In recent years, evangelical missions has seen a renewed emphasis on international churches. These churches are typically located in major urban centers and operate in a shared language, such as English. With the rise of globalization and migration, such churches have become strategic beachheads for faithful Christian ministry. When these international congregations embody biblical practices, they become healthy models for indigenous leaders and their churches. And as like-minded churches in America witness that happening in challenging places like the Arabian Gulf or Southeast Asia, they’re excited to join the work—or see it replicated elsewhere. As elders of international churches in global cities, we’ve experienced the good these ministries can do. However, we believe the spread of the gospel to all peoples in all places requires more than healthy English-speaking international churches. We still need missionaries who go deep in language and culture and who plant indigenous churches among unreached peoples. Local Language Matters A key factor in the explosive fruitfulness of international churches in the Middle East and beyond has been the widespread use of English as a trade language. This has enabled these churches to invest in members, interns, and staff from some of the hardest-to-reach parts of the world. We think of a brother from the North Caucasus, a volatile, Muslim-dominated region of Southern Russia. It’s an area virtually inaccessible to foreign workers. But this young man, an English speaker, went through an internship at a healthy international church and is now serving among an extremely unreached people group. We praise God for the training this brother received. But what about local church leaders who don’t speak English or who can’t access such training? Some English-language churches are situated in places where English isn’t widely used, so they engage and serve a narrow sector of the population. And if their pastors only speak English (or another trade language), their influence among local leaders will be limited. The members won’t be able to evangelize or disciple everyone they want to reach. Strong partnerships with missionaries who speak the local language will mitigate some of these limitations, but the issue remains. We still need missionaries who go deep in language and culture and who plant indigenous churches among unreached peoples. When we consider the challenges of reaching minority-language groups, the need for such missionaries becomes clearer. These groups are often two languages removed from English-speaking contexts. To reach them, missionaries likely need to learn two languages—the national language and the language of the minority group. This requires a depth of integration that international churches by definition find difficult to attain. While we rejoice in the immediate opportunities to invest in meaningful ministry that come via English-language churches in hard places, we must recognize most missionaries still need to do the grinding work of language learning and cultural acquisition if many of the peoples of the world are to be reached with the gospel. Contextualization Matters A vital role that good international churches often play is to model the elements of a healthy church, such as meaningful membership and expository preaching. In pioneering areas, indigenous churches tend to have no model to emulate, no pattern to follow. The believers in these churches are often all first-generation Christians. Seeing the biblical elements of church practiced by their English-speaking sister congregations can be revolutionary. We must acknowledge, however, that even the most intentional and faithful English-speaking churches will have large cultural and linguistic gaps with surrounding churches, especially minority-language churches. Missionaries, in partnership with their national brothers and sisters, are needed to help translate faithful practices into contextualized forms. We’ve often had the chance to help national pastors discern the difference between “foreign” forms and the biblical principles behind those forms. On one occasion, I (Eric) spoke with a pastor who rejected the “rigid and formal” practice of church membership at our English-speaking church. After I clarified how we were aiming for biblical accountability and fellowship and not “Western rigidity,” he rejoiced. In the work of modest contextualization, international churches and cross-cultural missionaries can complement one another even as they labor side by side with their national brothers and sisters. Roles Matter A growing trend among some supporters of international church work is the tendency to equate the roles of missionary and elder. We believe these are different, though related, roles. At the risk of oversimplifying, elders have two main tasks: shepherding the flock and preaching the Word. Missionaries, on the other hand, can advance the gospel cross-culturally in a myriad of ways. Both should be recognized, affirmed, and held accountable by local churches (Acts 13:1–3; Eph. 4:12; Col. 1:7; 4:12; 1 Tim. 3; 3 John 5–8). Both proclaim the gospel. Both burn to see God’s name honored in local churches. Both will give an account for their labors (1 Cor. 3:10–15; Heb. 13:17). But they aren’t the same. Missionaries typically possess a burden to preach the gospel where Christ isn’t known (Rom. 15:20). William Carey was “obligated” to take the gospel to the unreached. Andrew Fuller and others helped send him. Adoniram Judson was always a missionary and sometimes an elder. Faithful missionaries who serve among growing Christian populations of the Global South aim to eventually hand off that work, as they dialogue with national brothers and sisters about the best time. Pastors, regardless of the ethnic or linguistic makeup of their churches, aim to serve established works, usually for the long haul. They desire to see the gospel flourish among God’s (already) gathered people, then send them out. International churches and cross-cultural missionaries can complement one another even as they labor side by side with their national brothers and sisters. Missions requires more than just local church elders. This doesn’t mean missionaries shouldn’t be church-centered in their work or biblically qualified. They should be. But they play vital roles in starting and strengthening churches globally in ways other than pastoring. Not to mention that women make up a majority of the missionary force and serve in eternally significant ways outside pastoral ministry. Women and men help build “gospel infrastructures” to make sure that work keeps progressing. This includes Bible translation, church planting, publishing, theological education, equipping pastors, evangelism training, student ministry, hymn-writing, and mentoring new missionaries—and, yes, some men may even serve as elders. Conflating these roles can simultaneously blunt the instincts of pioneers and undervalue the faithful, steady shepherding of God’s people. We Need Each Other As we’ve served overseas in various capacities, we’ve experienced the benefits of both being members of international churches and going deep in local language and culture. International churches can give new missionaries a place to land as they begin to acquire language and culture. They can model for less established indigenous churches how faithful churches function. They can train more elders and evangelists. They can come alongside missionaries in the discipleship of English-speaking local believers and leaders. Likewise, traditional missionaries have much to offer international churches. They may be members and serve as elders in those churches. They can help translate the culture. They can be a bridge to indigenous churches in the same city. They can continually direct the international churches’ eyes to the least engaged parts of the harvest field. They can be sent out to plant indigenous churches. There’s no silver bullet in the work to get the gospel to the peoples and places where it’s not yet firmly established. We believe more work needs to be done both through international churches and among indigenous language groups. May God weave that work into a beautiful tapestry of his grace and glory. And may he give us all the wisdom to carry out our roles with humility.

In this lecture, Don Carson explores the multiple meanings of “logic” and its application to biblical interpretation, emphasizing the importance of avoiding exegetical fallacies. He highlights the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, acknowledging the limits of human understanding while still commending a biblical framework for understanding these concepts rather than relying solely on systematic theology. He explores the following: Logic, its various meanings, and its application in biblical study Biblical interpretation and God’s sovereignty God’s sovereignty and human responsibility The limitations of understanding God’s nature and sovereignty How to understand biblical theology and its application in evangelism The structure and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount

We all saw it coming, and now it's official

Now that former President Donald Trump has made a series of statements regarding the federal response to Hurricane Helene, elements of the Regime Media have found their angle with which to cover the recovery. The real scandal is not the slowness of response or hurricane emergency funding shortfall, but Trump’s statements. The story of Hurricane Helene recovery is in the process of being Trumpwashed. This should come as a surprise to no one. I predicted as much last week, when Trump issued his first statement on the response: Money in the bank prediction: Now that there’s a Trump statement, the Regime Media will cover the FEMA shortfall crisis. HOWEVER: the angle will be some combo of “Trump politicizes Helene recovery” and/or “Trump attacks migrants”. The Trump statement will be the reported scandal,… pic.twitter.com/S2Qv5MO5he — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 3, 2024 It took about a week, but the Regime Media have stepped up and made Trump’s statements the real scandal. Consider how ABC World News Tonight covered a single sentence where Trump quotes someone else, and makes that into the scandal: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, with Hurricane Milton now fast approaching just days after Hurricane Helene slammed into the U.S., former President Trump targeting FEMA again today, just as millions try to recover from this. Vice President Kamala Harris blasting Trump for spreading dangerous misinformation. And what she said about this today. Here's Rachel Scott. RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, with Florida bracing for a monster storm, as Georgia and North Carolina reel from the effects of the last one, Vice President Kamala Harris blasting Donald Trump for spreading falsehoods about FEMA, which has been on the ground for days. Harris appearing today on ABC's The View. ANA NAVARRO: What do you think the effect of these lies are, and why is he doing this? KAMALA HARRIS: It's profound, and it is the height of irresponsibility, and, frankly, callousness. I fear that he really lacks empathy. On a very basic level. To care about the suffering of other people, and then understand the role of a leader is- is not to beat people down, it's to lift people up. Especially in a time of crisis. SCOTT: But today, Trump again talking about FEMA. DONALD TRUMP: They said that there was just no FEMA. You virtually don't see anybody from FEMA. That single sentence from Trump took over a minute to frame as “dangerous misinformation.” But the fact is that there were and remain many individuals with grave concerns over the early response to Helene. There is still an indeterminate number of bodies to be recovered from the muck and water. And there is zero doubt that, were a Republican president today, the Regime Media would be covering these response deficiencies onsite.  NBC firefought a different statement: DONALD TRUMP: For one thing, a billion dollars was stolen from FEMA to use it for illegal migrants. GABE GUTIERREZ: That's not true. FEMA has distributed more than a billion dollars to shelter migrants, but the agency says that's from a separate government program, not disaster relief. Trump also falsely claims residents are only being offered $750, even though they can qualify for more.  Gabe Gutierrez’s firefighting notwithstanding, any reasonable individual can look both at the hurricane fund shortfall and the money spent on the Shelter Services Program, and come to the same conclusion that many of us did, including Trump.  Here, again, the purpose of this story is to forward a narrative of competence, which would be untruthful. And, as I foretold, Trump’s statements are the story of Helene recovery, instead of the people. Helene recovery got Trumpwashed. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective network evening newscasts on Tuesday, October 8th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 10/8/24 6:40 PM DAVID MUIR: Tonight, with Hurricane Milton now fast approaching just days after Hurricane Helene slammed into the U.S., former President Trump targeting FEMA again today, just as millions try to recover from this. Vice President Kamala Harris blasting Trump for spreading dangerous misinformation. And what she said about this today. Here's Rachel Scott. RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, with Florida bracing for a monster storm, as Georgia and North Carolina reel from the effects of the last one, Vice President Kamala Harris blasting Donald Trump for spreading falsehoods about FEMA, which has been on the ground for days. Harris appearing today on ABC's The View. ANA NAVARRO: What do you think the effect of these lies are, and why is he doing this? KAMALA HARRIS: It's profound, and it is the height of irresponsibility, and, frankly, callousness. I fear that he really lacks empathy. On a very basic level. To care about the suffering of other people, and then understand the role of a leader is- is not to beat people down, it's to lift people up. Especially in a time of crisis. SCOTT: But today, Trump again talking about FEMA. DONALD TRUMP: They said that there was just no FEMA. You virtually don't see anybody from FEMA. SCOTT: But our team has been on the ground in the storm zone for days, personally witnessing the efforts of FEMA and the National Guard. Homeowners who have told us FEMA has been there to help them. Today, President Biden accusing Trump of misleading people and creating panic. JOE BIDEN: This is going to sound, and to use an old phrase: un-American. It really is. People are scared to death. People know their lives are at stake. All that they work for, all they own, all that they value. SCOTT: David, four weeks to go and this race is still locked in a dead heat, but a New York Times-Siena poll out tonight is showing some movement. Vice President Kamala Harris holding a slight lead over Donald Trump at 49%. The former president at 46%. Also notable tonight, it's the first time this poll has shown more voters view Harris as the candidate representing change, 46% to 44% for Donald Trump, David. MUIR: Rachel Scott. Always good to have you in person here at the desk. Thanks, Rachel. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 10/8/24 6:51 PM LESTER HOLT: Back now with a growing political storm over the federal hurricane response with The White House trying to fight what it calls rampant misinformation. Gabe Gutierrez reports, and asks the head of FEMA about their response. GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight, in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene and with Hurricane Milton barreling towards Florida, President Biden is calling misinformation about the federal response un-American. JOE BIDEN:  It puts people in circumstances where they panic, where they really, really, really worry and think they're not being taken care of. GUTIERREZ: Former President Trump and some of his allies keep spreading false claims. DONALD TRUMP: For one thing, a billion dollars was stolen from FEMA to use it for illegal migrants. GUTIERREZ: That's not true. FEMA has distributed more than a billion dollars to shelter migrants, but the agency says that's from a separate government program, not disaster relief. Trump also falsely claims residents are only being offered $750, even though they can qualify for more. KAMALA HARRIS: He really lacks empathy on a very basic level to care about the suffering of other people. GUTIERREZ: On social media, even more outlandish conspiracy theories are exploding, from false claims of FEMA stealing money from donations to the government controlling the weather from Antarctica. DEANNE CRISWELL: The amount of misinformation just continues to grow unnecessarily, and it's just really creating an interference for us to be able to do the job that we need to do. It prevents them from actually coming in and asking for help. GUTIERREZ: But we also pressed the FEMA administrator about criticism of the federal response. THOM TILLIS: The administration was slow to get started. We're only beginning to see that mobilize about a week too late. GUTIERREZ: Including from Helene survivors. HELENE SURVIVOR: I hear them say on the radio that FEMA is here, but I haven't seen them. GUTIERREZ: What do you say to people like her? CRISWELL: I think the best thing I would say to this is, just because you don't see a person wearing a FEMA shirt does not mean that we're not here. GUTIERREZ: In Florida, there’s another political storm brewing between Governor Ron Desantis and Vice President Kamala Harris. A source familiar with the situation tells NBC News he’s refused to take her calls. HARRIS: It is utterly irresponsible and it is selfish. GUTIERREZ: Overnight, Desantis fired back saying he did not know she called, adding he’s spoken with President Biden and Harris has no role in the process. RON DESANTIS: She’s the first one who is trying to politicize the storm, and she’s doing that just because of her campaign. GUTIERREZ: Meanwhile, a White House official tells us they're preparing to fight misinformation ahead of this latest storm, calling the false rumors the worst they’ve seen. Lester. HOLT: All right. Gabe Gutierrez, thank you.  

As fighting rages on, the deputy chief of Hezbollah says he is open to discuss a cease-fire with Israel. VOA goes to Arizona to talk with voters about immigration, and President Joe Biden cancels his…

Well, we now know why Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign wasn’t eager to rush her out in front of the cameras for media interviews. Sitting with the ladies of The View, which is hardly entering…

When asked what the U.S. response might be to the Iranian airstrikes on Israel last week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested it was Washington’s war, too. “We have made clear that there…

Adapted from remarks at Liberty University. This is a speech about achieving the impossible.My parents came to this country with no money, and I’ve founded multibillion-dollar companies. I’ve written…

Politics The Vibes Have Run Out For Kamala  Harris struggles to find footing in softball media appearances. Credit: image via Shutterstock Well, we now know why Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign wasn’t eager to rush her out in front of the cameras for media interviews. Sitting with the ladies of The View, which is hardly entering the lions’ den for a Democrat (even the primary conservative co-host is a Harris supporter), she promptly produced a clip tailor-made for a Donald Trump campaign ad. Asked if there was anything she would have done differently than departing President Joe Biden over the last four years, Harris replied, “There is nothing that comes to mind.” Harris cleaned up a bit by repeating that she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet. She appears to believe that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, or at least their fans, are the most coveted swing voters in this election. Perhaps she is correct, though the liberal replies to a Washington Post reporter’s social media post about this exchange were fairly unhinged. Confronted about the woeful Biden-Harris record at the border on 60 Minutes, the vice president had no real answer as to whether the administration had been too lax for most of its term. But this back-and-forth also illustrated the basic fraudulence of her attempts to blame the border on Trump killing a flawed Senate bill she has been pushing.  Biden was able to bring down illegal immigration through executive actions without this legislation. Trump was able to even more substantially reduce the flow at the border without this legislation. Biden and Harris made certain enforcement and policy choices that were at their discretion. These, as much as the problems in the Northern Triangle that were not resolved by Harris’s diplomacy, are the real “root causes” of the border crisis. Harris made plain that her “solution” to illegal immigration is to have Congress pass an amnesty bill, which she noted that she and Biden had proposed upon taking office. That proposal, along with ending Trump policies like Remain in Mexico and restoring catch-and-release for apprehended migrants, also incentivized much illegal immigration. Migrants believed if they could make it into the United States under Biden and Harris, they had a better chance of being allowed to stay than under Trump. Then there was Harris’s answer that she owns a Glock as her personal firearm. This specific weapon choice raises questions about her record on gun control. She has supported handgun bans and filed an amicus brief arguing against the Supreme Court majority’s position in District of Columbia v. Heller. Dick Heller was trying to purchase a Glock for self-defense in the nation’s capital. One of Harris’s better moments was when she taunted Trump on Howard Stern for not appearing on 60 Minutes himself. “Ultimately, I do believe that this is an election that is about strength versus weakness, and weakness as projected by someone who puts himself in front of the American people and does not have the strength to stand in defense of their needs, their dreams, their desires,” she said. Even that answer contained a healthy serving of Harris’s signature word salad and it also required a certain amount of prodding from Stern, who has hosted Trump many times over the years before the shock jock adopted a more woke personae. Harris demonstrated in her one (and likely only) debate of this election cycle that she can deliver canned anti-Trump lines and get under his skin effectively. Substance is another story. It’s possible this won’t matter much as the presidential race enters the homestretch. But the sudden resort to a busier media schedule appears to be a concession that her reprise of the Biden basement strategy was no longer working. Harris’s running mate Tim Walz lost the vice presidential debate to JD Vance. This was at least partly attributable to the fact that the Minnesota governor wasn’t doing many media interviews, while Vance was sitting down with hostile hosts regularly. Walz couldn’t do more interviews because he didn’t want to upstage the top of the ticket. Even though the public polling still shows the contest a toss-up, with perhaps even a slight Harris edge, Democrats are nervous. She’s behind where Biden was at this point in 2020, and the final results turned out to be closer than the October polling suggested four years ago. Trump is doing a lot of friendly interviews and podcasts too, but we have seen him do hostile interviews before and he is already more of a known commodity. Even this year, the Univision town hall and sit-down with the National Association of Black Journalists were far riskier for Trump to agree to than Harris. To paraphrase James Taylor, Harris can run for president but she cannot hide. At least not forever.  The post The Vibes Have Run Out For Kamala  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Congress MIA on Possible U.S. War with Iran Experts: They lack the guts to invoke war powers, and are out of town through election anyway. Credit: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images When asked what the U.S. response might be to the Iranian airstrikes on Israel last week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested it was Washington’s war, too. “We have made clear that there will be consequences, severe consequences, for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case,” Sullivan said during a press briefing at the White House. To which Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) fumed on X: “Work with Israel? Excuse me, the Constitution requires you to work with Congress!” Two days later, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the same platform. “Any offensive action by the U.S. against Iran would be unconstitutional without a Congressional Declaration of War,” he wrote. Nevertheless, as talk turns to the kind of retaliation Israel might deliver against Iran for its 200 ballistic missile attacks (which Israel and U.S. both claim were “ineffective”), it is becoming clear that the U.S. might play a direct role. That was not refuted this week when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called his counterpart Yoav Gallant (he was to meet with him in Washington today, but the confab has been postponed): “I confirmed the United States commitment to Israel’s security and shared that the United States is well postured across the region to defend Israel and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.”  Even more to the point, CENTCOM commander Gen. Erik Kurilla met with Gallant in Israel and had this to say: We discussed ongoing Iranian-backed threats to the region and efforts to stabilize the region, ensure Israel’s security, and deter Iran’s malign and reckless activities, Before departing, I reiterated the strength of our ironclad military-to-military commitment between CENTCOM and the Israeli Defense Forces. In back-to-back radio interviews with Brian Thomas on October 2, Massie and Andrew Napolitano expressed their concern that we may wake up tomorrow and find that the Biden administration had made the executive decision to take the nation to war. “You won’t see a declaration of war because Congress doesn’t want to embarrass itself. It’ll just look the other way while the president does whatever the hell he or she wants. And that’s, to me, just frightening,” charged Napolitano. Unfortunately given the circumstances and recent history, Napolitano is probably right—if the administration decides to let Israel drag the U.S. into direct military action with Iran, there is little Congress or anyone else will be able, or, better yet, willing, to do about it. The executive branch has been consolidating and reaffirming its war powers over the last several decades and has not been constrained by the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution, which was passed by Congress in 1973 to limit the president’s ability to make unilateral decisions to take and keep the country at war.  Experts point to successive presidents who have used existing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars to justify military operations over the last 20 years, including recent airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. They say presidents have abused their powers under Article II of the Constitution to enter into hostilities, which Congress, under the WPR, say he can only do to respond to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”  Whether the Houthi attacks on global shipping, which the Yemeni militants say will continue until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, are an imminent threat to the U.S., is up for debate. The White House claims that it is a threat to the global economy, regional security, and, once the U.S. Navy got involved and had been sporadically fired upon, American security interests too. The administration has invoked its Article II powers and filed required reports to Congress under the WPR for different strikes, including several against militants in Iraq and Syria over the last year.  This allows the administration to keep “stopping and setting” the 60-day clock for Congressional action or as experts call “salami-slicing.” The AUMFs have been used as ancillary statutory authorities if that clock runs out, as well. This was done in the Trump administration, too. “Finding the statute” is what former State Department legal adviser Brian Finucane calls it. “Through creative interpretations of the War Powers Resolution and the 2001 AUMF and now the 2002 AUMF as well, this White House like its predecessors has been able to involve and keep U.S. troops in wars that Congress never specifically authorized,” he wrote back in January. Other than lambasting the president in the media during the initial Yemen airstrikes in January, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have not raised the issue in terms of forcing a vote under the WPR to declare war—or not—in the current Middle East hostilities. (An attempt by Paul, however, to bring home the approximately 900 U.S. troops in Syria using the WPR failed to pass the Senate in December.) Outside organizations warn that “a new endless war” will be Biden’s legacy, signing a letter to the president on October 3: “We urge you to recognize and respect that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran or militias backed by Iran, and that any potential military action against Iran could only proceed following a debate and passage of a war authorization before entering our troops into any imminent hostilities in the region.” (Disclosure: The letter was signed by the author’s employer, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft). But without a forceful response from Congress — and even then — it would seem war is the prerogative of the executive today. Constitutional law expert Bruce Fein balks at the irony. “In 2007 while seeking the Democratic Party nomination as president, Biden shrieked on Chris Matthews’s Hardball that he would lead the charge for President Bush’s impeachment and removal from office if he attacked Iran without a prior declaration of war,” Fein told The American Conservative in an email. “Biden, days ago, attacked Iranian missiles in collaboration with Israel with the Navy’s AEGIS ballistic missile defense, an act of war not authorized or declared by Congress. Under Biden’s own impeachment standards loudly trumpeted in 2007, Biden himself has committed an impeachable offense,” he added. “Congress should be demanding that Biden testify before Congress to explain the constitutionality of what he has already done in light of Biden’s 2007 statements as President Ford was summoned to explain to the House Judiciary Committee his pardon of former President Nixon. Congressional complacency with presidential usurpations of its war power is stunning.” The complacency is helped along by the fact that both chambers are out of session until after the election. Numerous offices contacted by TAC on both sides of the partisan aisle Monday either did not respond or said they could not comment on the possibility of the U.S. going to war without Congressional authorization. “In essence we were under the leadership of a king,” said the radio host Brian Thomas. “In that regard, no accountability, no representation by our elected officials, no say in the matter. We’re going to drop bombs. This has come up in the context of us doing just random missile strikes and in any given land we find somebody that we don’t like.” The post Congress MIA on Possible U.S. War with Iran appeared first on The American Conservative.