BLOG.JEFFMCCANNCONSULTING.COM

The Looming Crisis in Conservative Evangelicalism

Jeff McCann — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:42:00 GMT

This blog was written by Charles Wood in The Woodchuck's Den on February 10, 2010. Many issues are raised in this article. Most of the issues I would agree with. This blog is worth calling it to your attention.

THE LOOMING CRISIS IN CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM:
     For the purposes of this article, I including all of fundamentalism in the term “conservative evangelicalism” even thought I doubt that my subject will have much effect on the right-of-center portion of fundamentalism because there is a tendency toward much stronger pastoral leadership in the segment of the movement.
     I also wish to take into account something I have said several times before (and Brent just wrote about recently): there is a vast difference between success and God’s blessing. In our pragmatic society, we tend to think that if works, it is right and therefore blessed by God. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove, but I am convinced that much “success” in the Christian world today has little or nothing to do with God’s blessing. It wouldn’t really matter were it not for several things taught in Scripture. To cite just a couple: One is the verse that describes the successful by saying, “...they have their reward.” The other has to do with the fact that our works will be judged , and we are warned that much of them may turn out to be wood, hay and stubble.
     As I observe the conservative evangelical landscape as a whole, I am impressed that there is a growing disdain for doctrine. The “Emergent Church”, much of which most of us would include in evangelicalism, is openly disdainful of doctrine because of its supposedly negative impression when coupled with evangelism. Anyone who has been around long enough knows that disdain for doctrine invariable leads to loss of doctrinal acuity, thence to a measure of doctrinal indifference and finally to a blurring of the lines between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (or even worse). But the problem appears to have spread beyond the “‘Emergent” perimeters and is affecting even some who reject the major tenets of the “Emergents” (that is, if they have any major tenets). As the article progresses, I believe this last point will become clearer.
     In my observations, I also perceive a measure of disdain for the teaching and practice of Scripture. Increasingly, there is a basic lack of necessary Biblical knowledge. We tend to know the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes by heart (and some even appear to know the order of the Hebrew kings), but there is a vast amount of life-related material that is either unknown or ignored because of its disagreement with one’s own intellect or sense of common sense. Lack of transparency, integrity, and forgiveness seem to prevail along with hardheartedness. At the same time, forgiveness, kindness, love, the extension of grace to others, community, concern for the well-being of other believers, etc, are present in very minimal amounts. On a personal level, I have found that raising issues of Biblical teaching, even on the local church level, has created little but animosity, defensiveness and a deeper commitment to do it man’s way rather than God’s.
      This self-determination to do things as one man or a group of men insist is not a scattered or “sometime” thing. It is often a hardened position that operates in churches almost as if it were a part of the constitution or of the practiced policy of the church. The Scriptures warn us that in the last days, self-willed men will abound. As I look at the local church in general, I am convinced that we have already reached that point or are right on the verge of seeing it become the prevailing position.
     From my email and phone calls, I think we have an epidemic of churches that no longer qualify for the older description as a place for the winning of the lost and the edifying of the saints. They are much more marked by the quest for power, opportunities to promote one’s self and the same political maneuvering that is so common in the public square at the present moment. Deals struck in the lobby prevail, prior agreements made before the meetings to decide the issues are common and even rigged elections rear their ugly heads. There is talk about winning the lost, but those involved in the problematic conduct described above are seldom directly involved in anything as mundane as that. In fact, there seems to be more emphasis on building the church than there is on genuinely winning the lost (and I sometimes think I am back in extreme fundamentalism where “building the church” had less emphases on getting people to pray a prayer than it did on ever-increasing numbers that became fodder for bragging. The ever increasing size today is supposedly a mark of God’s blessing - see my second paragraph in this article).
     As might be expected in all this, there is a decreasing interest in or conformity to Biblical structure in the home or the local church. The suggestion that there is a Biblical way to do a certain thing is almost sure to bring the retort that the way we are doing it is much better and produces greater results. Whereas the Bible lists such characteristics as good character, spirituality, compassion, a “clear-slate” reputation, many modern evangelical churches pay far more attention to financial or social status, so-called “know how” (and I find a lot of people who supposedly have “know how“ don’t have the vaguest idea of any “how” when push comes to shove) and basic popularity. I think it was to avoid the popularity factor that Paul instructed Pastor Titus that he was to appoint elders (try that one in many a local church). I won’t dwell on the home issue as it is not particularly germane to this article, but I do sense in many cases, children are raising their parents and not doing a particularly good job of it from examining the outcomes.
     Then there is my “Johnny One Note” issue of who owns the church. Increasingly, it is obvious that referring to it as the “Lord’s” church is nothing more than a mere mantra or narrative. Arrogant, ambitious, self-willed individuals, left unchecked, soon come to believe that they own the church. This has reached the point where there are far too many “hired guns” in the pastorate, men who are willing to trade a place to peach and a regular salary and benefits for actually proclaiming the Word of God without thought of the popularity of so doing. For some men, the honest answer for “whom do you serve,” would be to give the name of a powerful individual in the church.
     Those who seek to run God’s church without any call to ministry or direction to assert authority often want authority without any accountability. “I’ll take care of that,” seems to be the byword of those who have arrogated power to themselves and are subject to no review or limitation of their assumed power. Any power without accountability is a sure recipe for disaster as the state of our present political Administration so amply demonstrates. I wrote recently about the person or persons to whom a pastor is responsible. Power-grabbers often appear to have no accountability to anyone and are only checked when they simply can ram through their own plans and purposes.
     Accompanying and underlying it all is a complete disregard for the congregation. I have heard it said by church “leaders” that there were certain things they won’t discuss with a member of the congregation. Really? Hey, Mr Big, the congregation happens to be your final boss and only conceivable source of authority. If you would tell your employer that there are certain things you won’t discuss with him, maybe you might try it on a congregation, but I don’t think you are going to get away with it. Sooner or later, the people get wise to all this stuff, and they vote on it either by raise of hands, secret ballot or walking out the door (I just told you why some churches can’t seem to grow, no matter how good their circumstances, facilities, program, etc.).
     The larger the church, the less likely some of this stuff is to exist. Most of the men and women I have described would simply be lost in the enormity of a mega-church and would get nowhere with any attempt to promote their own program or self-exalted opinion of themselves. The problem lies in the medium-sized and, more especially, in the smaller churches. The problem is that there are far more of the medium and smaller sized church than there are of the really large ones so the problem tends to proliferate to the point that it has an impact almost as destructive on the cause of Christ as if it were in the larger church as well.
      If all of this is true (and I wouldn’t have written it if I didn’t think -and know, in some cases) that it is. What can we do about it? Do we just stand there frustrated and defeated while our churches are hi-jacked from us and the Lord? That is hardly necessary. What we need (and I’ll write on this more) is some courageous individuals with heart and internal fortitude large enough to challenge this kind of stuff. No matter what form of church government you practice, the congregation still holds the authority and governs that church. It’s just time for some folks to start asking questions and to start questioning the answers or lack of answers they receive and for the rest of the peasants and peons who are not in power to stand with those with the courage to challenge what is going on. Maybe a few pastors need to get in on that action as well.
     Years ago I heard Doug Oldham sing, ”The Church Triumphant” for the first time. These lines have never left my mind, “Let the Church be the church. Let the people rejoice. I’ve settled the question, and I’ve made my choice.” It’s time to let the church be the church instead of the playground where unqualified and unauthorized men play their silly little games of “take over the church.”

Change

Jeff McCann — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:34:00 GMT

I am struck that many of the assumptions, proclamations, and truisms associated with leadership, management, and organizational culture have no basis and are actually false. This is the case with the concept of change. President Obama was elected President on the platform of promised change. Churches split over change. People assert that change is all around us and that change is inevitable.

In organizations we have extreme views on change. Balance is one of the most difficult skills to accomplish concerning a whole host of issues. This is also the case when it comes to the concept of “change.” I see two basic approaches to change in the world, and both of them do not necessarily reflect balance. One approach to change says that all change is bad. Change is equated with evil and is deemed inappropriate. The other approach which is on the other end of the spectrum views all change as good. Sometimes, the end result of this approach is change for the sake of change. I do not see either view as particularly helpful, logical, beneficial, or even biblical.

I think that the Amish epitomize the view that all change is bad. While the Amish are very devout and hardworking people, I do not necessarily find their lifestyle as particularly spiritual or conducive to biblical truth. It seems to be based in a works salvation and equates wholesomeness with godliness.

Let me spend the majority of time here debunking the idea that “change is necessary and all change is good.” This is a worldly philosophy and assertion. Believers in Christ should view change differently than the world. First of all, you should be aware that one of the attributes of God is that He is unchangeable or immutable. The Word of God never changes. The truths of God’s Word never change. God never changes. Christ never changes. Truth never changes. Doctrine never changes. There are lots of things that never change and should not change. Certain theologians are asserting that our view of God should change. To believe that He has all-knowledge and all-power and is everywhere present and unchangeable is somehow antiquated concepts. I would say our view of God and His Holiness never change. God transcends time and culture.

Another common view regarding change asserts that if one is opposed to a certain idea or concept that is deemed better and more relevant that one is automatically opposed to change. This is an absolutely wrong and inappropriate argument. I would contend that the nature of the idea or concept determines ones attitude to change. Not all things must change or should change. A refusal to change might an example of “earnestly contending for the faith.” Anything that diminishes God’s glory or diminishes our having a theocentric view of life that glorifies God must be avoided. The basics or the fundamentals of the faith never change: plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture; virgin birth of Jesus Christ; vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus Christ; veritable resurrection; and visible return of Jesus Christ. These are the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.

Techniques or methodology might change, but truth never changes. However, the practical must be rooted in truth and orthopraxy must proceed from orthodoxy.

Christian Thanksgiving

Jeff McCann — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:13:00 GMT

Americans celebrate a holiday called Thanksgiving once per year. People tend to reflect during this time on their blessings and prosperity. It is also a great family time. Christians, however, should practice thanksgiving daily as part of the Christian life and walk.

Psalms 100 is the Psalm of Thanksgiving. We are encouraged to enter his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise. Scripture reiterates for us to be thankful and bless His (God's) name. What is the basis for this thanksgiving and praise: the goodness of God, His everlasting mercy, and His eternal truth. God is good. Because God hates sin and judges sin does not negate the fact that God is good and is benevolent. His nature cannot tolerate sin. Many people confuse his nature with goodness. God withholds what we deserve. We deserve judgment and removal from planet earth due to our sin; however, God in His grace and mercy takes care of us and blesses us. God's truth is eternal. Humans and the educated world just can't get it that there is objective truth that is eternal. Objective and eternal truth exists. Truth is not subjective and does not does not rest in the eye of the beholder. Due to God's goodness, His mercy, and His truth, we should be thankful, praise God, and bless His name.

In Philippians 4:11 Paul makes an amazing admission. He says that with respect to want he has learned to be content regardless of his state. He knows how to be abased and how to abound. He knows how to abound and then how to suffer. In verse 18, he recognizes that he has all and abounds. In verse 19 he realizes that God supplies all of his needs. Due to the fact that he practices praise and thanksgiving, the Christians can model Paul's behavior. Do we model thanksgiving and praise?

Paul's summarizes his view toward the Christian life in I Thessalonians 4:18. He admonishes believers to give thanks in everything. Being thankful is God's will. Being thankful should be comprehensive and inclusive - all things. All means all.

Romans 1 illustrates what happens when people are unthankful. Due to the fact that people did not give God His proper glory and were unthankful, people became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Mankind created things to worship instead of giving God His glory. Then, God gave up unthankful humans to general immorality, homosexuality, and a reprobate mind (without the hope of salvation).

I would encourage believers in Christ to practice thanksgiving 365 days per year. We should be thankful for who He is, what He has done for us, what He is doing, and what He will do. He is the sovereign God of the universe, creator, and sustainer. He has all knowledge and all power. He is everywhere present and never changes. He gives us exactly what we need; he meets our needs. Let's be thankful and praise Him!

What Separates Leaders?

Jeff McCann — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:39:00 GMT

This week I have chosen to share my notes from a Plenary Session presented by Dr. Tim Clinton, President, American Association of Christian Counselors, at the recent TRACS Annual Conference on Thursday, November 5, 2009. Again, these are my notes and I trust that I have captured accurately what Dr. Clinton presented. I thought it was very good and thought provoking. More and more I realize that everything falls and rises on leadership.

Let me summarize Dr. Clinton's comments. In his introduction he shared that current leaders are so consumed with numbers, power, and prestige. The enemy that we have met is us. The danger in being successful is that we are successful in what does not matter.

He delineated seven things that separate leaders. Accept responsibility. Leaders do not blame others but take responsibility. Individuals who make a practice of blaming others end up being victims. Don't make excuses but make adjustments. Leaders who break never do self-evaluation well.

Stay teachable. Leaders have a coach and someone to talk with. Leaders go wrong when they do not have someone to talk to. Who is your coach?

Execute. Do something; get something done. Be solution-oriented. Don't let fear paralyze you.

Have passion. Show zeal or enthusiasm.

Be happy or joyful. Choose to be happy or joyful. A merry heart doeth good.

Be forgiving and compassionate. Do not hold on to anger which results in bitterness and resentment. Holding on to hurt hurts you. Forgiveness is our responsibility. Do not harbor bitterness - let it go.

Be persistent. Fight the good fight. Don't quit.

Concluding comments. Most Christians have lost heart for the game. Being successful at things that do not matter is a tragedy.

Again, I thought Dr. Clinton's words were very challenging. I think leaders must accept responsibility, stay teachable, be forgiving and compassionate, and be persistent.

Success Indicators (Part II)

Jeff McCann — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:22:00 GMT

A few days ago, I began a two-part series on the non-negotibles of a successful educational institution. In the last blog, I discussed the importance of governance, programs, and faculty. Today, I will deal with the other four: finances, library, planning and assessment, and student development or services. Remember, the absence of any one of the seven constitutes a "red flag" or weakness.

Finances. What is the issue? An institution must have the financial resources to adequately deliver the academic programs which the institution offers. The academic programs must be financially supported, and the institution must demonstrate that funds exist to ensure that a person who is currently enrolled will be able to complete his/her degree program. Accredited institutions are required to have an annual, external financial audit. The institution must have a history and track record of positive change in net assets. This is a way of saying that the institution should not have a history of deficits. Assets should be growing. Debt should be avoided or systematically reduced. The whole idea is that an institution must demonstrate financial stability. The United States Department of Education has ratios of financial stabilty and NACUBO (National Associaton of College and University Business Officers) has ratios that indicate the financial health of an institution. The requirement for financial stability highlights the need for the President or an Advancement staff to aggressively fundraise for the institution. A financial development plan is absolutely essential. You cannot deliver programs, hire faculty and staff, and provide a library without adequate resources.

Library. The bottom line here is that an institution must provide a library collection that supports the curriculum offered. A collection consists of physical books on shelves, full-text data bases, and journals as well as a qualified and credentialed librarian. A collection can be supplemented but not replaced with memberships in consortiums and interlibrary loan agreements. A library collection must be provided for online students as well. The key is access. I hear the question often - do I have to have a library? The answer is absolutely. Another question is why do I need a library with Internet? Internet is limited in its support of an academic curriculum. Institutions must have full-text data bases that support the curriculum. Obviously, this discussion has a connection to finances. Finances must be provided that provide for a library collection that supports the curriculum.

Planning and Assessment. All of higher education is currently emphasizing the importance of institutional effectiveness which includes the twin aspects of strategic planning and assessment. Strategic planning involves the articulation of a vision for the institution over a five-year period of time. A question that I often ask Boards of Trustees is "what is your strategic vision for this institution?" "What do you want this institution to look like in five years - what programs, what facilities, what faculty, what technology, what enrollment, etc., do you project and anticipate?" As the Bible states without a vision the people perish. Institutions must have a sense of direction that is consist with the institutional mission and objectives.

Most of our institutions have noble goals and learning objectives. Our Bible colleges, Christian liberal arts colleges and universities, and seminaries are involved in the greatest ministry in the world. We want to education effectively. Assessment allows us to demonstrate that we are effective and that our students are learning. This is the accoutability piece which is a very biblical concept. Data is provided that allows us plan and budget. Do we just operate on a day-to-day basis without any real sense of where we are going?

Student Development. An institution must provide services that result in the total development of every student regardless of delivery system. What is our institution doing that impacts spiritual development, mental development, physical development, and social development? This is a basic question. How would we describe a successful graduate of one of our institutions?

Again, successful institutions demontrate excellence, effectiveness, and strength in governance, academic programs, faculty, finances, library, planning and assessment, and student development! Emphasize what matters and what is core to our institutions. How effective is your educational institution and what is its prognosis for survival?

Success Indicators (Part 1)

Jeff McCann — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:05:00 GMT

I began my association with the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) as a Commissioner in 1996. Eventually, I became a Regional Coordinator, and then, in January 2002, I was appointed as the Associate Executive Director. In this role I visited many campuses, conducted workshops, and consulted with individuals. One of my several presentations focused on the indicators of success of an institution. My colleagues and I identified the "Fab Five" and then the "Incredible Seven." as the non-negotible standards that gauge the success of an institution. The view is that weakness in any one of these major areas raises a red flag and indicates the overall weakness of an institution.

The issues or non-negotibles are governance, academic programs, faculty, finances, library, planning and assessment, and student development or services.

Governance includes standards for the governing board known as the Board of Trustees, Directors or Regents and the administration of a college, university, or seminary. According to Governance for Nonprofits, the governing board has two legal obligations and can be held liable when it fails to observe duty of care and duty of loyalty. Duty of care requires directors to "exercise the care, diligence and skill that an ordinary, prudent person would exhibit under similar circumstances" (Governance for Nonprofits). This means that a board must be attentive to matters brought before it, attend meetings, ask questions, challenge assumptions, and read and understand materials.

Duty of loyalty implies the pursuit of decisions in the best interest of the institution and avoidance of conflicts of interest. A board member must protect the interests and welfare of an institution. Duty of loyalty also implies duty of confidentality and duty of obedience. Duty of obedience requires board members to follow the organization's charter and bylaws. Bylaws exist for a reason and must be followed.

Successful educational institutions have governing boards that establish policy, maintain the financial stability of the institution, guide mission accomplishment, formulate and maintain the strategic vision and plan of the institution, and evaluate its effectiveness. The board does not micromanage. The board is concerned with policy; the administration is concerned with day-to-day operations. A successful board is clear as to its role and is not confused.

The second aspect of governance is administration. An institution must have an administrative or leadership team in place that is qualified academically and experientially. Management style, leadership skills, and temperament must be appropriate for the position. Demonstrated competence is very important for effective leadership as a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Academic Officer, or Chief Financial Officer. As someone has said "everything rises and falls on leadership."

I am still amazed how important coaching skills are in the success of a football or basketball program. Coaching skills and player ability are both important, but it takes both. A successful institution must have excellent governance in the form of competent and principled leadership from its governing board and administration. You can have resources, but if governance is weak or ineffective, the money will not guarantee success.

Academic programs. Successful educational institutions must have degree programs that are reflective of the mission and general institutional goals. The degree programs must have well-defined student learning outcomes, must be logical and have appropriate scope and sequence, must be adequately supported by the institution, and must reflect national norms. Christian institutions should not minimize or offer sub-standard general education or general studies. Well-designed educational programs teach the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for a specific ministry or vocation and are absolutely essential.

Faculty. The faculty is the heart of an educational institution, especially Christian institution. The faculty must be qualified spiritually, academically, and experientially. The character of the faculty member is important and impacts the mentoring of a faculty member with a student. Faculty members should be concerned with the pursuit of doctoral degrees and be committed to professional development.

The first three non-negotibles are governance, academic programs, and faculty. Next week, we will deal with the other four: finances, library, planning and assessment, and student development or services. See you next week!

Passion - Do You Have Any?

Jeff McCann — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:49:00 GMT

As I read the description of the last days in I Timothy 4 and II Timothy 3, I feel as though I am experiencing and living in the scenarios described in this passage. I also see the entire world against Israel with even the United States changing its attitude toward God's chosen people. In the midst of this very dim and depressing situation, I ask "Where is the passion of God's people?" Furthermore if God's people have passion, "what are they passionate about?"

We must remember that as Christians we only live in this world and that we are not part of it. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are strangers and pilgrims just passing through. We do not look to the governments of this world for our provision but to the God of Heaven. God's people in our churches, Christian educational institutions, mission agencies, etc., should demonstrate passion about several things. Passion involves "ardent love, boundless enthusiasm, fervor, fire, zeal." (Answers.com). Someone has said that passion is a consuming zeal. I think all of those describe exactly what I am talking about.

I would suggest that we need passion for personal holiness. How is this accomplished - through a daily cleansing, daily quiet time, being consumed with Him, daily death to self and self-interests, daily walk with Christ, being in awe of Him and His holiness. In order to be effective and usable as Christians, every Christian must pursue and practice personal holiness and reject ungodliness and worldliness.

I would suggest that we need passion for prayer. Prayer is about allowing God to change us not about changing God's mind. Prayer involves praise, confession, and asking. We are admonished to "pray without ceasing."

I would suggest that we need passion for Bible study. The Bible is God's revelation. It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction. If the Bible is God-breathed and is profitable, we should immerse ourselves in its content.

I would suggest that we need passion for souls. Do we believe Romans 1-3? All men without Christ are dead in their trespasses and sins and cannot find God apart from the gospel. Mankind can look at nature and see God, but they cannot be saved without the presentation of the gospel. Why do we share the gospel and have a passion to share the gospel with every creature - it is because God commands it and we are to be obedient. We must love souls and have a burden for the world.

I would suggest that we need passion for faith living. Faith living is living by faith, trusting God, taking God at His word, realizing if anything is accomplished it will be God that accomplishes it. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. He believed against hope. Look at the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. By faith, by faith, by faith - how many times is this stated in Hebrews 11? We need to be totally shut-up to faith.

Are these not fundamental skills or behaviors that a Bible college or Christian college should desire for all of the students and graduates? Should we not want to instill these behaviors and passions in our students? However, this assumes then that the administration, faculty, and staff demonstrate passion for personal holiness, prayer, Bible study. souls, and faith living. Let me conclude by asking - Where is our passion and What are we passionate about? Do we have ardent love and consuming zeal for the things of God?

A good Bible college education stresses passion for these things!

The Demise of Fundamentalism ???

Jeff McCann — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:20:00 GMT

I am not sure of your reaction to the title of this blog. My guess is that you presume that I will cite 10 reasons why I think "fundamentalism" is dead or should be dead as a movement. Please read this blog carefully!

The term "fundamental" or "fundamentals" refers to the basics. Most successful new head coaches begin their tenure emphasizing the fundamentals or basics of the sport that they are coaching. The "hot shot" athlete will not succeed without embracing the basics or the fundamentals of the game. Losing teams are revitalized by learning, re-learning, and practicing the fundamentals or basics of the game or sport.

The fundamentals of biblical Christianity were identified in the 1920's as plenary, verbal inspiration; the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ; the bodily, literal resurrection of Jesus Christ; and His visible return. I contend that these doctrines are truly the basics or fundamentals. This is the minimal doctrine that one must believe in order to be an evangelical. These are the threshhold beliefs. The absolute embracing of each doctrine is essential. Failure to believe one places a person in the religious liberal or modernist camp - non-evangelical or non-fundamentalist.

I suggest, that much like a new head coach, we should embrace, preach, teach, and practice the fundamentals or basics, and this is what we need as we attempt to practice biblical Christianity. The emergents de-emphasize the fundamentals or closely held doctrines.

Many elements of what has been called "fundamentalism" is probably dead and should have died. I think that we have moved from a strong biblical and theological base to an anemic and somewhat bankrupt brand in terms of its impact. In the 60's fundamentalism began to abandon its substantive biblical and theological basis. Doctrine and teaching were villified. The practical and methods were elevated over Scripture and disconnected from each other. Again, practice apart from a proper biblical and theological base spells disaster. It results in shallow Christianity.

While I never want to have an arrogant attitude, many of the leaders who called themselves "fundamentalists", we now know, lacked character and biblical integrity. Again, basics. There must be a spiritual walk, one must live out the Word of God, believers must demonstrate spiritual growth, and God's Word must grip our hearts. Note the number of moral and personal failures that many of the leaders of fundamentalism experienced. Another area of diaster was that fundamentalism became consumed with extraneous issues: degrees of separation, hair length, or dress in general. While I am not opposed to good, healthy biblical standards, fundamentalism became lost in the trivial and forgot the priorities.

The end-result or outcome of abandoning the biblical and theological foundation; failing to develop character and practice integrity, being absolutely consumed with trivial issues produced in fundamentalism a generation of "compliers" with no character, no biblical and theological foundation, no love for biblical teaching, and a disdain for true, biblical separation.

While I do not think fundamentalism is dead, many of the excesses are. Fundamentalism is not dead due to the fact that it practices the basics, the fundamentals. A good dosage of basics is actually what we need.

Coupled with doctrine, fundamentalism must practice biblical separation, both personal and ecclesiastical. The excesses have led many people to characterize "separation" as legalism and externalism. If the Word of God is our guide and authority, both the Old and New Testaments teach biblical separation. The Bible is clear that both personally and ecclesiastically believers should not mingle with unbelievers. The world is not to set our standards or belief system. We are not to be evenly yoked with unbelievers. Fellowships that become denominations bother me tremendoulsy.

I am not quite sure what our movement should be called. I have no problem with being identified as a biblical fundamentalist as long as the movement begins to emphasize that doctrine and teaching are important; Bible and theology are focal; the Word of God is central being our sole authority; and that we practice biblical separation.

Arrogant Leadership (Part III)

Jeff McCann — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:56:00 GMT

Arrogance in leadership is typically manifested when leaders think that the rules do not apply to them, have no regard for the rules, perceive that they are above the rules, and/or value their agenda as more important than the rules. Let me define the term "rules" as I use it here. Rules as I have used it refer to biblical principles, good management principles, consensus of all of the stakeholders, the God-given direction of an institution or organization, or the orderly policies and procedures that govern an institution.

Some bad examples of servant leadership are found in Samson and King Saul. Samson lived in the background of the book of Judges which describes the spiritual condition of the time in Judges 17:6 and 21:25, "in those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The time was characterized by a lack of accountability and moral leadership and direction. People were living for "self". Samson was one of the individuals that God raised up to represent Him in this apostasy.

The life of Samson is a tragic account of one who had a chance to overcome the enemy but in the end he was overcome. He had great potential but had a tragic end. He depised his heritage (Judges 13). His parents were godly and believed in prayer (Judges 13:8,12) and feared and worshipped God. Samson was called to be a Nazarite (separated one): he was never to drink strong drink, never touch a dead body, and never cut his hair as a sign of dedication. Samson despised all of this as an adult and chose to please himself.

In Judges 14:1-4 he defied his parents by going into enemy territory violating the laws of separation and fell in love with a heathen. He blatantly ignored God's laws of separation as found in Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3; and Genesis 24:1-4. The principles of biblical separation are echoed for us in II Corinthians 6:14-18. The guiding principle of his life was "get her for me; she pleases me." He deliberately defiled his body by touching the dead lion and taking honey in Judges 14:5-20. He displayed a lack of insight in Judges 15-16 as there were many seeming victories, but he only prays for water and strength to destroy the Philistines. He failed to recognize that God had delivered him.

I think that the sad portion of Samson's life is portrayed in chapter 16 of Judges where he deliberately plays with sin and fails to learn from past mistakes. He has trouble with a second lady; Delilah comes into his life and leads him to doom. He sleeps on the lap of a wicked woman who entices Samson three times. He succombs to his personal desires and loses his hair (symbol of dedication), strength, eyes (light), liberty, usefulness to the Lord, and testimony. He is the laughingstock of the Philistines with the people giving glory to the fish-god Dagon.

Samson did repent of his sin and had some measure of restoration, but in the defeat of others he took his own life. What better testimony he could have been if he had not obeyed his destructive desires!

Judges is a book of defeat due to disobedience, compromise, and the use of human reason. Samson was controlled by his passions and lacked discipline and direction. He actually destroyed more than he built. He failed to check his impulses. His life was marked by carnality (I Corinthians 3:1-4). Judges is the antithesis of Joshua.

In I Samuel 13, King Saul disobeyed God and offered a sacrifice intruding into the priest's office. He failed to obey God in I Samuel 15 by not destroying Amalek and everything totally as God commanded. He kept the best; he was thinking fleshly. He had a rebellious heart and exemplified stubbornness. Saul had a great outward appearance; he looked "kingly." King Saul developed a mental illness and then even sought advice from witchcraft. He failed to recognize the hand of God on David and became a jealous man. Jealousy ate on him to the point of seeking David's demise. King Saul eventually committed suicide in I Samuel 31.

I see that both Samson and King Saul do not exemplify servant leadership; but are examples of arrogance that manifests itself in people who are in leadership positions that live according to the flesh, have no regard for the rules, do not think that the rules apply to them, believe that they are above the rules, and/or have a agenda that is above the rules. Both Samson and King Saul practiced self-centered leadership which had bad results for both.

I Peter 5: 2-4 summarizes biblical servant leadership in describing the responsibilites of a pastor toward his flock: shepherd the flock is the guiding principle. The shepherding of the flock should not be out of compulsion or for sordid gain. The pastor does not lord over the flock but is an example to the flock. Let's embrace Joshua's model of leadership in the 21st century for His Glory and Honor. Disobedience, compromise, human reason, lack of discipline and direction, carnality, and a failure to check one's impulses should not be our legacy.

Arrogant Leadership (Part II)

Jeff McCann — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:27:00 GMT

Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 1 mark the passing of the mantle of leadership from Moses to Joshua. The book of Joshua is a book of victory characterized by possessing and occupying the land. The book records entering the land, overcoming obstacles, and occupying the land. Many great victories are noted in the book of Joshua with the man Joshua being the key figure in the book. This is a record of his leadership. Servant Leadership is what made Joshua great.

Joshua had victorious preparation for ministry. He was one of the 12 spies at Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13). Except for Joshua and Caleb, everyone gave an evil report and said that the land could not be occupied. In Exodus 24:13 we learn that Joshua served as Moses' minister during Israel's journeys. In Exodus 17 he led the army in battle against Amalek. His name went from Oshea or Hoshea to Joshua meaning Jehovah is Salvation. Due to Joshua's faith, he and Caleb were permitted to enter the Promised Land.

Tradition says that Joshua became the leader of Israel at 85 and died at 110. He spent seven years conquering the land and the remainder of his life dividing up the inheritance and ruling the nation. Joshua clearly obeyed God and had God's blessing on his life.

When his leadership was challenged with the sin of Achan and the failure at Ai, he rent his clothes and put ashes on his head, signs of mourning. The site Shebarim means "broken places." Even though Joshua questioned God, he obeyed God by finding the violater, destroyed the accursed thing, and punished Achan and his family. God's instructions were followed and then Ai was defeated (Joshua 8).

Joshua concluded his life and ministry victoriously (Joshua 23-24). He reminded Israel of what God had done and gave a great end of life statement "as for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Because of Joshua's leadership, the nation of Israel served God after his death.

I see servant leadership modeled by Joshua. He spent 85 years in preparation and service and only 25 years in a major leadership role. Throughout his life, he had a servant's attitude, was a person of character, obeyed God, and was single-focused. At strategic times he exemplified a servant's spirit and heart. When the people failed at Ai, he did not blame them but showed humility and mourning. He took responsibility which is a mark of servant leadership. Joshua models for us servant leadership and not arrogant leadership.

Next week, Part III of Arrogant Leadership, discusses Samson and King Saul as examples of the arrogance of leadership.

Arrogant Leadership (Part 1)

Jeff McCann — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:35:00 GMT

I am amazed how little we learn from research, writings, and esperience. All research, writings, and experience conclude that the top-down, authoritarian, "my way or the highway", one-way communication, "know it all", and "never challenge me" style of leadership is futile, ineffective, and absolutely dead. Very few leaders operate this way anymore. However, some leaders persist with this leadership style. Usually if they employ this style, their tenure is short, the organizational morale is low, and employee turnover is high. Needless to say, the style is unbiblical.

In Joshua 1, God says "Moses my servant is dead." After 40 years in Egypt, 40 years on the other side of the desert, and 40 years of leading the children of Israel through the wilderness, God still referred to Moses as "my servant." This is truly a great honor and a term of endearment. What is servant leadership and how does a leader avoid the arrogance of leadership?

A servant leader sets aside personal gain, makes sacrifices, and puts the needs of others above the direction that one might prefer for oneself. He/she leads according to calling, vision, and principles not on position or leadership role. The motivation of a servant leader involves the unleashing of the potential of the followers and the good of the organization. He/she seeks to empower others and focuses on the needs and growth of the ones who are being lead. A servant leader models integrity which is characterized by the fact that the private life and thoughts match the public statements.

A non-servant leader constantly sells himself/herself, leads out of pride and force, and manipulates the followers. The ends are all that are important. The means to the end are not important. People are used and a prideful attitude is manifested. Authority resides in the power of the position and power and control are the strategies for accomplishment.

Leaders succeed that cherish members and speak the truth. Leaders fail who exploit members and practice concealment along with deceit.

In the next blog I will discuss the leadership style of Joshua, refer to some bad models of leadership, and explore a model for pastoral leadership as found in I Peter 5.

One Party System

Jeff McCann — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:42:00 GMT

I am sure that our forefathers did not intend for the USA to have a one-party political system. While there is nothing constitutionally that precludes our having multiple political parties (more than two), we have the tradition of being a two-party system. Currently, that tradition is manifested in the Republican and Democratic parties with a few minor parties that seem to have very little political influence - some followers but not a very powerful political force. The last major third party impact on an election was Ross Perot, who received almost 20% of the vote in 1992.

My family raised me as a thorough-going Democrat. I grew up in a rural area with a farming tradition, and my parents worked in a textile mill. My family had lived through the Great Depression. "Republican" and "Herbert Hoover" were bad words. Certain family members never got over the association with Republicans and the Great Depression. I remember my first interest in politics came in the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. Obviously, I was an avid Kennedy-Johnson supporter. I remember as I grew into adulthood, I gradually became a Republican because the Democractic Party left me. So when I could vote, I voted Republican for the first time. As many have said, the Democratic Party abandoned me and drove me to the Republican Party.

I currently contend that for all practical purposes we have a one-party system in America consisting of both Democrats and Republicans. It is a R-D or D-R party. In the light of this situation, I propose the Republicans and Democrats merge into one political party and that we form a new political party. There is not a "dimes worth of difference" in how both parties are behaving.

The Republicans lost their governing majority because the party lost its way, became arogant, and abandoned its principles. The party has not manned an effective opposition strategy to this socialistic and governmental takeover that we are experiencing. The Republicans suffer from a lack of leadership and coordination. Is there not a leader that will stand up and provide courageous leadership? The principles of the Republicans and Democrats are defacto the same.

A new political party must emerge that embraces social conservativism as well as fiscal conservatism, free market economic and governmental principles, and a lack of governmental intervention. This may sound harsh. But if General Motors and Chrysler cannot make it on free market principles, then they need to go out of business. Businesses cannot have it both ways. Don't punish the successful and, in many cases, hardworking people who have certain salary levels by taxing them more. What happens to incentive? The government does not create jobs; the private sector does. Wake up America! This massive and expensive national health care plan is about to change America forever and lead us down the socialistic path further. The massive ballouts have been outrageous. The Republicans are not manning an effective opposition to the new Supreme Court nominee. How can a social conservative support her?

We need a new political party that will stand for something and that will man effective opposition to the biggest socialist takeover and restructuring in the history of America. The new political party should be characterized by social and political conservatism, ethical behavior, and free market principles. More than anything, the new party must offer strong opposition to the current one party system consisting of both Republicans and Democrats!

Theoretical vs. Practical

Jeff McCann — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:47:00 GMT

The age old discussion/debate involving the relationship between the theoretical and practical is no more pronounced than in the theological and ministry world. As I consider this issue, cliches like “cart before the horse” and “did the chicken come before the egg” seem appropriate comparisons as points of discussion. This discussion is prevalent in almost all fields of academic endeavor. Sometimes, the debate is in the arena of pure vs. applied. For example, what is the relationship between pure science and applied science? What is the relationship between fact and application? In many fields of endeavor, the two arenas are just segregated into their separate worlds. Sometimes, the pure theorist has an attitude of superiority. For example does(do) the scientist(s) who discovered nuclear energy take responsibility for the development of the nuclear bomb? Many purists would not.

I propose that in the theological and ministry world that the theoretical and practical are intricately related, and that there is biblical and logical sequence. We have clear answers in our theological and ministry world to the “cart before the horse” and “chicken before the egg” examples. Paul’s model in many of his writings is the theological and biblical first, thus the theoretical, then the practical. The practical is based on and rooted in the theological. No clearer example of this model is found anywhere than in the book of Romans. Romans chapters 1-11 deal with human sin, justification by faith, sanctification, and Israel. Romans chapters 12-16 deal with practical and Christian living issues. Paul argues that based on these theological issues and truth, then one should practice or live accordingly.

I see false and very devastating approaches to this issue in our current theological world. I contend that practical or praxis must be based on and rooted in the plain statement and meaning of Scripture. It is apparent to me that we should be concerned about what God has to say. How do we determine what God has said? It is His inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. In this dispensation we do not expect a vision or new revelation. A passage does not have multiple meanings nor do we have the right to approach Scripture from an allegorical perspective. God’s Word is our sole authority. Tradition, the church fathers, the church, and culture, while provide valuable insights are not on the same par as God’s Word. Should not a person in ministry or even a lay person be given over to determining “what God has to say” which means applying the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This is absolutely foundational and essential. Again, “what is God saying and what has He said?”

However, I do not see in the New Testament the model of accumulating truth and knowledge without the application of truth. We must practice truth. The fact is that we have a world that is lost and needs salvation. In many countries in the world, less than 1% of the population is Christian. The reality is that anyone without Jesus Christ will face an eternity in Hell. I would say “Live the Book.”

To launch out in ministry and in the practical without having a philosophy based in Scripture leads to many of the abuses and errors that we have today. Evangelism and Christian ministry without a proper theological and biblical base is mindless and devastating. Let’s return to the power of preaching His Word and programs that are biblically based. While stories and examples can illustrate truth, the power is in the preaching of His Word. This also speaks to ministry training. Strategy or programs without the proper foundation is futile! We are a people of the “text” and the “Book.”

World of Blogging

Jeff McCann — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:01:00 GMT

As I develop my website, this is my first attempt at blogging. My purpose for blogging involves discussing on at least a weekly basis current biblical and theological issues as well as cultural and political issues, encouraging the development of a Christian worldview, and challenging the next generation of fundamentalist, independent Baptists to pursue truth, be individuals of integrity, and passionately pursue worldwide evangelization, planting of local churches, and teaching believers in Christ.

We need not fall prey to the "devices of men" or rely on human ability or wisdom to accomplish our task. The mandate is clear - "we need a band of men and women whose heart God has touched." Our focus must be singular: to glorify God in all that we do. We need to think like God thinks, and we need to view God as Isaiah did in chapter 6 - God's Holiness and man's sinfulness. Let's define some terms over the next few blogs as well as clarify some terms and issues. I look forward to this blogging journey.

Welcome

Jeff McCann — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:40:20 GMT

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.