Evaluating the Harvest: Looking at a Decade of NAMB Church Planting

I was first seriously introduced to the idea of evangelism through church planting in the Spring of 2007. Donald Miller's emerging church book, Blue Like Jazz, mentioned a preacher called "Mark the Cussing Pastor." After a quick Yahoo search, I found Mars Hill's podcasts of Mark Driscoll and downloaded all the available previous sermons to my iPod. He talked up church planting and a small group of churches called Acts 29, who were trying to plant more churches in America. God's timing couldn't have been more serendipitous. My family had just moved into a duplex beside a pastor studying church planting and exploring a call to plant in Seattle. We hit it off and almost went with them, but then God sent our three core-team families to three different cities, where we planted three churches that still thrive today.  

When the time came to plant a church, I didn't partner with Acts 29. While in seminary in 2011, I listened to a presentation of the Southern Baptist plan through the North American Mission Board (NAMB) to focus all their money and attention on planting churches in 32 major cities and then see those churches export Christianity and more church plants into all the rest of the U.S. and then out to the entire world. They called it the Send City Initiative. It made sense to my impressionable mind, and I was already a member of an SBC-affiliated church. So when the time came to plant, I saddled up with NAMB.  

It's been nearly 12 years since church planting changed my life, almost ten years since our Risen Life Church-supported Bible study in my home quickly became the makings of a church plant and birthed a new church in Salt Lake City, Utah. I've been asking myself what went well, what didn't, what I might have changed, and what would have been more helpful if I were to do it over. Was it worth the hard work, time, and money? I think so. I love Redeeming Life Church. But that's where honest evaluation and prayer have been insightful.  

As our church looks at evangelism in the U.S., we must consider how church planting serves this mission. As an SBC-affiliated church, we are evaluating our cooperation's "home team" church planting network. Is this the best place for our church to invest our time, work, and money? 

Coming up on the 13th anniversary of the NAMB trustees' election of Kevin Ezell as the President and 11 years since the launch of the Send City Initiative, it seems reasonable to take some time and evaluate how it's all going. Is it achieving the original goals? Is it working? If so, excellent! If not, what needs to change so we can be better stewards of God's gospel mission and the funds for that mission?          

At the 2023 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tyler Gresham, a messenger from Fairhaven Baptist Church in Demopolis, Alabama, made a motion requesting that the trustees of the North American Mission Board form a task force to study:  

1. The number of church plants started and church planters sent to those church plants since 2012; 

2. The number of those churches that continue to exist regardless of denominational affiliation, the number of those that continue to exist as SBC-affiliated churches, and the number of those that have ceased to exist; 

3. The number of church planters sent out since 2012 who continue to serve as vocational pastors regardless of denominational affiliation, the number of those who continue to serve as vocational pastors of SBC churches, and the number of those who no longer serve as vocational pastors; and 

4. The total amount of Cooperative Program funds spent on church plants since 2012.  

Gresham's motion concluded with a request that the NAMB trustees make the report of their findings available at the 2024 annual meeting in printed and digital formats.  

This motion is both an appropriate and reasonable request. When I partnered with NAMB as a church planter, they expected me to send them monthly reports, including how much money came into the church, how much I sent back to the Cooperative Program, how many gospel shares we had, how many in attendance, and how many baptisms. If I didn't give them an honest report of how we stewarded the funds they sent us, I suspect the partnership would need to be adjusted or terminated. Gresham's motion asks NAMB to do the same thing they expect from their planters.  

I would add two things to the request. First, not just how much money NAMB sent to each church planter, but how much was spent on the salaries of the Send City Missionaries, coordinators, and other NAMB employees involved with church planting and re-planting (maybe broke up between planting and re-planting), and how much was spent on travel, "Catch the Vision tours," conferences, hospitality, and marketing (NAMB swag). Second, it would be informative to have a report of the total number of gospel shares, professions of faith, baptisms, and other numbers to help assess the total cost per planter, existing church plant, gospel share, baptism, etc. Also, a breakdown by region or state would be helpful. 

I'm grateful for the large amount of CP money we received directly from NAMB for support and resources. I can see that amount for our church. But I don't know how much money was necessary for the NAMB missionaries who helped me find other partnerships. I don't see the cost of training meetings and conferences per attendee or planter. NAMB blessed my family with various gift cards and books sent to us for encouragement, but I didn't think to keep track of that cost. There were also football tickets, clothing, ATV days, and many other blessings that helped encourage me and the Send Salt Lake community of planters. I'm sure there were high costs to all of these blessings. When I survey my community and see how many plants closed or never launched, and how many planters left the field, I also have to factor all their costs into the effort.  

Honest transparency of this information will give us a clear picture of what we can celebrate and what needs adjusting. This information will help the SBC-affiliated churches who support NAMB be good stewards and partners in our Lord's mission to evangelize the United States and Canada.  

I am praying for the NAMB trustees because sharing a report of this caliber requires substantial integrity. If the findings look great, they will be eager to share the information, even if they had not been asked by the Messengers. But we have to realize it won't be swimming in every area. There is going to be room for improvement. But being publically transparent with the people paying the bills and sending the planters won't be easy. If there are glaring issues, the temptation to hide the information under a rug will be high. Maybe they brush the request off. Or even worse, they succumb to the temptation to spin the data to look good or, heaven forbid, falsify information.  

I still believe church planting is a vital part of the Great Commission. Southern Baptist-affiliated churches need to do their best to engage in church planting. An honest evaluation of how we've done over the past decade will help us make improvements for the next decade and beyond. NAMB trustees, please take Tyler Gresham's motion seriously and put together the best task force you can so we have the most helpful report possible so we can be the most effective group of churches planting churches in the world. We should strive for nothing less. 

Do Christians Still Think About In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Bryan Catherman and Josiah Walker talk about the ethics of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). This was a hot topic in recent history but Christians seem to have have moved on to the next hot topic. But the question remains. Is IFV a good thing, bad thing, or something in between? What about cloning? Remember “Dolly”? What happens to unused embryos? Are Christians talking about this anymore? That’s the conversation and you can listen in to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

A Christian Response to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

 A Christian Response to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)*

By Josiah D. Walker

INTRODUCTION

     A significant moral and ethical issue facing hopeful parents today is the issue of in vitro fertilization, or IVF. At first glance, this reproductive strategy might seem like an uncontested issue; however, for Christians, it can be somewhat difficult to determine their response to this reproductive method. In Genesis 1:26-28, scripture informs us that humanity is made in the image of God, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.’” (Genesis 1:26 [Christian Standard Bible])[1] We must consider the sanctity of human life when deciding, from a Christian perspective, how we should respond to IVF. 

           

A BRIEF HISTORY OF IVF

     In vitro fertilization has been used in countless situations around the globe to help parents unable to conceive children through traditional means. In vitro fertilization occurs when scientists take the egg and the sperm and join them in vitro (in a test tube) and then apply specific proteins or “feeder cells” to help enable growth to the multi-cell stage. After this point, the embryo is implanted into a woman’s womb that has been treated with hormones to cause her body to act as if she were pregnant. Ideally, all of this will result in the mother successfully carrying a child to full term.[2]

     According to one source, the first incident of a successful in vitro fertilization of a human egg was recorded in 1966.[3] Another source stated that “the birth of Louis Brown in 1978 crystallized concepts that were based on decades of basic science research and has evolved into today’s clinical treatment of infertility and the birth of millions of children around the world.”[4] Regardless of when the first successful in vitro fertilization occurred, it is evident that this scientific reproduction method has resulted in numerous pregnancies and countless lives changed forever.

THE FACTS SURROUNDING IVF

     With such a vast number of lives changed, resulting in successful pregnancies for a myriad of couples, it may be difficult to believe that “in the last four decades, the biomedical fields eliciting the strongest debates in terms of ethics, were linked to artificial human reproduction, starting with in vitro fertilization.”[5] That is until you consider some negatives surrounding in vitro fertilization.

     According to Woloschak, “IVF has become a large industry in the United States and Western Europe. In 2014, IVF babies made up 1.5 percent of all births for a total of 3.9 million children.”[6] Woloschak goes on to state that the cost for each IVF procedure is typically around seven thousand dollars, most of which is covered by insurance companies.[7] In addition to the high medical costs of in vitro fertilization that are either passed on to the parents or insurance companies, the ethical issue of unused embryos must be addressed. As part of the IVF procedure, “many eggs are placed into a woman’s womb, and the rest are frozen in preparation for the next opportunity since the first attempt is often unsuccessful.”[8]        

     While many unused embryos are frozen and might be utilized for a successful future pregnancy, there is also the possibility that these frozen embryos will be destroyed. As McTavish has observed, “In the United States alone, there are more than 500,000 frozen embryonic persons, 50% of them will die upon being thawed.”[9] Another point of consideration is the fact that embryos are sometimes utilized for medical experiments or used for purposes other than their original intended use.[10]         

     Other factors to consider are the commercialization of in vitro fertilization and the donation of embryos to other parties. According to Asplund, the increasing demand for IVF has resulted in both economic and ethical concerns, “Ethical questions that are often raised in the debate include equity, possible exploitation of need and hope, consent that is truly informed, and the many components of marketing ethics.”[11] Asplund goes on to state that, “Most of the public debate on the commercialization of IVF has not, however, concerned IVF as such but the reimbursement of gamete donors (egg donors in particular), the selling of embryos, and the use of IVF for commercial surrogacy.”[12] According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Asplundh’s concerns are not unfounded. “Recent evidence of scientific fraud and unacceptable egg donor procurement practices in South Korea highlights the importance of regulation as an emerging issue in this field.”[13] Many people are arguing for scientific responsibility and integrity concerning this issue and the political influences that might negatively affect researchers.[14] As a result, “the conditions (such as financial gain, informed consent, protections of confidentiality, and privacy of the donor) for egg donation for IVF treatment should be distinguished from the conditions surrounding egg donation for research purposes,”[15] argues the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “and potential egg donors should be informed clearly as to the intended uses of their eggs.”[16]

BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST IVF

     There are many reasons why Christians today are opposed to the utilization of IVF to treat infertility. While most protestants and evangelicals have moral clarity when it comes to issues like abortion, the subject of IVF has left several Christians confused or unsure of where they stand on this important topic.[17] What most Christians fail to consider or may not realize when considering the morality of in vitro fertilization is the question of what happens to the extra embryos that have been created and are not utilized in the process of trying to conceive children.

     “After fertilization,”[18] writes Bartolucci and Peluso, “the resulting embryos are cultured for up to 7 days. The best embryos are transferred into the uterus where the embryo implants and hopefully develops into a healthy child.”[19] Embryos that are still viable but are not used for fertilization are often times frozen so that they can be saved for future use. “At present, there are estimated to be one million frozen human embryos worldwide awaiting their fate.”[20] However, the eggs that are not healthy or defective are, in fact, destroyed.

     In light of the fact that potential lives are destroyed each year via in vitro fertilization, many Christians would argue that the same principles of abortion should be applied to the issue of IVF. “Any use of this technique that ‘destroys multiple human embryos,’”[21] argues Grudem, “is morally wrong because it results in the wrongful destruction of human life.”[22] Thus, the destruction of any unused embryos is seen by many as a violation of the commandment found in Exodus 20:13, “Do not murder.” (Ex. 20:13 [CSB]) The ten commandments that God gave to Moses on top of Mount Sinai were not just seen as serious rules to obey by the Israelites roughly 3,500 years ago, they are also commandments that must be adhered to by 21st century Christians.

     Since the unused embryos carry with them the potential to successfully become life, then many Christians understandably view the destruction of unused embryos as the same as murdering a living, breathing human being that has been created in the image of God. “In Genesis 9:6 murder is prohibited on the grounds that the human was created in God’s image,”[23] observes Erickson. “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans his blood will be shed, for God made humans in his image” (Gen. 9:6).

     Another reason that Christians disapprove of the use of in vitro fertilization is that embryos are created in a laboratory, and as a result, fertilization takes place outside of the traditional means of sexual intercourse designed by God for reproduction. In relation to this, some Christians struggle with the morality of IVF, as obtaining the sperm is achieved via masturbation. Their reason for objecting to this practice often harkenes back to the story of Judah and Tamar found in Genesis 38:8-10 where, in order not to produce offspring with his brother’s wife, Tamar, Onan “released his semen on the ground” (Gen. 38:9 [CSB]). According to scripture, what Onan did was “evil in the Lord’s sight, so he [the Lord] put him to death.” (Gen. 38:10 [CSB]).

     Although, the use of that text for the argument against masturbation seems weak when careful exegesis of the text leaves the reader to surmise that God’s anger stemmed from His frustration that Onan was not performing his duty to produce offspring with his brother’s wife.[24] A more appropriate verse that a Christian may choose to use in the defense against masturbation for the goal of in vitro fertilization can be found in 1 Thessalonians.

     In 1 Thessalonians, Paul instructs the church in Thessalonica to abstain from sexual impurity and be sanctified before God. 1 Thessalonians 4:3 reads, “For this is God’s will, your sanctification: that you keep away from sexual immorality” (1 Thess. 4:3 [CSB]). Regardless of which text the Christian man or woman uses to defend their stance on this subject, it is clear from God’s word that we are called to be holy as God himself is holy. “You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be mine.” (Lev. 20:26 [CSB]).

     In addition to the ethical struggles that men face surrounding masturbation, “Husbands often experience enormous stress during fertility treatment decision-making and feel a lack of control and engagement in the process.”[25] With this in mind, “Sanctioning masturbation for the sake of collecting sperm is dubious,” states Anderson, “and as typically done, it is presumptively wrong. The mother does not act in giving her eggs: She is acted upon.”[26] In the end, this is a complex process for Christians to wrap their head around, resulting in contested beliefs on both sides. When weighing out the various reasons against IVF, as Anderson so aptly observes, “For most evangelicals, the ethics of in vitro fertilization must satisfy two criteria: Embryos and sperm must come from a married couple, and no embryos may be killed.[27]

BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR IVF

     While there are several Biblical reasons Christians choose to stand firm in opposition to the use of in vitro fertilization, there is also a strong Biblical argument to be made to justify in vitro fertilization to combat infertility issues among Christian couples.

     Some Christians will choose to justify the use of in vitro fertilization based on the Biblical examples found in scripture where a couple is struggling to conceive a child, and, as a result, the couple chooses to pursue unconventional means. Such an example is found in Genesis 16: 1-3. In this portion of scripture, we read about Abram and his wife Sarai. Due to their unsuccessful attempts to conceive a child, Sarai suggests an alternative to her husband Abram, “Since the Lord has prevented me from bearing children, go to my slave; perhaps through her I can build a family.” (Gen. 16:2b [CSB]). If we were to continue reading their story in Genesis 16, we would see that Sarai’s servant girl did in fact, produce an offspring for Abram named Ishmael.

     Another example of almost an identical situation is found later on in Genesis, in chapter 30 where Rachel and her husband Jacob are struggling to have children. “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she envied her sister. ‘Give me sons, or I will die!’” (Gen. 30:1 [CSB]). In light of Rachel’s anger and frustration, she decides to give her servant girl Bilhah to Jacob in hopes of producing a line of offspring that way. In the end, we find that Rachel’s slave girl, Bilhah, in fact, gives birth to two sons with Jacob before Jacob and Rachel are ultimately able to have children together of their own.  

     Yet one more example similar to the above two is found just a few chapters later in Genesis 38. Once again, we turn our attention to the issue surrounding Tamar that has already been highlighted earlier in this paper. In the end, after several failed attempts to conceive children with her late husband’s brothers in order to continue the family line, Tamar becomes pregnant via her father in-law Judah, and gives birth to a son in Genesis 38.

     When examining these three examples in God’s word, some scholars might conclude that “according to Genesis lessons, those who are unable to get children on the normal ways can use alternatives.”[28] These biblical scholars interpret God’s willingness to allow children to be conceived via these alternatives as his permission or approval of these unconventional methods as well as other methods that are not mentioned, such as in vitro fertilization. “It is unreasonable to consider we have to find in Genesis text the terms in vitro fertilization or cloning,”[29] writes Leabu, “But,”[30] Leabu continues, “we may understand these two techniques as an alternative for getting children and Genesis teaches us that can be permitted.”[31]          

     In addition to the reasons listed above, one justification a Christian couple may choose to justify the use of in vitro fertilization would be the utilization of all viable embryos. As mentioned earlier in the defense against the use of IVF, one of the main reasons against the use of this medical practice was the viable embryos that are not utilized are often destroyed. As a result, one way that Christians who choose to participate in or validate the use of in vitro fertilization justify their view is to ensure that all embryos that are created as part of the fertilization process have a chance at life is to require that all embryos are implanted inside the mother during the procedure.    

     Along these same lines, there is also the issue of embryo adoption to be considered. Adopting embryos not frozen in ice or used in a subsequent IVF is seen as a “heroic act of rescue in favor of an endangered human being”[32] who might otherwise not have a legitimate chance at life. “Moreover,” McTavish states, “the adoption of an embryo itself does not violate the conjugal act or separate union and procreation because the child already exits.”[34] For these reasons, many Christians might feel comfortable proceeding with in vitro fertilization in relation to God’s word and its Biblical principles.        

     Lastly, a Christian might choose to justify the use of in vitro fertilization because of the command from God given to Adam and Eve near the end of Genesis chapter one. In Genesis 1:28, God blessed Adam and Eve, and said to them: “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28b [CSB]). As descendants of Adam, we too have been commanded to multiply and fill the earth in the same manner that the first humans were instructed to do.        

     While these directives from the Lord can easily be viewed as commands from above, the fact of the matter is that these instructions are, in reality, a blessing upon mankind as well “since the introductory statement of this verse identifies them as a blessing.”[35] It is because God’s words are seen as a blessing as well as a command that so many hopeful parents desire to honor God and serve Him by producing offspring. They see the opportunity to have children as a blessing and a gift from their heavenly father.

INTERPRETIVE SECTION // CONCLUSION

     The issue of in vitro fertilization is a significant problem for the Church because it is an issue that plagues men, women, and families across the country and around the world. According to the CDC National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2015), “6.7% of American women of reproductive age are infertile, and 7.3 million have used infertility services.”[36] As more and more couples wait until later in life to start a family, these numbers continue to rise. Not only are multiple men and women plagued with infertility issues, but those also who choose to undergo infertility treatment endure physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological difficulties throughout the process.[37] 

     As a result, the couples will need the help of counselors and spiritual advisors within the church to help walk them through these difficult seasons of their lives. We need Pastors, leaders, and other Christians who will be there to help support and comfort those couples who suffer from the brokenness and shame that surround IVF and infertility difficulties. God’s word reminds us to “Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.” (Rom. 12:15 [CSB]). As Christians, we can joyfully rejoice with those who are able to successfully have children either through traditional means or through the help of medical treatments such as in vitro fertilization. Additionally, we can weep with those who cannot benefit from the blessing of children, either because they could not afford the high cost of IVF treatments or because those procedures were found ineffective in their cases. While the topic of in vitro fertilization is an ethically complex and messy issue, we must remember not to make it a volatile or heated issue among our brothers and sisters in Christ. When dealing with such a difficult and complex topic, we must remember to be considerate and respectful of others despite the fact that their viewpoints might prove to be different than our own. The church cannot allow this issue to become something that divides or causes rifts among the bride of Christ. 

     IFV is an important issue for the church because many couples in our communities and within our congregations will face the heartache of infertility. The chances are good that each of us will know a friend or someone close to us in our lifetime who has dealt with this issue personally and had to walk through it with their spouse. As someone who has personally suffered the loss that comes with infertility issues, I can confirm that men experience the same heartaches and frustrations as their helpmates do in this process. As a result, it is vital that our Christian brothers stand up and are there for one another to help each other unpack the pain of infertility issues so that when couples face difficult situations, they do not lose faith in the Lord but can stand firm in their faith and lay their burdens down at his feet.

     “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28-30 [CSB])

 Bibliography

Anderson, Matthew. “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” First Things (March 2021): 341-36.

Asplund, Kjell, “Use of in vitro fertilization – ethical issues” Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 125, no 2 (2020): 192-199. 

Bartolucci, Alison F. and Peluso, John J. “Necessity is the mother of invention and the evolutionary force driving the success of in vitro fertilization,” Biology and Reproduction, 2021. 104 (2): 255-273.

Chan, Celia Hoi Yan, Lau, Bobo Hi Po, Tam, Michelle Yi Jun and Ng, Enest Hung Yu “Preferred problem solving and decision-making role in fertility treatment among women following an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization cycle,” BMC Women’s Health 19, 153 (2019): 1-11

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Gaebelein, Frank E, and Polcyn, Richard. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis – Numbers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Hughes, R. Kent.  Preaching the Word Commentary: Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party. “Ethics Issues in Stem Cell Research.” Science 312, no. 5772 (2006): 366-367. 

Leabu, Mircea. “Christianity and Bioethics. Seeking Arguments for Stem Cell Research In Genesis,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 11, Issue 31 (Spring 2012): 72-87.

McTavish, James. “A Pastoral Question on IVF and Embryo Adoption,” Landas 28, no 2 (2014): 143-154.

Rothwell, Erin, Brandy Lamb, Erin Johnson, Shawn Gurtcheff, Naomi Riches, Melinda Fagan, Maya Sabatello, and Erica Johnstone, “Patient perspectives and experiences with in vitro fertilization and genetic testing options,” Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health 14, (2020): 1-12.

Woloschak, Gayle E. “In Vitro Fertilization and the Beginning of Human Life,” The Wheel 11, (Fall 2017): 11-16.

[1] Bible quotations in this paper will be from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) unless otherwise noted.

[2] Gayle E. Woloschak, “In Vitro Fertilization and the Beginning of Human Life,” The Wheel 11, (Fall 2017): 11.

[3] Mircea Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics. Seeking Arguments for Stem Cell Research In Genesis,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 11, Issue 31 (Spring 2012): 74.

[4] Alison F. Bartolucci and John J Peluso, “Necessity is the mother of invention and the evolutionary force driving the success of in vitro fertilization,” Biology and Reproduction, 2021. 104 (2): 255.

[5] Leabu. “Christianity and Bioethics,” Journal for the Study of Religions, 74.

[6] Woloschak. “In Vitro Fertilization,” The Wheel 11.

[7] Woloschak. “In Vitro Fertilization,” The Wheel 11.

[8] Woloschak. “In Vitro Fertilization,” The Wheel 11.

[9] James McTavish, “A Pastoral Question on IVF and Embryo Adoption,” Landas 28, no 2 (2014): 145.

[10] Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics.” 76.

[11] Kjell Asplund, “Use of in vitro fertilization – ethical issues,” Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 125, no 2 (2020): 196.

[12] Asplund, “Use of in vitro fertilization,” Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 196.

[13] International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party. “Ethics Issues in Stem Cell Research.” Science 312, no. 5772 (2006): 366.

[14] Ethics Issues in Stem Cell Research, 366.

[15] Ethics Issues in Stem Cell Research, 367.

[16] Ethics Issues in Stem Cell Research, 367.

[17] Matthew Anderson, “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” First Things (March 2021): 34.

[18] Bartolucci “Necessity is the mother of invention” 255.

[19] Bartolucci “Necessity is the mother of invention” 255.

[20] McTavish, “A Pastoral Question on IVF and Embryo Adoption,” 145.

[21] Anderson, “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” 35.

[22] Anderson, “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” 35.

[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 459.

[24] R. Kent Hughes, Preaching the Word CommentaryGenesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 452.

[25] Celia Hoi Yan Chan, Bobo Hi Po Lau, Michelle Yi Jun Tam, and Enest Hung Yu Ng, “Preferred problem solving and decision-making role in fertility treatment among women following an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization cycle,” BMC Women’s Health 19, 153 (2019): 2.

[26] Anderson, “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” 35.

[27] Anderson, “The Biblical Case Against IVF,” 35.

[28] Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics.” 76.

[29] Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics.” 76.

[30] Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics.” 76.

[31] Leabu, “Christianity and Bioethics.” 76.

[32] McTavish, “A Pastoral Question on IVF and Embryo Adoption,” 153.   

[34] McTavish, “A Pastoral Question on IVF and Embryo Adoption,” 153.

[35] Frank E Gaebelein, and Richard Polcyn. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis – Numbers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 38.

[36] Erin Rothwell, Brandy Lamb, Erin Johnson, Shawn Gurtcheff, Naomi Riches, Melinda Fagan, Maya Sabatello, Erica Johnstone, “Patient perspectives and experiences with in vitro fertilization and genetic testing options,” Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health 14, (2020): 1-12.

[37] Erin Rothwell, Brandy Lamb, Erin Johnson, Shawn Gurtcheff, Naomi Riches, Melinda Fagan, Maya Sabatello, and Erica Johnstone, “Patient perspectives and experiences with in vitro fertilization and genetic testing options,” Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health 14, (2020): 1-12.

*This post orginated from a paper written by Josiah Walker in partial fulfillment of a Masters Degree at Gateway Seminary. It has been edited for the purposes of this format.

Does the Church Really Shine Brighter in Hard Times than in Easy Ones?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted Bryan Catherman and Josiah Walker delve into a quote by Ray Ortlund, who argues that in the face of adversity, it's the deeply-rooted churches that retain their significance. Ray Ortlund says, "One benefit of these hard times: every unserious, shallow, giggly church is obviously irrelevant. But churches of deep purpose matter.” Are these turbulent times revealing the true essence of the Church? Does its importance wane during times of ease? Listen in on this discussion as we question the role and relevance of light-hearted churches during tough times. Listen to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you get your podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

What are the SBC Entities?

Join Bryan Catherman and Josiah Walker as they discuss the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention. The entities are autonomous and serve or are served by SBC churches. How does this work? What role do the messengers play when it comes to the SBC entities? How are the entities a good representation of the Southern Baptist Convention and how are they not? Listen into the conversation on Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

LifeWay and the Baptist Faith and Message

On this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Bryan Catherman and Josiah Walker discuss LifeWay’s recent claim that everything produced at LifeWay falls within the Baptist Faith and Message. How does their recent text advertisement for a Pricilla Schier event line up with this claim? Does Schier’s teaching fall squarely in the BFM 2000 or is it more on the fringes, or is it completely outside the bounds? Does LifeWay understand the BFM 2000 differently than the majority of Southern Baptists or are there just a few outlying churches on this topic? Can churches who affiliate with the SBC trust that LifeWay content is appropriate to promote to their church members? Yes or no, is there anything the local churches can do to influence decisions at LifeWay? Listen in to the conversation on Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

What Does a Christian Do?

What is a Christian, and what does a Christian do?  

As important as this question is, it starts with a question before it: What advantage is it to be a Christian?  

In this life, the Christian experiences God's love, forgiveness, and guidance through his Word and the Holy Spirit. Christians are afforded peace and hope, freedom from fear and worry, and direction for a life that pleases God. (Romans 8:14-17) The Christian also enjoys the blessings of a supportive community of fellow believers and their God-given gifts (Romans 12:3-8). And most significantly, Christians have the hope of salvation through faith, the assurance of eternal life in the presence of God, where there is no more sin, pain, or suffering but great joy as we worship the Lord forever (Romans 8:38-39). 

Being a Christian is of the greatest advantage, but a single event, action, or moment doesn't give us the full enjoyment and blessing of this advantage. Instead, the Christian lives a specific lifestyle as directed by God, and it is by this life that the Christian truly walks in the blessings of the Lord.  

What is a Christian, and what does a Christian do?  

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said his disciples hear his voice and follow him (John 10:27-29). Christians follow Jesus, abiding in him daily (Luke 11:3, Hebrews 3:13, Acts 17:11).  

Through a study often called "The Commands of Christ," we see imperatives from Jesus about what he commanded his disciples to do. The study also offers examples of people following those commands. By these commands, we know what Christians should do, and we get a picture of what Christians are. The study includes one more instruction that Jesus didn't explicitly command during his earthy ministry, but it's also an important aspect of Christianity, so it's included in the study.

All of the Commands of Christ are an act of worship, which followed the command to worship the Lord our God in Matthew 4:10. What follows is the traditional study called “The Commands of Christ.”

Repent and Believe. The command is found in Matthew 4:17 and Mark 1:15. Examples include Luke 7:36-50 and Luke 19:1-10.  

Be Baptized. The command is found in Matthew 28:19. Examples include Acts 8:26-39 and Acts 16:25-34.  

Pray. The command is found in Matthew 6:9-13. Examples include Matthew 6:5-15 and Luke 11:5-13. 

Make Disciples. The command is found in Matthew 28:18-20. Examples include John 4:4-42 and Mark 5:1-20. 

Persevere. The command is found in Matthew 10:22. An example is found in Acts 5:27-42. 

Love. The command is found in Matthew 22:37-39. And example is found in Luke 10:25-37. 

Eat the Lord's Supper. The command is found in Matthew 26:26-28. Examples include Luke 22:7-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. 

Give. The command is found in Matthew 6:1-4. An example is found in Mark 12:41-44. 

Gather to Worship. The command is found in Hebrews 10:24-25. An example is found in Acts 2:36-47. 

Landmines in Systematic Theology: The Church and End Times

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss the landmines in the areas of the church and end times. And the landmines are plentiful. What is the church? What’s the difference between the universal church and the local church? Is membership biblical? What are Elders and Deacons? Does God call females to serve as Elders? Has Jesus already come back? What will happen when Jesus comes back? When is Jesus coming back? What is heaven like? What is death. What can we expect in this last age? They discuss these and many other questions like it, but they mostly point out the landmines. Listen to this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Autonomy of the SBC Entities

Baptist theology values the autonomy of the local church. To say it another way, the local church governs herself. There isn't a top-down structure over Baptist churches like the Roman Catholic Church. There isn't even a Presbytery over Baptist churches—a body or court of Elders from the churches in a specific area with granted authority over the churches within that particular area. So, imagine the challenges when a group of locally autonomous churches decided to work together to pool resources to send missionaries and start seminaries. Then, add 178 years.

Today, churches in the Southern Baptist Convention tout the local autonomy of the church. We wave the flag of autonomy as our way of saying the SBC has no authority over the local church, and instead, the church can voluntarily associate with the SBC or not. Additionally, local churches can send messengers to an annual SBC business meeting to make motions and vote on the business matters of the SBC, but not the entities.  

Here's the rub. Most of the function of the SBC cooperative ministry happens through the SBC entities, which are just as autonomous as the churches.  

Basically, an SBC entity is a separate organization with trustees and governing structure that gets money from the local churches, gives a brief report, and takes one or two questions from the messengers annually. The messengers have no authority over the entities, which becomes evident every time a messenger makes a business motion instructing or prohibiting something directed at an entity. The parliamentarian deems a motion of this kind out of order and again reminds us that the entities are autonomous. Messengers can't direct the actions of the SBC entities. The entities include the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the 6 SBC seminaries, LifeWay, Guidestone, and the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. Any part of the Southern Baptist Convention instituted to help the local church in her mission work is an autonomous entity beyond the direction or control of the local church, messengers, or executive committee of the SBC.

Okay, that's not entirely true. The President of the SBC appoints two people from every state convention (some state conventions are two states combined) to the Committee on Committees. It's their job to select two different people from within their state conventions to sit on the Nominating Committee the following year. Then the Nominating Committee selects the trustees for the various entities when vacancies arise. But it's worth noting that except for the SBC Executive Committee and the International Mission Board, most trustee seats are allocated to the largest state conventions, excluding the smaller, missional areas of the country and the churches in those areas.  

Furthermore, entities that only allow trustees from state conventions with larger Baptists populations encourage churches to pad their membership report numbers on the ACP. The appointment of a trustee is how churches can influence entities. The only other way churches may influence the entities is to give huge sums of money to the entity or withhold giving from the entity. 

This dilemma brings us back to the point: SBC churches are autonomous, and so are SBC entities.  

Tremendous marketing efforts go into fundraising through the Cooperative Program, the Annie Armstrong Offering, and the Lottie Moon Offering. The entities need the money that's in the churches. And in theory, churches need the help offered by the entities. Therefore, the question in tension is, who serves whom? Do the autonomous entities serve the churches, or do the churches serve the entities? The answer was much easier in 1845. It's a mystery today.  

What happens when the ERLC behaves in a disagreeable way to many churches? What about when LifeWay sells products the SBC messengers don't want LifeWay to sell? What if an entity isn't transparent with finances or covers up and scrubs social media about using trainers and leaders that fall outside the SBC's beliefs? What if a seminary might have covered up an abuse issue? What actions can the messengers take? What options are available to the SBC churches? None. They have no authority over the autonomous SBC entities. Sure, they can email the entity with questions. They can try to get to a microphone at the annual meeting to ask a question if time allows. But with most entities today, that receives 3 minutes of spin and nothing more because it doesn't matter. Messengers can't direct entities, and neither can SBC churches.  

While SBC churches enjoy local autonomy, we must acknowledge that we instituted entities independent of our control. That isn't a problem if the entities do what we like, but when they don't, our only recourse is to pray and stop feeding the beast.

How You Get Them is How You Keep Them

A principle in ministry says, "How you get them is how you keep them." It's something that people undoubtedly say in business and politics and 24-hour news media, too. It's said because the statement holds a great deal of truth. The thing that draws people to visit a church will often be the thing that keeps them coming back to that church.

There are enough disastrous stories that pastors should be highly vigilant to what happens when the draw is wrong, yet the temptation for quick returns often proves too great. Examples from outside the church include the .99 cent Whopper and angsty Starbucks employees.

For years the Burger King Whopper was just under a buck. That's how they advertised it, and it never seemed to change. But then it had to. Burger King could no longer afford to lose money on their star performer. They couldn't drop the Whopper from the menu because they built their identity upon it. Eventually, even their most loyal customers freaked out when they ultimately had to raise the price. They were "got" by a .99 cent Whopper, and that's how they'd be "kept," so instead, they ventured out to places like In-and-Out and Five Guys, where they spent much more money for a burger but didn't seem to mind at all. The Whopper fiasco was about the feelings for what drew them and would keep them.

Starbucks has a long history of attracting baristas with edgy, progressive employee policies. In 1988, Starbucks allowed same-sex partners in on employee health benefits. That same year, they drew several part-time employees because many part-timers were eligible for health insurance at the coffee chain. In 2013 they extended their health insurance coverage to pay for sex-change surgeries and gender reassignment treatments. In 2015 they led the charge with personal pronoun and nickname expression name tags. Over the years, Starbucks has been on the leading edge of the "living wage" argument for college students and artists who mix drive-through concoctions for addicted accountants, marketing consultants, and especially soccer moms. But then competition grew; customers found alternatives. The most loyal Starbucks customers stay willing to dig deep into their pockets for the Starbucks brand, but $8 coffee is getting harder to swallow, and the prices must keep climbing to fund higher employee costs. So, it was no surprise when Starbucks backed off its progressive drive for baristas. Neither was it a surprise when the employees, accustomed to such spoiling, unionized to keep their demands coming. Starbucks got their baristas with these liberal employee policies. If they don't want heartache and strike after strike, how they got them is how they'll keep them. Case in point: the latest Starbucks unionized strike in the news pertains to Starbucks allowing individual store managers to decide the level of Pride month decorations to celebrate LGBTQIA+ agendas. It seems unlikely that even a single Starbucks location would prohibit LGBTQ decorations, but the employees are angry that the corporate office would suggest any limits whatsoever. Therefore, 3,500 employees went on strike, closing 150 New York Starbucks locations. How you get them is how you keep them.

It's easy to find lessons in the Christian churches too. Churches with superstar pastors who build their brand around fame find themselves in trouble when the pastor falls to moral failure, leaves for another church, or retires. The people who attend the church come for the superstar; therefore, the superstar will keep them. The same is true even of coffee or donuts on Sundays. Take away what drew the people and watch the people freak out or leave.

What's the answer?

The key to overcoming this problem is that a church needs to be sure the draw is something they are committed to forever. It must be something they can be dedicated to for the long haul. And what is the most obvious, faithful thing the church should rely on to draw people? The Word of God. A church faithful to the ministry of the Word won't have the problems seeker churches, over-programed churches, and celebrity-based churches will run into. If people come to the church for the Word of God, the Word of God will keep them coming.

Furthermore, the Word of God promises to transform souls over the long haul, so by the Word of God, the church will continue to glorify God as people give themselves to our Lord as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). It's not complicated. How you get them is how you keep them. So be sure what you use to get them is the right thing you want to keep them.

Landmines in Systematic Theology: TULIP and Reformed Theology

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss TULIP and Reformed theology. More specifically, how aspect of soteriology, the order of salvation impact our theological thinking. The key is not to find the right “camp” but to seek to understand Scripture. Listen to this episode wherever you listen to podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Wizards, Christians, and the Electoral Apocalypse

The next national election will be decided by the work of electronic wizards, not because they stole it, but because we'll hand it to them. With the help of tools like Deepfake, artificial intelligence (AI), and smarter smartphones, a person with limited skill and nefarious intentions can spin a predictable interview into a 30-second firestorm of anger-inducing trick-foolery. The delivery method for this political dirty bomb is the millions of social media consumers, who, eager to pass along the lie, are often unaware and unwilling to stop and think.

For Christians, getting involved in this madness is a sin. It violates the 9th Commandment—"do not give false testimony" (Exodus 20:16). Passing along a hacked video of a politician saying what he or she didn't really say is taking part in slander and gossip. So is passing along a video or soundbite taken out of context, especially if it's shared to discredit or harm the political leader or opponent. This kind of behavior exposes clear hypocrisy. A video against an unliked candidate comes in, and it's damning, but no thought is offered before it's liked and shared. Then a video of a favored candidate comes along. There's a pause to consider that it must be fake or taken out of context, and then it's trashed. Those are unfair standards.

These videos are circulating, and Christians are passing them along by the truckload.

A Christian should be a truth-teller. He or she should speak about the hope of salvation and the damnation of sin. Christians could address truths regarding abortion, CRT, gender, sexual practices against the will of a holy God, unchecked rage and violence, and many other biblical matters, but not if the Christian shares lies about everything else.

The Christian should be thoughtful about matters, giving time to pray about ideas and claims and checking them against Scripture. Hope is the Christian's watchword, but not hope in the election or the politician or the party. Instead, the Christian hopes in God and God's glorious Kingdom to come. The Christian should not look like everyone else by acting like those in the world but instead look like Christ, who is other-worldly and transcended above 4-year election cycles. A Christian should be trustworthy and reasonable because a Christian is an ambassador for Jesus Christ. Sadly, most Christians are first an ambassador of their preferred politician in whom they've placed their trust to fix their problems.

Stop and think the next time one of these videos pops up in your social media feed. Pray about it. Wait. If it's true, it can be shared in a day or two, if necessary. But a gossipy lie will feel like a flaming-hot potato that must be passed immediately. That's the game Christians must not play.

A time is coming, and may even be here now, when we can trust nothing in media. Nothing. Not the news outlets and certainly not anything that comes from the internet, not even from the sites you like. People will have to hear candidates in person. Others who can't attend rallies and debates must listen to those they trust. Will you be among the trustworthy and reasonable? Will you tell the truth? You won't even get the chance if you're a part of the machine passing lies today.

And now is the time to preach the Truth of God's Word. The American political system isn't going to fix all the problems, especially the ones they created. But there is one who redeems and saves—King Jesus Christ. Abortion is murder, but praise the Lord, God will forgive murderers who place their faith and trust in Jesus. Sex is a beautiful gift given to humanity by God, but it is only to be practiced as God intended—within the marital covenant between a man and a woman. The world's problem is indeed the oppressor over the oppressed, but we are all oppressed under the crushing burden of our sin, which only Christ can lift because only Christ had died in your place to bare your sin, freeing us from true oppression. All life is precious, including aborted babies and people killed by gun violence, because, unlike all other animals in creation, God made humans in his image. God instituted the family because God has charged parents to raise their children in the respect and love of God. God knows what is best for the family, and faithful families should trust and obey God.

Truth-tellers should be able to convey these things, but they will only be heard if the truth is not mingled with false videos, political gossip, and careless words.

Reflections On The 2023 Southern Baptist Convention

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss their thoughts on the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. What did they think where the high points? What were the low points? The SBC sent 70 missionaries into the world. The messengers also clarified who the Bible says is a Pastor. Why did Kevin Ezell dance around a question about using Andy and Stacie Wood as NAMB trainers? What about Rick Warren and Saddleback? And to our surprise, the messengers changed the Baptist Faith and Messengers (BFM 2000). On this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted they discuss these things and more. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Landmines in Systematic Theology: Christ, Atonement, and the Resurrection

On this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss the controversial issues in the theology of Christ, atonement, and the resurrection. These are complicated matters and it’s helpful to know where the big challenges and difficult topics are found. It doesn’t always keep the problems sorted out in theological study, but it’s helpful to know where the landmines are. Listen to this episode wherever you get your podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | Stitcher | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Landmines in Systematic Theology: Humanity and Sin

Join Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman as they discuss the landmines in the theology of sin and the theology of humanity. In this episode, they discuss topics like total depravity, evil, the image of God, sin and more. Listen to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you subscribe to podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | Stitcher | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Band Book: The Vulgar and Violent Bible

Davis County School District has pulled the Bible off library shelves in all elementary and junior high schools. But before we call the school district woke or anti-Christian, we should probably get honest about three things: this is the unintended consequence of 2022 Utah legislation, the Bible is violent and sexually graphic, and we can always expect government schools to be the divisive battleground between divisive adults seeking their preferred system of divisive indoctrination.   

In 2022, Utah passed HB374 to remove pornographic material from public schools. That's an admirable effort, but it never stood a chance in a society of people who prefer entertainment loaded with sexual content, crude innuendo, and violence. Without delay, an unnamed person filed a complaint against the Christian and Jewish Bible as a backhanded attack against parents hoping to protect child-like innocence for a little longer. Opponents press deeper and deeper into the sexual revolution to groom children and normalize sexuality as identity and worship. The claim is in the appeals process, but it will be an ongoing battle over God's Word until armageddon. 

Indeed, we need to concede that the Bible contains graphic material. Those who read it know this. An entire town desires to rape two male visitors. Unable to do so, they instead violently rape and kill an innocent woman, leading God to obliterate the town to dust. (Genesis 18-19) God calls those turning away from his instruction and chasing after idols of their making whores who lust after their false gods, like lovers who lust for donkey genitalia. (Ezekiel 23) Sinners sacrifice babies, the faithful pray that babies might be dashed against the rocks, a dead body is cut up and sent to different regions of the nation, and eyes are gouged out. A king murders the husband of the woman he forced an affair upon. There's incest, racism, injustice, and all sorts of wickedness. The judgment of many sinners is unfairly laid upon the perfect Son of God, and he's crucified. Anyone who has read the Bible knows this paragraph could go on and on. But we learn God's Truth within the framework of this wicked world. Through the Bible, we gain the necessary tools to make sense of violence and vulgarity, sexuality and sin, murder and madness. These challenging matters in the Bible are the backdrop for a biblical worldview, correct critical thinking, wisdom, and a knowledge of God. If we scrub out these things, we are left with a fairy-tale god who is no god at all. If we scrub out God but keep the rest, we are left with wickedness for entertainment's sake and a deserved judgment when we see God face-to-face.  

We should not be surprised by Davis County School District. It's a government school. Baucham said, "We cannot continue to send our children to Ceasar for their education and be surprised when they come home as Romans." This statement cuts both ways. Don't be surprised if they return home more worldly than their parents, or conversely, with stronger morals. A public school is the best effort of a community to outsource the learning process to fit the community's needs as a whole. It's factory learning, but in a divided culture, people fight for the factory product of their desires. Nobody gets what they want. That's the factory product -- divided, angry youth who hate each other, just like the school their parents advocated for.   

Ultimately, the Bible will be in the school libraries, or it won't. That doesn't matter much if it's not being read, especially at home. Daily. Christians should advocate that the Bible be read in church, in Bible studies, individually, and in student groups. It's been pulled from many of those places too, which are the most accessible places Christians could reintroduce it. If we won't bother for the Bible in those places, there's no reason to get worked up that the Bible won't be collecting dust in public school libraries. I hope we will be a community shaped by the Bible, but it's the Bible that taught me not to be surprised by the world in rejection of God.  

Tightropes and Tensions: The SBC Circus

On June 11th, a man with a long-tailed jacket, top hat, and red bowtie will step over the center ring and call the Southern Baptist Convention to order. Holler at the popcorn guy for an overpriced bag and get ready. The spectacle is about to begin.   

Maybe that's unfair. Let's look at it through the lenses of perception.  

Most people outside the Southern Baptist Convention think the SBC is like the Roman Catholic Church, with its Vatican in Nashville and an annual election for the pope. Most people inside the SBC want to believe the convention is like a gathering of franchisees of the Los Pollos Hermanos fast-food chain, all trying to agree on the harmonization of the brand. But reality says otherwise. The SBC is really like the International Association of Beet Growers. Members include Schrute Farms and Monsanto. Nobody can agree on GMO, non-GMO, labor policies, seed regulation, or anything. Dwight Schrute can take to the floor calling for a resolution in favor of anti-Stevia-labeled ninja throwing stars--something he has done for the past six years without winning a majority.     

If this year is anything like its predecessors, people will offer resolutions on topics important to a small minority. There will also be a resolution condemning abortion, an SBC position that will surprise nobody. Nothing much more will come from the resolutions that pass unless there's more about Critical Race Theory. A boxcar of business motions will come from the floor and then be forwarded to entities and committees where little will be done. Someone will move that we audit NAMB, telling them to be more transparent with funds, and Kevin Ezell will explain how that's expensive or impractical. Undoubtedly, the ERLC has upset someone, and that somebody is going to microphone 2A to voice his concerns. Considering that it's the 85th anniversary of the death of Annie Armstrong's cat, Lottie, someone will motion that we add "Bring Your Pet to Church Sunday" to the SBC calendar. The six SBC seminaries will report everything God is doing on their campuses, but messengers will only listen to the President of their alma mater and then use the remaining time to hunt the showroom floor for another free coffee mug, which will go unused. Still, one person will take to microphone 4B to ask the President if his respective seminary has "gone woke." And, of course, there will be a lot of talk about women in ministry, sex abuse, and racial reconciliation, with limited action produced by all the hot air.       

A day is coming, if it's not already here, when not only will outsiders care nothing about the SBC, but they will also find it laughable. Without returning to a stronger identity and purpose, those inside the SBC will attend annual meetings in the shadow of faithful days gone by. 

Despite my cynicism, I offer an earnest plea. I am a pastor of an SBC-affiliated church. I've attended these meetings and have unused coffee mugs to prove it. I've served on committees within this national organization. I was also an officer in my two-state convention, even serving as the President through COVID and the volatile year that followed. The SBC could be a grand association of Bible-believing, Bible-preaching churches that advance the gospel of Jesus Christ worldwide and educate future pastors. It could be. But that's not what she is today.  

Today, so many Southern Baptists are advocating for a monochromatic organization that they fit well within. Factions are drawing lines. There are lines everywhere. There are lines across lines. There are smaller lines inside larger lines. At the same time, others are advocating that we draw no lines, which in a way, is still drawing lines. Everyone is drawing lines. This post is my way of drawing lines. Nobody is exempt. And once the lines are scratched out, we all advocate for our preferred hue within the boxes we've drawn. All the while, the SBC is chanting that we can do more together than separately. I don't know. It all looks pretty separate to me. 

Is this what we've become? Maybe this is what we've always been. 

At this point, more would be done for the Kingdom of God if the SBC cut along all those lines and splintered into a million pieces. Each would stop worrying about holding the others to their distinctive. Each would have much more time to serve the Lord as they are called. We'd stop trying to leverage huge piles of CP dollars for our pet projects and steward resources within our biblical beliefs. Maybe this is the year when the giant scissors come out.  

Or there's an alternative. Instead of being a 3-ring circus with all our acts vying for the spotlight and applause, we could rally around a strong identity and purpose. Everyone says they want this, but each wants to define the SBC identity and purpose. Each wants a say. However, we don't need another leader to stand up and tell us what's best. We all need to take a seat. We must pray and ask the Lord what he would have the SBC be. Then, come June 11-12th, let's see if God has moved in the messengers so they come together around a shared, God-given vision. A people who pray and seek this Lord is who we should be, right? If not, please, someone, make the motion that we start cutting it up. 

Landmines in Systematic Theology: Prayer, Angels, and Demons

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss the landmines in the theology of prayer, angels, demons, and Satan. What are the debates? What are the commonly held but wrong beliefs? Listen to this episode wherever you get your podcasts or listen here:

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted on your favorite podcast app, or use these links: RSS Feed | Google Podcasts | Apple Podcasts | iTunes | Amazon Music | Audible | Player FM | Stitcher | iHeartRADIO | Pocket Casts | Castbox | Podbean | Spotify | Podcast Addict | YouTube

Facebook Used the Bible to Train its AI Reader

Meta, the tech behemoth behind Facebook, is constructing a sophisticated text-to-speech AI language model to push the boundaries of typical language translation. The internet is churning with stories about AI concocting its own unique language, which may have led to a shutdown. Speculations range from the AI model losing efficacy to it devising a secret language to orchestrate a global AI takeover. 

Will Shanklin, a contributing author of Engadget, wrote a simple article introducing the Meta goal and topic. 1440 shared a single link with the digest line reading, "Meta (Facebook) releases open-source AI platform capable of recognizing more than 4,000 languages and producing speech-to-text and text-to-speech in around 1,100 of them." Given all the buzz with AI today, Shanklin's article and 1440's digest line are forgettable. If not for the work the church I pastor is trying to do to bridge a ministry toward English and Ukrainian speakers, it would have gone by with no interest on my part. But something caught my attention when my eye hit the third paragraph.  

It turns out, Meta used audio recordings of religious texts like the Bible to help train their text-to-speech language model. It shouldn't be surprising that Christians are concerned about translating the Bible into as many languages as possible. We desire that the Word of God be preached in every language to every tribe, nation, and people. Christians have dedicated their lives to learning languages for this purpose, teaching reading and literacy. Many have even given their lives at the hands of those who resist the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. With so many available translations of the same material, it makes sense that this would help people and AI models learn to translate more effectively. It's like to Rosetta Stone of our day.   

But then, the narrative takes an unexpected turn.  

Shanklin continues, "If you're like me, that approach may raise your eyebrows." Raise my eyebrows? It turns out, we should be concerned about a Christian bias toward a biblical worldview in our AI models. There's also a concern that because so many of the audio recordings are done by males, there should be a concern for male bias being trained into the AI models. He assures his readers that we need not be concerned because the constraints of this system compared to other systems kept the model safe from this kind of bias.  

This raised more than just my eyebrows; it raised two primary concerns.

First, the article speaks highly of Meta's desire to translate material into local, native, heart languages. Anyone with a goal like that is standing on the tall shoulders of those who came before, and no group of people has devoted more time, money, and effort to translation than Christians. Christians have also been highly involved in literacy and education in other parts of the world, maybe more than any other group. The material wouldn't be available to train AI models without the Christian's profound desire for translation with solid roots as far back as the Sixteenth century. What should raise my eyebrows is the lack of any appreciation or respect for the Christian researchers and innovators who have come before.  

Second, the spector of bias is inescapable. Are we not aware of a bias for things we're biased against? If the author thinks my eyebrows should be raised because of discrimination against particular data sets in multiple languages across multiple groups across numerous centuries, we may see his bias. Furthermore, no data fed into these models is neutral. There is no unbiased data. If it's audio read by a human, it will be read by a woman or a man or a man claiming to be a woman or a woman claiming to be a man, or a person who is confused about such things, a male child or a female child, or another computer with no gender. The read content will be intended to entertain, educate, or persuade. In one way or another, all data will contain bias.    

The only way we can really deal with bias when working with this much data and AI machines is to be aware of bias. Statements like "raised eyebrows" shows bias, and that's fine. The author doesn't want any Christian bias, likely because the author is against Christian beliefs and Christian thinking. If we flipped the context, would he still have included a statement about raised eyebrows? Adolf Hitler's Main KampfThe Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, Timothy McVeigh's manifesto, including his "Essay on Hypocrisy," the script for the 1984 Terminator movie, and "Baby Shark" lyrics have all been uploaded to ChatGPT. Should that raise eyebrows?  Might that be bias? (And also, might that give AI more training we may not want AI to have? Yes, I recognize my bias.)  

In the final analysis, I am pleased to know that all the translation work that has gone into translating the Bible is not only providing God's Word in other languages but also helping train machines to learn new languages. If Meta’s AI model imbibe some values and morals from the Bible, perhaps the much-feared AI apocalypse may just be averted. In any case, it’s good to see Facebook finding some value from the Bible.

Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies

If you are not familiar with the differences and nuances between covenantalism and dispensationalism a four-views book is a great place to start. To address how the Bible fits together—either in continuity or discontinuity or something in between, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture hits the mark. Brent Parker and Richard Lucas do a wonderful job with a helpful and concise introduction to the positions and the discussion. Then each contributor provides and argument for one of four positions and responds to each of the other three contributors. The contributors are Michael Horton (Covenant Theology), Stephen Wellum (Progressive Covenantalism), Darrell Bock (Progressive Dispensationalism), and Mark Snoeberger (Traditional Dispensationalism). Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies was published in 2022 by IVP Press.