I have a young pastor friend that I am extremely proud of. (Not that I’m not proud of my other pastor friends, but this guy takes the cake right now). This is his first pastorate and it has not been a grand experience as of yet. The details do not matter. What pertains to this post is his attitude. The only thing that you need to know is that he is having to endure a dangerous disposition from an influential man in the church. From what it sounds like this is the type of guy that could split the church.

My young pastor friend has decided that rather than leave town he is going to take the bullets for the sheep God has entrusted to him. Rather than being a hireling he is willing to lay down his life for his sheep. This guy is modeling the heart of Jesus: “12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:12-15)

I’ve known, and heard stories of, my fair share of pastors that leave when things get tough within ministry. “These people are not ready to follow my leadership”, I have heard. “I no longer am able to serve with joy”, some have said. “There is no future here”, has been offered. “I do not want to stir up anymore strife, for the sake of the church I will leave”, an admirable sounding excuse. I am sure you have heard some of these as well (or maybe even offered them). They all sound pretty good and may even be legit. Problem is they sound more like the hired hand than the Jesus-type shepherd.

If you are in the ministry for any reason other than seeing the glory of God displayed through the spread of the gospel to the nations then you will flee when the wolf comes. The hired hand looks for comfort. You can’t comfortably kill a wolf, you might even die from it. Jesus did but he took the wolf down with him. He destroyed the wolf through his death not through his comfort.

Whether it is money, ease, fame, pleasure, respect, power, notoriety, selfish ambition, pride, a jewel in heaven, a street of gold, or a really cool Pope hat, if this is your reason for being a shepherd you will run as soon as you see a wolf. Worse yet, you might befriend the wolf. Maybe you’ll cut a deal with the wolf. That way you can keep your title, most of your comfort, and only have to deal with a few sheep getting devoured. But that’s the hired hand. The Jesus-type shepherd isn’t satisfied with only 99. He goes after the lost sheep. He doesn’t sit by and let any of his sheep get devoured even if it means losing money, fame, pleasure, comfort, or the really cool Pope hat.

Pastor, you may have seasons where the wolf isn’t bothering with your sheep. You will have days when you can joyously tend to your sheep. And sometimes you might be called to a different sheep pen. But if you leave your sheep because things get tough then you aren’t a Jesus-type shepherd. One example then I’ll stop meddling.

Take the “I’m leaving because I do not want to stir up more strife, for the sake of the church I will leave”. If you are the one causing the strife then you aren’t being a shepherd anyway. That’d be like a shepherd having mutton for lunch and wearing wool underpants. So, yeah, maybe you should leave. But if there is deep conflict and it is because ungodly people are treating you in an ungodly fashion, or even if there are wolves in your midst...you DON’T leave the sheep at this time. This is when they need the shepherd the most. Take the bullet or rather the wolf bites, that’s your job. That’s why I am proud of my young pastor friend.

The hired hand leaves. The Jesus-type shepherd lays down his life. Which are you?

Also, I know this is not as black and white as I’ve presented it. Feel free to disagree and bring out the other side to this. This is called a “musing” for a reason…

The title is a little misleading. This really is not much a debate. Those who have made the decision have remained pretty silent as to the reasons for their decision. The only thing that could somewhat be considered a response is that of Don Hinkle. The BP has also ran an article that gives us a little light. If we combine these two responses we get a few vague reasons. It appears that Hinkle's reasoning is that this decision was made because the Executive Board is the highest authority (except of course the necessary shout out to Jesus and His Word). I always thought that it was the local church--but perhaps I missed that class in Introduction to Southern Baptists. Along with the "just because they can" argument it appears that Hinkle's other reason is that Acts29 is a renegade network with no accountability. Here is his statement: "Because Missouri Southern Baptist churches did not give their Cooperative Program gifts to fund the church plants of another organization. Nor did they give to plant churches who pledge to do one thing, then do another, often putting the church plant and convention at doctrinal odds — and without accountability, something Acts 29 seems to be lacking."

I am trying my best to be fair with these comments. But they seem to be not grounded in truth or any biblical basis so it is very difficult. Acts 29 is a network and does not require affiliate churches to give to them. Therefore, giving to this network is no different than a church giving money to the Purpose Driven Life or for that matter the MBC giving or taking money from Mormons (Tan-Tar-A, MO Baptist College). I am not certain what the "pledge one thing, and do another" is referring to. I know my friends church is doing everything they pledged to do. I think my main problem with Hinkle's statement is that it is not substantiated by anything. They are just accusations; many of which have been addressed and disproven (see here). Timmy Brister does a far better job and is more expansive than I in addressing this, read his response.

When we look at the BP article we learn that the newly elected President of the MBC, Gerald Davidson, "argued that only a handful of board members were informed enough about the Acts 29 Network to be able to vote on any motion that was critical of it. He said on two separate occasions that his knowledge was lacking." It would have been really nice if they had heeded advice and tabled the issue until April. But, as often is the case in our democratic Christianity the majority won: "But Dunn spoke for the majority of board members who have at least heard about The Journey's well-publicized barroom ministry and are bothered by it and vow that it will never happen again." The article is not extremely informative. Yet, it does help us to see that this issue is heated, emotional, and volatile and it appears to have a set course. What bothers me most is that the majority report by Theological Committee was accepted but not the minority report. Also comments by Mark Devine and mounds of evidence seem to be ignored. This really pains me because it is brother fighting against brother.

Also, the Lord has moved in the hearts of many brothers and sisters to set up a fund for these 9 churches that will be hurt by this decision. If you feel so compelled to give then you can do so by sending a check or money order to:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
(designate it for the “Show Me Church Planting Fund”)
Mailing
address:

St. Louis Metro Bapt. Assoc.attn.
Darren Casper
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044

This might be an especially well timed article amidst the present controversy in the MBC. In a letter, to what appears to be a young man, John Newton advices him on engaging in debate with another over the issue of election. It is the typical Calvinist/Arminian debate. You get the idea that maybe this "young man" that Newton is addressing is a "caged-Calvinist". As I read this it rebukes me of some of pride and arrogance. It also convicts me of a spirit of superiority in doctrine which leads sometimes to bitterness towards my other brothers that "don't get it". This also serves to temper me in the recent Acts29/MBC controversy. I have included points 1 and 3. The entire letter can be found at Grace Gems:

Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of
truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul,with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes,and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it.

Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise,blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth,therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Brothers, may we heed the wise counsel of this dear man that is now with Jesus. May we especially take heed to his last two paragraphs. It is my prayer as well as we engage our brothers that we might, as the word of God says, speak the truth in love.

Dr. Mohler has written about the mainline Protestant concern with homosexual pastors. "Yes, They Said It" gives two exhibits (quotes) that point to the reason we are concerned. One of the men that he quoted is a Lutheran. When we compare that pastors comment to a quote by Martin Luther we see just how far some churches have strayed from their origin. Brian Schmeling said this: "People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational." In other words, he no longer preaches the Cross. Contrast this with what Martin Luther said about preaching the gospel, "The gospel cannot be preached and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough...Moreover, our greatest task is to keep you faithful to this article and to bequeath this treasure to you when we die". Schmeling and folks like him have exchanged that treasure for a false gospel.

Michael Spencer, the Internetmonk, has made a very thoughtful post about Name Tags. In effective irony he points out the hypocrisy of many who call the Emerging Church (Conversation, Emergent, whatever they are called) vague. His point is that we [insert your affiliations here] are just as guilty as the emergent of being slippery and unidentifiable. His solution serves as a fitting rebuke...we should just wear name tags that spells out who we follow. "Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler."

I will take his rebuke and grow from it--I know I do sometimes follow "Piper", "Sproul", "Edwards", "Spurgeon", etc. And defining my theology by a name tag is wrong, I confess. But I do have to disagree with Spencer on one point at least. What many decry Emergent for is not that they are slippery in defining their names or giving a definition to their theology. Granted, it is frustrating not knowing what to call them (it makes writing more difficult). Slippery name tags is not the problem. Slippery theology is what the problem is. When their leaders refuse to make a stance on homosexuality (something the Bible is clear about) and clothe their border-line (sometimes outright) heretical views with deliberately confusing arguments then they become slippery, and that is what people have a problem with. Nonetheless, the rebuke still stands.

New Attitude points us to a C.J. Mahaney article on "Cravings and Conflict". Every time I read or hear something by Mahaney my level of respect for him grows. After reading this article I wanted to comment on it but found myself only able to say, "Wow". I highly recommend you read this article--you will be blessed. In it Mahaney reminds us that we will face conflict, the question is are we ready for it? This article will certainly help us.