In my ESV Bible about half-way through verse 4 of chapter 16 in the Gospel of John is the following section title, "The Work of the Holy Spirit." I suggest it should be changed to, "The Holy Spirit is Going to be Awesome."
Seems to me that would have much better described what Jesus had to say.
An Organizational Priorities Paradigm Shift
There has been a trend in Christian circles towards emphasizing getting our personal priorities straight. Basically the argument goes something like this:
In the past, people have valued ministry before their families and often their families suffered as a result. Now people have recognized this as foolishness and are arguing that the family is the most important ministry anyone can have. Our families are our most important disciples. Therefore our priorities should be in the following order: 1) God, 2) Family, and finally 3) Ministry.
Ministry is very important, but only God should be valued above family.
Okay, maybe you've heard this. Now I'd like to propose a similar paradigm shift in the way our churches and missions organizations order their priorities:
In the past, organizations have valued their mission before their people, and their people have suffered and been burned as a result. Now people should recognize that their people are the most important part of their mission. Our people are what God cares about far more than our idea of what our "mission" or "vision" is. If people aren't on board they may not belong with us, but we can at least send them off in love. We are foolish if we ever believe our calling is the whole of God's Kingdom. And more than foolish when we risk burning out wonderful men and women of God. If someone comes through our ministry and discovers they are called to something else, it is absolutely our responsibility to release them to do what God has called them to do even if it means losing one person on board with our mission/vision.
Our mission is very important, but God's mission is much more important, and his method is people.
Our mission is important, but only God should be valued above God's people.
We must value the people God loves over our thin view of what we're called to do in God's Kingdom. Love them, send them out lovingly. If we can help a follower of Christ love Him more even in another area of ministry then we will have contributed greatly to the Kingdom of God. If we give one follower of Christ so horrible of an experience in ministry that they burn out and never serve again, then we will have some answering to do when it comes time to account for our contributions to the Kingdom of God.
Our priorities should be ordered thus:
Personal: 1) God, 2) Family, 3) Ministry.
Organizational: 1) God, 2) Our People, 3) Our Mission.
In the past, people have valued ministry before their families and often their families suffered as a result. Now people have recognized this as foolishness and are arguing that the family is the most important ministry anyone can have. Our families are our most important disciples. Therefore our priorities should be in the following order: 1) God, 2) Family, and finally 3) Ministry.
Ministry is very important, but only God should be valued above family.
Okay, maybe you've heard this. Now I'd like to propose a similar paradigm shift in the way our churches and missions organizations order their priorities:
In the past, organizations have valued their mission before their people, and their people have suffered and been burned as a result. Now people should recognize that their people are the most important part of their mission. Our people are what God cares about far more than our idea of what our "mission" or "vision" is. If people aren't on board they may not belong with us, but we can at least send them off in love. We are foolish if we ever believe our calling is the whole of God's Kingdom. And more than foolish when we risk burning out wonderful men and women of God. If someone comes through our ministry and discovers they are called to something else, it is absolutely our responsibility to release them to do what God has called them to do even if it means losing one person on board with our mission/vision.
Our mission is very important, but God's mission is much more important, and his method is people.
Our mission is important, but only God should be valued above God's people.
We must value the people God loves over our thin view of what we're called to do in God's Kingdom. Love them, send them out lovingly. If we can help a follower of Christ love Him more even in another area of ministry then we will have contributed greatly to the Kingdom of God. If we give one follower of Christ so horrible of an experience in ministry that they burn out and never serve again, then we will have some answering to do when it comes time to account for our contributions to the Kingdom of God.
Our priorities should be ordered thus:
Personal: 1) God, 2) Family, 3) Ministry.
Organizational: 1) God, 2) Our People, 3) Our Mission.
Violence Victorious ➙
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[a] and the violent take it by force." - Matthew 11:12. One of my favorite verses. And somewhere, something I read pointed me towards this. Brilliance by Richard Sibbes.
Again God will have this violence and striving, as a character of difference, to shew who are bastard professors and who are not; who will go to the price of Christianity, and who will not. If men will go to heaven they must be violent, they must be at the cost and charges, sometimes to venture life itself, and whatsoever is dear and precious in the world. A man must be so violent, that he must go through all even death itself, though it be a bloody death, to Christ. This discards all lukewarm carnal professors, who shake off this violence. In all estates of the church, it is almost equally difficult to be a sound Christian; for God requires this violence even in the most peaceable times. Now, the truth and religion are countenanced by the laws, yet the power of it is by many much opposed. Therefore he now that in spite of reproach, in spite of slander, will bear the scorns cast upon the gospel, that will 'go with Christ without the gate, bearing his reproach,' Heb. xiii. 13, such a man may be said to be thus violent. It is an easy thing to have so much Christianity as will stand with our commodity or with pleasure, &c.; but to have so much as will bring us to heaven, I say it is equally hard in all times of the church, it requires violence to carry us through these lesser oppositions. . . . So that it be violence that hath eyes in its head, violence guided with judgment, from the knowledge of the excellency of the good things of the gospel, I speak of such a violence as that.
On the Origin of Cyrus ➙
I'm reading Ezra as our house church moves in to studying the book. I am moved by how the Lord worked through Cyrus, and even his humility in declaring that he knows his authority and power have come from the God of Heaven (Ezra 1:2). So I got to wondering who was this guy? Apparently there are several different versions of his origin. But this one is pretty amazing. Click the title above to read the rest from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This reads like a Sophocles tragedy. In fact I can't believe there hasn't been a movie made with this as it's premise.
Several versions of his birth and rise to power are recorded. Herodotus (i.95) mentions three. In that which he quotes (i.107), it is said that Mandane was the daughter of the Median king Astyages, who, in consequence of a dream which he had had, foretelling the ultimate triumph of her son over his dynasty, gave her in marriage to a Persian named Cambyses, who was not one of his peers. A second dream caused him to watch for her expected offspring, and when Cyrus came into the world Astyages delivered the child to his relative, Harpagus, with orders to destroy it. Being Unwilling to do this, he handed the infant to a Shepherd named Mitradates, who, his wife having brought forth a still-born child, consented to spare the life of the infant Cyrus. Later on, in consequence of his imperious acts, Cyrus was recognized by Astyages, who came to learn the whole story, and spared him because, having once been made king by his companions in play, the Magians held the predictions concerning his ultimate royal state to have been fulfilled. The vengeance taken by Astyages upon Harpagus for his apparent disobedience to orders is well known:
his son was slain, and a portion, disguised, given him to eat. Though filled with grief, Harpagus concealed his feelings, and departed with the remains of his son's body; and Cyrus, in due course, was sent to stay with his parents, Cambyses and Mandane. Later on, Harpagus persuaded Cyrus to induce the Persians to revolt, and Astyages having blindly appointed Harpagus commander- in-chief of the Median army, the last-named went over to the side of Cyrus. The result was an easy victory for the latter, but Astyages took care to impale the Magians who had advised him to spare his grandson. Having gathered another, but smaller, army, he took the field in person, but was defeated and captured. Cyrus, however, who became king of Media as well as of Persia, treated him honorably and well.Humble beginnings as a son of a shepherd would certainly help.... but wow. The people in this world available to do the work of God's Kingdom never fail to amaze me.
Do Not Say: Or, The churchs excuses for neglecting the heathen: with a statement and an appeal . . .
This pamphlet is the reason James Fraser went in to missions. And therefore it is the reason the Lisu people are in a large part Christian to this day.Fascinating.
I've been looking for it for years, but I finally found it here. PDF, Kindle, etc...
Beauty.Amazing to think the effect a small little pamphlet can have on so many lives.
I've been looking for it for years, but I finally found it here. PDF, Kindle, etc...
Beauty.Amazing to think the effect a small little pamphlet can have on so many lives.
Why We Need More 'Chaplains' and Fewer Leaders ➙
I've been a parishioner in many churches over many years. In each church, the pastor has been tempted, as I was, to become the great leader, to shape himself in our culture's image of success. To be sure, the modern pastor does have to "run a church"; he or she is, in fact, the head of an institution that has prosaic institutional needs. I've been thankful when my pastor carries out these institutional responsibilities with efficiency and joy.
Things I Believed Before Getting my Seminary Degree
In 2007 I wrote, things I believe before getting a degree and I've always had the intention of returning to it and responding after finishing the program. I wrote it about a year in to the process, but I think I had only taken one class at that point. Granted in January I changed from an MDiv to an MA, but I'm done. While a lot of this is unrelated to theological things, they were all ideas I wondered about being changed in the process of seminary. And here are my thoughts:
1. Uneducated people should be allowed to teach. Not everyone, but some people.
I believe this more now than I did then. Seminary does not a gifted teacher make.
2. God seems to bless even the very unhealthy (theologically or practically).
I believe this more now as well, but more from experience in ministry than anything I learned in seminary. Shocking how unhealthy we are really.
3. God seems to bless me, which isn't a sign that I'm doing anything right.
Keeps blessing my socks off. Not sure why.
4. Conservative is probably a better leaning than Liberal
Deal.
5. I have to be open to liberal ideas (definitely not all), and definitely new things in the christian world. Not closed off to music, etc.
Hmm.... not sure what I think now. I lean awkwardly conservative these days.
6. Raising kids is not about how well you do it, or lead, or how good of a person you are. It seems to be 100% based on the Lord's grace that they will turn out well or not. We can help, but they can still turn out funny.
Still early in child-rearing to know.
7. Writing a book is one of the best ways to make a lasting impression.
The influence of books is laughably larger in my life than sermons.
8. Books can help you to fall more in love with the Lord.
See above. But I think more than books, people.
9. Just because some publishing company printed it, doesn't mean its true, or even worth reading.
Wow. Shockingly true.
10. People all turn out weird. Its okay to become weird in your old age.
Look forward to it.
11. Money will wont make you happy.
How much are we talking about? Okay... still agree.
12. Loving my wife is more important that my studies.
I think I was good at living this until the last three months or so, there was definitely tension.
13. I want my ministry to be first place before my studies.
I lived this, but it was hard. Keeping school in a place where it can never take precedence over my work (ministry), that was hard, but I'm glad I did it.
14. Taking forever to get a degree is probably a reality.
Whew. Six years.
15. Having a PhD by 35 is still pretty impressive.
Still possible, not sure if I'll pull it off or not, or even if I want to anymore.
16. I shouldn't be concerned with how impressive it is if I ever get a PhD.
True, but feeling like I'm probably supposed to, makes it difficult to be unconcerned with.
17. People with PhD's can be losers just because they have one. Dont be a loser.
Holy snap. There are a boatload of Dr. Losers.
18. Discipline sucks when you're developing it, but I seem to like life better when I am disciplined.
True, and true. I would now add that discipline is infinitely harder when you have children. Your time is not your own to arrange appropriately. Even in the morning.
19. Children are a HUGE blessing no matter how much work they are.
Ha. While in general I definitely believe this, I don't always believe it in the moment when my 2 year old is screaming and my three year old is vomiting in the car. Did I mention I'm just a few months away from adopting two more. Ha!
20. Children are your most important disciples.
I hope I manage to never forget this. They are also right there along with our wives as catalysts for sanctification.
21. God's creation is fascinating, beautiful, and should be pointed out just short of the point of annoyance.
Absolutely.
22. God has blessed me, but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything well.
Funny I mentioned this twice (see #3). The Lord really has blessed the poo out of me. It's ridiculous. Why does he keep doing that?
23. Money still wont make me happy.
But beer might. At least temporarily.
1. Uneducated people should be allowed to teach. Not everyone, but some people.
I believe this more now than I did then. Seminary does not a gifted teacher make.
2. God seems to bless even the very unhealthy (theologically or practically).
I believe this more now as well, but more from experience in ministry than anything I learned in seminary. Shocking how unhealthy we are really.
3. God seems to bless me, which isn't a sign that I'm doing anything right.
Keeps blessing my socks off. Not sure why.
4. Conservative is probably a better leaning than Liberal
Deal.
5. I have to be open to liberal ideas (definitely not all), and definitely new things in the christian world. Not closed off to music, etc.
Hmm.... not sure what I think now. I lean awkwardly conservative these days.
6. Raising kids is not about how well you do it, or lead, or how good of a person you are. It seems to be 100% based on the Lord's grace that they will turn out well or not. We can help, but they can still turn out funny.
Still early in child-rearing to know.
7. Writing a book is one of the best ways to make a lasting impression.
The influence of books is laughably larger in my life than sermons.
8. Books can help you to fall more in love with the Lord.
See above. But I think more than books, people.
9. Just because some publishing company printed it, doesn't mean its true, or even worth reading.
Wow. Shockingly true.
10. People all turn out weird. Its okay to become weird in your old age.
Look forward to it.
11. Money will wont make you happy.
How much are we talking about? Okay... still agree.
12. Loving my wife is more important that my studies.
I think I was good at living this until the last three months or so, there was definitely tension.
13. I want my ministry to be first place before my studies.
I lived this, but it was hard. Keeping school in a place where it can never take precedence over my work (ministry), that was hard, but I'm glad I did it.
14. Taking forever to get a degree is probably a reality.
Whew. Six years.
15. Having a PhD by 35 is still pretty impressive.
Still possible, not sure if I'll pull it off or not, or even if I want to anymore.
16. I shouldn't be concerned with how impressive it is if I ever get a PhD.
True, but feeling like I'm probably supposed to, makes it difficult to be unconcerned with.
17. People with PhD's can be losers just because they have one. Dont be a loser.
Holy snap. There are a boatload of Dr. Losers.
18. Discipline sucks when you're developing it, but I seem to like life better when I am disciplined.
True, and true. I would now add that discipline is infinitely harder when you have children. Your time is not your own to arrange appropriately. Even in the morning.
19. Children are a HUGE blessing no matter how much work they are.
Ha. While in general I definitely believe this, I don't always believe it in the moment when my 2 year old is screaming and my three year old is vomiting in the car. Did I mention I'm just a few months away from adopting two more. Ha!
20. Children are your most important disciples.
I hope I manage to never forget this. They are also right there along with our wives as catalysts for sanctification.
21. God's creation is fascinating, beautiful, and should be pointed out just short of the point of annoyance.
Absolutely.
22. God has blessed me, but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything well.
Funny I mentioned this twice (see #3). The Lord really has blessed the poo out of me. It's ridiculous. Why does he keep doing that?
23. Money still wont make me happy.
But beer might. At least temporarily.
How Can You Be So Dumb?
When George Bush won the Presidential election for the second time in 2004 there were variations of a headline all over the web which said, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?"
It's interesting because it represents something I hear from the far left quite frequently, "how can people really think this?" If anyone really thought about it, they would have voted for Al Gore. Or another example is gay marriage. How can anyone possibly think it's wrong? You would have to be an idiot, they think, to come to any conclusion other than that gay marriage is no different than straight marriage.
Or in the pro-life discussion. Only a fool would come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. If someone really thought about it, there is only one conclusion that can be reached, abortion is the prerogative of the pregnant woman.
Actually, it doesn't matter if it is the far left or the far right in politics, or extremes in any debate, the discussion is the same, "How can you be so dumb?" What about in religion? People who are atheists strongly believe that if everyone had all the facts they would arrive at the same conclusion. There is no God.
There is this deep-rooted belief, and it is expressed regularly online (as well as other places), that a well educated person can only arrive at certain conclusions. If we all had the same logical process this would be true. And for the most part, our logic probably is very similar. But the reason this doesn't happen is our premises are different.
If we accept the Bible as the standard, rather than human reason, we arrive at the conclusion that life (even in the womb) is valuable. If we accept human reason as the standard, rather than the Bible, we arrive at the conclusion that life (even if only in the womb) is not yet life. Because really, what does life matter at all? Without God, it doesn't. Period.
All of this is important to our understanding of, and patience with non-Christians. I get so frustrated with people who think I'm stupid because of my conclusions. But the Bible tells us the truth is foolishness to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18). If our premise is truth, to them it is foolishness. What can we do?
We can tell them about the Love of Jesus. We can have patience when they think us foolish. And we can pray our lips dry that the Lord would help them to see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10).
Done baby.
In other news, I graduated from seminary on Wednesday. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment so much as a relief. Still, I'm stoked.
Dining with the Devil by Os Guinness
This is easily in the top three book I've read this year. The premise of the book is that the megachurch movement has blindly embraced modernism for its methodology and as a justification for its existence.
First he makes the point I did in my most recent post with this:
"On the one hand, does the term church refer to 'the people of God,' including all the people in a local area, or to a particular local church and its facility and programs? The two are not necessarily the same."Then:
"On the other hand, is the term growth to be understood quantitively, in terms of size and numbers, or qualitatively, in terms of depth, character, and spirit?"Or better:
"In the case of the church-growth movement, this idolizing trend can develop in one of two ways: either the insights and tools of modernity are themselves relied upon idolatrously, or the churches themselves becomes idolatrous because their very success as institutions makes them into an end in themselves."Then he quotes Philip Rieff saying:
"What characterizes modernity, I think, is just this idea that men need not submit to any power—higher or lower—other than their own."And what characterizes the church growth movement is the belief that we can figure out through methodology how to grow a church—void of the Holy Spirit. Of course they wouldn't say the point is to grow the church void of the Holy Spirit, but in practice that is what the emphasis on analysis and methodology are doing. Not all megachurches are this way, but the movement as a whole trends this way.
He then mentions this ridiculously convicting line about a Japanese businessman who says to a visiting Austrailian:
"Whenever I meet a buddhist leader, I meet a holy man. Whenever I meet a Christian leader, I meet a manager. . . . The two most easily recognizable hallmarks of secularization in America are the exaltation of numbers and technique."I don't know about you, but as a Christian leader I have far too often fancied myself a good manager rather than a holy man. When you step down in leadership what do people say about you? You managed meetings well? You dressed respectably? Or you had a profound and contagious relationship with your savior?
When methodology is the focus then statistics about people coming in the door are the measure of how well the methodology is working.
"One obvious problem with this mentality is that quantity does not measure quality. Numbers—or what the Southern Baptists call 'nickels and noses'—have little to do with truth, excellence, or character."Not all of this book is negative. While it is primarily a critique, Guinness is really arguing that there are some wonderful things about modernity. Modernity has some things which certainly can be used by the Body of Christ, but we need to be careful about the way we include them. Otherwise we chance becoming dependent on numbers and results instead of, you know, God.
In response to this book, while I agree and think the megachurch movement is a result of a blind embrace of modernity (as Guinness argues), I would posit that the house-church movement is a blind embrace of post-modernity. Both are not inherently bad, but both can be foolish when blindly embraced.
The concluding sentence in my opinion is just as useful when considering post-modernity as it is when considering modernity:
"By all means dine freely at the table of [post-]modernity, but in God's name keep your spoons long."Brilliant. Guinness' book can be had on Amazon for about $13 new, $0.45 used, and $10 on kindle. I cannot suggest it enough. Dining With the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts With Modernity.
Our Ecclesiology is Fundamentally Flawed
This is a post I've been meaning to write for some time. Life has been busy despite it being furlough for me. I have recently had quite a bit of "down" time, but this is time which is designated for spending with the family. I consider myself both privileged to be in a job which values my family, and burdened with a job where I am disqualified for much if my family falls apart. It's amazing how much a person in a secular job can allow something like a divorce to not affect his work. But that is a topic for another post.
Some background for this may be necessary. I work for a para-church organization. In raising my initial support years ago, a very close pastor friend of mine told me, "I cannot give money to [organization name here] because I believe it is a sinful organization because it is operating outside of the church. I do not give to para-church organizations." At the time I was confused by it, but I didn't really know why. Was he right? Is there something inherently sinful about para-church organizations because they operate outside of a relationship with a group which meets between certain walls on a Sunday? This man would perfectly willingly have given money to a missionary who was sent out by that local congregation, even one who would do the very same things as me. Because then it would have been a "church" activity as opposed to "para-church."
More recently I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's definition of a church (scroll down to VI. The Church), and I was wondering what might make a campus fellowship different from an actual church. According to this definition, many campus fellowships I know may qualify as a church. Or fail to qualify only because they do not include the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
My work is not campus, but city focused. A large part of what we do is training local church leaders in theology, and church planting. I've realized that among them (and this is true in America as well) a very common attitude is, "I'm in this for myself, for the sake of growing the biggest church in this city." This is something we work very hard to combat. Specifically we want people to instead have an attitude of, "We're in this together for the sake of furthering God's kingdom in this city."
What I'm to suggesting is that our ecclesiology (the study of the Church) should be one of the Church as the body of Christ (period). Not the church as the body of Christ which happens to meet from 9:30-11:00 AM on Sundays in your renovated warehouse.
The implications of this are much bigger than you might think.
The opening line to the Wikipedia entry on ecclesiology has this sad statement: "Today, ecclesiology usually refers to the theological study of the Christian church. However when the word was coined in the late 1830s, it was defined as the science of the building and decoration of churches and it is still, though rarely, used in this sense."
Books on ecclesiology today are about how to build a big church. Or the better ones may be about how to build a healthy church. But they're still talking about the "building and decoration of churches." The body of Christ does not need decorating. It has been washed clean by the blood of Christ. The buildings in which the body of Christ meets on Sunday mornings need decorations. But is worrying about such details where we should be spending our time?
Shouldn't we instead be studying the body of Christ. How we as the body of Christ work together; how we as the body of Christ function together. How we as the body of Christ can love one another and reach and transform the world. Para-church is a misnomer inherently because those who are of the body of Christ (no matter who employs them) are a member of the body of Christ. I am not offended when someone refers to me as working for a para-church organization. But it should concern all of us when the hand says it refuses to support the foot because it doesn't believe it is a part of the body. Just because the hand says the foot is not a part of the body does not mean the foot ceases to be a part of the body.
Okay, but before this drifts further into rant-that-only-quotes-wikipedia territory, lets look at the Biblical evidence. I would like to state that this is something I'm still just formulating in my head, and I would love feedback about it. If you think I'm way off base let me know, or making a big deal out of nothing let me know. But I think this has huge implications.
The Biblical references to the word church (ecclesia) are the following (if I'm missing something let me know):
I've divided every usage of the word church in to one of three categories: (1) the Church universal, (2) a body of believers, and (3) a city church. These lines are not particularly clear cut, and there are a few of these which might easily have fit more than one category. But in the above references how many do you see which match a specific meeting location (other than a city)? While I didn't list them, there are actually two: Romans 16:5, and Col 4:15. In both these instances Paul actually references the church that meets in a specific house.
Now, I'm not saying the groups that meet in buildings on Sundays should no longer be called "church." I think any gathering of believers is well defined by the word. But unless each city had only one church the entire third column also fits in with the first two in the sense that the word Church is used for body of Christ. Believers, as we relate to one another. This is ecclesiology.
If we are the body of Christ why are we not united? Why is First Presbyterian completely ignoring First Baptist down the street? We can disagree on the finer points of our theology but we cannot disagree that we are the body of Christ. Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." By this, I would argue, He did not mean, "When Senior Pastor A loves executive Pastor B at Bob's Bible Church they will know you are my disciples." But rather, "When Senior Pastor A from Wesley Methodist Church loves Executive Pastor B at Calvin's Presbyterian Church they will know you are my disciples."
Our ecclesiology has become fundamentally inward focused. We are concerned with the structure, authority, programs, and decorations of our buildings rather than the expansion of God's Kingdom through cooperation with the other members of the body of Christ. Our ecclesiology is fundamentally flawed.
What if your church saw itself as a part of the body of Christ in your city? What if your church actually said, "Not everyone will agree with us theologically, but as long as we can agree on the majors of the gospel we will work with any evangelical church in this area to expand the Kingdom of God."
One of the beauties of the interdenominational para-church organization I work for, is that we are required to agree on the majors and agree to disagree on the minors. We are a large organization which I think demonstrates the body of Christ in a beautiful way. Wesleyans work alongside of Calvinists. Dispensationalists work alongside, well, non-dispys and they seek God's Kingdom over their own theological agenda. Have an opinion. Please do. But don't let your opinion convince you that the foot down the street is not a part of Christ's body. Because it will not then cease to be a foot. And for you to try to operate in the body of Christ without the foot, you are crippled dramatically.
What would it take for us to shift our priorities from individual interior decoration to cooperative disciple making? Can we unite over the gospel, disagree on secondaries, and move forward with common mission? Or are we so convinced of the way the hand works, looks, and that we cannot accept our body may need a foot to get around? Where are we spending our time and energy when we think about the church? Are we focused on our pretty building and the kind of coffee we serve, or the body of Christ, it's function, purpose, and unity?
It's an embarrassment that even Wikipedia knows our ecclesiology is flawed.
Some background for this may be necessary. I work for a para-church organization. In raising my initial support years ago, a very close pastor friend of mine told me, "I cannot give money to [organization name here] because I believe it is a sinful organization because it is operating outside of the church. I do not give to para-church organizations." At the time I was confused by it, but I didn't really know why. Was he right? Is there something inherently sinful about para-church organizations because they operate outside of a relationship with a group which meets between certain walls on a Sunday? This man would perfectly willingly have given money to a missionary who was sent out by that local congregation, even one who would do the very same things as me. Because then it would have been a "church" activity as opposed to "para-church."
More recently I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's definition of a church (scroll down to VI. The Church), and I was wondering what might make a campus fellowship different from an actual church. According to this definition, many campus fellowships I know may qualify as a church. Or fail to qualify only because they do not include the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
My work is not campus, but city focused. A large part of what we do is training local church leaders in theology, and church planting. I've realized that among them (and this is true in America as well) a very common attitude is, "I'm in this for myself, for the sake of growing the biggest church in this city." This is something we work very hard to combat. Specifically we want people to instead have an attitude of, "We're in this together for the sake of furthering God's kingdom in this city."
What I'm to suggesting is that our ecclesiology (the study of the Church) should be one of the Church as the body of Christ (period). Not the church as the body of Christ which happens to meet from 9:30-11:00 AM on Sundays in your renovated warehouse.
The implications of this are much bigger than you might think.
The opening line to the Wikipedia entry on ecclesiology has this sad statement: "Today, ecclesiology usually refers to the theological study of the Christian church. However when the word was coined in the late 1830s, it was defined as the science of the building and decoration of churches and it is still, though rarely, used in this sense."
Books on ecclesiology today are about how to build a big church. Or the better ones may be about how to build a healthy church. But they're still talking about the "building and decoration of churches." The body of Christ does not need decorating. It has been washed clean by the blood of Christ. The buildings in which the body of Christ meets on Sunday mornings need decorations. But is worrying about such details where we should be spending our time?
Shouldn't we instead be studying the body of Christ. How we as the body of Christ work together; how we as the body of Christ function together. How we as the body of Christ can love one another and reach and transform the world. Para-church is a misnomer inherently because those who are of the body of Christ (no matter who employs them) are a member of the body of Christ. I am not offended when someone refers to me as working for a para-church organization. But it should concern all of us when the hand says it refuses to support the foot because it doesn't believe it is a part of the body. Just because the hand says the foot is not a part of the body does not mean the foot ceases to be a part of the body.
Okay, but before this drifts further into rant-that-only-quotes-wikipedia territory, lets look at the Biblical evidence. I would like to state that this is something I'm still just formulating in my head, and I would love feedback about it. If you think I'm way off base let me know, or making a big deal out of nothing let me know. But I think this has huge implications.
The Biblical references to the word church (ecclesia) are the following (if I'm missing something let me know):
| Universal Church | A Body of Believers | A City Church | |
| Matt 16:18 | Matt 18:17 | Acts 8:1 | |
| Acts 8:3 | Acts 5:11 | Acts 9:31 | |
| Acts 12:1 | Acts 11:26 | Acts 11:22 | |
| Acts 20:28 | Acts 12:5 | Acts 13:1 | |
| 1 Cor 10:32 | Acts 14:23 | Acts 14:27 | |
| 1 Cor 11:22 | Rom 16:23 | Acts 15:3 | |
| 1 Cor 12:28 | 1 Cor 4:17 | Acts 15:4 | |
| 1 Cor 15:9 | 1 Cor 6:4 | Acts 15:22 | |
| Gal 1:13 | 1 Cor 11:18 | Acts 18:22 | |
| Eph 1:22 | 1 Cor 14:4 | Acts 20:17 | |
| Eph 3:10 | 1 Cor 14:5 | Rom 16:1 | |
| Eph 3:21 | 1 Cor 14:12 | 1 Cor 1:2 | |
| Eph 5:23 | 1 Cor 14:23 | 1 Cor 5:12 | |
| Eph 5:24 | 1 Cor 14:28 | 1 Cor 11:18 | |
| Eph 5:25 | 1 Cor 14:35 | 2 Cor 1:1 | |
| Eph 5:27 | 1 Cor 16:19 | Col 4:16 | |
| Eph 5:29 | Phil 5:15 | 1 Thess 1:1 | |
| Eph 5:32 | 1 Tim 3:5 | 2 Thess 1:1 | |
| Phil 3:6 | 1 Tim 3:7 | Rev 2:1 | |
| Col 1:18 | 1 Tim 3:15 | Rev 2:8 | |
| Col 1:24 | 1 Tim 5:16 | Rev 2:12 | |
| Col 1:25 | Philemon 1:2 | Rev 2:18 | |
| Heb 12:23 | Jam 5:14 | Rev 3:1 | |
| 3 John 1:6 | Rev 3:7 | ||
| 3 John 1:9 | Rev 3:14 | ||
| 3 John 1:10 |
I've divided every usage of the word church in to one of three categories: (1) the Church universal, (2) a body of believers, and (3) a city church. These lines are not particularly clear cut, and there are a few of these which might easily have fit more than one category. But in the above references how many do you see which match a specific meeting location (other than a city)? While I didn't list them, there are actually two: Romans 16:5, and Col 4:15. In both these instances Paul actually references the church that meets in a specific house.
Now, I'm not saying the groups that meet in buildings on Sundays should no longer be called "church." I think any gathering of believers is well defined by the word. But unless each city had only one church the entire third column also fits in with the first two in the sense that the word Church is used for body of Christ. Believers, as we relate to one another. This is ecclesiology.
If we are the body of Christ why are we not united? Why is First Presbyterian completely ignoring First Baptist down the street? We can disagree on the finer points of our theology but we cannot disagree that we are the body of Christ. Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." By this, I would argue, He did not mean, "When Senior Pastor A loves executive Pastor B at Bob's Bible Church they will know you are my disciples." But rather, "When Senior Pastor A from Wesley Methodist Church loves Executive Pastor B at Calvin's Presbyterian Church they will know you are my disciples."
Our ecclesiology has become fundamentally inward focused. We are concerned with the structure, authority, programs, and decorations of our buildings rather than the expansion of God's Kingdom through cooperation with the other members of the body of Christ. Our ecclesiology is fundamentally flawed.
What if your church saw itself as a part of the body of Christ in your city? What if your church actually said, "Not everyone will agree with us theologically, but as long as we can agree on the majors of the gospel we will work with any evangelical church in this area to expand the Kingdom of God."
One of the beauties of the interdenominational para-church organization I work for, is that we are required to agree on the majors and agree to disagree on the minors. We are a large organization which I think demonstrates the body of Christ in a beautiful way. Wesleyans work alongside of Calvinists. Dispensationalists work alongside, well, non-dispys and they seek God's Kingdom over their own theological agenda. Have an opinion. Please do. But don't let your opinion convince you that the foot down the street is not a part of Christ's body. Because it will not then cease to be a foot. And for you to try to operate in the body of Christ without the foot, you are crippled dramatically.
What would it take for us to shift our priorities from individual interior decoration to cooperative disciple making? Can we unite over the gospel, disagree on secondaries, and move forward with common mission? Or are we so convinced of the way the hand works, looks, and that we cannot accept our body may need a foot to get around? Where are we spending our time and energy when we think about the church? Are we focused on our pretty building and the kind of coffee we serve, or the body of Christ, it's function, purpose, and unity?
It's an embarrassment that even Wikipedia knows our ecclesiology is flawed.
Reject Those Who Reject the Gospel and Move On?
"The possibility of rejection was ever present. St. Paul did not establish himself in a place and go on preaching for years to men who refused to act on his teaching. When once he had brought them to a point where decision was clear, he reminded that they should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them. The 'shaking of the lap', the 'shaking of the dust from the feet', the refusal to teach those who refused to act on the teaching, was a vital part of the Pauline presentation of the Gospel. He did not simply “go away;” he openly rejected those who showed themselves unworthy of his teaching. It was part of the Gospel that men might “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.” It is a question which needs serious consideration whether the Gospel can be truly presented if this element is left out. Can there be true teaching which does not involve the refusal to go on teaching? . . . If then we go on teaching where that moral response is refused , we cease to preach the Gospel; we make the teaching a mere education of the intellect."Holy snap! I have been a full time evangelist for years and this has never occurred to me. Fascinating. This is from Roland Allen's book Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? A book which I'm still chewing on slowly.
(For $2 on Kindle you almost cant afford to NOT read it.)
Thoughts on "Not the Way It's Supposed to Be" by Cornelius Plantinga Jr.
A friend of mine suggested I read, Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin which, to be honest, I wasn't altogether impressed with until the Epilogue. Mostly the book is just a laundry list of sins and how we should perceive them. I wanted to find it convicting, but little of it had that effect. That said, Plantinga's conclusion was great.
To speak of sin without grace is to minimize the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the fruit of the Spirit and the hope of shalom. . . . But to speak of grace without sin is surely no better. To do this is to trivialize the cross of Jesus Christ, to skate past all the struggling by good people down the ages to forgive, accept, and rehabilitate sinners, including themselves, and therefore to cheapen the grace of God that always comes to us with blood on it. What had we thought the ripping and writhing on Golgotha were all about? To speak of grace without looking squarely at these realities, without painfully honest acknowledgment of our own sin and its effects, is to shrink grace to a mere embellishment of the music of creation, to shrink it down to a mere grace note. In short, for the Christian church (even in its recently popular seeker services) to ignore, euphemize, or otherwise mute the lethal reality of sin is to cut the nerve of the gospel. For the sober truth is that without a full disclosure on sin, the gospel of grace becomes impertinent, unnecessary, and finally uninteresting.
Is Our Ecclesiology Fundamentally Flawed?
I'm nearly done with my seminary degree (course work is complete and I'm in the final stages of my thesis editing) and so I'm going to finally be getting the reading time I've wanted.
In addition to that I've been pondering something and I'm curious if anyone has feedback. Related to our ecclesiology. Where did we get the notion that our ecclesiology should be about how we govern our local church building's institution rather than the church body in a location?
For example, most modern ecclesiology seems to focus on what it means for an elder to be appointed in the local church (differentiated by a building or a denomination). But what if our ecclesiology was about how we as a church body in a location (city or whatever) should interact with one another?
I ask this because in my brief study of the word "church" every instance I've found refers either to the Church Universal (catholic church), or to the local body (as in the whole body of believers at Corinth, not "the meeting Bob leads at 143 Roman Road").
If you have any thoughts on this please send me an email (rogermugs at gmail dot com). I'm curious to process this a bit before I write and publish something more completely.
In addition to that I've been pondering something and I'm curious if anyone has feedback. Related to our ecclesiology. Where did we get the notion that our ecclesiology should be about how we govern our local church building's institution rather than the church body in a location?
For example, most modern ecclesiology seems to focus on what it means for an elder to be appointed in the local church (differentiated by a building or a denomination). But what if our ecclesiology was about how we as a church body in a location (city or whatever) should interact with one another?
I ask this because in my brief study of the word "church" every instance I've found refers either to the Church Universal (catholic church), or to the local body (as in the whole body of believers at Corinth, not "the meeting Bob leads at 143 Roman Road").
If you have any thoughts on this please send me an email (rogermugs at gmail dot com). I'm curious to process this a bit before I write and publish something more completely.
Church Planters and Missionalotry ➙
Second, if you plant a church with a gospel that does not drive us towards regular self-examination, you will steer people towards a social-gospel. There is a lot of talk about the gospel these days, which is great. But the gospel is being reduced to something I imitate, rather than something by which I am saved and sanctified. We are viewing it as something to ”display,” instead of good news by which I am progressively transformed through moritification of sin. The shift is subtle, but unsafe.Still confused how 'church' has come to mean 'that thing we do on Sundays' rather than 'that body of believers of which we are all a part'. But nonetheless interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)