Graduate Articles

Purity in the Pulpit Produces Piety in the Pew

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:35:36 -0400

by Don Whitecar (1995 Graduate, Assistant Pastor, Fairhaven Baptist Church)

For the most part, people no longer value the special calling of God upon a man which separates him for the work of the ministry. This great calling places a burden of piety on the preacher as an example to the flock over which he is overseer. We, as pastors, cannot escape the watchful eye of the church membership on our everyday lives. Nor is it biblical to expect anything less than extra accountability. James 3:1 says, "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." Many preachers treat their qualifications pragmatically instead of biblically. When Southern Baptist Pastor Charles Stanley's wife left him in the early 1990's, he left the decision to stay in the pastorate up to the people of his congregation. After all, what was he to do? How could he leave the ministry if all those people wanted him to stay? Today, independent Baptist people, who have denounced the compromise of the Southern Baptist Convention, are operating under the same rule of ministry qualifications. We are reaping from those disqualified pastors who have made carnal living acceptable to the average church member.

To many people it seems very unfair to the pastor that he should step down from leadership when he has disqualified himself through sin. This sentiment exists for many reasons. First, if he steps down from the leadership of the church, he is leaving his financial livelihood. When a layman fails God, he does not lose his job at the mill. Why should the preacher suffer such consequences? Be assured that when a man obeys God, his needs are supplied by God. When a man stubbornly disobeys God's commands, he is ineligible for God's blessings. Is a man who is void of God's blessings the kind of man who should lead a congregation? A man who pastored in Ohio had an adulterous affair with his secretary. He was in real need of godly counsel to repent of his sin and be reconciled to his wife; but instead, he simply moved to Pennsylvania and pastors a church there now. Can he lead the men of his new church to live pure lives abstaining from the sin of adultery? Remember that sentiment does not build strong Christians; obedience does.

The second reason for the sentiment has to do with the tremendous pressure obedience to biblical qualifications places on the pastor. I agree that the pressure is on when a man takes up the calling of God, but remember that God's calling is His enabling. If God called the believers to raise godly children and included this command in qualifications for the pastor, then the grace to have a godly family is available from God. When a pastor's children fall into immorality today, the pastor simply accuses God of being unable to do what He promised. We need that pressure! If we preachers cannot prove God's power and promises in our own lives, what can we expect from those in our churches? Remember that sentiment does not build strong Christians; obedience does.

The third reason for the unbiblical sentiment relates to the misunderstanding of the method of restoring a repentant Christian to fellowship. I Corinthians 5:1-2 explains that a man caught in adultery should be put out of the fellowship of the church until he repents of his sin. Wayward Christians are to be received back into fellowship after repentance is evident. From a layman's view, it is extremely unkind that a pastor, who seems to be repentant, cannot be restored to his former state of leadership. While it is true that a repentant disqualified pastor should be restored to fellowship in the church, he is still disqualified as a leader. He cannot biblically regain his leadership position. Just because he has a college degree in pastoral theology does not qualify him for a life of service; in fact, a degree was not even mentioned in the biblical list of qualifications. A man who is not biblically qualified to lead is unbiblical when he does so. Some churches are content to restore the man to a non-senior pastor position. For instance, one independent Baptist pastor, who was arrested for soliciting a male undercover police officer for immorality, was removed from the pastorate and placed in the position of "church counselor." It became his job to do the marriage counseling for the members of the church. It is hard to see the reasoning behind such a decision, but discernment is not really promised to those who do not obey God's Word. Remember that sentiment does not build strong Christians; obedience does.

Today, churches are falling to this sentiment all over America. Those who hold to the old-fashioned practice of following the qualifications for the ministry are attacked as unkind, unloving, rigid, etc. Compromising independent Baptists have stooped to name calling in order to cover up their unprecedented compromise. How is our movement any better than the Roman Catholic Church if a pedophile pastor can just change ministries or location in order to remain in the ministry? When certain pastors in America relocate to run from a soiled reputation, it must be extremely awkward for them to file as sex offenders in their new location. I wonder if pulpit committees do a police background check.

The bold compromise of biblical qualifications has produced some very horrible results. First, it produces a lack of accountability in areas of the ministry qualifications. For example, personal immorality (such as child molestation and adultery) is accepted and excused if the preacher is famous or has built a large ministry in the past. Men who are guilty of such sins, according to scripture, are disqualified from the leadership ministry; however, in our day men in this state are still guest speakers and lecturers in fundamental circles as long as the police or the media do not find out about their sin. It does not seem to matter that the inviting pastor is aware of the past deeds or not.

Another result of this disbelief of God's Word is that the standard has been removed. When God listed the qualifications for the ministry, He meant for them to be obeyed. Remember that God sets the standard, not a grieving church member who does not want their favorite pastor-personality to fall to public disapproval. If one area of the qualifications is not followed, it is just a matter of time before the other requirements are cast aside.

Above all the disastrous results, the worst is the effect these compromises have had on the pew. When there is no purity in the pulpit, their will be no piety in the pew! People follow leaders; they do not learn from them what not to do. With society descending into open immorality, the church members of independent Baptist churches are not far behind. With satellite TV, cable TV, Direct TV, etc., Christians are playing with sin without conviction. They compromise on the places they go, the friendships they keep, and the clothes that they wear. These worldly Christians enter the great independent Baptist churches of our day and feel comfortable there with their sin. The preachers may even preach some sermons on personal holiness, but their lifestyle and compromise has drowned out the voice from the pulpit. Pastors are called by God to preach in the power of the Holy Ghost, Who was sent to reprove the world of sin. Pastors are commissioned to reprove, rebuke and exhort sinning Christians. Today, pastors are running their churches on methodology and not the power of the Holy Spirit. There is sin in the pulpit, and there is no victory in the pew. We need to return to the old paths and have Paul's testimony from II Thessalonians 3:7, "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;..." Pastors need not fear a man's great reputation when he calls out sin or separates fellowship. He might even please God if he obeys.

Youth Activities

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:27:09 -0400

by Steve Damron (1993 Graduate, Youth Pastor, Fairhaven Baptist Church)

Fun activities are exciting times for a teenager. Many youth ministries have "shied" away from using fun activities because the neo-evangelicals have ruined "fun." We should not over-react, though. We can have the right balance by having standards and separation, and yet, have fun, too.

When I am working on an activity, I try to gather my workers together about a month or two in advance to start thinking of ideas for the event. Fun activities come in many shapes and sizes. I narrow the field down to an indoor or outdoor game night, a scavenger hunt, a water night, a seasonal activity such as Christmas or July 4^th or an all-day event. Once we have that direction figured out, we can then start to work on games. I am including a sample activity to show you what a final product can look like.

Medieval Mayhem

Schedule:

6:00-6:05 - Collect $$$ 7:30-7:40 - Ball & Chain

6:05-6:15 - Split teams 7:40-7:50 - Lance Relay

6:15-6:35 - Giants, Dragons, and Elves 7:50-8:00 - Jousting

6:35-6:40 - Water 8:00-8:10 - Joked-out Joker

6:40-7:00 - Archery Competition 8:10-8:20 - Crash the Castle

7:00-7:30 - Eat 8:20-8:30 - Can Castle

8:30-9:00 - Preaching

1. Giants, Dragons, and Elves

A creative team variation of "Rock, Paper Scissors"

Teach everyone the following three characters:

Giant - Tip-toes, raise hands above head, curl fingers, growling sounds

Dragon - Crouch slightly

Elf - On haunches, hands cupped for big ears, shrill screeching noises

Give people plenty of practice by calling out the characters and having them instantly become that character - offer lots of positive encouragement for dramatic effort.

Form two teams - each team convenes to decide on a character.

Teams then line up facing each other (use a rope on the ground to separate teams). Have 4 feet between teams.

Facilitator dramatically announces "1....2.....3.....", then teams adopt their poses, revealing their identity.

Immediately, the winning characters (team) must chase the losing team and try to capture (tag) as many as possible.

Giant wins by ‘squishing' an Elf

Elf wins by ‘outwitting' a Dragon

Dragon wins by ‘zapping' a Giant

Identical characters are a draw

The losing characters try to reach a "safe zone" (e.g., over another rope) about 30-60 feet away without being captured

Teams then reconvene and decide on their next character

Continue until one team entirely consumes the other.

Equipment:

A large space (60-120 feet wide), rope to mark the central line and the safe zones

Variations

: A less physical version involves participants using the character "dying actions" in place of running. Make these rather dramatic and embarrassing if you can - increases the motivation to "win." Instead of one team chasing and absorbing the other team, keep score. First team to 5, wins.

Giants are electrified, frazzled and then freeze in motion (or drop to ground)

Dragons clutch chest, struck by pain in the heart

Elves shrink and shrivel up, moaning

2. Scheduled Water Time

The servants bring water in black buckets and they are able to drink using a ladle.

3. Archery Competition

Food: Vegetable Soup, Potato Wedges, Chicken, Lemonade

Note: Everything must be eaten with their hands.

Food Setup: Set up a long banquet table with candlelight. You can also have your workers dress in medieval clothing. You can find all kinds of costumes around October 31^st. Make a dessert that only the winning team eats.

5. Ball & Chain

Make a circle of people. Then spin the ball on the rope. Start slow, then go faster, slowly lifting the ball and rope. The people must jump over the ball. First person to miss goes out. Last one standing is the winner.

Supplies: rope, tether ball

6. Lance Relay

(Boys)

Make a pop stand with 2x4s. Ride piggy back on your partner. Use your lance to knock the cans of pop off the stand. Team with most hits in certain amount of time wins.

Supplies: two PVC pipes, four soda cans, four 2x4s

7. Jousting

(Boys)

Each player on a team has a pillow and the players try to knock off the opponent on the other line. The first one to fall off their line is the loser. You eliminate players until there is only person left.

Supplies: 4 pillows, 2 ropes (tape) or 1 can of spray paint

8. Joked-out Joker

Mime or Gestures ~ The last idea not figured out, the joker stops.

The Inquisition · William the Conqueror

All for one and one for all · Bloody Mary

Gauntlet · William Tell

Robin Hood's Merry Men · Guillotine

Joan of Arc · Burning at the stake

William & Mary of Orange · Long live the king

9. Crash the Castle

Each team has two castles built that they must stay behind to protect their king. The king must wear a jewel (an egg); if stolen (broken), it will result in the team losing the battle.

10. Can Castle

Get the teens to bring in 2-3 cans apiece. Each team tries to make the tallest, most unique, creative castle with cans. You can vary the game.

11. Preaching

Another Camp Meeting Decision

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:45:56 -0400

by Steve Damron (1993 Graduate, Associate Pastor, Fairhaven Baptist Church)

In talking with youth pastors, one of the greatest causes of discouragement is the recurrence of sins or character flaws in teenagers of which they have made a decision to overcome. It is what I have termed, the "Camp Meeting Decision Syndrome."

At some teen camps they all gather around the campfire on the last night and bring their pine cones or whatever represents the error of their ways, and they tell how they failed in their decisions from the previous year's camp and how they will keep their decisions this year. The cycle then continues year after year until they reach the adult years. They no longer have to renew their camp meeting decision, but they transfer this idea to the altar or special meetings that may occur at the church. They make the same decisions over and over again and never seem to overcome the sin or character flaw which God wants to be removed.

How can we avoid this downward spiral which seems to lead us to a defeated Christian life?

I believe Joshua and his leadership of Israel gives us some insight for what to do to be overcomers. The children of Israel came out of Egypt, made a bad decision to follow the "crowd" of spies and not cross over into Canaan, and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. They were then given Joshua as their leader to take them into the promised land. Notice what he wants them to do.

First, they were to follow the ark of the covenant across the Jordan River into the promised land. Second, they were to build a memorial to remember this momentous occasion. I believe both of these steps enable us as Christians to become overcomers with the decision to move into that promised land - the land of victory.

We need to realize that God wants us to make the decision. If He has moved in our hearts to change some aspect of our lives, then we need to rely on God and not our own strength to keep this decision. We must turn to His omnipotent power in order to be faithful to this decision.

The second thing we must do is build a memorial of this decision so it will last. Joshua did not want them to forget. The decisions need to be, in essence, "set in stone." What does this mean? We need to write the decision down and review it every few months. We need it to be visible to others. A teen needs to talk to parents and authority to make the change permanent.

Don't make your decision just another "camp meeting decision." Make it permanent. Study the Bible and take the biblical steps to move into that victorious Christian life.

Biblical Scholars Agree?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:47:06 -0400

by Dan Armacost (1994 Graduate, Dean of Bible, Fairhaven Baptist College)

If I had a dime for the times that I have read the phrase, " ...scholars agree...," I would be a rich man. So often, we are force-fed the idea that if scholars speak on a given subject, all "non-scholars" must accept their propositions as fact; anyone choosing otherwise is revealing himself to be an imbecile. The assumption is this: disagreement with a "scholar" equals denial of facts. This idea exists around the academic world today. Try to find a "scholar" who is truly open-minded to someone who disagrees with his "findings." You will be searching for a long time.

Before this goes any further, let it be known that there is nothing wrong with studying facts. God commands Christians to study. A person should study to know both what he believes and why he believes it. However, there is a vast difference between one whose study is interpreted in the light of and subject to God's revealed Word, and one whose study allows him to form conclusions contrary to the Bible.

I recently located a book entitled, "The Bible Unearthed" (Touchstone Books, New York, 2001). In this book, the authors (Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman) examine various Biblical accounts, including: the origin of the Israelites, the life of Abraham, the Exodus, and the reign of Solomon. They purport to contrast the Bible's rendering with that of recent archaeological finds. Time after time, archaeological "findings" are interpreted to conclude that the Bible is full of myths. According to these authors, the real truth of ancient civilizations is accurately seen only by means of modern archaeology. Of course, anyone who would disagree with these conclusions finds himself doubting "scholars." What "non-scholar" (read: uneducated and uninformed person) would dare disagree with these pillars of scholasticism?

For instance, in chapter three, "The Conquest of Canaan," the authors state " ...archaeology has uncovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggested date of the conquest." Their interpreted archaeology describes a Canaan that did not have fortified cities, and whose inhabitants were militarily anemic. Of course, this is in direct contradiction with the twelve spies' report given to Moses in Numbers 13:28.

Regarding the Exodus, they state the following: "Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications in the desert..." (page 61). The underlying philosophy of these authors is found at the beginning of the previous quote. "Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles...." Not surprisingly, there is an obvious rejection of the supernatural in most archaeological circles. For these men, archaeology circumvents revealed Bible truth. Historical records are used to refine (and even reinterpret) revealed Bible truth. The concept of absolute, for the typical scholar, exists only in the realm of rationalism, never in revelation. Theirs is a thinking unchecked by Biblical revelation. To them, a scholar's statement of "fact" is cause enough to topple revealed Bible truth. By denying the supernatural, these men reveal their standard operating procedure - reason over revelation.

The Bible Unearthed furthers its frontal assault on Bible revelation by maintaining that Joshua's conquest of Canaan was not the Israelite nation entering and overtaking Canaan (as recorded in the book of Joshua), but rather a revolt of rural peasants (already dwelling in Canaan) against the rulers of the city-states of Canaan. Thus (it is assumed), there was no crossing of the Jordan, no battle of Jericho, no conquering army empowered by God. The absurdity of this proposition demonstrates what happens when one subjects himself to archaeological and historical evidences that are interpreted for the purpose of contradicting Biblical revelation.

Now it is apparent that the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" are not fundamentalists. They make no claim as such. They treat the Bible as a dented record of history at best, and pure myth at worst, and thus their desire to "reconstruct" the Bible according to their modern day archaeological findings. There will be no end to their rebuilding of the Bible. Each new archaeological dig has the possibility of altering not only their interpretation of scripture, but their past findings as well. For them, Biblical history is, and always will be, in a state of flux.

This being said, this thirst for new findings in the realm of Bible texts is not limited to the liberal scholar; it has extended to fundamentalist circles as well. What other conclusion can be drawn from the actions of those who change the words of the Bible text based on archaeological findings (or "treasure hunts")? Should "discoveries" alter the text of the Bible? Should Christians today be waiting on scholars to discover lost words of the Bible text? If you say no, then beware. Many Christians (even fundamentalists) have all ready subjected themselves to the "Biblical Scholars agree" mantra.

I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God. For many centuries, Bible believers have received it. Why then the need to reconstruct or restore what has already been revealed and received?

There are certain ramifications should the Bible text be viewed as completely revealed, in no need of alterations. The first ramification is that the job of the archaeologist would be to reinforce Bible propositions, not reinterpret them. Next, textual criticism would take a back seat to Bible-believing instruction. "Scholars" would not rise to an authoritative pedestal; rather, they would subject themselves to God's revealed Word. Unfortunately, in today's academic world, the rationalism of the scholar almost always tramples upon the received Word of God. This ought never to be, and certainly not in fundamentalist circles.

It is one thing for scholastic genuflection to be commonplace among the unregenerate. Bible deniers will never subject their rationalism to God's revealed Word. But why should fundamentalists be interested in allowing modern discoveries to alter the text of the Bible? Would God subject His revealed Word to the chance of archaeological or historical discovery? Should a discarded Greek text discovered in a monastery alter words in the Bible that we use today? Is a Vatican relic text superior to the Scripture text that has been received by believers for centuries? Certainly not!

The choice between Bible texts is crystal clear. The Received Text is the established Word of God; the Critical Text is the continuing work of numerous scholars and archaeologists. Choose the Received Text, and you will be choosing the text received by Christians throughout the centuries. Choose the Critical Text, and you will be choosing a restored text - restored by means of archaeologists and treasure hunters over the past 150 years. "The Bible Unearthed?" - No thanks. I'll have the Bible Received.

Conquering the Battle of Self in Youth

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:05:06 -0400

by Steve Damron (1993 Graduate, Youth Pastor, Fairhaven Baptist Church)

I would like to start this discussion on self by looking at what others have said on this subject.

Self-Control

"Conquer thyself. Till thou hast done that thou art a slave; for it is almost as well for thee to be in subjection to another's appetite as thy own." -Burton

"He who reigns within himself, and rules passions, desires, and fears, is more than a king." -Milton

"Most powerful is he who has himself in his power."

-Seneca

Self-Denial

"The greatest hero is the man who is master of himself. The greatest battle is the battle which is fought within, fought to victory. The greatest character is the character which is built on will power. The highest form of education is an educated will, a will to be right, to do right. Test yourself at the point where you have the least suspicion of weakness. Be master of yourself."

Selfishness

"Sordid selfishness doth contract and narrow our benevolence, and cause us, like serpents, to enfold ourselves within ourselves, and to turn out our stings to all the world besides." -Walter Scott

Children need to rule themselves. Here are some general references in the Bible concerning self.

Proverbs 16:32, "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city."

Proverbs 12:15, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Jeremiah 17:5, "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."

Proverbs 23:1-3, "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat."

Romans 13:14, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

I Corinthians 9:25, 27, "And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.... But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

Man in himself thinks he knows what he should do, but he is wrong. We like to talk about ourselves. We like to encircle the world around ourselves. But self is no good, and there is no good in self. We talk about it all the time, but many times we don't see it in our own actions. We see it in teenagers, but we let it go. Most of the time it is because we are that way also. We think that we are good, that we are wise and have wisdom.

This world says that self-esteem is the ultimate, but the Bible says that in ourselves is no good thing. We need to put "self" under.

Scripture indicates that our view of self (flesh) is a foundational truth in our life!

Creation View	Evolution View
We are created beings in the image of God. My being should reflect God's attributes	We climb and develop a selfish take-all attitude.

Foundational Truth
God's nature is a giving, caring nature. His nature is love. God is love, and His love was expressed in giving to others.	Selective breeding and survival of the fittest is the way of man. The self-oriented and self-made man is the best.

Mark 12:29-31, "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

All the commandments can be wrapped up in two. Jesus says, "Love God and love your neighbor." Where is self there? Our view of self and how we approach ourselves can be seen here in these two commandments. Self-will goes against God and says, "I don't want to obey you." God says to love Him with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Put self under. Self-will says that you don't need God. It is self-control and selfishness that must be put under when we have to love our neighbor as ourselves. We don't want to do that.

In Galatians, Paul makes a list of the works of the flesh. All of the items listed demonstrate a lack of self-control in some area. We must bring our self, our flesh into subjection. In the training of young people, instructing them in the need of self-control is vital. We need to have a home that is not self-oriented. What does that mean?

How can we teach this to our young in our homes? One man speaking in the late 1800's on self-control and children mentions this: "A child's first struggle with himself ought to be in the direction of controlling his impulse to give full play to his lungs and his muscles at the prompting of his nerves. As soon as the nerves make themselves felt, they prompt a child to cry, to thrash his arms, to kick, and to twist his body on every side, at the slightest provocation - or at none. Unless this prompting is checked, the child will exhaust himself in aimless exertion, and will increase his own discomfort by the very means of its exhibit. A control of himself at this point is possible to a child, at an age while he is yet unable to speak, or to understand what is spoken to him. If a parent realizes that the child must be induced to control himself, and seeks in loving firmness to cause the child to realize that same truth, the child will feel the parent's conviction, and will yield to it, even though he cannot comprehend the meaning of his parent's words as words. The way of helping the child will be found, by the parent who wills to help him. To leave a child to himself in these earliest struggles with himself, is to put him at a sad disadvantage in all the future combats of his life's warfare; while to give him wise help in these earliest struggles, is to give him help for all the following struggles."

As soon as a child is able to understand what is said to him, he ought to be taught and trained to control his need to cry when he experiences physical pain. When a child has fallen and hurt himself, or has cut his finger, or has burned his hand, it is natural for him to shriek with pain and fright, and it is natural for his parents to take care of his pain. But even at this time, a parent has a duty of helping the child to gain control over himself, so as to repress his crying within reason and not to thrash around wildly because of pain or because circumstances have not gone according to plan.

It is almost humorous in the area of sports. When certain people come to you, you would think their leg got chopped off, but nothing is really wrong. Where does that come from? Some of that comes from their childhood training. As a child, they were allowed to thrash around uncontrollably. I'm sure that EMTs could tell similar stories about people who did not have self-control. Because they couldn't control themselves when an accident occurred, they went crazy. Some people even lose their lives because they have no self-control when it comes to extenuating circumstances. This is part of training our children. You might say, "That is carrying it too far," but someday there will be a bad circumstance; and if we have not taught them to control themselves, they won't even be able to think.

A child can come to exercise self-control under painful circumstances. His parents can enable him to do this. If he is not trained to control himself, he will be hopelessly controlled by his nerves.

Either / Or

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:00:25 -0400

by Jeff Voegtlin (1993 Graduate, Associate Pastor, Fairhaven Baptist Church)

Have you ever been asked two different questions at the same time and wanted to answer "yes" to both of them? Someone asks, "Did you go to the bank or the store?" Or, "Did you read that story in the newspaper or hear it on the radio?" These questions do not present any dilemma to answer both affirmatively. A problem is introduced when asked questions such as - "Is it better to study the Word of God or go soulwinning? Is it better to have warm faith or a sharp mind?" Those who present these questions mistakenly suppose that faith and learning or heart and mind are opposites. They think that a Christian either has a warm heart or a sharp mind; he is either smart intellectually or fervent in faith. They believe that the more one (mind) is developed, the more the other (heart) is destroyed. They have supposed a false antagonism between learning and faith. Some might go as far as to say "real men don't need theology."

This is a serious biblical error. God enables us to do all He has commanded, and He commands us to love Him with all our strength, soul, heart, and mind. God does not say, "Love me with your heart or your mind." He says to love Him with all your heart and all your mind along with all your strength and soul. There is no adversarial relationship between the heart and mind with God. In fact, He says the two must work together. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Preachers can get up and shout all they want, but the more the Word is in the message the more that faith will be produced in the listeners. As Christians we must not allow ourselves to live a totally emotional, sentimental life. While true Christianity is exciting, knowing the Word of God gives more reason to be excited. Christians who neglect learning, begin to live by their emotions and make decisions on the basis of their own or others' feelings. Sentimentality is pretty, but not always right.

While arguing for the importance of scholarship in Christianity, J. Gresham Machen points out that in order to have faith, there must be something to place our faith in. I must know something in order to believe it. Some Christians today promote empty belief and a rote prayer as the way to heaven - that is not faith. Faith must rest in something - the Word of God. We must know the Word in order to believe it.

I have set forth that faith and the Word work together; heart and mind are not mutually exclusive. There is no antagonism between fervent, fiery faith and strong, doctrinal teaching and preaching. True Christianity can't have either one without the other. We should not be asking faith or learning, or heart or mind. We should recognize the vital need for both all the mind and all the heart loving God. Would you rather your pastor be well learned or full of faith? The answer is YES.

Why, Where, and How of Education

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:53:55 -0400

by Jeff Voegtlin (1993 Graduate, Dean of Education, Fairhaven Baptist College)

Why?

The subject of education is addressed in the Bible when Paul speaks to the Ephesian parents, and particularly fathers, by commanding them not to provoke their children to wrath, but rather to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The word that is translated "nurture" could also be translated "tutorage" or "education." Because parents are to bring up their children in the education of the Lord, and the Lord rules over every aspect of life, this command carries with it the implication of the total education of the child. In order to understand this biblical responsibility, we must know the premises, purposes, processes, and places of education.

Before we can discuss objectives, teaching and learning, or educational institutions, we must lay out some foundational premises and assumptions related to education. We must understand the nature of Truth, the nature of man, and the nature of educating man with Truth.

Everyone is concerned with Truth. When the Lord Jesus Christ stood before the Roman governor, Pilate spoke for all men when he asked, "What is truth?" We are not interested in learning or teaching falsehoods or lies; we must have the truth. Because of this, we also insist that Truth be relevant and meaningful. For this to happen, Truth must be external, fixed, and absolute. There are some who claim that this cannot be; however, Truth itself cannot originate within us. It cannot change, and it cannot depend upon anything else. This gives Truth an exclusive quality. Because Truth is exclusive, those who would like to think of themselves as being open-minded are sometimes adverse to it. But claims of Truth automatically claim that something else is "not true." If someone claims a principle to be true, he is also asserting that anyone who disagrees does not believe the truth. Truth, by its nature, is exclusive.

Every religious and philosophical system in the world has a body of "truth" that is exclusive in some way. The Hindus find "truth" in the Vedas. The Muslims find the "truth" in the Koran. Even those whose "truth" teaches absolute tolerance are intolerant of those who admit that Truth is exclusive. The problem that all other religions have with Christianity is that our body of truth is actually in a living person, Jesus Christ. Jesus said himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." He claimed to be the truth, and then he excluded all others. Truth is exclusive. When we see Jesus Christ as the embodiment of Truth, we recognize that Truth has eternal, immutable, absolute and indivisible qualities. Christ is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever," and so is Truth. It is eternal and immutable. Christ is not dependent upon other persons. He is God, and He is one with God. In the same way, Truth is not dependent upon man or man's interpretation, impression or experience. Truth is true and indivisible. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, and therefore, gives Him and Truth a comprehensive quality. All Truth is in Christ. There is no Truth outside of Christ. Therefore, all Truth is Christ's.

Man stands in stark contrast with Truth. He is distinct from all other created beings, yet he is a fallen creature. Despite this, every man has a divine purpose he should fulfill. Because man is a created being, he is dependent upon his Creator for all things. Because man is created in the image of God, he is the crown of God's creation. He has been given dominion over the rest of creation while still a creation of God himself.

Because God is one and man is created in God's image, he is also one, organically. Because we are a creation with finite knowledge, we cannot completely comprehend God or his creation. We can better understand man by dividing him into "beings." Man is intellectual, physical, social, and spiritual. Organically, the essence of these cannot truly be separated, but we can organize our thoughts about man by putting him into these divisions. As an intellectual being, man is rational, valuing and historical. Adam named the rest of creation exhibiting his rational abilities - he could communicate and categorize. We put a value on everything in our lives, and we think in terms of time - yesterday, today, tomorrow - making us historical beings. Man also has a physical body, a social aspect, which allows us to interact with other human beings, and a spirit, which gives us an eternal quality. This spiritual aspect is what sets mankind apart from the rest of creation. God breathed into mankind spiritual life.

While man was created perfectly in God's image with the freedom to do right, he rebelled against his Creator and chose to disobey God. Because we all were in Adam when he sinned, each of us has a sinful nature that was passed upon all of us. In our fallen condition, we still have the freedom to do what is right, but our sinful nature is bent toward rebellion against God. Because we no longer are the perfect creation of God, we have limited intelligence. This is particularly seen in those who do not acknowledge their Creator. When man does not recognize that he is a created being, his capacity for intelligence is severely limited. Yet, as a creation of God in His image, mankind is still quite capable of brilliance. All scientific and technological advancements made in history are a testimony of the abilities given to mankind in creation. No other "species" has made any discoveries that advanced the conditions of the species. Man is the creation made in God's image and capable of intellectual brilliance.

Man was created in order to bring glory to his Creator. Throughout the Bible we are taught to glorify God and that our purpose on earth is to do just that. In fact, when we know God and do not glorify Him as God, God works against us and gives us over to foolish, reprobate thinking. When man recognizes God as his Creator and trusts in His Son for salvation and freedom from the bondage of his fallen nature, he is given another reason for being. When Christ saves a man, he gives him the ministry or duty of reconciliation. Christian men have the responsibility to glorify God and to call the world to God. We are His ambassadors.

Because education involves finite man and infinite Truth, it is a process that is never complete and never neutral. No one human being, truly no collection of human beings, could ever comprehend the riches and depths of knowledge and truth that is in Christ Jesus. The more a man knows, the more he knows how much he does not know. As we acquire more knowledge, we recognize that there is even more to be learned. Education is never complete. Education also can never be neutral. Because it involves Truth, and Christ is the Truth, only those who teach Christ and His truth are truly educating. Anyone who attempts to teach otherwise, whether opposed to Christ or merely neutral about Christ, is teaching a lie. All who do not support Christ oppose Him. All Truth is His, and if we do not acknowledge His lordship over all of life, we lie about life.

The primary purpose of education is to prepare man to fulfill his divine purposes. Since his created purpose is to bring glory to God, man needs to know all that he can about God and His creation to be able to glorify God. As a redeemed Christian, he also needs to be equipped to proclaim the gospel to the world. Webster's (1828) definition of education includes four objectives of teaching - enlightening the understanding, correcting the temper, forming manners and habits, and equipping for useful service. These objectives clearly reflect the need to be prepared in order to fulfill our God-ordained purposes. To glorify God, we must have our knowledge and understanding of His creation enlightened. To accomplish this, our fallen nature needs to be corrected, and right manners and habits must be formed. To be God's ambassadors to a fallen world, we must be equipped with the knowledge, desire, habits, and skills necessary to proclaim the gospel and defend our proclamation of it.

Noticeably, these purposes say nothing about traditional school subjects, such as mathematics, science, language, or social studies. This is because the Christian educator's priorities go beyond the mundane knowledge of these subjects. All specific objectives for these types of subjects must fall under the umbrella goals of enlightening, correcting, forming, and equipping. To be sure, each of these subjects and several others are tools that can be used to help reach the goals of enlightenment, corrected tempers, well-formed habits, and useful service. As we learn mathematics, language, social studies, and science our understanding is enlightened with the truth. As we accomplish the necessary exercise of learning, our tempers can be corrected and we can learn productive habits. The knowledge and skills we gain help us to be fit for usefulness as a Christian. Education's purpose is to prepare us to accomplish our divine purposes.

How? and Where?

If we are going to be successful in education - preparing students to fulfill their divine purposes - we must understand the operations or processes involved. Teaching is "arousing and using the student's mind to grasp the concept." This is a skill and a study, an art and a science. In order to present the concept, it must be known. One cannot teach unless he has knowledge. He must know the subject he is teaching and methods to arouse the student's mind to grasp the subject. He should study his topics and his students. He should also practice. As he does, his skills of expression and explanation will be developed and he will be learning the art of teaching. Because the teaching involves the student, the student must be a willing participant for effective teaching to occur. Admittedly, many have been taught by experiences for which they did not volunteer. Someone can be a "student" and learn something unwillingly. But we learn more from the teaching when we anticipate and desire to gain from it.

Learning occurs when someone grasps with his own understanding the concept that is taught. This involves much more than regurgitation. If the student can repeat the lesson but does not understand it, or know how to apply or creatively use it, he has not truly learned anything useful. Useful knowledge or productive learning involves comprehension of the subject and purposeful applications of the knowledge. There is a reciprocal arrangement between teaching and learning. While different individuals do each action separately, neither is present without the other. Teaching cannot be given without someone present to learn, and learning cannot be acquired without someone present to teach. Teaching must be present for learning to be accomplished; learning must be accomplished to substantiate the claim of teaching. If no one has learned, no one has taught.

In this arrangement of teaching and learning, there must always be a teacher and a student. The teacher is someone who knows the lesson. It is important to point out that teachers must know something. Teachers should attend to their own education seriously. Not only do they need to know principles and skills of teaching, but they also must know the foundational and graduated concepts of the subject they are teaching. The student is the one who attends to the lesson. If the student has no desire to listen or learn, the teaching and learning interaction will be unsuccessful. This means that the student must be serious about his own education. This does not take all responsibility off of the teacher. While the student must attend, the teacher must grab the student's attention and instruct him in the importance of the subject so that the student wants to attend to the lesson and be serious about his education.

The language medium and the lesson content are also important aspects of teaching and learning. In order for the teacher to communicate his knowledge and for the student to attend to the lesson, the language used must be common to both the teacher and the student. This is an obvious statement if taken only to mean that if the teacher is speaking French, then the student must be able to understand French. But the principle goes further than this. Even if English is the only language spoken by the teacher and the student, and the words of the lesson are not foreign, communication will not take place unless the vocabulary is common to both. The student must have the same definition of a word in his mind that the teacher has. If the teacher uses a word, phrase, or concept in a sense that is "foreign" to the student, he may as well speak in a totally different language (1 Corinthians 14:19). One of the teacher's responsibilities is to ensure that there is effective and efficient communication between him and the students.

Not only should the language and vocabulary be common, but also the lesson must begin with common knowledge. The student will have no place to categorize the lesson if it does not begin with some known concept. Because all knowledge originates in God, we should always be able to relate the lesson to something that is already known. If we do not, we portray a disjointed body of knowledge and a disorderly perception of God. The subject matter, what most think of first when they think of school, is the ground of the interaction between teaching and learning. While we can honor God and glorify Him through learning all about His creation, each subject is a means to accomplishing our primary purpose in education more than an end. The subject matter is where the teacher and the student interact. In a sense, it is a "tangible" that is taught and learned in the overall scheme of education. It is the individual lesson the teacher communicates to the student, and it can be a barometer of how well the student attends and learns. While it is only a means to an end, we must have subject matter to accomplish our ends.

Having determined the premises, purposes and processes of education, we may now determine the proper places of education. There are three common educational institutions - the home, church and school. Each of these institutions has legitimate responsibilities in education. The home is the place of natural and original responsibility. We can see from nature that children remain with their parents until they are ready to establish their own families. The years children spend with their parents should be years of preparation, and such preparation should be primarily educational in the Christian sense. It is also clear from Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) that in all of the daily activities of a family, the parents are to teach their children the law of the Lord. The Old Testament home was to be a place dominated and permeated by the teaching of the law. Interestingly, we find that the law not only taught about "spiritual" subjects, it also taught about every aspect of life. Parents, then, must be teaching their children all the time about what God thinks concerning all aspects of life. Parents have natural and original responsibility to educate.

The church's place in education is both commanded and logical. When Christ commissioned the church in Matthew 28:18-20, He commanded the disciples to teach (with the gospel), baptize, and then to teach all the things He had commanded them. The church's great commission includes evangelism, baptizing, and education. From the letters written to the churches, it can also be logically deduced that churches should educate. There are several places where children are addressed directly in these letters (Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20). If children were not part of the church and not taught the things written in these letters, the churches would have been neglecting the duties pressed upon them by those letters. It is logical that the church should educate, and it is also commanded in the Great Commission.

As parents band together and churches help their members, schools are established that provide a concentration of power and resources; and some responsibility for the education of children is delegated to the administration and teachers of a school. The school, therefore, is a place of resourceful and derived responsibility. Parents, on their own, could legitimately establish schools to help each other bear the weight of their educational responsibilities. Churches, however, can do a much better job of providing help to their members by starting schools. Because education is ultimately a religious enterprise, it is evident that the members of a church should want their children taught and trained by like-minded individuals who have a common philosophy and purpose. The administration and teachers in a school carry out their duties in loco parentis, or, in the place of a parent.

For education to be successful the home, the church, and the school must work together. Parents cannot begin to think that they can be successful without the help of their church. God ordained the church as a legitimate institution of society and we are to be active in our church. The church is the tool that God has ordained to accomplish His purpose in the world today. We cannot neglect our place in the church or refuse to take advantage of all that our church provides to help us be better parents. The church must not forget that original and primary responsibility for the education of children lies in the parents. While the parents cannot successfully rear their children outside of the church, it is not the church's responsibility to rear their children. The church is responsible to teach parents and children all that God has commanded. Schools have similar responsibilities to churches, but we must also remember that they are utilitarian in origin. Unless administered by the pastors of a church, they have no biblical authority to educate-only derived authority from the parents that support it. Each of these institutions in society must understand its responsibilities and act within this understanding to successfully educate students.

These places of education must exist in our society; and as much as society involves the social aspects of mankind and education is concerned with the social learning of students, education is related to society. In a broader way, as much as society involves individuals and education is concerned with the total education of the individual, all of education is closely related to society. If by society, we infer that the civil government is where these places of education must exist, we should be clear that the government has not been given any authority to provide education for children. The proper and legitimate places of education are the home, the church, and the home- or church-sponsored school. The government's duty is to protect good and punish evil, not to perpetuate itself by educating the citizenry. The premises of education are significant to understanding the proper purposes of education. Once these are known, the processes and proper channels of education may be determined.

A Model for Modern Missions

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:37:42 -0400

by Dave Olson, (1993 Graduate, Missionary to Zambia)

The Bible is the basis of our faith and practice. If we want to know what we should believe about any given topic, we should consult the Bible. The subject of missions is no different. Too many times we accept how churches do things as the Bible way of doing things. We must remember that Bible policy should always outweigh church polity.

The term philosophy should not intimidate anyone. Your philosophy is what you believe, and you will surely live what you believe. If you are uncertain about what you believe, you will be uncertain about how to live. If you do not know what you believe about missions, you will not know how to be involved in missions properly. We need to get a Bible view of missions, not our own view or someone else's view. If our philosophy of missions is wrong, we should not be afraid to change it.

In the Bible we discover many wonderful truths about the subject of missions. God has given us some great examples to follow in His Word. Paul was not necessarily the first missionary, but he was an effective one. Because there is much information on the life and ministry of Paul, he and his co-laborers provide an excellent model for modern missions. It is very important to notice that Paul' s activities are centered on the local church. We will consider several relationships of Paul with the local church.

1. Paul was Recruited

"Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas...and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Acts 13:1-2

Paul was recruited by the Holy Ghost during a prayer meeting at his local church. There are many reasons why God recruited him for this missionary work. Obviously, it was God's plan for Paul to be involved in mission work, but what are some practical lessons we can learn from this? God does not use lazy people; He uses people who are already serving Him in some capacity. Paul was busy for the Lord - "they ministered to the Lord."

Paul was an Example of One with Ministry Experience

Paul had some experience previous to this new endeavor. In other words, he was not a 21-year "rookie" fresh out of Bible college. He had already been preaching (Acts 9:20-22, 28-29), teaching (Acts 11:25-26), and involved with relief activity (Acts 11:27-30). He had already been seeing results from these efforts as noted in Acts 12:24, "...the word of God grew and multiplied." In the next verse, we see that he was faithful and not a quitter. Notice that, "...Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry..."

Unfortunately, some missionaries are sent to the foreign field with little or no idea what the ministry is all about! In many cases, four years of college is not enough training to go to the mission field. Why? With no previous practical experience, a missionary has had limited responsibility and/or accountability in the local church setting. Experience in local church ministries during Bible college is a help, but is not always enough. Some say that only one of a hundred who surrender to missions ever get there. Of those who do get to the field, about half never make it past the first term. A 50% dropout rate after the first term should tell us there is a problem. It is a clear indication that more experience is necessary.

If missionaries had some practical experience in a local church working under the authority of a good pastor, they would better know how a local church operates. A missionary is a church planter, and it is hard to plant a church when one does not sufficiently understand the workings of the local church.

John Mark was an Example of One without Ministry Experience

"...and they had also John to their minister...and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem...And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work." Acts 13:5, 13; 15:37-38

There is clear evidence of Paul's experience prior to his first successful missions trip. We are also given an account of John Mark, a man who failed in his first missions endeavor. It is interesting to note that, differing from Paul, there is no record of previous experience.

John Mark started out serving the Lord but quit after a while. His condition was bad enough that the apostle Paul did not think it wise to take him on the next trip. I think it is wrong to assume that John did not have a heart for the Lord. He must have shown a zeal and passion for the Lord in the first place or he would not have been taken on Paul's first trip. In fact, later in his life Paul said of him, "he is profitable to me for the ministry," and he even penned a book of the Bible, the gospel of Mark. All this proves a noteworthy point: having a good heart does not mean one is ready for service. What was John's problem? Although he had a good, willing heart, he was not ready. He needed more time to mature and get the experience needed.

Elsewhere in the Bible we are warned not to send men off into a position before they are ready. I Timothy 3:6 states that a pastor should not be a novice (beginner). Paul also warned Timothy in I Timothy 5:22, "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." A pastor who takes responsibility for ordaining and sending someone into the ministry will be accountable for that man's sin. It is no small responsibility when a pastor sends a man out of his church - God holds him accountable! A pastor has every right to decide whether or not a person is ready to be sent out. Too many good men have been hindered because they were sent out without being ready.

2. Paul was Relegated

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed..." Acts 13:2-4

The word "relegated" simply means authorized or assigned. This is such an important part of a missionary's credentials. He has to have permission and an assignment to go to the mission field. In fact, the above verses mention that "they [the church] sent them away" and that they were "sent forth by the Holy Ghost." There were two sending agents: the church and the Holy Spirit. A man truly authorized by God has to have the blessing of his local church. Holy Ghost approval and local church approval seem to go hand in hand. When a missionary's pastor no longer believes that the missionary should be on the field, then we better question if the missionary really has God's approval to be there. A missionary cannot have the power of the Holy Ghost when he is out of sorts with his local church.

Even the term missionary indicates the fact that he is assigned. Missionary is defined as one sent to propagate religion. If a missionary is a sent one, then somebody must be doing the sending. To be a local church missionary is more than just talk. It means that he is sent by his church to do a work for them. The missionary is just an extension of his church.

What does it mean to be sent out of a Local Church?

A missionary has a pastor.

If a missionary is representing his church on a foreign field, how can he say that he is not accountable to it? If he is a member of a local church, then he has a pastor. Whether he is ten miles or ten thousand miles away from his church, he still has a pastor.

There are reasons why the missionary needs a pastor. First, he needs the pastor's authority. Because he represents the church, he needs the pastor's input on major decisions. The missionary is not acting on his own whim; he needs the guidance and approval of his pastor. Second, he needs accountability. There are too many missionaries who do not answer to anyone so they do their own thing, or maybe even nothing. He has to answer to someone, and that person according to the Bible is his pastor. Third, a missionary needs his pastor for assistance. Missionaries are people and have problems like anyone else. In fact, sometimes their problems may be more numerous at times because they are laboring in Satan's strongholds. Missionaries get discouraged, have family struggles, need encouragement, and may even require reproof. These are just a few things that their pastor can help them with.

A missionary is not a pastor.

The only way you can have a pastor is if you are not a pastor. Baptists do not believe in bishop hierarchy amongst other churches. If a missionary is a member of his home (sending) church, then he has a pastor and therefore cannot be a pastor of another church. Although some missionaries think they are pastors, it is not a Biblical approach. That is not to say that God could not call a missionary to become a pastor; He may do so. The point is that the office of pastor and missionary are two separate offices. There are several points to consider.

First, Paul did not pastor the churches he started. We like to consider Paul as our premier example of a missionary, but fail to follow that example. He won souls, taught the people, and ordained pastors. Practically speaking, if a missionary starts out as the pastor of a church he starts, would the people want him to leave? No. However, if he establishes the fact that he is not the pastor from the onset, people will be working toward getting and accepting a pastor when he has trained one.

Second, Paul's helpers were not pastors. They simply helped the churches that they went to. I have heard many say that Titus was the pastor of Crete, but this is actually impossible. Crete was an island, and a pastor leads a church, not an island. In fact, Titus 1:5 tells us why he was in Crete, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Paul left Titus in Crete to finish carrying out what Paul would have done had he stayed there. The truth of the matter is that there were several churches in different cities and Paul did not have enough time to train and ordain men for all the churches. Titus did this work as a missionary, not a pastor.

Timothy also was not a pastor. Many have said that he was the pastor of Ephesus, but this ignores known facts in the Bible. In I Timothy 1:3 we are told that Paul was travelling on and left Timothy to finish some business. We must remember that previous to this, Acts 20 reveals that the church of Ephesus already had elders (pastors). Paul had warned them in Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." It is apparent that Timothy was left in Ephesus to help straighten out the mess that Paul had prophesied would happen. Timothy was not the elder (pastor) of the church; they already had elders. He was just there to help the elders! Missionaries are to help churches that they have gotten started, not pastor them or abandon them.

If a missionary is not a pastor, what is he? What office does he hold? He is an evangelist.

First, Timothy was an evangelist. The term missionary is not in the Bible; however, what missionaries do is in the Bible. II Timothy 4:5 gives us insight that Timothy's missionary work was really the "work of an evangelist." This is vital for us to recognize because God does not choose words randomly. The life of Timothy provides a guideline for what the work of an evangelist is. He was sent out by his local church in Lystra (Acts 16:2) and went about establishing the churches (Acts 16:4-5). Timothy was as much a missionary as was Paul.

Timothy provides us with one more valuable lesson. Evangelists should meet the same qualifications as pastors. Many say that the qualifications given for the ministry were only given for pastors, but not for evangelists and missionaries. This is absolutely ignorant of the very context where the major qualifications are given. Just after the qualifications for pastors were given in I Timothy 3, we read in verses 14-15, "These things write I unto thee...that thou [Timothy - the one doing the work of an evangelist] mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God." Clearly the qualifications were given for bishops, but this indicates that Timothy (the evangelist) was to be held to the same qualifications.

Second, Timothy is not our only evidence that our modern day missionary is really the office of the evangelist. We must also consider Ephesians 4:11-12, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." This passage lists the gifts to the local church. It is accepted among Bible believers that the first two offices, apostles and prophets, no longer exist. They are not necessary because we have all of the revelation from God that we are going to have in the Bible. However, the evangelist and the pastor/teacher do exist. Where is missionary on this list? The word is not found, but the office of evangelist is. Christians today commonly misunderstand the Biblical office of the evangelist. His main job is "the perfecting of the saints." That is what missionaries are to do. If there truly is the office of a missionary, then it has to be the office of an evangelist.

Third, we should consider what other evangelists in the Bible did. Other than Timothy, we only have "Philip the evangelist" (Acts 21:8) as an example in Scripture. There are four striking resemblances of this evangelist to what we would consider a missionary. First, he was a member of a local church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5). Second, he left Jerusalem and "preached the gospel in many villages..." (Acts 8:5). Third, he returned to Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). Fourth, he went out again - to the Ethiopian in the wilderness (Acts 8:26), to Azotus (Acts 8:40), and "...and passing through he preached in all the cities..." (Acts 8:40).

Philip was a member of a local church, was sent out and preached, returned to his local church, and went out again to see more souls saved and to do more preaching. This sounds a lot like what Paul did. It describes what we say a traditional missionary does. It seems conclusive that the office of an evangelist really is the Biblical justification and description of a missionary.

Following the Biblical example of the evangelist/missionary, there is no way that a missionary could be considered a pastor. The office of the pastor is an entirely separate office. Missionaries are not pastors; they need pastors. That is how God designed it. To stray from God's design is to create problems while trying to do His work. His work must be done His way!

3. Paul was Recommended

"And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled." Acts 14:26

"And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God." Acts 15:40

What does it mean to be recommended? The two verses teach two separate ideas about being recommended. First, Paul was recommended to God, meaning to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage. The church of Antioch realized that they had to commit Paul to God's charge. A local church does this as they regularly pray for their missionaries. There must be a pleading with God that He will take care of and use each missionary.

Second, there is the idea of being recommended to others. It is important for other churches to know that a missionary is equipped and ready. No other church should support a missionary if that missionary is not recommended and in good standing with his sending church. In Acts 15:40 it says, "being recommended by the brethren." This recommendation by the brethren stresses the importance for a missionary to have the support of his local church.

Other churches must look at the recommendation of the sending church before it considers the recommendation of a mission board. Unfortunately, this is not the case among the majority of independent Baptists today. The local church knows the missionary better than a board does. Boards should not even take missionaries who have problems with their local church. This undermines the local church, which clearly undermines the teachings of the New Testament. Many boards supercede the authority of the local church in this area. It is amazing that some boards are so quick to take a church's recommendation and yet so slow to take a church's criticism of a missionary. Many boards adopt the missionary into their "church" family, and they speak for and take the place of the sending church. Because of this wrong relationship, boards often take the side of the missionary instead of his sending church. We must always remember that a truly Biblical recommendation is "by the brethren" of his local church.

4. Paul Reaped

Paul knew firsthand that the law of sowing and reaping never fails. Whenever there is sowing, there should be some reaping. How much reaping is God's business-"God... giveth the increase." It is important to notice that there is very little emphasis on or information about the number of converts in Paul's ministry. The emphasis was not on numbers, but on the power of God. Paul always gave glory to the Lord for any results.

5. Paul Returned

"And when they had preached the word...they went...to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled." Acts 14:25-26

Paul returned to his sending church after much missionary activity. We call this furlough. The issue was not whether or not they should return home. Not returning to the sending church is not right. Let us consider some facts concerning the missionaries' return to their local church.

Where they Returned

Paul and Barnabas returned to their own church, "from whence they had been recommended" (Acts 14:26, 18:22-23). When a missionary comes home on furlough, he should spend most of his time at his sending church. That is the church that has authorized him, and that is where he is to be accountable. Besides, a member of a church should be an active member in his church. Furlough is not an excuse to travel the countryside for pleasure purposes.

When they Returned

We notice that the missionaries did not return home until they finished their work for that trip. This implies that they must have had some goals and that they had a plan to get a certain amount of work accomplished before they returned home. The main point to notice is that they were concerned about doing the job right.

Each furlough may come at a different time; but the missionary must have God's leading on this matter, and through counsel with his pastor, a furlough should be planned.

Why they Returned

The very reason for their return was to report what God had been doing. They reported to their home church. We see that "they rehearsed all that God had done." This was not a one-sided report. There were blessings and there were struggles to report. They were not trying to make a name for themselves; they gave God the credit for what was done - "that God had done."

They reported to other churches also (Acts 15:1-4). This trip was triggered by the fact that Paul and Barnabas had experienced something firsthand that would benefit other churches. Their home church thought it would be good to send them out and tell others what they had heard. Paul and Barnabas did not take it upon themselves to go out and be a blessing to other churches; they were sent out. We see this clearly from the passage, "being brought on their way by the church." The missionaries went through many areas including Phenice, Samaria, and Jerusalem. This is evidence that a Biblical furlough would include going to other churches to report God's doings.

6. Paul Remained

"And there they abode long time with the disciples..."

"...he went down to Antioch. And after he had spent some time there, he departed..."

Acts 14:28, 18:22-23

How long did they remain?

The Bible does not tell us how long Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch after their first missionary trip. It does tell us that it was a "long time." Other than it should be for a long time, we are given no absolute length of time that a furlough should last. Because the pastor of the church is the leader, he should determine the length of the furlough. Many things must be considered: the spiritual state of the missionary, the needs of the people on the mission field, the obligation to report to supporting churches, and the needs of the home church. The traditional one-year furlough after four years of service should be plenty of time to accomplish what needs to be done.

What did they do on furlough?

They were abiding. The first thing we see was that "they abode." The word abide means "to dwell, to continue, to remain." Simply stated, they stayed around and lived there for a while. A missionary should not feel guilty about spending time at his local church-it is Biblical.

Antioch was their home! A missionary must remember where home is. It is great to have a heart for the people you are ministering to, but home is at your local church. Without this realization, many missionaries lose sight of the fact that they are members of a local church. Each member has a part in the body, and we need one another. I Corinthians 12:20-21 says, "But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." The missionary needs his church, and the church needs the missionary. Neither one can forget about the other.

They were active. Acts 15:35 tells us, "Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also." I believe a missionary is entitled to spend time with family and take a normal vacation, but he is not primarily home for "R & R." He is to be active. Paul and Barnabas did not just sit around, they taught and preached. This seems to be what they spent most of their time doing while at home. They had learned some things that they could pass on to others.

7. Paul Was Reassigned

"And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do...

And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God." Acts 15:36, 40

The Lord led the missionary

The Lord will always lead his men. God moved upon the missionary as to what to do next. Because God led the missionary, it does not mean the pastor and church are not involved. A good pastor will understand that God will lead another God-called man. The missionary, however, will not be led to do something that the pastor prohibits. God will not lead the missionary to contradict the pastor. Scripture indicates that God can lead the missionary without undermining the pastor's authority and leadership. The key to this relationship is communication. A good pastor wants to be a help to his missionaries, and he will not want to "micro-manage" everything that he does. However, the pastor must be kept abreast of the missionary's plans and activities.

The church supported the missionary's leading

Again, it was the local church that sent Paul out on this trip. It is interesting that Paul was the one who was recommended by the church, not Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement, and Paul was the one whom the church thought should go out and carry on the missionary activity. This gives clear evidence that the local church reserves the right to send out or not send out whomever it chooses. Because the church recommended Paul, we see much about Paul's efforts in the rest of the book of Acts. Because the church did not recommend Barnabas, he is not even mentioned again. God places a great importance on missionaries needing the approval of the local church!

Churches should evaluate their missionaries before sending them off on another term. A church should not recommend a self-willed man such as Barnabas. Missionaries must remember that, no matter how much God has used them, they are still under the authority of the local church. There is a danger of becoming too independent-minded while out on the field, and that danger is kept in check by an appropriate furlough at the home church.

8. Paul Reproduced

Missions involves training others

Paul invested time in the church leaders. A classic example that best illustrates this is when he was at Miletus and called for the elders of the church of Ephesus. Paul said to them, "I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you...For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God...I have shewed you all things" (Acts 20:20, 27, 35). Paul clearly testified that he did everything in his power to train these pastors to do their job. For him to have shown them "all things" he must have invested hundreds of hours into these special men. In the same passage he also charged them to, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock" (Acts 20:28). Paul believed that it was his responsibility to warn these pastors of things in their own lives and in the lives of the people of the church.

Paul also invested time in future missionaries. Most of the time, he had men with him who worked with him (e.g. Silas, Timothy, Luke, Titus, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, Crescens, Silvanus, Sosthenes, John Mark, and Demas). Not all of these men remained faithful, but many did. Some of these men whom Paul had trained went on to help the churches in Paul's absence. Of Timothy it is said in I Corinthians 16:10, "...he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do." He did what Paul was doing. Paul reproduced himself in Timothy!

A missionary should always be working with some young men who have surrendered themselves to the work of the Lord. By taking them along on visitation and soulwinning opportunities, they will gain practical experience in the ministry. The missionary must also spend time teaching them the doctrines of the Bible.

Missions involves training others to train others

Paul later gave the charge of training others to one of his trainees. Paul told Timothy in II Timothy 2:1-2, "Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." A missionary can multiply his efforts if he takes the time to train some faithful men to do the same thing he is doing. Training men to train other men is the most important task of the missionary! The main task of the missionary is to reproduce himself.