Crusades and personal witnessing are no longer the cutting edge of evangelism.

Go and Plant Churches of All Peoples

Fifty years ago, if you said evangelism in a word-association game, you would probably get back Billy Graham. Crusade evangelism dominated the American church’s ideas about reaching out. When First Baptist Church members decided to share the gospel with their neighbors, they looked to see which evangelist could come to town.

Thirty years ago, crusades began to wane, and personal evangelism came to dominate our thoughts. A church that wanted to reach out would typically offer a class on how to use the “Four Spiritual Laws” or Evangelism Explosion to witness to friends and strangers.

Crusades haven’t disappeared, and churches still teach personal witness. But today, church planting is the default mode for evangelism. Go to any evangelical denomination, ask them what they are doing to grow, and they will refer you to the church-planting office. I have talked to Southern Baptists, General Conference Baptists, the Evangelical Free Church, the Assemblies of God, the Foursquare Church, the Acts 29 network, and a variety of independent practitioners and observers. I quit going to more because they all said the same thing: “We’re excited and committed to church planting. It’s the cutting edge.”

Many Motivations

Frustration with other methodologies has something to do with this trend. Despite many tales of triumph and huge resources mobilized—think of the “Here’s Life America” campaign—it’s hard to trace an overall difference. “North America is the only continent in the world where the church is not growing,” says Eric Ramsey of the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board (NAMB).

Biblical rethinking also fuels the conviction that church planting is the ideal way to fulfill Jesus’ Great Commission. “It’s apparent in the Great Commission that we are to make disciples through the avenue of churches,” says Scott Thomas of the Acts 29 Network, a church-planting organization affiliated with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church. “The whole Book of Acts offers that model.”

Acts 29 churches view planting as essential to the nature of the church. They expect that at least 10 percent of every offering—including a church’s first offering—will go toward church planting. They join an increasing number of church leaders who see Western individualism as sub-Christian. Aren’t disciples made in the context of community?

Perhaps most important, studies show a consistent difference between old and new churches. George Hunter of Asbury Theological Seminary says, “Churches after 15 years typically plateau. After 35 years, they typically can’t even replace those [members] they lose. New congregations reach a lot more pre-Christian people.” Those who study churches say established congregations tend to turn inward, no matter how hard they try to resist the trend. But new churches must look outward to survive. Richard Harris, vice president of NAMB’s church-planting group, says that established SBC churches report 3.4 baptisms per 100 resident members, whereas new churches average 11.7. It’s not hard to conclude that more new churches would lead more people to Christ.

Gary Rohrmayer, director of church planting for the Midwest Baptist Conference, told me of a 1,200-member church that planted a church. The new church quickly grew to 200, but in the same time period, the 1,200-member church grew to 1,600. Seeing that the established church had actually added more members, leaders wondered whether they should put their resources into expanding their own ministry instead of planting another church. When asked how many adult converts they had seen in that period, however, they named eight. The new church had about 100. “You [tell] me whether you should start another church or not,” Rohrmayer says.

Tough Calling

No denomination invests more in church planting than the Southern Baptist Convention. America’s largest Protestant body wants to double its number of congregations in the next 20 years, to 100,000. Richard Harris says they have been starting four churches a day, but they need to increase that number to eight or ten.

These are not your father’s Southern Baptist churches. I attended an “opportunity tour” in San Francisco’s East Bay. Upwards of 60 church leaders from throughout the country boarded vans to see where the East Bay Baptist Association needed help starting churches. My tour began in the Canal District of San Rafael, where a recent seminary graduate, Marian Engelland, is trying to establish a church among Guatemalan immigrants in low-income apartments. From there we hopped across the bay to San Pablo, where a huge African American preacher named Port Wilburn leads a team trying to re-launch a struggling inner-city church and re-envision it to reach a new middle-class housing development. Then we had lunch with 18 Chinese pastors in Oakland’s Chinatown, where the SBC wants to start a church among restaurant workers who typically work Sunday mornings and need to meet late at night. Finally, we traveled to Fremont, where another recent seminary graduate reaches out to the 60,000 Afghan immigrants in the area.

Sixty percent of the SBC’s new churches focus on ethnic minorities. “They are quite cutting edge,” Wheaton College’s Scott Moreau says of SBC church planters. “You can plant a church that looks like a mosque.” Still, other East Bay tours looked at plans to start churches in elite Anglo neighborhoods and one aiming to become a regional seeker-sensitive church at Jack London Square, a cultural gathering spot near downtown Oakland.

Lyman Alexander, the East Bay’s director of missions, says they hope to add ten new churches a year and double the East Bay association. “Money is the biggest hindrance, because it is so expensive to live here,” Alexander says. “People come and look at the cost of living, and they say, ‘I’ll starve.’ God definitely has to call them here.”

Niche Audiences

In years past, evangelism didn’t necessarily motivate church planting. Southern Baptists, for example, planted churches as they moved out of the South, taking the comforts of home with them. Methodists started churches in the suburbs that attracted their upwardly mobile church members who migrated out of the inner city. Such churches still get planted, but their number has declined along with denominational loyalty.

Today’s church plants often target immigrants, which means adjusting church traditions to diverse ethnic cultures. “Any denomination that has an aggressive church-planting program and doesn’t have a bias toward the white community will be largely ethnic,” says David Ripley, who leads ethnic ministries at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois. “If we are challenging people to reach their neighbors, the reality is that the neighborhood is changing.” As an example, he notes that 25 languages are spoken at Wheaton North High School, formerly dominated by WASP students.

So-called emerging churches also plant churches, since the kind of ministry they espouse doesn’t exist in traditional bodies. “Looking at churches today, are they likely to reach the next generation for Christ?” asks Eddie Gibbs of Fuller Theological Seminary. “So many of our churches are the product of Christendom: Open the door and let them come in.”

Many emerging churches prefer the term missional, and though it’s a hard term to pin down precisely, its affinity with missionary captures an adventurous, unconventional, and non-institutional spirit that focuses outward. Their audience may be largely Anglo, but it knows as little about Christianity as Thai Buddhist immigrants.

Church plants also frequently arise out of the seeker-sensitive models pioneered by churches like Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois. “When they say they are reaching the unchurched, often they are reaching the de-churched,” Gibbs says. Many Americans have family memories of church as an important place for spiritual development and comfort, but they have lost their connection to it. Church plants can offer a smaller, more relational, or less conventional approach that lures them back. Church planters may refer to this as an “attractional” ministry, as distinct from missional.

Insights from Overseas

So church planting actually involves quite different strategies for evangelism: immigrant, missional, and attractional, for a start. Some are launched by pioneer missionaries, sent out into new territory or toward a new target group. Others grow from cuttings. A team of 100 or more deliberately leave a mother church to start a new one. Sometimes, large churches start satellite operations that gradually grow independent. Or multiple congregations inhabit the same building, reaching out to different audiences. The many strategies help church planters reach diverse audiences, from Cambodian immigrants to latte-sipping, rap-listening hipsters in a Southern California beach community.

Church planters in all these environments see America as a mission field. The missionary surge that took the gospel from America and Europe to Africa, Asia, and South America is now washing back over the West. Lesslie Newbigin predicted it decades ago. On returning to England from a lifetime of missions in India, he wrote that the greatest missionary challenge in the world was the West.

Church-planting insights learned on the mission field have penetrated American church leaders, partly because they know how churches in the developing world have grown. Success-oriented Americans love to hear stories from Africa and China. Developing-world churches, once treated with patriarchal condescension, have a new status. Missionary thinking has a new status, too.

Church planting is a missionary approach, typical of the apostle Paul and of most missionaries since. Where there is no church, you have to plant a church. You have to find ways to penetrate the culture with the gospel, and then you have to provide a secure place for disciples to grow and to explore their new identity. A short while ago, we didn’t think this way in North America. Now we do.

Furthermore, missionaries become attuned to social barriers that keep the gospel from reaching everybody—barriers of religion, language, tribe, caste, and socioeconomic status. A church may thrive among one group and miss a neighboring group entirely. You have to target each group separately, or you won’t reach everybody. Missionaries who go overseas learn to think sociologically because they stand outside the culture looking in. That same sociological perspective has penetrated church planting at home.

Planters Persevere

Despite what some say, the United States is not a post-Christian nation. It’s more half Christian and half post-Christian, trying to make up its mind. A sizeable share of Americans describe themselves as Bible-believing Christians. In many places and contexts you can still reach people simply by opening the doors and offering a worship service.

There are also places and contexts where Buddhism is better understood and more admired than Christianity. Pockets of Sonoma County, California, where I live, certainly fit the description. It’s deep-blue America, defined by organic veggies, fine wines, and high tech.

“Sonoma County is a tough nut,” church-planting pastor Dan Boyd of Hope Chapel told me. “America is a tough nut. We’ve seen it all and done it all. In America, we don’t need God.”

Sonoma County has many fine, well-established churches that preach the gospel and welcome any and all. By and large, though, they don’t reach the post-Christian pockets. Most don’t really try. They have enough to do just meeting the pastoral needs of people already in their care.

The church plants try hard to reach those pockets. In my years living here, I’ve seen many new churches pop up like mushrooms after a rain, and just as suddenly disappear. They meet in schools and industrial parks, struggling to get their numbers above 100. Though nobody keeps an exact tally, it seems safe to say that the majority of attempts fail. It doesn’t help that available land for church buildings hardly exists, and desirable meeting places are scarce. Also, because housing is so expensive, the population isn’t growing fast, least of all with the young families that typically populate growing churches. “You don’t have the demographics working for you,” Presbyterian church-planting pastor Jeff Johnson says. Finally, as church-planting pastor Adam Peacock told me, “People [in Sonoma County] are indifferent to the church at best, and sometimes adversarial.”

That’s missions. It is not easy. Many first-term missionaries give up and go home. Only the entrepreneurial, independent, and stubborn personalities who want so badly to plant churches stick with it. Nonetheless, a church that seeks to obey the Great Commission will keep sending out missionaries. And missionaries plant churches—even when they never leave home.

Tim Stafford is a Christianity Todey senior writer.

The spiritual discipline of fasting

by Lance Witt

When I was a kid growing up in church, I heard hundreds of sermons, sat through hundreds of small group lessons, and participated in dozens of programs at my church. Throughout all of those years saturated in “church,” I do not remember my pastor one time ever doing a message on fasting. I do not ever remember a small group lesson on fasting. I don’t ever remember our church being called to a time of prayer and fasting as we sought God on some important decision.

By default, I grew up thinking that fasting was something they did in the Old Testament that was sort of like animal sacrifices. We just don’t do it anymore. And I was fine with that. The idea of going extended periods of time without eating didn’t sound like my idea of fun.

An assumed practice
But then I read passages like Matthew 6:16-18 (NIV):
When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

This passage comes right in the middle of Jesus’ teaching on prayer and giving. In this sermon, Jesus uses phrases like: “When you give” (v. 2), “When you pray” (v. 5), and “When you fast” (v. 16). Jesus assumes that his audience will give, will pray, will fast. Fasting is not an option. It is not an oddity. Fasting, according to Jesus, is a given. In fact, fasting is mentioned more times in the Bible than baptism!

In the Bible, we observe the people of God fasting for a variety of reasons:

• They were facing a crisis.
• They were seeking God’s protection and deliverance.
• They had been called to repentance and renewal.
• They were asking God for guidance.
• They were humbling themselves in worship.

The danger in the discipline
But there is an inherent danger in fasting. It is the same danger that is found in the practice of any spiritual discipline. We can turn fasting into an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. It can become merely an external practice without an internal passion. It can be reduced to a habit without heart.

We see an example of this in Luke 18:12, where Jesus tells the story of a Pharisee who bragged to God in prayer that he fasted twice a week. Pharisees habitually fasted twice a week, usually on the second and fifth days of the week. These two days happened to be the major days for the Jewish market. That meant the city was packed with farmers, merchants, and shoppers. Therefore, these days of public fasting would have the largest audiences. Jesus condemned the practice of fasting when it was done in such a way as to receive public adulation.

We have an ability to take that which is sacred, holy, and meant to draw us closer to the Father, and turn it into a merely mechanical, religious drill that we use to impress others with our spirituality. What was intended to draw us to God now actually distances us from God because we have perverted it. And God notices. He prompted the prophet Zechariah to ask the people and the priests of Israel, “During those 70 years of exile, when you fasted and mourned in the summer and at the festival in early autumn, was it really for me that you were fasting?” (Zechariah 7:5)

Fasting is not so much about food as it is about focus. Fasting is not so much about saying no to the body as it is about saying yes to the Spirit. Fasting is not about doing without, it is about looking within. Fasting is an outward response to an inward attitude and cry of the soul

A time of feasting
When John Wesley spoke of fasting, he said “First, let it be done unto the Lord with our eye singly fixed on him. Let our intention herein be this, and this alone, to glorify our Father which is in Heaven.”

When we decide to set aside time to fast, here is what I think would please the heart of God. Let’s talk about this time of spiritual discipline not as a day of fasting, but a day of feasting. Feasting on Jesus.

There is an orphanage in India where the staff and the children all fast every Friday. And you know what they call it? They call it their day of feasting on Jesus. And do you know what they do during their day of feasting? They pray for the American church. Now, that is humbling.

A call to fast
In Joel 2:12-17 (NLT), it says:

That is why the Lord says, “Turn to me now, while there is time. Give me your hearts. Come with fasting, weeping, and mourning. Don’t tear your clothing in your grief, but tear your hearts instead.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and compassionate, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love. He is eager to relent and not punish. Who knows? Perhaps he will give you a reprieve, sending you a blessing instead of this curse. Perhaps you will be able to offer grain and wine to the Lord your God as before.

Blow the ram’s horn in Jerusalem! Announce a time of fasting; call the people together for a solemn meeting. Gather all the people – the elders, the children, and even the babies. Call the bridegroom from his quarters and the bride from her private room. Let the priests, who minister in the Lord’s presence, stand and weep between the entry room to the Temple and the altar. Let them pray, “Spare your people, Lord! Don’t let your special possession become an object of mockery. Don’t let them become a joke for unbelieving foreigners who say, ‘Has the God of Israel left them?’”

From this passage we learn six important things about fasting:

1. Fasting starts with the spiritual leaders.
Joel starts off his urgent call to fast by saying, “Hear this, you leaders of the people” (Joel 1:2).

2. Fasting is often associated with a sense of spiritual desperation.
Joel 2:12 says, “Turn to me now, while there is time. “Notice the sense of urgency and desperation.

3. Fasting is a call to return to God.
Israel’s first need, like that of the prodigal son, was just to come home to the Father. God doesn’t talk about their need for better plans, programs, or strategies. He simply says, “You have been unfaithful to me. Come home.”

Fasting helps to express, to deepen, to confirm the resolution that we are ready to sacrifice anything … to attain what we seek for the Kingdom of God. Andrew Murray

4. Fasting is not about the externals.
In Joel 2:12 God says, “Don’t tear your clothing in your grief, but tear your hearts instead.” It is entirely possible to go without food and not have a true fast.

5. Fasting is the response of a broken heart.
Why does Joel say, “Come with fasting, weeping, and mourning” in verse 2:12) Because repentance is the appropriate response when you have strayed. And, God is responsive. He is “merciful and compassionate, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love” (2:13). Somehow, God is drawn to the empty, broken, needy, and weak. As Jim Cymbala says, “God is attracted to weakness.”

6. Fasting is the humble response to immense responsibility.
Joel calls a solemn assembly. In verse 15 he says, “Blow the ram’s horn in Jerusalem! Announce a time of fasting; call the people together for a solemn meeting.” He urges everyone to get there – the elders, the children, the babies; he even says to get the bride and groom off their honeymoon!Why? Because God’s name and reputation were at stake (v. 17). The people of Israel were being urged to enter a time of fasting, with the direct result that they would preserve God’s reputation and glorify his name. That is an immense responsibility!

I urge you to respond to God’s call to fast. Use the experience of fasting to restore your congregation’s focus and feast on God this fall.

	Lance Witt is the founder of a new ministry called REPLENISH. This ministry is dedicated to helping pastors pay attention to their souls and lead from a place of spiritual health. After 20 years as a senior pastor, Lance spent six years on staff at Saddleback Church as an executive pastor and teaching pastor. Some of Lance’s most recent projects include consulting with churches nationally and internationally, developing a school of ministry to be used in Asia, teaching small group conferences, helping develop a church campaign called Live Like You Were Dying, and helping to build a coaching network for pastors. If you are interested in knowing more about REPLENISH ministries, you can contact Lance at pastorlance@gmail.com. ©Copyright 2002. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

‘Bill Cosby Was Right’

Inspired by the outspoken comedian, journalist Juan Williams offers a bold critique of black America. His message: There’s a crisis in the community, and all of us—especially the church—have a role to play in healing the damage.  Interview by Edward Gilbreath, Online Exclusive

Juan Williams

Three years ago, comedian Bill Cosby set off a firestorm of criticism and debate with his speech about black America’s failure to fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education. He addressed the sad state of African American literacy and the growing percentage of dropouts. He talked about the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births and the black community’s lack of shame over it. He spoke of the senseless criminal behavior that puts too many black men in prison—or the grave: “People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake!” And he denounced the tendency among blacks to blame racism: “It is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us, and it keeps a person frozen in their seat.”

Inspired by Cosby’s controversial remarks, National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams wrote a book that adds journalistic weight to the comedian’s fiery wake-up call. Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America—and What We Can Do About It, just released in paperback, made Williams the target of the same critics who lambasted Cosby. But it has also kept people engaged in a much-needed conversation. Williams, who is also the author of This Far By Faith: Stories from the African American Religious Experience, spoke with Today’s Christian editor Edward Gilbreath about Enough and why America should take Cosby’s words to heart.

“Phony leaders.” “Dead-end movements.” “Culture of failure.” I think it’s safe to say you brought some strong opinions to this book. When did you know Enough was something you had to write?

I’ve been a reporter in Washington, D.C., for a long time, and lived through the Marion Barry years where you had a corrupt, drug-addicted mayor who played on his civil rights credentials to make himself a hero to people. He led a city government that lacked accountability and failed to deliver on its promises.

In the ’80s I covered Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns, where arguably it wasn’t about winning the presidency but about raising issues that were of concern to people of color and the poor and forcing the mainstream political parties to pay attention to those who had been left behind by Reaganomics. In the years that followed, I looked back at the phenomenon of Jackson’s presidential bid and his ensuing work and the question occurred to me, What has he accomplished? He was supposed to raise issues of justice for the poor and disadvantaged, but ultimately what his campaigns amounted to were an airplane for him to fly around in and jobs for his friends and political cronies. His campaigns seemed to have accomplished very little in terms of changing the condition of the disadvantaged.

Both Jackson and Barry led me to wonder, what had become of the civil rights movement and its struggle to achieve American ideals and Christian values in our nation? I just didn’t see it. Instead, I saw a lot self-serving people who were posturing as advocates for the poor, but who really, it seemed to me, were enriching themselves.

So you were thinking about the book even before the famous Bill Cosby speech?

I was, but it hadn’t formed in my mind how to do it. Then, in 2004, the NAACP invited Cosby to speak in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. The expectation was that he would give the standard “nice” speech, but instead he goes off and says these really wild things that, in the minds of some, took poor blacks to task for not taking ownership of their problems. I had been looking for a structure for the book, and because of Cosby’s celebrity and the symbolism of him giving that speech, on that date, before that audience, the pieces all came together in that moment.

Of course, the deeper effect of Cosby’s speech wasn’t felt until critics from within the African American community began bashing him over it.

That’s right. In the days following the speech, the critics launched an aggressive attack on Cosby, including the idea that he was an entertainer who didn’t understand the power of systemic racism, that he was a self-hating black man, and that he was someone who was giving ammunition to the right wing.

As I heard all this, I thought to myself, What did the man say? I went back, read the speech, and decided that, while Cosby does speak in vivid, wild language, there’s a lot of truth to what he’s saying. There was a reason the people in the audience were applauding, giving amens, and standing ovations. Contrary to the response that came from critics later on, that audience knew this was a conversation people have long been having within the black community, and one that needed to be taken further.

Why do you think Cosby was attacked for saying something many blacks already believed to be true?

As an observer of politics, I’ve seen the way issues of poverty are dealt with today—everything from Reagan welfare reform of the ’80s, to Clinton welfare reform of the ’90s, and then coming forward to the present and events like Hurricane Katrina. I’ve discovered that there is a poverty industry. People keep pouring money in, and there are certain people who stand up and proclaim themselves to be the representatives and advocates of the poor. But they never seem to truly help people get out of poverty. There’s a poverty spirit that takes hold.

In the book, I call it a “culture of failure,” where people get caught up in dysfunctional behavior. They blame racism and other external forces. They make excuses, and then point fingers at everybody but themselves when things go obviously wrong. That’s why the title of the book is Enough. I’m saying, “Come on, give me a break here!” It’s time to stop making excuses and, like Cosby suggested, take responsibility.

Seeing how Cosby was treated, you had to know you would be opening yourself to those same types of personal assaults. And they certainly came. Did you ever have any trepidation about going there?

I gave very little thought to that. My main concern was about making a substantive and convincing case for the points that Cosby brought out in his speech. I thought if I avoided Cosby’s explosive language and simply laid out the facts, then I could make it possible for people to engage the issues in a constructive discussion. I now know I was fooling myself. The critics will launch their personal attacks regardless of how balanced you try to be.

Al Sharpton called me a black Ann Coulter with pants. Jesse Jackson implied I was a bad journalist. Others accused me of excusing racism and blaming poor people for their problems. But I’m simply trying to hold today’s civil rights leaders accountable for what’s happening in black America.

Because of your roles with NPR and Fox News, conservatives have pegged you as someone who leans to the left on the political spectrum. But after the release of Enough, many conservatives embraced you.

One of the biggest surprises for me was how conservative talk radio hosts picked up on the message and began to tell their listeners that this is an important book.

I think part of the sexiness of the book for conservatives is that it’s coming from this black guy that they used to regard as being “part of the problem,” and now you’re coming out with a message similar to what they’ve been trying to say for years, except you can say it more boldly because you’re black. I listened to one interview that you did with a white host, and at moments it sounded like he was using you to affirm other views he had about reverse discrimination, black underachievement, and the evils of affirmative action. Since the book’s release, have you felt as though some white conservatives were trying to exploit you as a black man who now “sees the light”?

I certainly have to consider that. But I think what’s really happening is that these conservative talk show hosts didn’t feel they could speak loudly on this issue because they were vulnerable to the rhetoric that, as white men who don’t have any idea what it’s like to struggle as a black person in this country, they couldn’t criticize the African American community without seeming to unfairly demonize and attack black people and poor people. They’ve had some black voices like Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, and Shelby Steele who have long been ideologically identified as “black conservatives.” But now, here I come and I’m identified in their world as much more liberal. That definitely gets people’s attention.

To be honest, I don’t think anyone who knows me personally would say, “Oh yeah, Juan is the quintessential liberal.” If you’ve seen me on Fox News, where I’m often surrounded by Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, and Britt Hume, I am certainly more left wing than they are. But the reason I look left wing is because they are so far right! [Laughs.] It’s like if I walk into a room of short people. I’m not really that tall, but in comparison I’ll probably appear that way.

Does all the talk about liberal and conservative politics bother you?

I didn’t write this book to please conservatives or to please liberals. I wrote the book because I think what’s happening in the African American community is an important sociological phenomenon. And if you care anything at all about poor people getting left behind in this very competitive economy, where there is a larger and larger divide between rich and poor, then it’s critical that we address these issues in a new way. I welcome white voices, Hispanic voices, Republican voices, Democratic voices, Independent voices. I want everybody in on this conversation. As Americans, I don’t think we should allow the conversation about race and poverty to be limited by reporters who only call Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton when these issues are covered.

You write about how black America has a rich tradition of empowerment in grassroots leadership, scholarship, and in the arts. Over time, you would think those rich traditions would have been passed down and multiplied. How did the African American community end up passing down more dysfunction than empowerment?

Well, to say we’ve passed down more dysfunction than empowerment is a generalization. Today, black America is more educated than in any previous era, and we have the largest black middle class ever.

Then is it just the media that hypes the dysfunction over the progress?

No. In fact, I think there’s a very real crisis. When you look at the family breakdown, the dropout rate, and the fact that 25 percent of African Americans still live below the poverty line, it’s hard not to acknowledge the magnitude of the situation.

When I was in Philadelphia last year the front page of the newspaper listed a running body count, because they have such a high homicide rate. In every major city in America, stray bullets from drive-by shootings are killing young children. So it isn’t just hype.

But part of the reason things have changed in black America is that the civil rights movement left behind what it did best. I think what originally empowered the movement was its appeal to conscience and the best of the Judeo-Christian ethic. So you saw preachers like Dr. Martin Luther King and Dr. Ralph Abernathy saying, “If you are a Christian, how can you not see us as children of God, also? How can you not see the Spirit of God within us?”

And that was such a challenge to the white segregationists. It cut through to the heart, and I think that is why so much of the civil rights movement is rooted in the pulpit and in the church. It spoke across racial lines with the idea of “let’s all stand together in Christian service to do what is right.” That message that called us to reach within ourselves and fulfill God’s intent for the world is such inspiring stuff. But all of that shifted in the early ’70s when the movement was transformed into primarily a political force. Then it became about certain black leaders getting their “cut of the pie.” That was such a different message than “We shall overcome” and “We will stand together because God is on our side.”

So how do we end this “culture of failure” that has settled over our communities?

To start, we’ve got to deal immediately and urgently with the 25 percent of the black population that lives in poverty. Poverty is self-perpetuating, so we must find ways to prevent the cycle from taking hold of generation after generation. There are people who don’t have the will to take advantage of opportunity or can’t find a way to get a grip on that first rung on the ladder of upward mobility. So how do we change this?

In the book, I talk about a government study that concluded if you graduate high school, don’t have a child out of wedlock, don’t marry until you are employed, and enter and stay in the work force—no matter how small the job—you have an excellent chance of living above the poverty line. I think that’s the message we have to convey to young people. You can make it in this country. At the very basic level, you just need to do things that will put you in a position to win. Graduate from high school, and if possible go to college. Stay in the job market. Don’t have children before you’re ready to care for them. And understand the value of marriage—both in terms of family life and in terms of building wealth and securing a stable standard of living. We need to tell people these basic steps and start talking about how shameful it is to get involved with crime—reintroduce the stigma. Like Cosby said, “They may be building all these jails, but you don’t have to go to them.”

You mention the church and religion as being a part of the solution as well. Specifically, how do you see churches and people of faith playing a role?

Let’s start with Hurricane Katrina. There are still volunteers from every church, every denomination, going down to that Gulf Coast area to help people. Last year, when I was down there, it looked like it was the official vacation spot for many Christian groups. People are going down there to make a difference. In my church, in Washington, we adopted a family of five and made housing available to them on the church property. We gave them the basic necessities, helped them in terms of contacts and getting jobs and all that. And we’re continuing to help them now that they’ve found their own place. This kind of service has been true of churches and religious institutions all across the nation.

The suicide rate and the level of people being emotionally disturbed and upset often spike as a result of natural disasters like Katrina. It’s the church that can speak to those different needs and help people cope.

Churches also have a role to play in connecting people across class lines. For example, people who have moved out to the suburbs and who perhaps only come back into their old neighborhoods on Sunday mornings to go to church … Those church members are potential role models and contacts for people who are trapped in those old neighborhoods and need to get out. The notion of a community of faith that can provide a structure of caring and support is a powerful force for helping people. I know, in my own life, I’ve found this to be true.

Edward Gilbreath is the editor of Today’s Christian and author of Reconciliation Blues: A Black Evangelical’s Inside View of White Christianity (IVP).

Read a transcript of Cosby’s speech here.

Let Us Pray (But Why?)

Written by Timothy JonesThis article is courtesy of Christian Single magazine.

I can’t recall when the change happened. I just know that over the years my approach to prayer has shifted. I now find myself wanting to pray, not just grudgingly knowing I should pray. I have come to see talking to God as not only a duty but also a delight.

The transformation has had to do in part with a simple yet profound discovery: As I pray, I give attention not only to the “what” but also the “why” of prayer. Going deeper in prayer has meant looking closely at the bigger picture, remembering that I come at the invitation of God Himself.

In some ways, the why of prayer seems obvious. God calls us to pray, doesn’t He? Isn’t that reason enough? In passage after passage in Scripture, we’re urged, even commanded, to pray. “Ask … knock,” Jesus tells us in bold imperatives (Matthew 7:7). Paul the apostle even tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to pray “constantly.” We pray because, well, we’re supposed to. And for a while, that may seem reason enough.

But have-tos and how-tos make up only a part of a growing life of prayer. Beyond those, knowing the deep reasons of why we pray can give us energy for the long haul that spiritual growth will require.

When I need to go further in prayer, here are some things I try to remember:

God actually likes to hear us talk. The great God of the universe, the all-wise, infinitely powerful God pauses to listen to me? Jesus promises us it’s so. Whenever we pray, we do so at Christ’s personal invitation. In Matthew, when Jesus says, “Ask … seek … knock,” it’s a command, but it’s also a glorious assurance. He even told a story in Luke 18 about a pesky widow who, in seeking justice against someone who had wronged her, wore down a judge with her nagging. Will God, far better than the grumpy arbiter in Jesus’ parable, do any less?

“Some people worry that they will trouble God with their constant asking,” D. L. Moody once said. “But the way to trouble God is not to come at all.” A God who turns toward us with a listening ear – what could motivate us more?

Prayer not only changes us; it changes things. In other words, God responds. God won’t always answer just as we expect, of course. Prayer isn’t like inserting a debit card into an ATM and waiting for the bills to roll out. But when we keep before us God’s eagerness to respond, we’ll find motivation to continue. We pray, then, not only out of urgency but also expectancy. We pray because in some mysterious way, it accomplishes something profoundly important, even when we don’t immediately see the full outcome.

“Only God can move mountains,” E. M. Bounds once wrote. “But prayer moves God.” That means prayer is more than talking to ourselves or throwing vain words up at an impervious ceiling. It’s making contact with the Reality behind all reality.

Prayer puts us on the frontlines of God’s work in the world. To pray is not to fold our hands in resignation, not when you realize that it actively engages the God who made and sustains the world. Prayer is not a quiet retreat but a way to invite God’s awe-inspiring power and presence into daily, real-life situations – into the lives of people we know and love and care about. Prayer allows us to bring the situations of the world and the needs of others into the presence of a living, loving, powerful God. To engage in prayer is to invite God to continue to bring His purposes about in sometimes subtle – but always powerful – ways.

Prayer connects us with the One all hearts long for. Once a woman wrote me in response to something I’d written. “I was raised in a church,” she said. “We went every Sunday, and that is just what we did: We went. We didn’t experience God or relate to Him. I had no idea a relationship with God was possible.” She went on to describe wonderful discoveries she was making about prayer – discoveries that had to do with a newfound intimacy she never knew was possible.

Prayer is less the language of transaction and preeminently the vocabulary of relationship. We are made by God for relationship with Him. “Our hearts are restless,” prayed Augustine, centuries ago, “until they find their rest in you.” If I am made to know and converse with God, it stands to reason that I will find my truest purpose and fullest life only as I make room for such conversation.

My discoveries about the reality of the why’s of prayer have only begun. What I began to sense years ago, I still must sometimes relearn. But something basic – and radically freeing – has changed in the climate of my efforts. And what a difference that has made.

Timothy Jones is a pastor who has written and taught extensively on a subject close to his heart: the possibility of growing in Christ. His most recent book is “The Art of Prayer: A Simple Guide to Conversation With God.”

North American Guide to Church Dragons

How to identify and approach two dangerous species.
Louis McBurney

Two categories of people can make life particularly hard for a pastor: the passive-aggressive person and the projector. I call them “dragons,” a metaphor Leadership senior editor Marshall Shelley coined in his book Well-Intentioned Dragons.

Here’s how to recognize when such dragons sneak up on your back side and how to deflect their assaults—crucial survival skills in pastoral work.

1. Frustratorius Slipperious

The passive-aggressive congregant is more likely to smile than to snarl. This person appears friendly and supportive.

Only after you’ve entrusted this dragon with an important task will you begin to be confused. You thought you heard, “Oh, yes, I’d love to do that,” but the job went unfinished. Worse, you seem powerless to discover what actually happened. Attempts to confront the issue are likely to end with you looking like an insensitive dictator (rather than the compassionate, understanding person you really are).

Individuals whose primary relational style is passive-aggressive are hard to pin down. Their negative feelings remain submerged. Even though they disagree with you, they’re unlikely to assertively confront you. Instead their defense against the discomfort their anger creates internally is to deny it and then simply to retreat into a passive position.

This may manifest itself in procrastination, lateness, uncooperative behavior, or behind-the-scenes manipulation of others.

Recognizing the rumblings

In her first pastorate, Sarah was energetic, creative, and eager to minister effectively. Part of her philosophy was to involve lots of lay people, so when Joe offered to serve, she was delighted. Her only mental reservation was her discovery that Joe hadn’t done much in the church before. She told herself that was probably related to her predecessor’s leadership style.

Since Joe showed enthusiasm about the youth program, Sarah gave him the opportunity to develop some summer youth projects. Joe was full of exciting ideas for inner-city outreach, recreational events, and spiritual development. Sarah and Joe discussed several specific scenarios and what Joe would need to organize them.

By mid March Sarah began to grow concerned about the lack of progress. When she talked to Joe, he explained that his work had been more demanding than usual but that he would soon have more time. He said he definitely wanted to continue.

Easter was in early April, so Sarah became preoccupied with its events. After Easter she checked again with Joe, but this time she had trouble even making contact with him. Her messages on his answering machine weren’t answered. He failed to show up at a meeting.

Sarah never saw Joe at church after Easter Sunday, then began to hear rumblings that Joe was fed up with her controlling “micro-management.”

When she finally talked with the church chairman, Sarah found out Joe had a long history of procrastination, failure to follow through, and petulant back-biting when challenged by authority figures.

She discovered that her experience with Joe was a pattern he also exhibited with family, friends, and work colleagues.

How to tame this dragon

Two approaches—assertive confrontation or protective distancing—can lessen your vulnerability to passive-aggressive people and reduce your frustration. I prefer confronting such dragons. Doing so not only relieves my irritation, but also models a more productive skill for the passive-aggressive person.

To confront such a dragon, make an appointment with the person, and prepare to be persistent when he is late or misses the meeting altogether. Then, follow these four steps:

1. Identify the pattern from your perspective. Identify what you perceive happens in your interactions with him, and then invite the person to share his perception of those events.

For example, you might say, “Joe, I want to share some feelings and observations with you that have been difficult for me to handle. Then I need your help.”

Describe the pattern you’ve seen with specific illustrations: “It seemed to me your role as chairman was the pivotal point of breakdown. When I expressed my concern or questioned the progress, I thought everything was being handled. When it was too late to involve someone else, I discovered that the project wouldn’t be accomplished after all. That seems to be a pattern I’ve seen on other occasions, and I wonder if you’re aware of that?”

2. Own your feelings. You might say, “Last spring I asked you to organize some summer events you had expressed interest in. The events never happened. When all was said and done, I was disappointed and angry.”

3. Make clear your decision not to contribute to an ineffective pattern. State that you prefer to avoid perpetuating a pattern of relating that leaves you both guilty and frustrated. If he wants to commit to a future ministry activity, ask him to arrange an accountability system that will enhance the likelihood of his success, such as a series of deadlines and someone to report to regularly (not you).

4. Make the dragon responsible for his or her choices. After some input from him, acknowledge his explanations but say, “It really looks to me like an ineffective pattern in your life. I know it’s frustrating to me, and I suspect it’s uncomfortable for you. It might be something you’d want to look at for yourself. I know for me it’s more comfortable when I’m direct with my feelings—well, like I’m doing now with you.

“Otherwise I’d struggle with my anger and end up feeling guilty or just avoiding our relationship. Think about what I’ve said and let me know what you think.” In this way, you make the dragon responsible for his or her choices, and you invite the dragon to become more assertive in expressing his or her anger and fear.

The passive-aggressive congregant is more likely to smile than to snarl.

Follow up your confrontation with some distinct boundary identifications depending on the response (or more likely, the nonresponse) you receive.

Dragon or just disgruntled member?

How can a pastor distinguish the passive-aggressive person from someone who merely seems to be?

The level of deceit

The dragon will flatly lie about his behavior: “Oh, I sent that. Didn’t you receive it?” The deception tends to proliferate as each act of refusal is justified or hidden.

The degree of hostility

In a dragon, the underlying anger toward anyone in authority or exerting a measure of control becomes obvious. It will probably surface as blaming statements (“Well, you never told me what you expected”) or as degrading comments spread to others behind your back (“Don’t ever trust something that pastor says!”).

The non-dragon will admit his failure, probably with lots of apologies. Pastors likely won’t become the object of blame for delays or become the target of slanderous comments.

2. Accusorius Selfrighteousi

The projector is a more primitive beast than the passive-aggressive person. The dragon denies anxiety-producing feelings or impulses within, then projects them onto some other person.

The behavior is more openly hostile than the actions of the passive-aggressive person, and is hurled with blame, coated with self-righteousness: “I’m not angry (lustful, controlling, etc.) but you, Pastor, are the most angry and hostile person I’ve ever seen. I’ve had to tell the ‘truth’ to others about how you’ve attacked me (tried to seduce, manipulate, etc).”

This dragon will make you not only furious but can back you into a corner. You may begin to sound like the angry, controlling, abusive person described in the projection.

People who use projection are often insecure and have developed a rigid self-righteousness to avoid dealing with their humanity. The resulting legalism is a comfortable fortress into which they retreat. Others with similar personality structure may be drawn to this dragon’s apparent confidence and strength. Consequently a dragon who is projecting unholy attributes onto you can generate lots of conflict.

Priscilla’s concern

Priscilla was a strong and vocal member of First Church. Her parents had been charter members and were pillars of the church. She had always been part of the core group.

Strict and devout, Priscilla came across as critical and rigid in her attitude toward others, especially church staff members. That was particularly true about lifestyle issues like drinking, dancing, card playing, dress codes, and sexuality. She seemed at times to be obsessed with concerns about sexual harassment and abuse. She had purged the church of three previous staff members whose morality came under scrutiny because of her “sensitivity and alert watchfulness.”

Consequently the selection committee had been extremely careful in recommending Pastor Strate Arrow. Arrow had an unblemished record of twenty-four years in dynamic churches. His moral standards and behavior were above reproach.

It was a bit surprising when Priscilla stopped by the study to express her concern about the pastor’s “lustful glances” at the soloist Sunday morning. Arrow didn’t know Priscilla’s history, but he remained calm and nondefensive, thanking her for expressing her concern.

Strate didn’t have to search his heart on the issue. He knew himself well enough to be aware of such feelings. He did have to search his mind a little to remember who the soloist was. He’d been absorbed in his sermon outline. He mentioned Priscilla’s comments to his wife that night. She laughed at the idea because she did remember Sunday’s soloist.

Later, considering the dangerous tone of the accusation, they made some discreet inquiries about Priscilla. They quickly determined this was no laughing matter, hearing that Priscilla had expressed her concern to a few other people.

Although Pastor Arrow was inclined to ignore the whole thing, he took some precautionary steps. He first talked to the chairman of the board and then the staff. Having recently come through an ugly experience with a staff member, the church chairman and the staff saw the importance of dealing with the accusation decisively before it created doubt and suspicion.

Priscilla was confronted by the chairman, the executive committee, Pastor Arrow, and the church’s legal counsel. It became obvious Priscilla’s accusations, which by then had grown to include Arrow’s “inappropriate touches” when she came to his office and his hostile outburst since she had “exposed” him, had no basis.

In the meeting, the attorney warned her about liability for slander and recommended she consult with a professional counselor about her areas of concern. She stormed out and left the church, but the decisive action prevented what could have become a long, nasty fight.

Refuse to be drawn into trading accusations.

How to tame this dragon

It’s tempting for a pastor, operating from a rational, logical position, to try to prove his or her point by reasoning with an individual who uses projection. Arguing your point or trying to persuade her to see the truth will only add to your frustration. Equally ineffective, and even more dangerous, is trying to mollify her by admitting some degree of culpability—”Well, Priscilla, I can see how you might have thought that … ”

That sort of statement is likely to come back to haunt you. Better to say, “I’m sorry you thought that, but that didn’t happen. I suggest we talk this through with the people you say were involved and the church chairman so the facts can come to light.”

The most important defense against projection is to refuse to be drawn into trading accusations. Stick with the truth, and be sure you have witnesses to conversations. The truth will generally be recognized by others when they are exposed to the unrealistic aspects of the projections.

Whenever you must respond directly, don’t blame or discredit. Accept that this angry person has a right to her opinion and interpretation. But make it clear that her perception is not who you are. It is wise and may become necessary to enlist the power and authority of the denomination or congregational leaders to intervene and silence the accusations.

It is important to record events and have witnesses to every transaction, showing you have given this person every opportunity to act freely and that any decision to limit or silence her has been taken by the entire body or the leadership, not by you alone.

In today’s litigious climate it’s important to consider legal advice as well. Projection often comes with intense feelings and convincing descriptions so the accusations should be taken seriously.

Dragon or just disgruntled member?

The cardinal feature that distinguishes a disgruntled or disappointed congregant from a person using projection is the intensely held false belief.

An unhappy individual may come to you with intense feelings but can be reasoned with. He or she will be quite willing to meet with others to assess the facts and give up the accusations. At times you’ll discover the explosion was actually sparked by some unintended or misinterpreted statement you made. A simple apology will suffice, “I’m sorry my comment sounded that way, but it wasn’t meant in the way you thought. Thanks for letting me know what you were thinking. I hope this clears things up.”

You might use the occasion to explore other impressions: “Are there any other areas of concern you may have?”

At this point you’ll sense whether the person has a fixed and aggressive position. If so, put on the full armor of God.

Louis McBurney is a psychiatrist and founder of Marble Retreat in Colorado.

Why Hoppers Hop

by Elizabeth Diffin

The Joneses left their church because they were dissatisfied and wanted something more. The researchers asking people why they switched churches say that’s a good thing. Most weren’t lured to the new church, but said they felt a lack of spiritual development and were not feeling engaged or involved in a meaningful way in their old setting. Half (48%) said their “needs weren’t being met.”

How can you minister to their dissatisfaction?

Brad Waggoner, head of research for LifeWay, which conducted the study, says, “The fact that the majority of church switchers express a desire to grow spiritually and become active in service should strike a chord of optimism for leaders. Where there is leadership, passion, determination, and an intentional strategy, church members can and will be developed and equipped for ministry.” Of the switchers, 76 percent say they are “devout Christians with a strong faith in God.”

Switchers often selected a new church that was significantly different from their former church, whether traditional, blended, or contemporary. Three-fourths of them switched to a church of a different size: 46 percent went to a larger church, and 29 percent attended a smaller church.

More than half also changed denomination. Only 44 percent considered denomination an important factor in selecting a new church.

As for additional reasons to leave their old church, many faulted other churchgoers, calling them judgmental (18%), hypocritical (15%), or cliquish (14%). Others took issue with the pastor: poor preaching (16%), or perceived character flaws such as being judgmental (14%) or hypocritical (13%).

“The character and attitudes of leaders matter in a big way,” says Waggoner.

Around 16 percent of those surveyed left because their former church had undergone too many changes. According to Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research, “These church switchers leave because they are unhappy with changes in the overall direction of the church. Respondents had the opportunity to select specific changes they did not like … but the largest proportion selected ‘too many changes in general,’ the culmination of many changes in the previous church they did not like.”