifically about dropping Christ from the name.

It really is frustrating that so many wholeheartedly buy into the media when it supports their preconceptions and that so many seem unable or unwilling to think for themselves on the issues. It may be accurate that Fox is more conservative than CNN or MSNBC, but they, too, fall into the trap of producing entertainment and calling it news. In other times they try to make a story when none exists.

The reality is that Cru has an entire page of its website dedicated to the decision process there revealing, among other things, that more than 1,600 names had been considered and that the old name "Campus Crusade for Christ" no longer represented their mission since they were larger than a campus ministry. It was also enlightening-- and heartening-- to see them considering the negative effects the name had in Muslim countries. From the Cru website:

Our name presented obstacles to our mission. The word "campus" does not adequately represent all our ministries in the United States and confuses our constituency as well as potential partners. The word "crusade"-while common and acceptable in 1951 when we were founded-now carries negative associations. It acts as a barrier to the very people that we want to connect with. It's also a hindrance to many Christians who would like to partner with us but find the word Crusade offensive.

Our surveys show that, in the U.S., twenty percent of the people willing to consider the gospel are less interested in talking with us after they hear the name. We are changing the name for the sake of more effective ministry.

When your name is a hindrance to your mission you have three options: Change the mission, change the name, or suffer the consequences. I'm glad they chose to change the organization's name, as the other two choices were certainly less than optimal for the Kingdom.

Another bandwagon hanger-on was the now ex-Fox News personality, Glenn Beck. Apparently with little research being done, or with that little research being ignored, Beck launched into a foundationless tirade against the name change that would make...well...Glenn Beck proud. He said, at the beginning of his mocking rant, "They decided Christ might be offensive." The problem here is this: Beck's challenge is demonstrably false. Both the website and the interview with Steve Sellars make it plain that the name change was not to deny anything, but rather to increase the impact of their ministry. Why do so many evangelicals believe someone like Glenn Beck rather than the trusted leadership of Campus Crusade?

Even more out of touch were some of the comments on Beck's website. After wading through that garbage for a few minutes one might get the idea that Cru had been taken over by a group of atheists who were steering it away from Bright's original vision for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus. In fact, as Sellars and Vonette Bright (Bill's widow) both point out; Bill Bright himself had been promoting the idea of a name change for decades. It is true that Christians can be suspicious because of institutions and organizations that experience theological drift: the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA, now "The Y"), Harvard and Yale universities come to mind. However, regardless of how finely tuned a person considers their own news radar to be, Christians do not need to be like blue whales indiscriminately swallowing all the plankton around them. Gullibility is not a fruit of the Spirit. Just because it is on Fox News doesn't mean it's true and just because Glenn Beck says it does not make it worth repeating. We must use a biblical filter of truth and error, of foolishness and wisdom. This is far too often lacking. Perhaps those who claim the name of Christ should trust their brothers and sisters who also claim the name of Christ. I think we're on the same team, after all.

So ill-aimed were the criticisms leveled at Cru that John Piper felt obliged to weigh in:

Glenn Beck ridiculed the change as he wadded up the report and threw it away. His entire focus was to attack the wimpy people who avoid using the name Christ for fear of giving offense. The problem with Beck is that he cared nothing about dealing with the real problems created by the name "Campus Crusade for Christ."

The problem was not "Christ." The problem was the limiting word "campus" (when CCC ministers to millions that have nothing to do with any "campus") and "crusade" (which for millions of people has one main connotation: Medieval crusades against Muslims). Beck's approach is not responsible journalism but careless hype for the religious right.

This is not to say that Cru didn't make a mistake by failing to anticipate such a negative response-- I think they did. Ultimately, though, the names of organizations matter less than their fidelity. I was amused at people who expressed disapproval, emphatically stating the need for "Christ" to remain in the name, likening the change to being ashamed of Christ. I guess the Wesley Center, Reformed University Fellowship, InterVarsity, The Navigators and Baptist Campus Ministries have been denying Jesus for a long, long time.

Thankfully, a broad representation of Christian leaders rose up in defense of Cru's leadership. For what it is worth, I think Cru is a great name, because it describes a great organization filled with people who seek to make the name of Christ more widely known.

Feel free to weigh in and discuss in the comments below (be sure to review the comment policy). If you would like to talk about the potential name change for the Southern Baptist Convention, please join the conversation at my Between the Times post.

Can mega churches be missional? Well, it depends on who you ask.

I've had this conversation many times-- it seems that many think that you are a mindless automaton if you attend a megachurch-- a mindless consumer, unengaged in mission.

People think this was because, well, it is true at times. I do have some concerns about some megachurches-- when it is all about the preacher and all about the weekend, I am concerned. You should be too.

Yet, I also think that there are megachurches that are indeed seeking to be missional. I have written about it in Outreach Magazine and had a video debate about it with David Fitch in parts 1, 2, and 3.

Will it be hard? Yes, it always is. However, the "bigness" of the megachurch makes it harder. In a megachurch, it is easy to come for the show but not connect with others and serve. Last Sunday, I preached at James River Assembly of God in Springfield, MO on this very topic-- how to move people from sitting in rows, to sitting in circles, to provoking one another to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24), to living as agents of God's mission. Yet, James River is leading its over ten thousand regular attendees to be in small community and live as agents of God's mission.

I taught the James River Life Group leaders on Saturday with a new seminar I am almost finished developing for megachurch pastors, staff, and key leaders to help engage their whole church in missions-- to move people from being passive spectators to active participants in the mission of God. It is almost done, and I will share the final product with the megachurch pastors of the Vineyard Church in a forthcoming meeting this November.

I am excited about what God is doing in many megachurches, but I also know that not everyone is. Just BEING a megachurch will get you a bad reputation in many places.

Furthermore, many predict the demise of the megachurch, but that is a prediction driven by a lack of information. The number and size of megachurches is increasing.

As an aside, I think that the megachurch is a growing trend and the house church is also a growing trend-- at the same time. For what it is worth, I am excited about both. God has used the megachurch to reach Korea and the house church to reach China. Let's hold our models loosely and our Jesus firmly.

At LifeWay Research we love both small and large churches. My last article in Outreach Magazine was called, "Small is the Kingdom Big." But, today, we look at how God is at work in larger churches. I'm thankful for both.

In this month's Outreach Magazine, I have an article about some applicable principles that we found in our recent research into the largest and fastest growing churches.

The full issue is here. Below are some excerpts:

Based on our findings, we identified four specific action points for some large and growing churches. Some will relate to all churches, some will relate only to large churches, but either way I hope you find them helpful and rejoice with these churches.

1. Develop On-Ramps for Potential Leaders

Though some surmise that large or fast-growing churches have "outgrown their problems," we found that they are not immune. One challenge mentioned by a number of churches on our lists was the recruitment and training of leaders.

Chris Surratt, pastor of ministries at Cross Point Church in Nashville, Tenn., (No. 6 Fastest-Growing) noted that "raising up enough leaders to keep up with growth" was a major challenge, adding that through Cross Point's leadership pipeline, they encourage existing small group leaders to identify and mentor potential leaders within their groups. Surratt describes another "on-ramp for potential leaders": their use of periodic, open meetings for anyone interested in leading a group. "These meetings give people the opportunity to explore what it means to be a group leader," he says. "If they are still interested, we set up interviews and start the training process."

2. Know Why and How You're Going Multisite

A noticeable trend this year is that an overwhelming 75 of the 100 Largest churches in the survey are utilizing a multisite approach to ministry...

3. Becoming 'Smaller' Is Key to Healthy Growth

Pastors of the Fastest-Growing churches also realize the need for relationships both in the church and with the community. Senior Pastor Mark McClelland of Willowbrook Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala., (No. 76 Fastest-Growing) notes, "As we get bigger, we have to get smaller." The way they do that is through small, biblical communities.

"Small groups are the way we encourage relationships between our members," McClelland says. "Willowbrook emphasizes intimacy with God, the big group (worship), the small group, and individual accountability." To reach the community, all of Willowbrook's small groups are encouraged to "find a way to serve the city."

4. Find Ways to Model and Foster Community Engagement

River Valley Church's Rob Ketterling models the strategy of his Apple Valley, Minn., church for creating relationships with people in the community: He invites his neighbors. "My wife, my kids and I have lived in three different neighborhoods since we've been at River Valley," he says. "In a recent service, I was able to ask three different families to stand, one of which had been from each of the subdivisions where we have lived. Then I said to the church, 'We are modeling what we all need to be doing.'"...

You can read the whole article here. For more information on the Outreach 100 visit Outreachmagazine.com.

Feel free to jump in and discuss in the comments.

On a recent post I reviewed the newly released movie, The Help, in two parts (part 1 dealt with the movie, part 2 dealt more with issues of race). As I noted then, the main issues in the movie are race and class, and people should not miss those, but I was struck by yet another issue. As I tweeted from the movie: "The Help's mix of elitism, judgment, & scorn (wrapped in cultural religion) is STILL real & even taught as discipleship in some places."

Hilly Holbrook is the antagonist in the film, pitted against the two protagonists, an African-American maid and a young white woman writer, both of whom wanted something different than they inherited from society. But Hilly was a respectable "Christian" woman who took it as her responsibility to teach people cultural values and to look down on those who did not embrace her specific beliefs.

When given a chance to help a maid in need, for instance, she takes the position that God would want her to work harder. Never mind that the average maids were making less than $1.00 an hour and many African-American men had to work for terrible wages as well. Hilly took it upon herself to keep people "in their place." Ultimately, she scorned everyone she didn't like or who didn't measure up to her standards-- and she did so using her "Christian" beliefs as a club.

Grace was not a part of her life; it was all judgment and condemnation. And, the condemnation was built around the idea that others were just not "good Christian women."

As the movie played, I felt some strong emotions. I wanted to stand up and shout at the Hilly character: "I know you. You hurt people, and you do so in the name of religion."

Hillys are still too common in the world where I live. They may not be focusing on the exact same issues she concerned herself with, but the tendency is the same. Cultural norms become elevated to the level of defining what it means to be a Christian-- particularly a "good Christian woman."

I've seen how being a "good religious woman" that fits religious-cultural expectations destroys the lives and passion of women. My wife calls such training, "making Stepford Wives." While I watched The Help, I could not help but consider how many times I have seen that "Hilly look" when some women did not want to fit the same mold.

There are biblical values and direction for the home and church-- and I believe they matter. That is not what this post is about. I have the utmost respect and admiration for my wife as she cares for our children and our home. I believe there is no greater calling than motherhood.

Yet, for many, it is not just valuing motherhood that matters. They have taken the forms and structures of a particular American religious sub-culture and elevated them to the level of what it means to be a follower of Christ. Is it really biblical discipleship to look down on those who do not adopt our same forms and cultural values wrapped in religious language?

Gospel-centered values must not be confused with the values held by Hilly Holbrook and her spiritual kin who look with scorn upon those who don't line up with their cultural religion--a religion that kills as thoroughly and completely as that of the Pharisees.

I teach my daughters what the Bible says about men and women. I also teach them to watch out for people who teach Biblical womanhood by looking at others with elitism, judgment, and scorn. That's a cultural religion and it kills. I've seen its result (up close) in people who have been told that their gifts did not matter if they could not set the right table setting-- and it's wrong.

Think about the implications of such unbiblical teaching. I have yet to find, in the Bible's lists of ungodliness, "You forgot the salad fork." Nor when Jesus spoke about the sheep and the goats did He say, "I stopped by for a visit and you didn't serve me tea." And I cannot imagine a Bema Seat scenario during which Christian women are judged by Miss Manners. Yet, with this pseudo-religious, cultural emphasis on housekeeping, you'd think "tending the flower garden" was a fruit of the spirit.

Maybe you cannot relate to the specific scenarios I'm suggesting. But ask women about their anxieties when having others (especially other women) into their homes. Many know they will be judged on the basis of how clean, comfortable, or "classy" their house is. It's a softer, more feminine legalism, but just as deadly as any other variety.

Hilly is alive and well teaching a cultural religion, all while confusing it with biblical womanhood. Too often I see tribalistic expressions of "biblical" femininity under the guise of biblical fidelity. Reject this unholy caricature--rebel against anything other than what the scriptures actually say.

We need to speak out when we see cultural expressions forced on people as if they were biblical norms, even if it is dressed up as a self-improvement project. It is legalism. If a rose by any other name smells as sweet, then legalism by any other name still smells like the decomposing corpse it is. I agree with Chuck Swindoll who explained:

The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don't mess with legalism anymore. I'm 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they're dangerous. They are grace-killers. They'll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don't have any opinion! So, if I am trying to force my personal list of no-no's on you and make you feel guilty if you don't join me, then I'm out of line and I need to be told that.

Yet, I also feel a bit of sympathy for those who have been locked into the cultural religion trap. I hurt for those who are so convinced they are right and are compelled to make people conform to their own ways of believing, way less biblical than cultural. They have long lost the joy of their salvation.

At the end of the movie, Aibileen, who loses her job after her boss is pressured into firing her, asks a crying Hilly,"Ain't you tired, Miss Hilly? Ain't you tired?"

People who spend their lives imposing cultural rules rather than living for a radical gospel do get tired. And they should; trying to live by rules and regulations does get tiring. I'd like to ask you Aibileen's question to those purveyors of cultural religion, "Ain't you tired?" Ain't you tired of creating rules that impose cultural values as if they were biblical teachings?"

Maybe I am the wrong person for such a post-- a white, complementarian man in a conservative denomination. Yet, too often I see conservative evangelicals propagating cultural expressions of religion under the guise of biblical fidelity. At the end of the day, I think we can hold our best understanding of our scriptural convictions about gender and not re-create Stepford. Ironically, the Proverbs 31 woman-- a strong, female business owner-- would be shunned in many of the very places that proclaim that chapter. She would not fit into the cultural values masquerading as biblical truth.

I am encouraged that some are rejecting Stepford and are following God's call and looking for more. Sharon Hodde Miller, who I met at The Summit Church and learned of her work from my friend J.D. Greear, put it this way on this blog back in 2008:

We want to be women of vision, women who use our minds, our educations, and our time to change the world. This requires more than a Christian self-help book or a pep-talk style devotion at the beginning of each day. It requires leaders and teachers who can challenge us to think critically about our culture and what is going on in the world, as well as engaging Scripture in an active way, and living it out radically.

Some will pursue and live the high value of motherhood. Others will not marry at all. Some will stay home with their children, others will work in business, charity, and government. As all follow Christ, we can rejoice.

Many of the readers of this blog are Christian leaders. I urge you to stand up to the legalistic machinery that demands the production of Stepford Wives. (Since Donna is a pastor's wife, and this expectation issue is common there, I will also add: defend the pastors' wives and make space for those who are not in the mold of this pseudo-Christian sub-culture.) The priority for all women who are followers of Christ is that they be encouraged to the abundant life that Jesus has for them, following him with passion as he leads them.

Hilly did not think that others were "good Christian" women. I think some good Christian women are wonderful hostesses and I thank God for them. Others run businesses, some fight poverty, still others move to Nepal as missionaries. I thank God that Hilly (and her modern counterparts) did not get ahold of them before Jesus did.

A woman's place is following Jesus.

Next week, I will be meeting with leaders from denominations across North America for the Church Planting Leadership Fellowship. This is a closed meeting (you have to be approved to get the secret handshake) for heads of church planting for denominations and networks.

As always, we will share lots of resources, etc. Part of those resources will be strategic missiology tools. Here is one I plan to share on assessment, with a video for potential church planters at the end of the post.

_________________________

One of the greatest responsibilities of any church planting organization is the evaluation and development of potential church planters. Church planting organizations who take seriously the stewardship of church planters, their families, and church planting resources understand the need for a formal assessment processes for these candidates. When I look at assessment for paid church planters, I see five basic phases: recruitment, initial screening, initial assessment, in-depth screening (theology, character, chemistry), assessment meeting (1-4 hours), and assessment center (3-4 days).

Good assessment is a question of stewardship on several levels:

·The Assessment Process stewards the life and ministry of the planter--helping the planter gain clarity of life and mission. Vocational church planting is not something to embark on without great consideration.

·Initial Screening provides the early conversations to help set and direct the potential planter on the right path.

·Initial Assessment stewards the resources of the organization. If every potential planter has a four-hour interview (or a four-day assessment at a center!), too many resources are poorly expended.

·In-Depth Screening helps your organization go deeper--to be sure that the initial indicators are correct and that there is theological alignment with the organization.

·Assessment Interviews are the first step where a greater amount of time is spent with the candidate--prior steps should have screened some out. At this point, you are looking at screened and eager candidates.

·Assessment Center Experience--this is the final step to be sure that vocational planters have the ministry skills, planting wiring, and interpersonal ability to plant a church.

It is important to note that we are talking about paid church planters with a plan toward vocational ministry. It would be counterproductive to apply all of these to, for example, house church planters; where ordinary people lead small and reproducing churches in their home. In that case, I would leave out the assessment center, but the other steps would, with modification in some cases, be appropriate.

I recently wrote a journal article for the Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal. I will be turning that into a series here at the blog. The entire issue is worth your time and you can access it here.

Here is part 1: Introducing the Issue.

The world seemed shocked by the Tiger Woods scandal. The media feasted on the stories, rumors, and drama that surrounded Tiger's life of undisputed sexually infidelity. But who created Tiger Woods? From American hero worship to a dysfunctional childhood and everything in between, multiple factors contributed to Tiger being Tiger. His saga has emerged as one of the most sad and shocking stories in American sports history.  But one thing is for sure--Tiger's story is only a symptom of our sex-obsessed, pornified culture.  Even greater, our obsession with Tiger's story may be an indicator of where we are as much as where he is.  Sexual deviance is now the norm, not the exception.

The term "pornification" is not original with me.  New York Times columnist, author and speaker Pamela Paul might have coined the term. Her 2005 book "Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging our Lives, our Relationships and our Families" caused quite a stir. Paul observed, "It is easier to get pornography than to avoid it. We have protected the rights of those who wish to live in a pornified culture while altogether ignoring the interests of those who do not." (page 253).  There is no question that she raised awareness of this cultural current and the corresponding devastation. The term has gone viral. William Todd Schultz blogged on the subject for Psychology Today.  His article, "The 'Pornification' of Human Consciousness" carefully suggested that the effect of continual exposure to pornography could lead to a wide range of abnormalities. Schultz said:

"Porn is... the new universally shared experience. The nation has been 'pornified'. It's everywhere. It's open 24/7. And chances are good, judging from research into internet habits, that before or after reading this post, a high percentage of you will visit a porn site. . . The point is if you did, you are hardly alone." [www.psychologytoday.com/print/4041 accessed 8/29/10]

Although the world has largely forgotten Tiger Woods by now, the pattern of his downfall is rehearsed in millions of households everyday. On the blog we are going to be exploring this topic-- taboo though it may be-- over the next several weeks. I would love to see some healthy, encouraging discussion in the comments section. Let's also try to let Philippians 4:8 serve as the guiding principle of how speak, even when we discuss.

"Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable --if there is any moral excellence and if there is any praise --dwell on these things." http://msb.to/Ph4:8

To read the lengthier article I wrote for the Enrichment Journal you can access it here.

 An infographic included in this post includes many more porn "stats," but also has some language you may find offensive.  Click the link to read the rest of the entry to see the graphic.

View image 

We had a good conversation in response to Collin Hanson's article in Christianity Today regarding ministry to Muslims and some how to approach the translation of "son of God." In response to some of the material covered in that article, and other articles by Rick brown my friend, "Rod," offers his thoughts below. Due to his situation, I cannot use his real name. But, I know Rod well. He has written his Ph.D. dissertation on Islam, has studied 10 languages, and lives incarnationally among Muslims doing evangelism and church planting in Asia.

Brief Thoughts on Rick Brown's articles, Explaining the Biblical Term 'Son(s) of God' in Muslim Contexts and Translating the Biblical Term Son(s) of God in Muslim Contexts.

Rick Brown has written two challenging articles in the Fall and Winter 2005 issues of the International Journal of Frontier Missions. The articles warn of the danger of the term "Son of God" in Islamic contexts as well as showing the importance of explaining and translating the term carefully when it is used. Perhaps this was the extent of the author's purpose, and if so the articles are very informative.

Unfortunately, the articles are being used to encourage people across Asia and perhaps in other places, to drop the term "Son of God" from new translations of scripture and new versions of the Jesus Film. For this reason, I feel it is necessary to take a closer look at some of the comments in these articles.

Continue reading The Son of God and Ministry to Muslims.

My article "Preaching Transformation: The Change We Need" is up at Sermon Central. Here's an excerpt:

The church can, at times, communicate the need for change in peoples' lives, and it ends up understood as some low-level therapeutic moralistic deism where a faraway God makes your life better and makes you a better person. But that is not the gospel. We don't want to produce good religious people. We see what becomes of good religious people from the encounters Jesus had with the Pharisees. God wants--as should we--to see people transformed at a spiritual level rather than a behavioral level.

Though often thought of in the same sense as a New Year's resolution, transformation does not come from decisions made on January 1. Instead, it comes from re-creation, the re-creation that comes from new life in Christ. The change people need most is not in their circumstances, but in themselves. It is not the ability to try harder, but it is a life entrusted to Jesus.

So, when you hear change, translate it to mean "gospel change." It is not the same thing as trying harder; in fact, there is no trying involved. Transformation occurs not because we "do," but because Christ has "done."

You can check out the rest of the article here.

Not long ago, I told you about my Christianity Today article on the state of denominations in America. The article has been posted online, so I thought I would publish a few more excerpts.. I wrote this article to deal with the questions I hear about denominations. I think there are good churches both in and out of denominations, but I am concerned when I hear some uninformed comments about denominations. So, I decided to share some thoughts. The folks at Christianity Today were gracious and put the article on the cover.

I recently wrote an article called "The Blessings of the New Media" for Tabletalk Magazine. I shared four ways that social media can assist churches and leaders.

The first way is community:

Those who attempt to find community exclusively online will miss out on the fullness and authenticity of relationships God intends for us to have face to face. Gathering together (Heb. 10:25) requires feet and faces, not just electrons and avatars. Therefore, when a Christian seeks to be a part of a local church only by live streaming the worship service and conversing on message boards, he is short-circuiting the fellowship of the saints and his own spiritual growth. Yet, I do not believe that virtual community and real community are enemies. I see them more as friends, the former as a help to the latter. Unfortunately, for too many theologically-minded pastors, their aversion to the abuses of social media has distracted them from the opportunity they provide.

While social media cannot replace real-life interpersonal relationships, they can assist in building real community by connecting people in ways that allow them to share both the big and small things of life. Web services such as Facebook allow people who might see one another only during church on Sunday, or midweek in smaller community groups, to continue to share aspects of life they would not otherwise. This allows friends to look into the parts of life we share and respond with encouragement or exhortation.

The second way is communication. As I said in the article, the age of the bulletin may not have completely passed, but these days people rely on so many other forms of communication to stay abreast of current events. The speed with which news can travel using social media is nothing short of amazing. For example, when my friend Matt Chandler had a seizure last year and I sent a tweet asking for prayers, the "re-tweet" function had the request going out to huge numbers of people within minutes. Matt was a trending topic on Twitter that day, which means that he was one of the ten most mentioned phrases or words in all of Twitter. People all over the world knew about his situation and prayed for Matt thanks to Twitter (note his name in the lower right corner).

The final two ways listed are inspiration and better introductions. Blogs, Facebook and Twitter all provide ways to share inspiring thoughts and gospel-centered messages (often in 140 characters or less!). And social media also allows people to share things about themselves more fully and with a broader group of people. We are actually getting to know each other better in some ways through the use of electronic media.

These things can never take the place of human contact, but to ignore them and the role they can play in fostering community is unwise. They are helpful tools that the world is using, and that the church can benefit from.

As I consider social media in the twenty-first century, I can't help but think of the spread of the gospel and the church's growth in the first century. Communication was greatly aided then by the common language of Koine Greek. Since the New Testament was written in a language accessible to so many, the Word of God was able to penetrate different cultures rapidly. Perhaps today the new media will be the "common language" for the masses to hear the gospel.

Tabletalk is a publication of Ligonier Ministries. I will be speaking next week at their National Conference on this very subject June 17. Hope to see you there!

We are wrapping up our work this week on the Outreach Magazine/LifeWay Research Special Report on the 100 Largest and Fastest Growing churches. If you would like to report the growth your church has experienced this past year, you can download the submission form here.

We would love to hear from you even if your church has experienced some great growth. We do ask that only staff members of churches submit forms. If you are an enthusiastic member or volunteer leader of your church, feel free to let your staff know about the project and where to get the form.

If you are interested in knowing more, I wrote this post a few months ago to talk about the project and to explain why we think it is a good thing.

Look forward to hearing from you!

I've written an article for Pastors.com that cautions against planting or pastoring a church in your head. I'm talking about the danger of adopting a model of church without giving proper consideration to the people and culture God is sending you to plant or pastor. In short, we need a vision for the people before we develop a vision for a particular model of church.

Here are a few excerpts from "Don't Plant or Pastor a Church in Your Head."

Here is my most recent column in this month's Outreach Magazine. If you were a subscriber, you would have already read it and many others. So, click here to subscribe.

My article on Christians' use of bad stats is now online at Christianity Today.

You can read the full article here. Here is the introduction here:

The reporter's question was one of the best I had ever been asked. "Why do you evangelicals love to make up and say such bad things about yourselves?"

Great question, I thought. But I'm here to talk about social science research, not abnormal psychology.

I was facing a room full of reporters in a Religion Newswriters Association session at the Washington Post building in D.C. They had invited me to explain the difference between good religious research and bad. It's a real problem. News reports are always batting around some new bit of bad research. And sometimes a snippet from good research gets pulled out of context, then mangled, garbled, and spewed all over.

Take a look at the article and come back and discuss here.

I am writing an article that will be "attached" to John 20:21 in the forthcoming HCSB Study Bible. Here is my first draft of the article. What would you add, delete, or change?

Your input is solicited with one caveat: I cannot add more than one additional paragraph without deleting others. It is, after all, not one of those ginormous study bibles. And, I can't / won't use your words, but feel free to share a paragraph if you want-- or just a suggestion.

The Missional Church

"Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."

Most believers readily grasp the idea of Jesus being sent to the world. While speaking to His disciples at the well of Samaria, Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." In John chapters 4-8 Jesus spoke of being sent by His Father on 14 separate occasions, such as saying, "I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (6:38) and "I am the One who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me" (8:18). Paul wrote of the same truth in Romans 8:3 referring to God's "sending His own Son in flesh like ours." When Jesus says, "the Father has sent me," it is not a surprise. The fact that Jesus was the "sent one" is one of the most fundamental identifications of Jesus.

Believers know that they are sent on mission into the world. The word "sent" is replete through Paul's epistles as he mentions those such as Timothy and Titus who have been entrusted with a message, a mission or both. In the book of Acts, sending is a common occurrence as well. Ananias is sent to pray for Paul and open his eyes. Paul and Barnabas are sent out from the church in Antioch as missionaries with the gospel. "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work that I have called them to.' Then, after they had fasted, prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them off" (Acts 13:2, 3). Most know that Jesus "sent" some, but often do not consider the breadth and depth of that sending.

Continue reading Help Me Write a Study Bible Article on Missional Churches.

Christianity Today asked several of us to answer, "What was the most significant change in Christianity over the past decade?" I gave more than one answer (I could not resist) but they chose one focused on North America.

Before I share mine, let me say that I agree with Olasky that the big global story is China, particularly the growth of Christianity. He wrote: