Prayer is powerful. Our prayers are heard in heaven. Scripture says the Lord is already on the move in response before we are done praying. He loves us‚ His children. So why does it feel like our prayers go unnoticed and unanswered at times? 

This generation needs courageous pastors. Every generation does. Shepherds are charged with guarding and protecting the flock of God from harm‚ and there’s plenty of that out there‚ whether in the form of wolves or thieves—predators within or bullies without. Faced with threats to the church and with an Enemy who always seeks to kill and destroy‚ pastors need to lead clearly and bravely. We need courageous shepherds. This generation has suffered under overbearing leaders. Again‚ perhaps every generation has. But recent years have seen a reckoning: a recognition that far too many men (and they’re almost always men) have trampled over the flocks under their care‚ fleecing and exploiting rather than feeding and tending them. Several high-profile ministry leaders have been exposed as abusive. Others have been challenged and have closed ranks. Some leaders have repented and stepped down; still others have claimed to repent and then started up again as if nothing happened. Even now‚ I doubt the reckoning is over. The fallout certainly isn’t. Accentuating each of these challenges is the existence of the other one. Many an overbearing leader has remained in place and retained support from his team by portraying himself as courageous and his critics as cowardly‚ spineless‚ effeminate‚ or oversensitive. Equally‚ I suspect many pastors have failed to address clear errors‚ abuses‚ divisions‚ and sins in the church‚ or immaturity and underperformance in their staff teams‚ because they fear that to do so would make them strident‚ overweening‚ overbearing bullies. The presence of each error provides cover for its opposite. Cowardice and heavy-handedness are symbiotic. We all want to have or be courageous pastors—not overbearing leaders. How do we tell the difference? Some Christian leaders know perfectly well that their behavior is abusive and evil; it’s difficult to sexually assault someone without realizing you are doing so. But I suspect many people become domineering and overbearing without realizing the extent to which they have. That’s partly why they’re so resistant to the charge when it comes—sin almost always involves self-deception. What are the defining traits in each case? How might recognizing them help us grow into courage without becoming overbearing? Biblical Portraits An obvious place to start is with the biblical qualifications for eldership. (I use the NIV throughout; all emphases are mine.) Several of Paul’s criteria in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 warn against an explosive‚ hectoring‚ or domineering use of authority: “Now the overseer is to be above reproach‚ faithful to his wife‚ temperate‚ self-controlled‚ respectable‚ hospitable‚ able to teach‚ not given to drunkenness‚ not violent but gentle‚ not quarrelsome‚ not a lover of money . . .” At the same time‚ throughout this letter‚ Paul urges Timothy not to be squeamish about confronting those who are threatening the church‚ using robust and even military language: “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer” (1:3)‚ “fight the battle well” (1:18)‚ “command and teach these things” (4:11)‚ “those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone” (5:20)‚ “fight the good fight of the faith” (6:12)‚ “command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant” (6:17)‚ “guard what has been entrusted to your care” (6:20). The same both/and is present in Titus 1:7–11: Since an overseer manages God’s household‚ he must be blameless—not overbearing‚ not quick-tempered‚ not given to drunkenness‚ not violent‚ not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather‚ he must be hospitable‚ one who loves what is good‚ who is self-controlled‚ upright‚ holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught‚ so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people‚ full of meaningless talk and deception‚ especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced . . . We find it in 1 Thessalonians 5:12–15: Now we ask you‚ brothers and sisters‚ to acknowledge those who work hard among you‚ who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you‚ brothers and sisters‚ warn those who are idle and disruptive‚ encourage the disheartened‚ help the weak‚ be patient with everyone. It also comes across beautifully in 2 Timothy 2‚ which begins with a call to strength and resilience‚ like that of a soldier or farmer or athlete (vv. 1–7)‚ and ends by insisting that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone‚” and that “opponents must be gently instructed” (vv. 24–25). Again‚ 1 Peter 5:2–11 has a similar balance: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care‚ watching over them—not because you must‚ but because you are willing‚ as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain‚ but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you‚ but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears‚ you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. In the same way‚ you who are younger‚ submit yourselves to your elders. All of you‚ clothe yourselves with humility toward one another‚ because “God opposes the proud but shows grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves‚ therefore‚ under God’s mighty hand‚ that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him‚ standing firm in the faith‚ because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings. And the God of all grace‚ who called you to his eternal glory in Christ‚ after you have suffered a little while‚ will himself restore you and make you strong‚ firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. Notice the ease with which the apostles move between calls to strength‚ courage‚ fortitude‚ resilience‚ and resistance on the one hand and gentleness‚ humility‚ self-control‚ kindness‚ and care on the other. In healthy churches and healthy individuals‚ they’re two sides of the same coin. The apostles move between calls to strength‚ courage‚ fortitude‚ resilience‚ and resistance on the one hand and gentleness‚ humility‚ self-control‚ kindness‚ and care on the other. Both sides were needed in biblical times because overbearing leadership isn’t a modern invention. It’s plain in the pages of the New Testament. Third John‚ to take a prominent example‚ addresses the problem of a certain Diotrephes: “[He] loves to be first‚ [and] will not welcome us” (v. 9). Jude describes shepherds “who feed only themselves” and seek power through a combination of boasting‚ flattery‚ and slander (vv. 11–16). The writers in each case respond to such overbearing leadership with courageous confrontation‚ not squishy evasion. “When I come‚ I will call attention to what he is doing‚” says the elder (3 John 10). Jude is even punchier: “Contend for the faith that was entrusted once and for all to the saints. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you” (vv. 3–4). We don’t have to choose between men of jelly and men of steel. It’s possible to shepherd with courage and compassion‚ humility and bravery‚ clarity and charity. Correcting your opponents with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:25) requires no less. Contemporary Sketches How do we tell the difference between courageous pastors and overbearing leaders today? This is important to ask‚ because while few pastors will mentally (let alone verbally) dismiss the importance of biblical qualifications for eldership‚ we may fail to recognize we’re falling foul of them. A similar error can be true of fellow elders‚ staff‚ and church members‚ especially where there’s a significant power imbalance. It feels like a serious charge to say of one’s pastor that he’s domineering or lacking in self-control‚ so people usually don’t speak up. But if presented with a list of more descriptive characteristics‚ they might recognize something they’d otherwise miss. Drawing on the wisdom of one of my fellow elders‚ here I present 20 contrasts between the two types. This list isn’t exhaustive‚ but it may help. Overbearing Leaders Courageous Pastors Are difficult to question or challenge Invite feedback and correction Are defensive in response to criticism Are quick to weigh criticism and apologize Cause apprehension or fear in the team/church Cause security and stability in the team/church Are quick to play the “loyalty card” Are committed to earning and re-earning trust Take disagreements personally Distinguish disagreements from attack Are threatened by gifted individuals Are secure alongside gifted individuals Have a sense of entitlement with respect to pay‚ title‚ honor‚ etc. Seek the honor‚ pay‚ or recognition of others Are insecure and prickly Don’t take themselves too seriously Require quick assent from the team Give the team space to process and develop Are above the rules‚ processes‚ and procedures Establish and submit to good processes Lack self-awareness about weaknesses Are self-aware and emotionally intelligent Have a visible “outside” is bigger than their “inside” Have an invisible “inside” that is bigger than their “outside” Hold on to power and influence Delegate‚ empower‚ and release Avoid peer-to-peer accountability Prize and pursue peer-to-peer accountability See submission as a one-way street Practice mutual submission Promote a culture of conformity Promote a culture of diversity Don’t mix with ordinary church members Are hospitable and approachable Frequently use “God told me to . . .” Are consultative Are emotionally volatile Are emotionally self-controlled Are proud Are humble   Both of these are sketches‚ even cartoons. Few pastors are as bad as the left-hand column‚ and few consistently live up to everything on the right. But as a diagnostic tool‚ this chart has helped me better see myself and the team I’m part of‚ and it’s helped me understand and learn from what has gone wrong in other situations. Somehow‚ translating the biblical language into explanations of the dynamics that occur daily in pastoral ministry makes it easier to see the potential problems. It also makes it easier to ask colleagues “Do you find X approachable and consultative?” rather than “Is X an overbearing leader?” I particularly like to ask junior colleagues these questions; most of us reveal our character flaws more when we interact with people we see as “under” us than we do with our peers or with people “over” us. The root of the differences relates to biblical qualifications. Gentleness (as opposed to violence) and humility (as opposed to pride) are indispensable for shepherds. Put positively‚ humble men and women are just about the most admirable and beautiful beings God has created. Humble men and women are just about the most admirable and beautiful beings God has created. Put negatively‚ something like the following has happened to me often enough not to be a coincidence: I’m at a conference when I meet a gifted individual I’ve heard of‚ and I talk to him for a while and see the way he interacts with me and others. He strikes me as somehow lacking in humility‚ or gentleness‚ or both‚ and I mention my discomfort to my wife afterward and wonder if it’s just me‚ given the person’s position and reputation. Then within a few years‚ or even months‚ we hear his ministry has imploded in some way. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. What Can Churches Do? All this raises the key practical question: What can churches do to ensure their pastors are more like the right-hand column than the left? How can churches hold their pastors accountable if they’re not? Both the institutional church and individual church members have responsibilities here. Institutionally‚ churches can make feedback and accountability as easy as possible through a combination of church surveys‚ staff appraisals‚ clear job descriptions‚ anonymous staff-culture surveys‚ a competent and empowered board‚ and rigorous HR processes. (Not all these details will translate into every church setting‚ but this has been the pattern of good practice we’ve sought to adopt in ours.) Individually‚ it’s all too easy to say church members should simply speak to the leader in question about their concerns. But in cases of heavy (or even abusive) leadership‚ this could be disastrous advice. In a controlling environment‚ even fellow pastors or staff members may be inclined to close ranks around the leader rather than challenge him. So as church members‚ we may need to speak to people in authority who are a degree removed from the situation; in our case‚ that might be one of our marketplace elders‚ the board of trustees‚ or denominational or network leaders who provide oversight and outside input to the church. If no such individuals or institutions exist‚ or church members have no way of knowing who these leaders are‚ that’s probably a red flag. Ultimately‚ we take our pastoral cues from the Good Shepherd‚ who came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. He’s no pushover. He has a rod and a staff‚ and he makes a feast in the presence of our enemies. But his rod and staff are a comfort to us. He restores our souls‚ leads us beside still waters‚ and makes us lie down in green pastures. He’s clear about the dangers of thieves and robbers and wolves; he sharply distinguishes himself from hired hands who are too scared to confront them‚ and he’s ready to die for his sheep. But oh‚ what a tender Shepherd he is. His sheep know his voice. He knows his own‚ and his own know him. He longs for his sheep to find pasture‚ life‚ and perfect unity under his pastoral care‚ and he’s prepared to pay the ultimate price to ensure they do. Let us undershepherds go and do likewise.

Many Christians have heard of William Carey. Fewer are familiar with his partner in India‚ William Ward. While overshadowed by Carey’s fame even in his lifetime‚ Ward played a vital role with the Serampore mission team as a printer‚ preacher‚ pastor‚ and trainer. His accomplishments include founding one of the first newspapers in India‚ printing portions of the Scriptures in nearly 40 languages‚ and writing one of the most important documents in the history of Christian missions‚ the Serampore Form of Agreement (SFA). The Serampore mission contributed hugely to the great missionary expansion of the 19th century. The audacity of the team’s vision and the scale of their accomplishments set the pattern for much that would follow. Remarkably‚ the missionary principles guiding their work can be incorporated into contemporary missions with little change. One of the most critical principles in the SFA states the missionary task is incomplete until we’ve trained locals to lead a national church and carry the gospel to their people. Train Leaders First published in 1805‚ the SFA draws on Carey’s experience on the field‚ but it was composed by Ward. Before his call to missions‚ Ward had been a newspaper editor with a taste for radical social activism. Evidence points to his having authored a controversial manifesto that could have landed him in jail. By the time he joined Carey in India at the end of 1799‚ he was committed to a higher cause‚ but the SFA reveals he retained a passionate nature and gift for evocative prose. Today‚ each statement of the SFA remains relevant‚ but article 8 is worth special attention. Ward called for the missionaries to form the “native brethren to usefulness‚ fostering every kind of genius‚ and cherishing every gift and grace in them.” The Serampore team recognized that Europeans could never evangelize the vast Indian subcontinent alone. India would only be reached for Christ by Indian believers. Accordingly‚ article 8 describes missionaries’ duty “to advise the native brethren who may be formed into separate churches‚ to choose their pastors and deacons from amongst their own countrymen‚ that the word may be statedly preached‚ and the ordinances of Christ administered‚ in each church‚ by the native minister.” Effective Preachers The SFA outlines a system in which the missionaries would push forward‚ opening new areas to the gospel while assisting existing works. A combination of enterprises for translating and printing the Scriptures and establishing native schools supported these church-planting efforts. The Serampore missionaries understood that self-governing churches need literate members capable of reading the Scriptures and pastors trained to preach. The Serampore team recognized that Europeans could never evangelize the vast Indian subcontinent alone. To prepare Indian leaders‚ they included them on itinerant preaching expeditions. Carey‚ for example‚ took Pitambar Singh to Sukh Sagar and Krishna Pal to Jessore. Ward organized similar expeditions. In 1818‚ the missionaries established Serampore College to “train devout youth for the Christian ministry‚ to enhance the biblical understanding of those already engaged in preaching‚ and to support those who‚ due to societal exclusion‚ have fallen into poverty.” The wisdom of this strategy became evident in 1806 when‚ following the Vellore Mutiny‚ the Serampore missionaries were barred from preaching. Still‚ Krishna Pal and Jagannath Das ventured into Burdwan‚ in northeast Bengal‚ with what Ward described as “the spirit of martyrs.” The missionaries could endure being silenced if men like these preached openly. The messages of the local believers were often more persuasive than their own. After hearing a young evangelist speak in Hindi‚ Ward wrote‚ “Oh‚ I saw that the Gospel was as sweet in this as in any other tongue! At his aptness and tenderness I could scarcely hold back tears.” Recovering Ward’s Vision John Clark Marshman‚ a missionary kid who grew up at Serampore‚ would write decades later about the SFA’s original emphasis on training national leaders‚ “It is lamentable to reflect that no systematic effort has been made by any missionary body to carry out these sound views during the subsequent half century of missionary labours‚ and that the attention of missionary societies has been too prominently directed to the multiplication of European labourers.” As the Serampore missionaries aged‚ some newer missionaries believed the work was best left to Europeans. The effects on local churches were devastating; Marshman lamented the loss of 50 crucial years. He noted that “it is scarcely possible to estimate the impression which might have been produced in the country” if the focus had remained on training the Indians. Two centuries later‚ we might ask if we’re doing better. By one estimate‚ only 5 percent of pastors worldwide have formal theological training. The Great Commission includes the imperative of teaching to obey all that Christ commands (Matt. 28:18–20). This requires education and‚ for some‚ academic training at the highest levels. By one estimate‚ only 5 percent of pastors worldwide have formal theological training. Thankfully‚ there’s a growing awareness of the need‚ and efforts are being made to provide solutions. Internet platforms have made possible the delivery of educational content in ways never dreamed of even 20 years ago. Reformed believers in my area of service‚ Latin America‚ have been blessed with programs including Integridad y Sabíduria‚ Seminario Carey‚ and offerings in Spanish from major American seminaries. Other organizations‚ such as Reaching and Teaching‚ Training Leaders International‚ and WordPartners have made theological training accessible to locals. Yet there’s much left to do in Spanish and an even greater need in other languages and cultures. We live in a new missionary era. In Ward’s day‚ at the dawn of the modern missionary movement‚ missionaries were sent from the Global North to the South. Now‚ missionaries go out from everywhere to everywhere. While we still need pioneer missionaries from the North‚ one of the greatest services Americans can offer is theological training at every level. Following Ward’s vision‚ we need a renewed effort to strengthen national churches and prepare missionaries from places like Latin America to carry the gospel to parts of the world Americans might only reach with great difficulty.

'In the minds of many voters‚ this would be a subversion'

Chad Johnson in Vegas? ... I can dig it

'Another example of how the DOJ has a two-tiered system of justice'

Say it ain't so‚ Shaq

In the latest Wide World of Toys video‚ host Ken Spaulding is sharing the latest‚ exciting releases planned for the 40th anniversary of Transformers. Check out more photos of Ken’s collection and Top 5 Action CONTINUE READING... The post Wide World of Toys: Transformers 40th Anniversary appeared first on The Retro Network.

Democrats Say Biden's Pause on LNG Is Like 'Throwing a Match in a Bale of Hay'

With the border deal dead‚ it’s all over but the shouting. And by shouting‚ we mean ABC News continuing to carry the Biden administration’s water in an update that practically reads like it came out of the White House press shop. As is often the case at ABC‚ World News Tonight anchor David Muir’s introduction is very often the tone setter for whatever video comes next. Watch here as Muir seemingly ticks off as many of the White House’s talking points as possible before handing off to Rachel Scott:  DAVID MUIR: We turn next tonight here to the border crisis‚ and Senate Republicans tonight have now killed the bipartisan bill in the Senate that contained many of the Republicans' own demands. $650 million to build and reinforce miles of fencing. More patrols‚ and a complete shutdown of the border‚ when the number of migrants exceeds 5‚000. Donald Trump had pressured Republicans not to agree to this bipartisan solution‚ with the presidential race and election nearing. That pressure has worked. Rachel Scott on the Hill tonight.  “Republicans killed the border bill they asked for”‚ check. “They did Trump’s bidding”‚ check. The report goes on down the list. In fact‚ it doesn’t get any better with Rachel Scott.  And‚ of course‚ the fundamental premise of the report is deeply flawed and is outright disinformation. I‚ for one‚ know of no Republicans that “demanded” allowing up to a daily average of 4‚999 migrants across the border‚ among many other things. Zero. But The Narrative requires successfully selling this line in order to be able to sell that Trump ultimately killed the bill. In fact it was the House that first addressed the border‚ with the passage of H.R. 2. This fact gets muddied in order to put forth a narrative that Speaker Mike Johnson called for this very border deal that couldn’t even bring every Democrat aboard. For the narrative to work‚ it must negate the existence of H.R. 2‚ and barring that‚ render it interchangeable with the dead Senate bill.  The report closes with another recitation of the earlier talking points‚ which confirm my hypothesis about the border bill- that it wasn’t so much a bill to secure the border as it was a bill to secure the electoral prospects of Joe Biden by deflecting the border disaster on to the GOP.  Given their role in disseminating that line of attack‚ it should be evident that we do not exaggerate when referring to the media as “regime media”.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday‚ February 7th‚ 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn next tonight here to the border crisis‚ and Senate Republicans tonight have now killed the bipartisan bill in the Senate that contained many of the Republicans' own demands. $650 million to build and reinforce miles of fencing. More patrols‚ and a complete shutdown of the border‚ when the number of migrants exceeds 5‚000. Donald Trump had pressured Republicans not to agree to this bipartisan solution‚ with the presidential race and election nearing. That pressure has worked. Rachel Scott on the Hill tonight.  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight‚ Republicans in the Senate overwhelmingly voting to reject the border security bill they themselves had demanded‚ full of their own priorities for cracking down on illegal immigration. Only four Republicans voted to advance the bipartisan bill‚ including one of the senate's most conservative members- James Lankford of Oklahoma‚ who led negotiations with Democrats.  JAMES LANKFORD: If we're going to solve something‚ we have to sit down together and solve it. That's how it works when you make law. You can do press conferences without the other side‚ but you can't make law without the other side in the United States Senate.  SCOTT: The bill included a number of Republican priorities. $20 billion to strengthen the border‚ hiring new officers and border patrol agents. $650 million to build and reinforce miles of fencing. And $404 million to hire new judges and support staff to expedite asylum cases. It also introduced a new safeguard. When migrant apprehensions reach 5‚000 a day‚ the border would automatically shut down.  LANKFORD: And when the border's closed down‚ it's closed down for weeks.  SCOTT: But Donald Trump pressured Republicans to vote against the bill. He wants to run on immigration in the election.  LANKFORD: In fact‚ I had a popular commentator four weeks ago that I talked to that told me flat-out‚ before they knew any of the contents of the bill‚ any of the contents-- nothing was out at that point -- that told me flat-out‚ if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year‚ I will do whatever I can to destroy you. Because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. By the way‚ they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me.  SCOTT: President Biden saying Republicans had to decide.  JOE BIDEN: Who do they serve‚ Donald Trump or the American people?  SCOTT: House Speaker Mike Johnson was one of those Republicans who demanded a border security deal‚ saying in November that without it‚ there would be no new funding for Ukraine.  MIKE JOHNSON: I think we can get bipartisan agreement on both of those matters.  SCOTT: But when Trump came out against the bill Johnson reversed course‚ declaring it dead on arrival. Instead‚ he focused on impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But in an embarrassing defeat --  JOHNSON:  The resolution is not adopted.  SCOTT: He didn't have the votes.  JOHNSON:  Last night was a setback‚ but democracy is messy.  SCOTT: Today‚ house Republicans‚ still focused on impeaching Mayorkas rather than working with Democrats to fix the border.  Does this solve any crisis at the border…  TROY NEHLS: Oh‚ I would impeach him at all costs.  SCOTT: …rather than reaching out to Democrats?  NEHLS: I don't care. I don't care if it takes a third time.  SCOTT: David‚ bottom line‚ tonight‚ that bill is dead. Again‚ Republicans were the ones who were pushing for those border security measures. Now‚ they are making it clear they are no longer interested in a bipartisan solution to address the crisis at the border before the November election. David. MUIR: Rachel Scott‚ live in Washington again tonight. Rachel‚ thank you.