the Holy Crap must go

Walter Russell Meade lays down his marker. its a good read. I especially like this bit, but the whole thing is good:

The Christian churches in the United States are in trouble for all the usual reasons — human sinfulness and selfishness, the temptations of life in an affluent society, doctrinal and moral controversies and uncertainties and on and on and on — but also and to a surprisingly large degree they are in trouble because they are trying to address the problems of the twenty first century with a business model and a set of tools that date from the middle of the twentieth.  The mainline churches in particular are organized like General Motors was organized in the 1950s: they have cost structures and operating procedures that simply don’t work today.  They are organized around what I’ve been calling the blue social model, built by rules that don’t work anymore, and oriented to a set of ideas that are well past their sell-by date.

Without even questioning it, most churchgoers assume that a successful church has its own building and a full-time staff including one or more professionally trained leaders (ordained or not depending on the denomination).  Perhaps no more than half of all congregations across the country can afford this at all; most manage only by neglecting maintenance on their buildings or otherwise by cutting corners.  And even when they manage to make the payroll and keep the roof in repair, congregations spend most of their energy just keeping the show going from year to year.  The life of the community centers around the attempt to maintain a model of congregational life that doesn’t work, can’t work, won’t work no matter how hard they try.  People who don’t like futile tasks have a tendency to wander off and do other things and little by little the life and vitality (and the rising generations) drift away.

As I like to put it, there is too much time and effort required to simply “feed the beast.” How do we create a structure that can accommodate growth by massive multiplication? Bigger structures can’t be the answer or any part of the answer.

HT to Joe Carter at First Things.

Verge 2010

I wasn’t able to go to Verge 2010 last week, but I watched quite a bit of the streaming video. It was some amazing stuff. Many of the thoughts and beliefs with which I have been struggling for the last seven years were echoed from the stage. just amazing.

In particular, two things that I heard have been rattling around my brain all week.

The first was in a breakout session on church structure. the question is whether we are structured for addition or multiplication? we say that we want and expect growth by multiplication, but our structures can’t accommodate anything other than addition. Think about it. If 100 people came to Christ this week in your church, then it would be an exceptionally great week that would be remembered for a long time, but nothing would really have to change. But if 1000 came, then we would have a problem. We might have to add another service more child care more parking etc. If 3000 or 5000 came, then we would be completely overwhelmed.

Our structures cannot accommodate the growth that occurred on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached or the the growth that occurred after the healing of the lame man from the Beautiful Gate.

The second thing was a throwaway comment by Hugh Halter. He mentioned Acts 8:1 and the fact that Luke was probably having a little joke when he wrote it. It says that the believers were scattered because of persecution, “except the apostles.” the word apostolos means “messengers, sent ones”. Thus it says the believers were scattered except the sent ones.

I have been thinking about us. We have been sent and yet we continue to stand congregated together. Makes me wonder how long God will forestall persecution so that we get “scattered”. Why can’t we self scatter?

age segregation

interesting story from Mollie Hemingway about voluntary age segregation in churches and its unforeseen effects. number one on the list; no funerals.

“Cool! Your church has funerals,” a friend recently said after I told him about attending one for a fellow parishioner at my church.

My friend attends one of those churches that meet in a Cineplex. Ever since he first told me about his theater church, I had wondered about the logistics of baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

It turns out that the entire membership of his congregation ranges in age from late teens to late 20s. Baptisms are rare and handled at other venues. As far as he knows, they’ve never had a funeral. And when people get married, they rent out traditional churches for the occasion.

why do you love the church?

if you love the church, why? (the “if you don’t, why not”? is a whole ‘nother post)

Josh Harris lists some wrong reasons why people sometimes love their church. what do you think?  Here are a couple to get you started, then go read the rest of his post including the reason we should love the church:

Don’t love the church because of what it does for you. Because sooner or later it won’t do enough.

Don’t love the church because of a leader. Because human leaders are fallible and will let you down.

Body metaphor

Randy Alcorn posts an excerpt from Philip D. Kenneson’s Life On The Vine: Cultivating the Fruit of the Spirit in Christian Community (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999). I agree that we should probably all spend some time thinking a bit about what Kenneson says here:

This [the church as a body] is only one important lesson that reflecting on the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ might teach us. Given the rampant individualism that pervades much congregational life, the contemporary church in this country would do well to reflect seriously on this metaphor. For example:

Bodies are wrongly understood if their parts are considered to be in some way more fundamental than the body itself. The parts exist to serve the well-being of the entire body, a well-being in which each part participates and facilitates to the extent that it looks beyond its own immediate welfare.

Bodies are wrongly understood if they are regarded as conglomerates of parts that have their own integrity apart from the body. No one would mistake a severed finger on the sidewalk for a body. Such a condition is not only a problem for the part but a problem for the entire body.

Bodies are wrongly understood if their parts are considered to have unmediated access to the head. Each body part facilitates and participates in vital connections to the head, yet none can sustain this connection to the head alone.

a bold move

the Episcopalian church in the U.S. has made a bold move and declared itself to be committed to the full normalization of non-celibate homosexuals within the leadership of its communion.

here is the New York Times write up and here is the Los Angeles Times.

Dr. Mohler also discusses the votes on his blog today.

As reported in The Los Angeles Times, even some who support moves toward the normalization of homosexuality and homosexual relationships saw these votes as extreme.  “I am afraid we are becoming a church of a fundamentalist left,” said the Rev. Kate Moorehead of St. James Episcopal Church in Wichita, Kansas.

Even more pointedly, one of the church’s most insightful observers declared a virtual end to conservative and orthodox influence within the denomination. “It’s a clean sweep for the liberal agenda in the Episcopal Church,” said David Virtue. “The orthodox are finished.”

what will be interesting to keep an eye on as we go forward is whether or not David Virtue’s words are prophetic or not. Are the Orthodox finished?

the church through history

Ed Marcelle on the Resurgence Blog is doing a quick series on how people have “done church” over time in different eras. The fourth installment is about the church during the Industrial Revolution period that is ending. then there is this little teaser for what comes next:

The world had changed. The Industrial Revolution had brought with it precision and control. There was a top-to-bottom pyramid structure that would be, by its nature, successful everywhere it could touch, where its power could be diurnally felt. It would be this very strength that would be its undoing, as the world became electronic and limitless, and to have influence meant never even having to touch when things became high-tech.

That change would be a great shift, and just as the Industrial Revolution made those who were separated from their Agrarian forefathers very different, it was even more so with those who were born on the other side of the Information Age. They found a brave and new world, and with it new ways of incarnating church. These ways would ultimately invert the previous ways. Control would no longer be the virtue, but would become the very anchor that would not allow progress.

If the Industrial Revolution was about standardization, localization, and control, the Information Age was about to demand the exact opposite, and the church would need to understand how it would shift accordingly.

revitalizing a local church

JD Greear is posting a series on The Resurgence blog about revitalizing a local church.

the introduction:

I’ve been asked to speak on church revitalization at the Advance Conference this year. Six years ago when I was called as a pastor, Homestead Heights was a declining 41-year-old Baptist church. Attendance was down to about 350 people, and more were leaving. Today, the Summit Church consists of four campuses spread across Raleigh-Durham. To God’s glory, this past Easter we had 4400 people in service and saw 160 profess faith in Christ.

he then makes the point that the revitalization must be centered around the Gospel and gives two bad reasons for wanting to revitalize. Go read it; good stuff. I am looking forward to more in the series.

why American believers don’t give

one thing we have noticed in visiting churches this year is that budgets are in deep trouble. It is to be expected in a recession like this that church receipts would be down significantly, but we have seen several churches who have in 2009 received only 35 and 40% of the amount that they had budgeted to receive.

Todd Hiestand takes a look at whether or not American Christians are selfish and what some of the factor are that inhibit giving to the local church or to parachurch organizations. very interesting stuff.

here are the first two of five reasons that he believes inhibit giving:

Reason #1 – We are shackled with debt.
I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we aren’t more generous. We just can’t be. Every dollar we make is accounted for and the flex that we have after we take care of teh necessities is taken up in debt payments. I know that in my congregation there are some who wish they could give more but they just can’t figure out how to because they are paying off so much debt. The biggest issue is that most of us don’t know how to get out. That’s a big responsibility of the church in my mind. We need to help people live healthier financial lives. Not for the sake of reasonability. Not just because its a wiser way to live. I think far too often teh call to being debt free is couched in reasons that aren’t based on mission. But, we need to call people to a debt free lifestyle so they can more freely respond to the needs of others.

Reason #2 – Our churches aren’t worth giving to
I think this is a significant issue our churches need to face. If fact #6 above is correct, I think we can’t just blame it on selfishness. I have found that when a church is doing something that is perceived as significant, people generously and freely give financially towards it. But I believe that most of what our churches do is not worth giving too. If most of what the church does is inward focused, then I too would not be too excited to give to the local church. If our churches were more mission focused and outward focused in their very nature and we told the stories of what God was doing through them, I believe we’d have a different story here. I’m happy to give to buildings, salaries and programs if those buildings, salaries and programs are changing the world and doing the work of the kingdom. Sadly, I just don’t think this is generally the case.

go read the rest of Todd’s post for six facts about giving and the other three reasons that Todd believes that christians fail to give.

what he said

here is Mark Driscoll talking about holding truth tightly while being relevant to the culture.

Bumped up from last July, because it is still relevant.

here is the page where you can download the entire message that the above video was advertising.

church

Mike Leuken wonders about our default approach to thinking about our church.

“I am dissatisfied” was identified as a barrier to spiritual growth. Of those surveyed, 17 percent expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with their church; over half of these came from the most advanced stages of maturity. The greatest source of dissatisfaction was the church’s weekend services. The authors imply that if we overcome this barrier, we can keep people from leaving the church.

However, I remain unconvinced that the right question is, “What’s the most important thing you want from your church?” This emphasis on an individual’s expectations and preferences reveals a core problem in American Christianity—the unchallenged assumption that people can accurately evaluate their church based on whether or not it meets their needs. How does this prevailing attitude alter the biblical purpose of the Church in the world? We are a culture of Christ-followers who pay far too much attention to whether or not our needs are being satisfied. And we have become a culture of church leaders who spend far too much time orienting our ministries around the ever-changing preferences of our people.

hat tip to Vitamin Z

yesterday

Yesterday we went to Origins Church. It is a church plant that only began having public worship services last September. They meet in a Holiday Inn meeting room which was nice. Meeting in that location lessens the setup and takedown stress on the people, because the hotel does much of it for them.

The church was interesting in that there were a few rows of chairs set up in the back and there were round tables in the in front. It was a different environment than any other church we have been to. It is something like we talked about doing at the Quarries, but never did.

The music was good, the preaching was good. Brannen Padgett started a new sermon series on who Jesus really was and is verses the messages about Jesus that are put out by our culture.

We have now gone to four or five of these smaller church plants and heard about several others. I wonder how many new church plant groups of 100 folks or less are meeting around this city every weekend.

what is the target?

Ed Stetzer has some interesting thoughts about the gospel that we are preaching and the goal of conversion according to that gospel. Here is his full article at catalyst.

the excerpts that Ed posted on his blog follow:

I continue to see movements gaining traction among Christians that do not seem to have many converts. In other words, they have recruits to their cause, but few converts to Christ. And, I am concerned. I am concerned that in the name of “fixing the Church” we are not proclaiming the Church’s gospel.
…

So, my Reformed friends, let’s not only read 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John (that is, John Calvin, John MacArthur, and John Piper), let’s go plant some more churches. My emerging church friends, let’s take a pause from the theological rethink and head into the neighborhood and to tell someone about Jesus. My missional friends, let’s speak of justice, but always tell others how God can be both “just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” My house church friends, let’s have community, but let’s be sure it is one focused on redemption. My Baptist friends, let’s focus more on convincing pagans than Presbyterians. And, my charismatic friends, let’s focus less on getting existing believers to speak in tongues and more on using our tongue to tell others about Jesus

…

If you want to convince me (and the body of Christ) to your cause, you must show me it is a better way. You must tell and show something different. You must not just protest what is, but you must show me what should be.

hat tip to Vitamin Z

while we are at Vitamin Z, here is a quote from D.A. Carson that may be related to what Ed is talking about:

“For complex reasons many in the Western church came to speak of ‘the simple gospel’, by which they at one time meant the gospel summarized in convenient and simple form, usually for evangelistic purposes. The result is that for many today ‘the gospel’ or ‘gospel preaching’ refers not to the glorious, comprehensive good news disclosed in scripture but to a very simple (some would say simplistic) reduction of it. Some churches distinguished between ‘worship services’ and ‘gospel services’: one wonders which term, ‘worship’ or ‘gospel’, has been more seriously abused. Doubtless the motives behind these developments were often excellent. But the fact remains that a variety of serious problems were thereby introduced. For many, evangelistic preaching became identified with simplistic preaching. Worse, ‘the gospel’ came to be associated in their minds exclusively with the initial steps of faith rather than with God’s comprehensive good news that not only initiates salvation but orders all our life in this world and the next.”

–D. A. Carson, “The Biblical Gospel,” in For Such a Time as This: Perspectives on Evangelicalism, Past, Present and Future (ed. Steve Brady and Harold Rowdon; London: Evangelical Alliance, 1996), 82.

the pursuit of God

In our men’s Bible study on Tuesday mornings we have started the book The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer.

On page 14 of my copy, Mr. Tozer says this:

This intercourse between God and the soul is known to us in conscious personal awareness. It is personal: it does not come through the body of believers, as such, but it is known to the individual, and to the body through the individuals which compose it.

Isn’t that an interesting concept? The pursuit of God is personal. Not corporate. Do you agree with that? why or why not? If you do agree, then why have church communities at all? If we aren’t striving for God corporately, then what is the point of being corporate?

Thankfully, the Bible gives us an answer. The point of the body of believers is to encourage, exhort and provoke one another into the pursuit of God. Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 10:24-25, Galatians 6:1

Jesus even gives us a model procedure for confronting a brother who has wronged you in Matthew 18:15-20. What do we notice about this procedure? Look at it a minute:

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Do you see in this passage that Tozer was correct? The malefactor/tortfeasor/wrongdoer has three chances in this procedure to repent of his wrongdoing and return to the fold. His brothers have the explicit duty to confront him with his wrongdoing and the implied duty to forgive and accept him if he returns. But the bottom line choice about whether to repent and return rests with the wrongdoer.

The most Christian brothers and sisters can do for each other on the journey is love one another, pray for one another, encourage one another, exhort one another, confront one another when we go off track, spur/goad one another etc. Whether or not any particular individual is receptive to the encouragement/exhortation/confrontation/love/prayer/etc is up to that individual.

The ultimate decision about whether to pursue God or not is a solitary decision made by every particular individual every moment of every day. That intercourse is personal to each one of us and God.

thankfully, the choice is not up to us. Although we must make the choice, God’s grace gives us the power to pursue Him. John 1:11-13, John 6:44, John 6:65. II Corinthians 3:18 makes it clear that we “are being transformed” (passive voice, God doing the transformation) into His image with ever increasing glory. II Peter 1:3-8 says that His divine power has given us everything that we need for life and godliness, and that “for this reason” we must “make every effort” to supplement our faith with virtue etc.

We have to be able to see two lines at once in order to grasp the truth of scripture. God expects us to passionately pursue him with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength. God gives us the very ability that we need to do this thing that goes against our natural man’s nature. God also insures that the process will be completed for the increase of his glory. See Ephesians 1:3-14, II Cor. 3:18 and Hebrews 12:5-11.

church tradition metaphor?

how about old couch? was great when it was new 20 years ago, but now it isn’t. can’t get rid of it because of all the wonderful memories associated with it.

metaphor courtesy of Andy Stanley, via CataBlog

church or “preaching center”?

Vitamin Z has posted an excerpt from the book Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis.

here is an excerpt from the excerpt:

“The Bible calls the church a family. It describes the church as a community that shares together. The church is a body whose members perfectly fit together. We belong to one another. Our friend’s church was neither a family nor a community. It had no vision for involvement in its immediate community. The truth is, it was not really a church according to any New Testament definition. It was a preaching center. You drove to their large parking garage for your weekly dose of religion just as you traveled to the out-of-town supermarket for your weekly groceries.

How many of us attend “preaching centers” rather than churches? Do you? how would you know?

What would be some indicators that your “church” is or is not really a church?

What would be some characteristics of a “community that shares together”? Does your church have those characteristics?

What would some indicators be that your church is a body whose different members fit together perfectly and, more importantly, function together perfectly so that love and grace are consistently shown to any outsiders looking in? Does your church have those indicators?

Is your “church” involved in its local community; in its neighborhood, in its block, in its subdivision, in its city? Does it have any plan/goal/desire/vision to do so?

I think we have substituted preaching centers for churches all over this country. What do you think?

True or False?

Here is an excerpt from Quitting Church

My research suggested that people are simply not being pastored. Often ministers are out of touch with what’s happening on the ground, as they are surrounded by a wall of secretaries and voice mail. Congregants have to wait up to a month for an appointment, if they can get in at all. Once-a-week home Bible study groups lack depth and theological know-how for help with the serious problems many of us face. Many churches refer people to professional counseling that costs at least seventy-five dollars an hour. Those lucky enough to have a health plan that pays for counseling usually find the only counselors on approved HMO lists have no concept of a Christian worldview.

as quoted by Al Mohler here.

If you vote “false” then no worries, right? If you vote “true” then what steps do you take to fix it?

Hat tip to Allen James.

more on megachurches

Catablog has links to studies regarding the current state of megachurches (over the last few years).

Here are some of the findings, but go to Catablog and hit the links to the source materials for more detailed information.

“Megachurches – Protestant congregations that draw 2,000 or more adults and children in a typical weekend (attendance not membership) – show considerable consistency over the past eight years.
They continue to:

• Grow in size,
• Lead the way as America’s most multi-ethnic class of church,
• Show a strong bias toward contemporary worship, and
• Remain minimally involved in politics.

However, they also are institutions in transition. They are now:

• Offering more worship services and expanding to multiple-locations,
• Shifting to playing a greater role in community service,
• Decreasing their use of radio and television, and
• Putting greater emphasis on the role of small groups.”

megachurches on the slide?

is the age of the megachurch showing signs of beginning to pass? here is a fascinating look at this question in USA Today.

statistical blip or the start of a trend?

On paper, megachurches look like a trend still on the rise. Their total number rose from 600 in 2000 to more than 1,250 in 2005, says sociologist Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn.

On Outreach magazine’s 2008 list of the largest 100, even the smallest says more than 7,000 people attend. But some of the biggest, including Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston, with 43,500, showed slight declines.

Experts see more troubling concerns than slowing growth: No measurable inroads on overall church attendance and signs that many churchgoers are spectators, not driving toward a deeper faith.

“You can create a church that’s big, but is still not transforming people. Without transformation, the Christian message is not advanced,” says Ed Stetzer, head of Lifeway Research in Nashville, which did the Outreach study.

The unchurched remain untouched. While the number of people who say they attend at least once a week hovers around 30% year after year, the number who say they “never” go to church climbs.

emphasis added.

this is a fascinating comment from Bill Hybels of Willow Creek:

Willow is still “seeker-obsessed,” says Hybels. “But today’s seekers are different” than years ago.

Today, he says, “I don’t think anyone is wandering around looking for a mild dose of God. … They want to know: ‘What would a life centered on Christ look like in my life? What would that feel like? How do I go about it?’ “

hat tip to Ligon Duncan at Reformation 21.

Is the church for evangelism?….continued even further

In a way this whole discussion seems weirdly artificial. All of our life as Christ followers is the gospel. Everything we do or say is because of the presence of God in us.

I am not a preacher (vocational pastor of a congregation). I am a lawyer who teaches (and yes I do preach some) the Bible. Standing in front of a class I feel the weight of James 3:1. I also feel unworthy to teach or preach anything out of my own power. the only reason any of us (seekers, as well as Christ followers) are in that room at that time for that lesson is because of the Grace of God manifested toward us through the provision of His son as the perfect lamb that was slain on our behalf so that we could be reconciled to God.

My goal as a teacher is to wake up within each listener a hunger for God’s glory so that they will pursue Him on their own every day. Teaching the scripture is always an exercise in learning the height and depth and fullness of God’s love toward us. That is why it seems artificial to be having this discussion about evangelism in church services.

All of our life is spent working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. every lesson is an attempt to take hold of that thing/reason for which God took hold of me. the goal of every lesson is to make God look glorious and to persuade the listeners to look at Him in awe and wonder and love.

The gospel permeates and undergirds every lesson, every song. It is the reason for our hope. It is the reason for our joy. It is the reason for our love of the Bible. It is the reason we assemble together to encourage one another and provoke one another to love and good works.

God’s wonderful magnificent sovereign grace is what makes sense of the senseless and it is what gives hope to the hopeless.

What else would we have to talk about in our gatherings?

is the church for evangelism?….continued

Ken Stewart, professor of theological studies at Covenant College, had a comment posted to Tony Payne’s thoughts that I mentioned in this post. The comment was elevated to the text of this post

Here is the beginning of what Professor Stewart had to say, “In the abstract, the argument of this post is unassailable. It has a weight of NT evidence behind it.” Now I have to admit a bias of mine. Whenever the weight of New Testament evidence is behind something, then so am I. Period.

But Professor Stewart then says that since Constantine’s time due to the “factoring in of historical realities”, evangelism must be a part of church worship. Again, my built in sola scriptura bias automatically puts me in suspicious mode when an argument like this is made. My initial flippant response is to say “so what?” with regard to factored in historical realities. I am quite suspicious of same.

Professor Stewart doesn’t make the argument any more explicit than that. To be fair, he was writing a comment to a blog post, so more meat on the bone can’t really be expected.

The professor does proceed to make three points which help to illuminate his thinking. These three points are:

1. For those ministering in broad, comprehensive churches in which the spiritual status and allegiance of attenders is doubtful, you will have to preach the gospel for conversion Sunday by Sunday or miss your best opportunity….

2. For those determined to follow the counsel set out, please indicate where, and in what other venues you are preaching the gospel with a view to the conversion of your hearers if by your own admission, you will not belabor this in your Sunday services. If you can name open-air gatherings in parks and on beaches, accepted invitations to speak to service club luncheons and so on, then fine. But to fall into line behind this argument with no such preaching program in place is to join company with a very large company of perfectly orthodox preachers who no longer press the gospel on the unbelieving, because they limit their preaching to the edification of those who believe already.

3. Perfectly orthodox churches need to hear the gospel preached and to witness its power in transforming the curious and unbelieving. So many perfectly orthodox churches are ‘starved’ of the opportunity to observe people visibly responding to the gospel because that response is no longer sought. So, years pass into decades during which no one has been known to be effectually called under the preaching of the Word, because the preacher has not sought any such result.

some responsive thoughts:

1. I agree that there will be nonbelievers present in almost every worship service. Christian preaching requires an emphasis on the gospel no matter what topic is being addressed. The only way we can have Godly marriages is through the power of God demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. The only way we can love God with all of our heart soul mind and strength is through His power. The only way we can avoid showing favoritism to the rich and powerful is to see them as Jesus did; lost and afraid like sheep without a shepherd.
Thus, I don’t see how Christian preaching occurs that is not based in the Gospel for its power and application.
In addition, I just disagree that Sunday worship is the “best opportunity” to evangelize the lost. This kind of thinking is what Tony was addressing. Simply asserting it to be so, is not a responsive argument.

2. This is an excellent point. The failure at this point is why churches default to straight proselytizing sermons on Sunday. Pastors who do not expect their members to be ministers of reconciliation will take it upon themselves to bear the full weight of this responsibility. Pastors must insist that their people assume the obligations of being Christ followers and insist that the people share the good news of the Gospel in their neighborhoods, workplaces, gyms, bridge clubs etc. Pastors must be providing specific instruction to their people in this regard. Our preacher Sunday said to the congregation that it is not ok to talk about being missional. We must do it and we must do it now.

3. I agree that churches need to hear the gospel preached. I don’t know what he means by needing to see the curious and unbelieving transformed on Sunday. Sunday service is not the primary place to witness that miracle. In their offices, soccer games, bunko groups is where this miracle should be regularly witnessed by Christ followers. The fact that it isn’t being witnessed in daily life with friends family members and neighbors is the great tragedy and failure of the church today. Again, the professor is assuming the lack of such opportunity and relying on the Sunday service as the last best hope for experiencing the power of God in salvation. This again is the church culture assumption that Tony was arguing against.

My conclusion on this matter is that we need to have a revolution in the church. A revolution of thought and practice that reaches for practices that are unassailable in light of the New Testament. No longer should we be satisfied with churches bound by historical tradition at odds with the example of the church in scripture.

This revolution will never occur if we allow ourselves to keep doing what we have been doing and calling it the best opportunity. It is not the best opportunity. A congregation of believers allowing themselves to be used by God as ambassadors in this world right here and right now can in God’s power transform a city. That is the best opportunity. That is how 11 men plus Paul transformed the Roman empire.

Hat tip to Ramblin’ Pastor Man.

elder led

In an earlier post regarding congregationalism, I made the point that God’s model of leadership in the local ekklesia is elder led. Phil Newton has written an article for Tabletalk magazine touching on this topic so I can link to his work.

Here is part of Phil’s introduction and first point, but go read his article for the other three points.

Christ gave elder leadership to the church for its growth, development, and unity. Yet tradition often tugs stronger than biblical order for those refusing elder leadership. Others have elders but neglect applying biblical standards to them. Paul’s letter to Titus offers great help for both cases (Titus 1:5-9).

First, plural leadership is the norm for every church: “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” “Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular. It indicates multiple elders serving each church on Crete (1:5). Each reference to local church elders demonstrates plurality as the New Testament practice (see Acts 14:23; 15:22; 20:17 that show this same pattern of plurality). Paul’s reason for plurality within even small congregations makes sense. It provides accountability, support, and encouragement, increased wisdom, and diversity of gifts to increase ministry effectiveness.

Is the Church for Evangelism?

this is the question posed by the Ramblin’ Pastor Man and by Tony Payne.

It is a more difficult question than it appears on the surface. Tony makes some good points and here is one of them:

However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies. It is certainly not their focus. In the New Testament, churches are characteristically the fruit of evangelism, not its agent. Evangelism usually takes place outside the assembly—in the marketplace, the synagogue, the prison, and in daily gospel conversation.

More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.

In addition, Ramblin’ Pastor Man makes the following excellent observation:

I have tended to look to I Corinthians 14 for the answer. I Corinthians 14 seems suggest that… yes… evangelism should be taking place in the church (specifically I Cor 14:22-25), but it is not the primary thrust of the assembly of Christians.

I agree with Tony and Dan that the church gatherings themselves are not primarily evangelistic. Acts 2:42 says that the new church devoted itself to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread together. None of these things are primarily evangelistic.

Nonetheless, there is a likelihood that non-believers will be present at the meetings. Some of these will know they are outside the faith and some of these might have a head knowledge of Christ, but not be a true believer yet (Hebrews 6:4 seems to have a group like this in mind).

Christian preaching should always be centered around the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God’s grace toward us. No matter what the particular subject is that is being covered in song or preaching, the foundation for the meeting is God’s grace toward us that has made us alive in Him.

In addition, the group of believers is itself an evangelistic witness to the world when we are obedient to Christ. Jesus told His disciples that He was giving them a new commandment to love one another. And then He added some very important words. He said by this the whole world will know that you are my disciples, “if you have love for one another.”

The love Jesus is talking about is agape love. Selfless devotion to the interests of others over our own self interest. He uses His own love as the example. If we are willing to die for our fellow believers, then the world will notice that. That kind of devotion to brothers and sisters in Christ is our most important worldly calling card. It is the unique thing that the church possesses and it is only possible because of the presence and power of God in our lives.

The local church can also be a community on mission. In other words we can pool our individual talents and resources, filling each other’s gaps as we share the Gospel with our friends and neighbors. I might not know the right way to talk to an atheist computer scientist friend of mine, but I know that a fellow at my church was just like that two years ago. I can make sure that my friend and my church brother get together and spend some time.

Evangelism does have to happen primarily outside of the box. By that I mean that evangelism is not primarily associated with the weekly meeting of the church in the Big Box with a steeple. Some evangelism does occur, but weekly gatherings are not primarily evangelistic.

However, what happens in that box on a Sunday morning or Saturday night or Sunday evening when the church gathers together is a worship event. Worship of the great Gracious God who loves us and sent His only Son to die for us and raised that Son from the dead so that we all could be reconciled to God with a secure hope of eternal life together with Him.

When worship like this occurs, then the people realize the great need of their neighbors and friends to be reconciled to God. When worship like that is occurring, then the church filled with lovers of God and lovers of their neighbors will leave the building on mission as ambassadors for Christ. These lovers of God and lovers of their neighbors will use their spiritual gifts, time, and money to reach their friends, coworkers and neighbors for Christ and will lean on the spiritual gifts, time and money of their fellow God lovers in complementary fashion to accomplish the goal.

Sola Deo Gloria!

why government?

Pulpit Magazine has a two part series from Nathan Williams on why God put government in place.

here is the introduction to the series.

With the Democratic National Convention being held last week, and the Republican National Convention being held this week, our country will turn attention increasingly to the issue of politics and government. Without a doubt the election that will be held in November will be one of the most important elections we have had in some time. With the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, we will now have a history making election no matter who wins. The issues being debated are extremely important to our nation including the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the economy, and so on.

and here is the beginning of part two.

In this article, I’d like to look at one of the responsibilities the Christian has toward government.

Perhaps the most important and certainly the most extensive text dealing with the Christian perspective on government is Romans 13:1-7.

more reading

do you agree or disagree with congregationalism? (governance of the church by the congregation).

I grew up Baptist which means basically that we were pastor led congregational governance model churches.

I never really thought about whether or not that was an appropriate biblical model of church governance until a series of events in 2003 plunged me into some very intense, prolonged, fevered, pressured search of scripture on these points over most of that year.

After that time of study, I became convinced that congregationalism is not an appropriate model. God’s model is elder led under the guidance of Jesus, the chief shepherd. Period. Full Stop.

If you want, I can show you my reasons for this belief.

Anyway, here is a long essay by Nathan Finn arguing in favor of congregationalism. Have a look at it and then go decide for yourself whether such a model is scriptural.

here is a key paragraph:

We must also understand that congregational church polity does not negate the authority of pastors/elders as they lead the church. Rather, congregationalism argues that pastoral authority is a derived authority, exercised under the lordship of Christ, in accountability to the whole church. Furthermore, healthy pastoral leadership should result in spiritual maturity among the members of the congregation, which should in turn result in a Christ-centered congregationalism. Biblically healthy churches must be willing to follow the (godly) leadership of their pastors, while godly pastors must be willing to lead in a manner that is consistent with the will of the (biblically healthy) congregation. Congregationalism reminds us both that pastors are not dictators and that churches are not ochlocracies.

the only support that Mr. Finn gives for the belief that congregational governance is scriptural is the fact of the priesthood of the believers. I Peter 2:5-9.

Does the priesthood of the believers necessarily result in congregational governance? Or does this concept more accurately describe our individual relationship to God in the new covenant? See Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8, and Acts 17:11.

Authority of the body of believers resting in the body does not follow from the fact that each member has direct access to God without the need of any mediating earthly priest.