Written by Dr. Phil Monroe Wednesday, 13 June 2012 00:00

I have a question for you frequent fliers out there. Do you listen to the flight attendants when they go over the safety instructions prior to takeoff? Some of you can probably repeat the tired lines in your sleep,

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome aboard…flight 1234 with service to blah blah city. It is a pleasure to have you onboard and flying with us. We'd like to ask for your attention for the next three minutes as we demonstrate the safety features of this Boeing 737. Please pause all conversations, blah blah blah and direct your attention to the flight attendants blah blah blah….

We know we should put our seats back to their upright positions when landing. We know we should take care of our own oxygen masks before helping others. We know not to tamper with smoke detectors in the lavatory. We wonder why we have to turn off our electronics for take-off and landing. And, we know that the closest exit may be behind us.

We know. We get it already.

But, in case of an actual emergency, what will most of us do? We’ll panic. We’ll scream, grip the seats, and pray. The airlines know this but they continue to drill us just in case we might be able to follow some instructions in a time of crisis. Try as they will to manage the situation, they will need our cooperation in an event of a mid-air emergency. Repetition is their way to drill it into our heads.

Does Your Church Have a Plan for Reported Abuse?

Similarly, every church needs a well-thought out, tested plan to deal with an allegation of abuse within its midst. Churches that fail to develop such plans are unlikely to respond well or in a timely fashion. Without a plan, there may be unnecessary and needless soul deaths. Even when churches have a plan, failure to instruct the congregation and leaders as to how the plan should work will likely condemn the plan to failure.

Besides the need for a plan PRIOR to an allegation of abuse, your church needs a plan for these two reasons:

  1. The name and honor of Christ is the ONLY thing at stake. Not the church’s honor; not the leaders’ reputation; just the reputation of our savior who tells us that those who would hinder little children from the kingdom will face severe judgment by God. Having a plan says that we care about protection of the reputation of God the Father as much as we do for plans to grow attendance or budgets or any other programmatic objective.
  2. Need there be any other reason than #1? Well, if you need another reason, try this: so that the world can see the nature of true love. Is this not the definition of evangelical—to spread the good news about the Gospel? True love is not love of self, love of comfort, or love of position. Sadly, our recent church history would suggest that many church leaders place their own interests ahead of victims of clergy sexual abuse. True love is found in one who sacrifices personal goals (comfort, power, position, etc.) for the sake of the welfare of others.

So, does your church or agency have a plan? Have you considered ways to improve it? If your plan needs to be enhanced beyond “call someone” or if you have some desire to serve abuse victims and offenders AND If you think that $50 is not too much to spend to improve your church’s preparation for the possibility of an abuse allegation, Biblical Seminary can help you. Sign up for our July 20-21 mini conference: Abuse in the Church: Biblical, Legal, Counseling Perspectives.

Why wait for the oxygen mask to drop down in front of you to start looking for the instruction card in the seatback pocket in front of you?

Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the MA in Counseling program at Biblical Seminary. He maintains a private practice with Diane Langberg & Associates. You can follow his personal and professional musings at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.comor read more about it at http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/phillip-monroe.


Written by Dr. Phil Monroe Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:00

As a psychologist and seminary professor, I frequently entertain questions about the timeline for forgiveness and reconciliation in situations of domestic or familial sexual abuse. Most often, church leaders want to know when it is appropriate to encourage a victim of abuse to allow an offender back into the home or life.

signs of true repentance

These questions sometimes originate for quite different reasons. Some ask due to fear that once abuser and victim are separated, reconciliation is made much more unlikely. Others ask because it seems that the abuser is not being forgiven promptly. Still others want to know how to discern whether the abusive person is genuinely repentant. It is this last question that I think merits the most attention: how do you know when an abusive person is adequately repentant, and therefore, capable of providing a safe environment for others to live in?

The answer, of course, is found in the fruit they produce. Consider these three signs and use the following questions to help discern true from false repentance.

Honest Admission

When God’s people encounter his holiness, they often fall on their faces and admit the state of their soul (e.g., Moses, Isaiah, Paul). They make no pretense of being clean, and they do not look to excuse their behavior or blame others (“I might be 60% responsible, but she’s responsible too.”). They do not attempt to manage their image as Saul did when confronted by Samuel (1 Samuel 15:14f). In appropriate settings, they willingly reveal secret sins that had could not have been known by others. This honesty should be permanent rather than temporary. If another should bring up their sins decades later, they should be capable of admitting what is true without defensiveness or undue shame.

Does the abuser,

  • openly acknowledge abusive behavior and its impact on the victim?
  • accept full responsibility for actions without excuse?
  • accept the consequences of the abuse without demand for trust or forgiveness?

Sacrificial Efforts to Repair

The story of Zacchaeus provides a wonderful illustration of the fruit of repentance in the life of a man who profited by abusing others with his power. He does not shy away from the sniggering comments of others but publicly promises to pay back all he has cheated plus four times more (probably twice as much as the Law required!). Not only that, but he willingly gives half of his wealth to feed the poor. Jesus describes the kingdom of God as having so much worth that a true disciple joyfully gives all to acquire it (Matthew 13:44-46). The repentant abuser sees the value of restoration and joyfully gives all to obtain it.

He no longer sees his rights as something to hold on to, but immediately thinks of how he can sacrificially put the interests of others before his own. Further, he does not demand acknowledgment of this sacrificial effort to undo wrongs done. Sadly, the opposite fruit seems more prevalent. The abuser strives to protect personal interests (e.g., an unwillingness to pay for counseling costs of the victim), attempts to bargain for sacrifices made (e.g., “I’ll pay for counseling if you won’t report the abuse to the authorities.”), or uses children to gain leverage (e.g., “The children will be hurt if I am out of the home.”)  

Does the abuser:

  • spontaneously seek to make restitution (not penance!) or to offer economic support without demand for things in return?
  • give physical and emotional space for the victim to receive help from others?

Accepts and Flourishes Under Discipline

When caught in abusive or addictive behavior, individuals commonly make immediate changes in their behavior. They stop certain detestable behaviors and start behaving as they should (e.g., returns to the church, reads the Bible, goes to counseling). We should commend these actions. However, these initial fruits do not necessarily signal true repentance any more than some early green shoots signal the actual fruit production. Jesus warns the disciples (Matthew 12-13; the story of the house swept clean and the parable of the soils) about the problem of reading initial reactions to the Gospel. Time and cultivation are required. The repentant abuser willingly submits to the loving discipline of the Church. When adequate ministry to him is not available, he pursues it until he finds it. He does not demand time limits or the entitlement to be forgiven. He accepts the intrusion of accountability partners and sees their work not as police work, but as discipleship.

Does the abuser:

  • accept the ministry of discipline, accountability, counseling, etc. with joy?
  • acknowledge that the fruit of change takes time to develop and so sees discipleship as a lifetime project?
  • show evidence of a growing life of prayer, reading of the Word and increasing measure of the fruits of the Spirit?  

Be Careful

A word of caution is warranted to those whose job it is to assess the level of change in an abuser. Watch out for two errors. It is easy to classify abusers as subhuman and unable to ever change. If we fall into this error, we may be tempted to prejudge their ability to change, thereby encouraging greater defensiveness on their part. The power of the cross changes the worst of sinners. These men and women deserve God’s grace as much as you or I.

The second error is that of being thrown off by external issues that may not have much to do with repentance. Those who are charming and well-spoken (especially those who use spiritual language) may tempt you to ignore fruit that is inconsistent with repentance. Also, when victims are less likable due to their interpersonal demeanor, it is tempting to excuse abusive behavior. It is wise to seek supervision during this process and to remember that you participate in the Lord’s work and that He will accomplish refinement in his children, including you!

[A version of this essay was first published in 2006 Christian Counseling Today, (v. 13:3, 48-49) under the title of “Abusers and True Repentance.”]


Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Monday, 11 June 2012 00:00

Rounding off what has actually been a four-part set of blogs on “Civil Pluralism vis-à-vis Theological Pluralism,” I want to conclude with a clarification. My previous three posts on the topic probably sound more progressive in tone and posture; here I want to deliberately provide a very conservative sounding note of clarification; viz., secularism is not the same as neutralism — and recognition of that nuances everything. 

Secularism, the absence or conscious elimination of religious fidelity or convictions, should be recognized itself as a religious view, sometimes bearing all the zeal and passion of the most fanatical religious advocate.  Therefore, conscientiously banning religious viewpoints from decision-and-policy-making deliberations should be considered every bit as much an establishment of religion as establishing Catholicism, Reconstructionist Theonomy, or Sharia Law.  

What I would propose is that evangelicals engage in political deliberation and the political process. I’d further propose that they not be banned from (nor should they voluntarily restrain themselves necessarily from) expressing their viewpoints out of their religious convictions.  Rather, they may sometimes appropriately cite their rationale for advocating a certain viewpoint as being self-consciously rooted in their religious or biblical convictions. (E.g., like Martin Luther King, Jr. did in his case for civil rights for African-Americans.)  

Yet, they should engage the public square with the understanding that other people with different, sometimes opposing, religious convictions will be doing the same and that advocacy in the public square is and must be advocacy for what is understood by all as seeking the common good.  This means that sometimes compromise will be necessary in public policy. It also meant that there will be times when a certain practice or prohibition is enforced by one’s religious community of faith and not by the government at large. 

What I am advocating is a civic or political pluralism — different from traditional Anabaptist thought (in which Christians withdraw or concede the realm of the public square in order to pursue exclusively more purist adherence to religious standards in more private, separated communities), and different from theonomy or reconstructionism or some religious right groups (in which specifically and exclusively Christian values are pursued and implemented over the objections or against the will of others). That is, I would seek to employ what James Davison Hunter calls “faithful presence” in the socio-political arena (as one of the “culture-shaping centers” of our society).

The issue is complicated enough and important enough to allow for a diversity of opinions on this.  Here I’ve laid out my thinking on it.  What’s yours? 

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.


Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Saturday, 09 June 2012 16:24

The terminology comes from Harvard Professor, Diana Eck (see http://scholar.harvard.edu/dianaeck/ publications/american-religious-pluralism-civic-and-theological-discourse-democracy-and-new); but I was introduced to this framing of concepts through the Doctor of Ministry dissertation I was advising by Biblical student/soon-to-be grad, Jason Poling. His fascinating dissertation project proposes that Jews and Evangelicals can engage one another and learn from one another through dialogue over shared sacred texts without offending one another, without proselytizing one another, and without either group leaving their most-cherished theological and religious convictions behind, either.   

It’s an idea that has captured my attention and stimulated my imagination and it has led to the present series of blogs, of which this is the third. Specifically, “Can those who do NOT affirm theological pluralism (the idea that all sincerely held religious views lead to salvation) nevertheless affirm civic pluralism (the idea that people of different perspective and conviction are equally entitled to a place at the table of civic discourse and equal opportunity to secure space and resources for pursuing their deeply held world and life views)?

Let’s say the answer is a definite “yes” — we can have deeply held, strongly cherished religious and theological convictions in which we believe eternity is at stake in them, but we nevertheless agree to certain “ground rules” by which we engage civilly, understanding that people with equally cherished theological convictions diametrically opposed to ours will be afforded the same rights we have to forward them. Even if we say “yes” to that deal, the devil is in the details. Achieving civil discourse will still be easier said than done. 

But if missional Christians can be the model citizens in this, it seems to me that that in itself could help rehabilitate the evangelical Christian reputation.  

Is that overly idealistic?  Naïve?  Or a much-needed idea whose time has truly come? What do you think?


 Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.


Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Friday, 08 June 2012 00:00

It happened in Texas. The Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason purchased pre-film advertising space at the Angelika Film Center in Plano, Texas, to promote a positive image of families who embrace atheism. It seems that part of what motivated this was their desire to respond to other pre-film advertisements, purchased previously by Christian groups, promoting local churches and evangelistic efforts. But when the atheistic ad appeared, local papers reported on it and the Christian people of Texas responded in force, through letters, phone calls and emails demanding that the ad be withdrawn.  The Angelika Film Center pulled the ad.     

So . . . score one for the Christians in a rare victory for the good guys finally? . . .   Hmmm.  Not so fast.    

Here is an instance in which Christian ability to embrace “civic pluralism” is raised to question.  Never mind that the American Humanist Association’s legal counsel is threatening to file a lawsuit against the theatre for its double standard. And, never mind that at least one atheistic columnist on the Patheos website has cited the case as a clear instance of outright legal discrimination (see http://www.patheos.com/Atheist/Movie-Theater-Discriminates-Roy-Speckhardt-05-23-2012.html). And also never mind Texas’s well-known reputation regarding its “You’re not from around here, are you, son? We don’t do things that way” culture. 

What is the right mindset about such things?  The right strategy? The right goal?     

There’s a side of me that relishes the idea that, in at least one carefully guarded plot of American land, churches are free to advertise but atheists are not.  Does the whole country have to embrace the northeast’s broadminded liberalism after all; I mean what kind of idyllic utopia can the northeast boast about anyway?  Can’t narrow-minded righteousness and conservatism be embraced in at least a pocket of the redneck south?  Can’t we just let them be in their old-fashioned ways? 

But another side of me — probably the better, more intelligent side — thinks that if we want the right to penetrate the larger culture with our ideas (and if we really are called by God to evangelize at all, that is what we want, right?), then we have to allow a “free market” of ideas to flow in all directions. And that means we have to regard the “Christian victory” in getting that atheist ad pulled with some pause, at least. 

Right now, according to almost all polling data available, evangelical Christians are known for the passion with which they hold their views — alright, well and good. But they are also known for being narrow-minded bigots.  Probably unfair.  But then, how do we alter this perception and change this reputation?  

I’m thinking that this instance with the atheist ad probably doesn’t help much to that end of changing our reputation, or for establishing a fresh reputation of fair-mindedness and even-handedness in civil discourse.  You?

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum


Written by Dr. Todd Mangum Thursday, 07 June 2012 00:00

Yep, you heard that right. Famous atheist Richard Dawkins actually supports the distribution of King James Bibles in every public school in Great Britain.  (Find the full story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18224114). 

Don’t get too excited, though; his motives are more subversive than supportive. Unlike the standard premises Christians might otherwise expect — “Even though I don’t believe it’s supernaturally inspired, it still inspires good moral ethics”; or even “it’s still classic literature” — Dawkins’ thinking is more cynical. He believes that if school kids and parents actually read the Bible, they will be turned off by its violence, misogyny, and bigotry.  

Besides recommending the book of my colleague, Dave Lamb, God Behaving Badly (http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/) as a response to some of Dawkins barbed critiques, I see also a broader point here. It’s actually a point that Jesus observed a time or two, as well: “The sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). Dawkins audaciously believes that if atheism and biblical Christianity are put on equal footing for consideration, atheism will “win” hands down.  Now, if a “son of this age” can have such foolhardy confidence in the defense of misguided falsehood, why can’t Christians have at least as much confidence in the truth?

What if we don’t have to secure for the Christian perspective an exclusive, privileged position in our society, but merely an equal opportunity for consideration?  By setting the bar lower politically, we may actually, counter-intuitively raise the level higher of positive consideration.

Truthfully, this is a strategy I adopt only by concession. Would that every American desire for Christian values to be upheld as the law of the land. But as long as that is not the case, and until such time as we no longer have to say each one to his neighbor, “Know the Lord” (Jer. 31:34), it is probably counterproductive to try to mandate uniquely Christian values upon Americans against their will.

I know: the consequences of allowing “diversity of values” to be implemented in the law could be devastating. But probably no more devastating than provoking a backlash against Christian values.

I confess to a sense of unease even as I write this, because this is a means of engagement of the culture that uncomfortably yields power willingly in the effort to achieve, instead, persuasion.  It’s a risky posture. But is it smarter?  And also more godly, more Christlike overall? What do you think? 

Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum


Written by Dr. Kyuboem Lee Wednesday, 30 May 2012 00:00

"This was truly amazing to me,” said a student during the recently-concluded “Justice & Mercy” class. He was referring to a section in one of the readings, Timothy Keller’s Ministries of Mercy:

Under Rev. Thomas Chalmers... [the Church of Scotland’s parochial system of deacons assigned to parishes to take care of the poor within them] was restored in the church of St. John’s, Glasgow, during the early 1800s. His parish included 11,513 residents, of which 2,633 were members of his church. Four thousand of the residents were completely unchurched. The entire area was divided into “quarters,” each with a deacon over it. Each deacon’s job was to keep the Session (the elders) informed about the economic conditions in his quarter. He was to help the unemployed get work and help uneducated children get schooling. When a family was found in need, he was to seek out resources within the neighborhood. If there were no other options, the family was admitted to the poor roll. The statistics from one year show 97 families on the relief rolls of the church, from an approximate total of 3500 families in the parish. (Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road, 2nd edition. Phillipsburg, P&R: 1997, 88).

This was in the 1800s!” he exclaimed.

If we were to rely solely on what we see around us now as “the way it’s always been,” then we would be missing out on the rich treasury of ministry that the office of deacons has been for the Church throughout its history. Growing up in the church, I certainly didn’t know what the deacons did. Only later, through the study of Scripture and urban mission issues, did I discover what was lost to the past.

Acts 6 teaches us that the first deacons were ordained to administer the mercy ministry of the Church. Stephen, one of these first deacons, was no mean spiritual leader among the apostles and disciples--in other words, the office of deacons was not a secondary office in the ministry of the church. Calvin’s Geneva was a city whose poor and hurting were served by a well-organized team of deacons. (See The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact, by W. Fred Graham.) The example of the deacons in Chalmers’ church in Glasgow is recounted above. We can tell countless other stories from the annals of Church History. These paint a portrait of a Church vigorously engaging the hurting and broken world through robust and concrete acts of compassion.

So what happened?

In his endnotes, Keller offers one explanation--the churches in “The New World” faced a separation of Church and State and a plurality of denominations that didn’t make it easy to organize a systematic and comprehensive diaconal ministry in its cities--a state of affairs quite different from that back in Scotland, where the Church of Scotland was the Church. Nevertheless, the Presbyterian Church, for example, had always intended that the Church become, once again, “the friend of the workingman” (92).

The church, it seems, never quite got there, and forgot all about it. Instead, the Christian community in USA got embroiled in debates--ministries of word vs. ministries of deeds, Liberalism vs. Fundamentalism, political progressivism vs. political conservatism, and any number of combinations thereof. It seems that we’ve managed to lay asunder what the Lord has brought together. As a result, the office of the deacon has been devastated and left anemic.

As the new generation of Evangelicals--with a new sense of social justice as a vital component of Christian discipleship--rises to the fore, the church in USA is again in danger of debating diaconal ministry to death instead of leading the way and forging a healthy, holistic gospel witness of word and deed as the way of life for the Church (as opposed to outsourcing diaconal ministries to non-profit organizations--needed, yes, but not to be at the forefront of a comprehensive gospel witness as the Church is to be). Not welcomed by “biblically faithful” churches, they may turn to (indeed, already are turning to) other entities (some Christian, some not) to carry out what they see as a mandate from the Lord.

But the biblical witness and Church History provides us with a different picture. The cause of the kingdom would be well served if we learn from these neglected treasures, and endeavor to reinstate the office of the deacon to its rightful place in the mission and life of the Church. Then we would be in a better place to carry out the wishes of Jesus who said to his disciples, “...let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

Dr. Kyuboem Lee serves as a lecturer of Urban Mission at Biblical Seminary. He is the founding pastor of Germantown Hope Community Church in Philadelphia, and the General Editor for the Journal of Urban Mission (http://jofum.com).


Page 22 of 28

Sign-up Today

Join thousands of students, faculty, and staff who are following Jesus into the world. You will receive notification when a new blog is posted, and be receive help in your place in life.

Follow Biblical

Follow us on the following sites and receive notifications on upcoming events and blog entries:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on Twitterg+_64_black

Latest Blog Entries

Written on 24 November 2015 - by Kyuboem Lee
Written on 19 November 2015 - by Chang Hoon Oh
Written on 12 November 2015 - by David Lamb
Written on 29 October 2015 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 27 October 2015 - by Deborah Foulkes, Ph.D.
Written on 22 October 2015 - by Charles Zimmerman
Written on 06 October 2015 - by Derek Cooper
Written on 17 September 2015 - by Manuel Ortiz and Susan Baker
Written on 01 September 2015 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 25 August 2015 - by R. Todd Mangum

Previous Blog Entries

Contact Admissions

800.235.4021 x146

215.368.5000 x146

215.368.4913 (fax)



Stay Connected with Biblical

Follow us on the following sites:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on TwitterFollow Biblical on YouTubeg+_64_black
Or simply call us at...
800.235.4021 x146 or 215.368.5000 x146

Support Biblical by Giving

800.235.4021 x130

215.368.5000 x130

215.368.2301 (fax)