Returning to Senegal

In August a deacon and I made first contact with our Unengaged Unreached People Group in Senegal. Much to our surprise and delight, a few people there trusted Christ for salvation on our very first journey. Thursday morning I begin the journey to return there with the same deacon plus two others.

This entire experience has awakened in me emotions that I didn't know I could have. The strongest follower of Christ whom we left behind was a young man named Marcellin. How I've prayed for him! How I've feared for him! With so much against him, so little given to him, so much riding on him, and absolutely no contact with him, all I can think about is to wonder how I will find him on Saturday (it will take that long to get all of the way there).

Our experience with the Embrace project of the IMB has affected my understanding of the New Testament in ways that no survey class could ever accomplish. I knew that Paul tried to write back to the churches that he had planted and tried to return for visits whenever he could do so, but now I find myself wondering whether Paul felt the same emotions with regard to the converts he left behind that I've been feeling about those I've left behind. I can't help but imagine that he did. Was his letter-writing and step-retracing strategic or compulsive?

I can't help but feel that my personal experience as a cross-cultural evangelist and a planter of churches in untilled land have given me stronger insights into parts of the New Testament than I had before.

The whole experience makes me wonder: How understandable is the Bible to those who are not actually trying to live the life of a disciple? Every time I obey more carefully what God has commanded in scripture, I come to understand scripture better. Does God really even care to communicate with armchair quarterbacks, other than to challenge us to rise up and get to work when we're in that category? Are our primary vehicles of Bible study (Sunday School, small groups, discipleship classes, etc.) places where we ought to invest more in praxis not as an alternative to propositional study but as a facilitator for it?

These are unstrung thoughts, needing much more time in the pot before the soup is ready to serve. The point of this post is not really to feed anyone, anyway, but rather to give me the opportunity to express my gratitude for the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and the life-changing experience that their Embrace project has been for me and for our church—and, I trust, will be.

Explaining My Wedding Ceremony Contract

I recently posted the text of a contract I now execute with couples who wish for me to perform their wedding ceremonies (here). I put up that post because it took me no time at all to put it up: Just copy and paste. As is, I guess, evident to the world, I don't give much time to blogging any more (not that you all aren't wonderful people, but just because life is short and there is much to do).

Anyway, from some of the comments received (one on the blog and a few through other media), it became clear to me that I needed to elaborate a bit more. In which case I might not have posted the thing to begin with, but that horse is already out of the barn. So, for clarity's sake, please allow me to spell out what I'm shooting for with the contract. I plead with you to understand that I'm leaving for Senegal this week and probably won't interact in the comments at all.

The Idea

A few years ago I heard Kelly Shackelford mentioning the horrible state of marriage law in Texas. In our state, the marriage contract is the only contract in which one party can break the contract and leave it without penalty or obligation to the other party. Every other contract is enforceable; a marriage contract is not.

That bothered me, but then a germ of an idea came to mind: What if one were to put into place a simple financial contract ALONGSIDE the marriage contract? You couldn't force people to stay married, but you could at least add some incentive perhaps to make them work a little harder at avoiding a divorce.

Also, I've seen marriages break up that made me feel that one of the spouses had been defrauded—and, frankly, that I myself had been defrauded and the church had been defrauded—all the way back to the time of the wedding. Somebody had said things about what he or she believed about marriage that he or she did not truly believe. They say those things because it is cheap to lie and expensive to tell the truth at the time of marriage.

If a couple came to me and said, "We want to get married. We love each other. But when this relationship cools off, we just plan to get a divorce and move on," then I probably wouldn't agree to perform the wedding. That's not the kind of marriage vows I will solemnize. But there's a constant stream of people who really think that going into marriage, but just won't be honest about it. When that happens, a fraud has been perpetrated upon me (not to speak of the defrauded spouse in those occasions when one spouse agrees with me but another does not!).

And so, I decided to put together a business contract to put at least some small teeth in place alongside the impotent marriage contract that our state provides and to make it absolutely clear to everyone that couples whom I marry are making contractual representations to me about the kind of marriage that they are asking me to witness and upon which they want me to ask the Lord's blessing.

The Details

Not all the details, of course, but a few things that might have caught your eye:

1. The $10,000: Of course, as you read down further, you'll notice that I'm really talking about a $10 wedding. It's the DIVORCE that winds up costing $10,000. Why that much? I'm looking for an amount that will make people stop and think, but that won't necessarily drive most people into abject, life-long poverty. Also, I wanted an amount for which I could reasonably say, "You'd be better off financially to pay for a little marriage counseling."
2. "Premarital Consultation" and "Christian Wedding": I wouldn't have drawn up a contract just for the purpose of these two items, but while I'm doing one, I wanted to put these things in there. If for no other reason, these things perhaps protect me a little bit from unintended consequences. I didn't want MYSELF to wind up in court for breach of contract if I executed one of these contracts for someone and then wound up refusing to perform the wedding for other reasons. Probably, I need to make sure that I include in this thing the reasons why I might wind up refusing to perform a wedding.
3. Recipient: I don't want people coming back and saying, "Hey, we've been tithing for 10 years. We've long ago paid off that $10,000. We're getting divorced and we're not paying a penny."
4. Financing: This is the heart of the contract. I'm setting up every one of these couples with a debt, but no payments are required and no interest will accrue. All they have to pay is the initial $10, and then the rest of it comes on their schedule (if at all). Why $10? I think that it makes it more clear that this is a real contract if at least some amount of money changes hands from the get-go. If it doesn't make it more real for the courts, at least perhaps it does so for the people involved.
5. Joint and Several Liability: Legally, I believe this means that I can collect the accelerated debt, if necessary, from both spouses or from either spouse, at my sole discretion. And so, if one deadbeat husband commits adultery and walks away from his spouse for another woman, I don't have to go after her for $10,000. I can, if I wish, just go after him for the total amount.
6. Forgiveness of Indebtedness: If the marriage survives "'til death do us part" then the debt goes away.
7. Acceleration Clause: If the marriage ends in divorce or annulment, I have the right, if I should choose to do so, to demand immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the $10,000.
8. What Would I Do With the Money? Legally, whatever I wanted. It's my money, paid to me for performing the wedding ceremony. That being said, I'd have a lot of options. If I wanted to give it to a wronged spouse, I guess I could do so, couldn't I? If I wanted to put it into trust for minor children caught up in a messy divorce, I guess I could do so, couldn't I?

Conclusion

Look, I'm of no delusional persuasion that taking this action will cause a dramatic drop in the divorce rate in Eastern Collin County. But I'm happy to think that I'm doing SOMETHING. If nothing else, I'm forcing engaged couples to think, in a business sort of way with real money on the line, about the commitment that they're making.

How I Do Weddings Now

UPDATE: I've authored another post explaining some of the details of this contract and what I'm trying to achieve. That post is here.

Following is a contract that I have started using for every wedding that I perform. I know that I have some legal geniuses who read this blog from time to time. I'm shamelessly trying to get your legal opinion pro bono. Of course, for those of you who aren't lawyers, I welcome your opinion as well.

CONTRACT TO PERFORM A WEDDING CEREMONY

I, the undersigned Christopher Bart Barber, an ordained Christian minister, agree to conduct the wedding ceremony of the undersigned bride and groom [“the couple”] in exchange for the sum of $10,000 and according to the following conditions:

1. PREMARITAL CONSULTATION: The couple agrees to attend sessions of premarital consultation as required by Christopher Bart Barber.
2. CHRISTIAN WEDDING: The couple agrees that the wedding ceremony will be in the form of a Christian worship service. The couple awards to Christopher Bart Barber the right to remove from the wedding ceremony at his sole discretion any content that is contrary to his personal convictions regarding the nature of Christian marriage. The couple hereby agrees that the nature of the wedding ceremony and the nature of the marriage covenant that they are seeking is in accord with the Principles of Christian Marriage that Christopher Bart Barber has presented to them during their premarital consultation with him.
3. RECIPIENT: The sum is payable to Christopher Bart Barber personally and not in his capacity as an employee of First Baptist Church of Farmersville. First Baptist Church of Farmersville is not a party to this contract. Agreements between the couple and any venue that may host the wedding ceremony or any related ceremonies or events are separate from this contract and do not affect it. Monies paid to First Baptist Church of Farmersville do not satisfy this debt.
4. FINANCING: The undersigned couple hereby enters into a financing agreement to pay the sum to Christopher Bart Barber according to the following terms: (a) Upon completion of the wedding ceremony the couple must make a down payment in the amount of at least $10 (TEN DOLLARS); (b) The remaining balance will accrue interest at the rate of 0% (ZERO PERCENT) PER ANNUM, which interest rate is fixed for the term of the loan and may not be changed; (c) The couple must make regular payments due on the first day of each month in the amount of $0 (ZERO DOLLARS); (d) Any additional payments shall be applied against the principal sum of the indebtedness.
5. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: The obligations of the couple hereunder shall be joint and several.
6. FORGIVENESS OF INDEBTEDNESS: In the event that either the bride or the groom should die before the acceleration clause has been invoked, Christopher Bart Barber shall forgive the aggregate amount of the indebtedness.
7. ACCELERATION CLAUSE: In the event that the marriage of the couple should end in divorce or annulment, Christopher Bart Barber may, without notice or demand, declare the entire principal sum then unpaid immediately due and payable.

One More Thing to Do When Tragedy Strikes

We're not surprised, I think, at the volumes of great information filling the Internet in the aftermath of the tragic school shooting in Newtown, CT, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School (in case you're reading this a few years down the line and don't recall, I'm talking about this). Among the responses I've read, Dr. Al Mohler's has meant as much to me as any. There's a lot of godly wisdom in the world, and we are blessed by the immediate access we have to it because of the Internet. I won't try to add to or replace the thoughtful and comforting words that you have already received in so many places.

But I do want to offer one additional piece of advice that you may not have seen yet. With regard to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, after you've prayed for the victims, snuggled your own children, resolved not to let another day go by without thanking God for them, and taken careful and sober stock of the effects of sin in a culture running hard away from God, I want you to do one more thing:

Turn off your TV.

Listen, this 24-hour cable news cycle in which we live is not natural. The non-stop diet of tragedy that it serves is great for ratings, but bad for souls, I suspect. You already know all that you need to know about this tragedy. Just turn it off.

A Way Forward for Conservative Evangelicals

The election is over and President Obama has won another four years. The fate of the GOP was sealed with the nomination of Mitt Romney, and Evangelicals knew it. Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney. A few Evangelicals altered their theology and terminology in favor of Mitt Romney. But Romney was not the choice of Evangelicals.

Why did Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney? Because they did not believe that they had any other good choice. That's what has to change. Trust me: Somewhere in America there's a Bob Dole IV, and whoever he is, today he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016. If Evangelicals want to have more and better options, Evangelicals are going to have to create them. I'm happy to get the ball rolling by offering a few thoughts

1. The hard work of prioritizing our convictions lies before us. This will be the universal conclusion drawn this morning by Republicans, although different Republicans will apply the process differently. The major elements of Republican ideology are, in my estimation: (1)Free-Market Capitalism, (2)The Pro-Life Agenda, (3)Hawkish Foreign Policy, (4)Constitutionalism, (5)Nativism and Anti-Immigrationism, (6)The Law & Order Agenda, and (7)The Anti-Homosexuality Agenda.

   I didn't take four weeks to develop that list, but instead threw it together on the fly. Perhaps I've missed something important, but I feel pretty good about it as top-of-my-head efforts go.

   We're going to have to prioritize these things, as I said. And we're going to have to do so with some of these other factors in mind.

2. The Republican Party has to add not merely individual voters to its rolls, but larger and more rapidly growing blocs of voters. This is where the GOP ought to listen to Evangelicals if it wants to survive. Evangelicalism is growing among African-Americans and Latinos. The GOP is not. Obviously, Evangelicalism is not the cause of Republican demographic woes, for in the key ethnic groups that brought woe to the GOP last night, Evangelicals are succeeding.

   The question is: If the GOP persists in alienating African-American and Latino Evangelicals, then among White Republican Evangelicals, which of those three words will win out? Will we stand in coalition with fellow Evangelicals, with fellow Republicans, or just with fellow white people? I think we should stand with Evangelicals in the political arena.

   Of the ideological elements given above, two stand out as highly problematic: the question of immigration and the question of economic theory. The economic question is not as troubling as it may seem. The country could become a bit more oriented toward Free-Market Capitalism while maintaining a commitment to the social safety net. I think that the safety net concept is important to these demographic groups. Principled opposition to the safety net is probably not going to take root here, but Bill Clinton accomplished welfare reform, yet he retains robust support among these folks.

   The immigration question is where the problem lies. And, to speak frankly, some of the more extreme rhetoric on immigration from within the GOP is wrongheaded and wronghearted. I believe that there is an enormous pool of (potentially?) committed Pro-Life Evangelicals who could be developed from within the Hispanic community, but we'll never know so long as Pro-Life Evangelicals are wedded to a severe immigration platform plank.

   As for African-Americans, it seemed to me that quite a number of them were not happy with the gay-rights agenda within the Democratic Party, but where else could they go? I can relate to their feelings: I wasn't thrilled with Mitt Romney (nor were many of you), but we didn't have a lot of options open to us, did we? The major obstacles, I suspect, are fiscal rather than cultural in nature.

   Although the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is probably beyond rehabilitation at this point, a fusion between a more mercy-themed fiscal policy and a strong social conservatism could be a game-changer within the African-American community (if everyone were acting in good faith). At the very least, it is a conversation worth having. I'm not sure that I understand completely what policy changes would have to take place in order to form a coalition between Pro-Life White Evangelicals and Pro-Life Black Evangelicals, but I'm at least willing to ask that question and learn the answer.

   What concerns me is that a conversation has taken place this year among African-American Evangelicals over how their relationship with the Democratic Party will be affected by the radical Democrat sexual agenda, and Pro-Life White Evangelicals never even entered that conversation in any meaningful way. Maybe we don't succeed at building coalitions with African-Americans over justice for the unborn because we don't try very hard to build those coalitions in the first place—not in any way in which we are willing to concede as much as we are asking them to concede.

I'd love to write more, but I'm out of time for today. Rather than stitch together a mega-post over several days, I' think I'll just go ahead and sally forth with this much of whats swimming around in my head and get your reactions, with the promise of more to come.

Why Mormonism Is a Cult, and Should Be Called One

I find myself today disagreeing with Richard Land, Ed Stetzer, and Peter Lumpkins.

There's a sentence nobody has ever uttered before, nor will again.

Mormonism is a cult, and if I read and understand these gentlemen correctly, they all agree with me on that point. Where we differ is in whether, or in what contexts, we should actually call Mormonism a cult. I think I understand their arguments and I appreciate what I understand to be their motivation (presuming, as I choose to do, that it rises above merely influencing the outcome of a political election).

That having been said, I'd like to interact with the fullest explanation of that point of view—the one Ed Stetzer gave in his article "Mormonism: Richard Land, NAMB, and a Southern Baptist Plan." Although I respect the arguments made by Stetzer, I'd like to show why I think he is in error.

First, I think Stetzer has too small an understanding of his audience. Stetzer wants Mormons to leave Mormonism and come to the gospel. So do I. And he correctly observes that most Mormons would rather that we did not refer to Mormonism as a cult. To drop the word "cult" is to do something that would make Mormons happier with our discourse. So far, we agree.

However, Stetzer's article makes no allowance for the fact that Mormons whom we would see converted into gospel Christianity are not the only ones within earshot of our conversation. Mormons are laboring hard to win people to Mormonism out from under the noses of Evangelical Christian churches (or even off their rolls, but that's a topic for another day). If "cult" is an accurate descriptor of Mormonism, and it if is a strong enough word to dissuade the non-Mormon lost people under our influence from being wooed away by Mormonism, then I'm in favor of using it.

In a village in Senegal, an animistic chief forcefully said to me, "You're not Jehovah's Witnesses, are you? Because if you are, you need to pack up right now and leave." Someone had told him to stay away from Jehovah's Witnesses because they are a cult. I was thankful for the person who had told him that. It made the job of sharing the gospel there a little bit easier. I'm glad that their aversion against Jehovah's Witnesses was not just technical, but was strong and emotive.

Second, I think Stetzer's analogies to other situations are bad analogies at key points. He compares Mormons' relationship with Christianity to Christians' relationship with Judaism. And yet there is an obvious difference between these two situations, and it is the very hinge upon which the choice of terminology turns: We Christians do not claim to be Jews, but Mormons do claim to be Christians. Stetzer's desire is that Mormons should not claim to be Christians at all, and so he suggests simply referring to them as another religion. But Mormons are not heeding Stetzer's instruction at this point. This is precisely why stronger language is in order here: The clarity of the gospel is at stake. Who is the "church of Jesus Christ?" Are they, or are we? Or are we all? When we are in dialogue with Muslims or Hindus or atheists, the definition of the ministry of Jesus Christ is not (quite so much) at stake as it is when we are in dialogue with or about Mormons.

Stetzer also appeals to an analogy with an adulterous neighbor, implying, basically, that using the word "cult" to refer to Mormons is like ordering in a supply of scarlet A's to distribute throughout your neighborhood in response to the prevalence of divorce in your cul-de-sac. A more accurate analogy would be to imagine that your neighbor was Noel Biderman, the founder of the company Ashley Madison, which proudly calls itself "the world's leading married dating service for discrete encounters." Mormons aren't just being something; they're selling something to others. And if your neighbor Biderman, the adultery salesman, were telling everyone that a little one-night stand on the side actually is monogamous marriage, then you'd have an analogous situation.

Wouldn't that situation be a bit different than the Hester Prynne story that comes to mind in Stetzer's article? In such a situation, where the very meaning of marriage and adultery were being confused in people's minds, wouldn't you have some obligation to speak up and say, "No, I'm sorry, but what you're promoting actually is adultery."

Third, if we're going to shift terminology, I think we have biblical warrant to go with something sterner rather than something kinder and gentler. Which sounds worse to you, "Mormonism is a cult," or "Let Mormons be accursed"? If Galatians 1 does not apply to Mormonism, then I'm hard pressed to figure out where it applies at all. Indeed, that's the challenge that I place before those who would like us to be more polite in our dealings with those who purport a different gospel of Jesus Christ: Would you list for me the groups for which you think we should speak of them in a Galatians 1 sort of way? Can you explain for me how those groups differ from Mormons? Or have we just entirely lost our nerve for such things altogether?

Consider also the language from Jesus Himself to the seven churches in Asia. Jesus commended the Ephesians for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, told the church at Pergamum that he would wage war against the Nicolaitans with the sword of His mouth, called a false teacher in Thyatira "Jezebel," and referred to Jewish groups in Smyrna and Philadelphia as "a synagogue of Satan." When people start to mess around with the truth of the gospel, Jesus doesn't mince words. Why, again, should we?

In conclusion, Stetzer is right that we cannot avoid the topic of Mormonism in this election season. It's a challenge. It is also an opportunity. An opportunity to speak truth about Mormonism. Ed Stetzer clearly said that we should not cease to call Mormonism a cult if pressed to do so, and I appreciated that principled stand on his part. My aim in this article has been to demonstrate why I think it is a biblical and strategic practice to include, as a part of our discourse about Mormonism, an intentionality about identifying it as a cult.

I Might Not Vote for Mitt Romney

I'm considering—seriously considering—writing in "Mike Huckabee" when I vote for President of the United States on Election Day.

1. Not because Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He is a Mormon, of course. The personal implications of that are real and frightening. There is only one way of salvation for human beings. He has rejected it and embraced a lie instead of the truth. He is lost.

   Nevertheless, I do not believe that we should have a religious test for public office in the United States of America. I would vote for a Mormon. I was planning, until a few minutes ago, to vote to have a magic underwear closet installed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and I was entirely comfortable with that.

2. Not because I strongly suspect that Mitt Romney is still the liberal that he was when he was Governor of Massachusetts. I really do. I fully expect that, once he is safely ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania (if, indeed, that were to transpire), he will do absolutely nothing to carry forward a conservative vision for America. I really don't know why liberals are so worried about him.

   And yet, never in our history have we had a president as liberal as Barack Obama. I'm not sure that we've ever in our history had a serious CANDIDATE for the presidency who was as liberal as Barack Obama. I'll take an insincere liberal pretending to be a conservative over a liberal true-believer any day of the week. Facing the choices we face, I was prepared to vote for Mitt Romney in spite of my well-founded suspicions.

3. Not because Mitt Romney is such a weak candidate. Imagine how differently the last debate would've gone if we could've had a candidate actually capable of taking the fight to Barack Obama over Obamacare? What if we had a candidate with the convictional nerve to challenge the President over his atrocious record on religious liberty when he starts to talk about Obama's religious-funding-for-chemical-abortion mandate?

   And yet, I've voted for these self-defeating kamikaze GOP candidates before: Bob Dole, John McCain. I was prepped to do so again.

   Really, what has lost my vote for Mitt Romney is nothing that Mitt Romney has done or has been, nothing that Barack Obama has done or has been—the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association probably cost Mitt Romney my November ballot when it stopped calling Mormonism a cult explicitly because of this election.

4. Because walking away from the GOP in this election may be the only way to save the gospel from the pragmatic branch of Evangelicalism that never met a doctrine it wouldn't throw under the bus for the right price, I may not vote for Mitt Romney in November. I can imagine circumstances in which I would vote for Mitt Romney, but under no circumstances will I play make-believe about his heresy. That price is too high. That is a bridge too far.

   For the sake of my congregation, when Billy Graham is muddying the waters of the gospel, I have an obligation to provide clarity. For the sake of Mormons in my community who need to know of their need for the gospel of Jesus Christ and who are being reassured in their damnable heresy by none less than Billy Graham, I have an obligation to provide clarity.

If the election came down to a single vote, that vote were mine, and the circumstances of the election put me in a situation of having to choose between a vote that would doom the nation to four more years of the curse upon our land that is the Obama Administration or a vote that would leave doubt in anyone's mind whether the true followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ consider Mormonism to be a cult—if that were the choice that I faced and it were all within my hands, Rick Warren would be praying at another Obama inauguration in January.

Why? Do I want Obama to win? No. The defeat of Barack Obama is a priority of mine. But it is only one among many priorities. And in that list of priorities, that particular one isn't at the top…isn't in the top ten.

I've got my priorities straight. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association doesn't. I'm worried about some of the other institutions of Evangelicalism around me.

I'm worried about some of you.

Prove me wrong. Prove the BGEA wrong. Prove Mitt Romney wrong. Come out HARD against this terrible mistake, and do it BEFORE the election.