I found this amusing…
Thousands of cheering Catholic schoolchildren feted Pope Benedict XVI with songs and gifts Friday on his second day in Britain, offering a boisterous welcome as the pontiff urged them to ignore the shallow temptations of today's "celebrity culture."
Do ya see the irony of a man surrounded by throngs of screaming fans decrying the "celebrity culture"? I guess the celebrity culture is OK when it is accompanied by a religious title and vestments.
The irony of course is that for Joseph Ratzinger, and even more so for his predecessor, the whole papal office is saturated in the culture of religious celebrity. Bodyguards and handlers. Fancy digs and world travel. Wherever he goes he attracts throngs of adoring people cheering and screaming, hoping he will make the sign of the cross in their direction like a rock star throwing his guitar pick in the crowd. In many homes there are pictures of Joseph Ratzinger adorning the walls in much the same way that mormon families have pictures of the President of the mormon church and his two counselors. He is spoken of in reverential tones by his followers. In some ways, the cult of celebrity is far greater for popes because of the religious devotion that accompanies their celebrity. We of course see this in Protestantism as well but the devotion is nothing like the papal cult of celebtrity.
Just found that paragraph amusing. On the other hand, I find it particularly unfunny that so many people place so much trust in a man, or more specifically an office, whether pope or pastor or priest.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Things that make you shake your head
It never ceases to amaze me how people can take contemporary conditions and apply those conditions to Scripture, not matter how little sense it makes.
Kevin DeYoung posted a series of things that he has learned and wants to pass on to young pastors and other church leaders: More Advice for Theological Students and Young Pastors. The list is a pretty standard litany, most of them sound advice in a traditional church setting. Then we run into number 22
22. Keep reading. Please keep reading. Boldly ask for a book allowance. The rule is not absolute, but I question a man’s call to ministry if he does not like to read.
Seriously. One has to assume that this means that you read the “right” sorts of books. Reading a Tom Clancy novel for pleasure probably doesn’t count. I am not sure which aspect I found more distasteful, that not loving to read should be cause to question your “call to ministry” or that you should boldly ask the church to buy books for you to read.
Lest you think that DeYoung was making an offhanded comment, he clarified his position in response to a comment by someone named Daniel looking for clarification with this statement:
Daniel, as I said in the post I don’t think you can make a hard and fast rule about reading. Some pastors may be illiterate or have limited access to good books. And no one should be expected to read as much as the giants like Carson, Mohler, etc. But a pastor must be apt to teach. And part of teaching well is loving to learn. A desire to read is not a sufficient condition for being a good pastor, but in most cases I believe it is a necessary condition. If a man is to preach week after week, year after year, he must develop a breadth and depth of ideas and knowledge. Plus there is the practical necessity of reading each week in preparation for preaching. If the preacher doesn’t enjoy books and study he will not last long as a preacher. Or he will not be a very good one.
A desire to read is a necessary condition to be a good pastor? This was my comment on the blog:
I wonder. If liking to read a lot is a requisite for being “able to teach”, what were the elders that Paul was having Timothy appoint reading? Or is this advice from Paul just intended for us in the Reformation era forward and he didn’t really intend it for the elders of the first century? I have a hard time picturing the elders in the early church that Paul was specifically talking about being men who spent lots of time reading in their offices and who were expecting the local church to divert money from widows and orphans so that they could buy more books to read. The early church was taking up collections to aid victims of persecution and famine, not to buy books for their pastor. There certainly is a universal aspect to what Paul was telling Timothy but there was also a contemporary aspect and I don’t think you can make the case that Paul was telling Timothy that he should look for men who liked to read when he described elders as needing to be able to teach. Being a big reader was certainly not a disqualification for men when these words were penned but it is now? Perhaps we think we understand the requirements for ministry better than Paul did. Biblically speaking, leaders are men we should follow because the manner of their lives is worth emulating. I know lots of men who probably never or rarely read weighty tomes on theology but who love people and serve them. I have also run into plenty of men who read a lot and are megalomaniacs and can’t be bothered to deal with people. If you are a Christian, you are called to ministry and don’t let an extrabiblical interpretation dissuade you from serving the church.
I doubt Paul spent a lot of time sitting in his office at the church reading books. First because there were no offices, no “churches” and no theology books vetted by the Together for the Gospel crew. Second, Paul was out ministering to people and working a job. I doubt he saw the need for nor the value in and certainly didn’t seem to have the time for hanging around reading books.
I love reading and I am all for people reading. A lot. Having said that, I can hardly see how someone who doesn’t love to read can have their “call to the ministry” questioned. Sure you have a servant’s heart and love people and give sacrificially of your time and money and are a good husband and love your wife and kids but you haven’t read enough “good” books so back to the pew with you? Some of the most Christ-like servants I know are not terribly smart people but they are people who love Jesus and love their brothers and sisters, people who are willing to wash the feet of the saints even if they have never read a single book about theology or taken a single seminary class on ministry.
One of the great dangers of the Reformed culture is the intellectual snobbery it seems to foster. I write this as a slowly recovering intellectual snob. There is much admiration for the intellectual giants who wrote and read voluminously, men like Calvin and Turretin in the past and men like Sproul and Mohler and Carson today. There is little admiration beyond lip service to the simple servants of God who toil away at a job and still minister to others but don’t get asked to provide endorsements for books or speak at theology conferences. Christian ministry and leadership are many things but intellectual pursuits they are not. That doesn’t mean you should eschew any learning or that you encourage people to be ignorant but I do mean that you cannot equate 20 hours of study in your office preparing for a 45 minute lecture/sermon as “ministry”. I am someone who would be perfectly happy spending all week in an office reading theology books, listening to talks, reading and writing blogs but that is not ministry. That is not service. That is me doing what I like to do with a religious flavor.
Before anyone questions their call to ministry because they don’t read very much, they ought to look at what Paul said about leaders in the church. I think they will find much to be encouraged about that has nothing to do with reading.
Kevin DeYoung posted a series of things that he has learned and wants to pass on to young pastors and other church leaders: More Advice for Theological Students and Young Pastors. The list is a pretty standard litany, most of them sound advice in a traditional church setting. Then we run into number 22
22. Keep reading. Please keep reading. Boldly ask for a book allowance. The rule is not absolute, but I question a man’s call to ministry if he does not like to read.
Seriously. One has to assume that this means that you read the “right” sorts of books. Reading a Tom Clancy novel for pleasure probably doesn’t count. I am not sure which aspect I found more distasteful, that not loving to read should be cause to question your “call to ministry” or that you should boldly ask the church to buy books for you to read.
Lest you think that DeYoung was making an offhanded comment, he clarified his position in response to a comment by someone named Daniel looking for clarification with this statement:
Daniel, as I said in the post I don’t think you can make a hard and fast rule about reading. Some pastors may be illiterate or have limited access to good books. And no one should be expected to read as much as the giants like Carson, Mohler, etc. But a pastor must be apt to teach. And part of teaching well is loving to learn. A desire to read is not a sufficient condition for being a good pastor, but in most cases I believe it is a necessary condition. If a man is to preach week after week, year after year, he must develop a breadth and depth of ideas and knowledge. Plus there is the practical necessity of reading each week in preparation for preaching. If the preacher doesn’t enjoy books and study he will not last long as a preacher. Or he will not be a very good one.
A desire to read is a necessary condition to be a good pastor? This was my comment on the blog:
I wonder. If liking to read a lot is a requisite for being “able to teach”, what were the elders that Paul was having Timothy appoint reading? Or is this advice from Paul just intended for us in the Reformation era forward and he didn’t really intend it for the elders of the first century? I have a hard time picturing the elders in the early church that Paul was specifically talking about being men who spent lots of time reading in their offices and who were expecting the local church to divert money from widows and orphans so that they could buy more books to read. The early church was taking up collections to aid victims of persecution and famine, not to buy books for their pastor. There certainly is a universal aspect to what Paul was telling Timothy but there was also a contemporary aspect and I don’t think you can make the case that Paul was telling Timothy that he should look for men who liked to read when he described elders as needing to be able to teach. Being a big reader was certainly not a disqualification for men when these words were penned but it is now? Perhaps we think we understand the requirements for ministry better than Paul did. Biblically speaking, leaders are men we should follow because the manner of their lives is worth emulating. I know lots of men who probably never or rarely read weighty tomes on theology but who love people and serve them. I have also run into plenty of men who read a lot and are megalomaniacs and can’t be bothered to deal with people. If you are a Christian, you are called to ministry and don’t let an extrabiblical interpretation dissuade you from serving the church.
I doubt Paul spent a lot of time sitting in his office at the church reading books. First because there were no offices, no “churches” and no theology books vetted by the Together for the Gospel crew. Second, Paul was out ministering to people and working a job. I doubt he saw the need for nor the value in and certainly didn’t seem to have the time for hanging around reading books.
I love reading and I am all for people reading. A lot. Having said that, I can hardly see how someone who doesn’t love to read can have their “call to the ministry” questioned. Sure you have a servant’s heart and love people and give sacrificially of your time and money and are a good husband and love your wife and kids but you haven’t read enough “good” books so back to the pew with you? Some of the most Christ-like servants I know are not terribly smart people but they are people who love Jesus and love their brothers and sisters, people who are willing to wash the feet of the saints even if they have never read a single book about theology or taken a single seminary class on ministry.
One of the great dangers of the Reformed culture is the intellectual snobbery it seems to foster. I write this as a slowly recovering intellectual snob. There is much admiration for the intellectual giants who wrote and read voluminously, men like Calvin and Turretin in the past and men like Sproul and Mohler and Carson today. There is little admiration beyond lip service to the simple servants of God who toil away at a job and still minister to others but don’t get asked to provide endorsements for books or speak at theology conferences. Christian ministry and leadership are many things but intellectual pursuits they are not. That doesn’t mean you should eschew any learning or that you encourage people to be ignorant but I do mean that you cannot equate 20 hours of study in your office preparing for a 45 minute lecture/sermon as “ministry”. I am someone who would be perfectly happy spending all week in an office reading theology books, listening to talks, reading and writing blogs but that is not ministry. That is not service. That is me doing what I like to do with a religious flavor.
Before anyone questions their call to ministry because they don’t read very much, they ought to look at what Paul said about leaders in the church. I think they will find much to be encouraged about that has nothing to do with reading.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Southern Michigan Women’s Missionary Conference
If you live in Michigan, our local chapel is hosting a woman's missionary conference on Saturday, September 25th. It is being held at Carriage Hill Bible Chapel in East Lansing and this is the schedule:
Loving Where You are Planted: “Love isn’t Love until You Give it Away”
9:00 am to 3:30 pm
Continental breakfast, lunch and afternoon desert provided
Schedule:
9:00 am to 9:30 am
Continental breakfast
9:30 am to 9:45am
Praising our Lord in Song
9:45 am to 10:35 am
Ann Bjorlie
Caring for our Sisters on the Mission Field
10:45 am to 11:45 am
Joyce Baranowski
Sharing the Gospel where you are: Heart Pin Ministry
11:45 am to 12:30 pm
Lois Swain
Loving the poor in our communities through the Gospel
12:30 pm to 1:15 pm
Lunch
1 pm to 1:15pm
Chapel Rep Meeting to select next year’s location
1:15 pm to 1:30pm
Praising our Lord in Song
1:30 pm to 2:20 pm
Mary Watson
Missionary to Democratic Republic of Congo
2:20 pm to 2:45 pm
Elizabeth Imeson and Corrine Warke
Giving Love: Reaping for Generations
2:45 pm to 3:30pm
Giving your Love Away
Dessert
I will not be there but my wife and older daughters will be, check it out!
Loving Where You are Planted: “Love isn’t Love until You Give it Away”
9:00 am to 3:30 pm
Continental breakfast, lunch and afternoon desert provided
Schedule:
9:00 am to 9:30 am
Continental breakfast
9:30 am to 9:45am
Praising our Lord in Song
9:45 am to 10:35 am
Ann Bjorlie
Caring for our Sisters on the Mission Field
10:45 am to 11:45 am
Joyce Baranowski
Sharing the Gospel where you are: Heart Pin Ministry
11:45 am to 12:30 pm
Lois Swain
Loving the poor in our communities through the Gospel
12:30 pm to 1:15 pm
Lunch
1 pm to 1:15pm
Chapel Rep Meeting to select next year’s location
1:15 pm to 1:30pm
Praising our Lord in Song
1:30 pm to 2:20 pm
Mary Watson
Missionary to Democratic Republic of Congo
2:20 pm to 2:45 pm
Elizabeth Imeson and Corrine Warke
Giving Love: Reaping for Generations
2:45 pm to 3:30pm
Giving your Love Away
Dessert
I will not be there but my wife and older daughters will be, check it out!
Looking forward instead of backwards
I just listened to an interesting (if you are interested in Anabaptism) series of talks from 2008. This series of four talks, linked below, by Reuben Sairs delivered at Plainview Mennonite Church in Hutchinson, Kansas deals with an overview of Anabaptism, some of the ways it does and doesn't work currently and how it can work for the future.
Anabaptism, Part 4 - Why Anabaptism Has A Bright Future (4-14-8) - Reuben Sairs
I like a lot of what he had to say. There is a real tendency among admirers, proponents and practitioners of Anabaptism to look back to the past and seek to recreate that era. Anabaptism is one of those movements that can be overly nostalgic about the past. In fairness this is true of lots of movements. My fellow Reformed believers often pine for the days of Calvin's Geneva or the Puritans or Charles Spurgeon. This is especially odd among Anabaptists because in the “golden age” of Anabaptism they were hunted by Catholic and Protestant alike.
Something else he pointed out was that while our ethnic heritage is vital and is something that shouldn’t be avoided by Anabaptists, it also shouldn’t divide us. I would agree in principal with what he said, that if our ethnic traditions create barriers with other believers that is a bad thing He is less separatist than many traditional conservative Anabaptists.
I think Reuben hit on the big question. The real question is what can we learn about the church from the Anabaptists and apply it to today? We aren't going back to the 16th century or the 18th century or even the 20th century. There is nothing gained from horse drawn carriages but there is far more to Anabaptism than quaint clothing traditions.
There is a real sense that the modern evangelical church at large can learn a lot from the Anabaptists. The emphasis on peacemaking and non-resistance would be a welcome change. The simplicity that is a hallmark as well as the sense of separation is important. The Anabaptist view of the church is in many ways a healthier and dare I say more Biblical model than the prevailing traditional view. We can learn a lot from our fellow Christians in the Anabaptist camp, I just don’t think that we need to emulate all of the traditions that they have accumulated over the centuries or try to recreate 16th century Anabaptism in the 21st century.
Anabaptism, Part 4 - Why Anabaptism Has A Bright Future (4-14-8) - Reuben Sairs
Anabaptism, Part 3 - Why Anabaptism Will Work (4-14-8) - Reuben Sairs
Anabaptism, Part 2 - What Doesn't Work (4-13-8) - Reuben Sairs
Anabaptism, Part 1 - History (4-13-8) - Reuben Sairs
I like a lot of what he had to say. There is a real tendency among admirers, proponents and practitioners of Anabaptism to look back to the past and seek to recreate that era. Anabaptism is one of those movements that can be overly nostalgic about the past. In fairness this is true of lots of movements. My fellow Reformed believers often pine for the days of Calvin's Geneva or the Puritans or Charles Spurgeon. This is especially odd among Anabaptists because in the “golden age” of Anabaptism they were hunted by Catholic and Protestant alike.
Something else he pointed out was that while our ethnic heritage is vital and is something that shouldn’t be avoided by Anabaptists, it also shouldn’t divide us. I would agree in principal with what he said, that if our ethnic traditions create barriers with other believers that is a bad thing He is less separatist than many traditional conservative Anabaptists.
I think Reuben hit on the big question. The real question is what can we learn about the church from the Anabaptists and apply it to today? We aren't going back to the 16th century or the 18th century or even the 20th century. There is nothing gained from horse drawn carriages but there is far more to Anabaptism than quaint clothing traditions.
There is a real sense that the modern evangelical church at large can learn a lot from the Anabaptists. The emphasis on peacemaking and non-resistance would be a welcome change. The simplicity that is a hallmark as well as the sense of separation is important. The Anabaptist view of the church is in many ways a healthier and dare I say more Biblical model than the prevailing traditional view. We can learn a lot from our fellow Christians in the Anabaptist camp, I just don’t think that we need to emulate all of the traditions that they have accumulated over the centuries or try to recreate 16th century Anabaptism in the 21st century.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Running really fast in the wrong direction?
I read a great quote this morning from Dave Black (7:57 AM) that I think we all need to ponder. It is a sober question and gets to heart of what I am so fixated on but often write far too polemically about. I thank God for wiser and more mature brothers who help to refocus the discussion.
Last night Ronnie asked me a very important question. "What is it that keeps us from having a kingdom mindset?" We talked about the distractions of TV, football season, pleasure, comfort. I added into the mix: the church. As long as we continue to tithe to ourselves, as long as we overlook the fact that the gathering must always lead to the going, as long as we prioritize our programs and our successful ministries over making a tangible difference in the world for Christ we will never have a kingdom mindset. The greatest problem that most churches face today is not that they aren't doing anything. They do plenty. The problem is that they're not doing the right thing (Phil. 1:27), preferring soft cushions over Bibles in India. And the greatest danger most pastors face is not that they aren't doing anything. They're far too busy! It's that they don't do the essential things. Their purpose is to equip God's people for works of service. The clear command of our Lord is to go to the world.
That really captures it. It is not that we hate the church or reject the church or any of the other foolish digs people throw out to avoid having an honest, Biblical conversation about the church. It is really that I and others like me love the church, we just wonder if the church is focused where it should be. Everyone is so busy running around and doing “church stuff” that we neglect to ask if what we are doing is what we should be doing, what we are called to do and if not, is our busyness preventing us from taking a step back and asking the hard questions. We invest so much time, money and emotion into “doing church” that it seems we are afraid to wonder if we are paddling a canoe with golf clubs.
On the topic of Dr. Black, Dave and his wife Becky Lynn are heading to see the doctors this afternoon, facing a conversation I can’t even imagine having about my wife and her health. Having had my wife face surgery and treatment for the relatively mild thyroid cancer was very difficult, cancer of this sort is hard to imagine. Prayer is in order that God will give them strength and wisdom regardless of what the doctors have to say and that in this, even in this, God will be glorified.
Last night Ronnie asked me a very important question. "What is it that keeps us from having a kingdom mindset?" We talked about the distractions of TV, football season, pleasure, comfort. I added into the mix: the church. As long as we continue to tithe to ourselves, as long as we overlook the fact that the gathering must always lead to the going, as long as we prioritize our programs and our successful ministries over making a tangible difference in the world for Christ we will never have a kingdom mindset. The greatest problem that most churches face today is not that they aren't doing anything. They do plenty. The problem is that they're not doing the right thing (Phil. 1:27), preferring soft cushions over Bibles in India. And the greatest danger most pastors face is not that they aren't doing anything. They're far too busy! It's that they don't do the essential things. Their purpose is to equip God's people for works of service. The clear command of our Lord is to go to the world.
That really captures it. It is not that we hate the church or reject the church or any of the other foolish digs people throw out to avoid having an honest, Biblical conversation about the church. It is really that I and others like me love the church, we just wonder if the church is focused where it should be. Everyone is so busy running around and doing “church stuff” that we neglect to ask if what we are doing is what we should be doing, what we are called to do and if not, is our busyness preventing us from taking a step back and asking the hard questions. We invest so much time, money and emotion into “doing church” that it seems we are afraid to wonder if we are paddling a canoe with golf clubs.
On the topic of Dr. Black, Dave and his wife Becky Lynn are heading to see the doctors this afternoon, facing a conversation I can’t even imagine having about my wife and her health. Having had my wife face surgery and treatment for the relatively mild thyroid cancer was very difficult, cancer of this sort is hard to imagine. Prayer is in order that God will give them strength and wisdom regardless of what the doctors have to say and that in this, even in this, God will be glorified.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Best of the week 1a
Also comes from Alan and deals with the notion of "membership". His post Immediate Membership is a brief but an important one. Here is the whole post:
When someone becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ – when that person is indwelled by the Holy Spirit – he or she immediately becomes a member of the church – no other membership is necessary.
At the same time, all believers who are part of that person’s life become responsible for the growth and maturity of that new believer as soon as they find out that he or she is a new believer – no other membership or covenant is necessary.
Also, that new believers is immediately responsible for the growth and maturity of all believers in his or her life – no other membership is necessary.
We become part of the church – the only church of God – the only church that matters – at the same moment that we become children of God and disciples of Jesus Christ. Any other requirement is man-made.
True words. The only church membership that matters is the membership in the Body of Christ.
(be sure to go to the actual blog post because the discussion is great. 29 comments and counting for a four paragraph post!)
When someone becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ – when that person is indwelled by the Holy Spirit – he or she immediately becomes a member of the church – no other membership is necessary.
At the same time, all believers who are part of that person’s life become responsible for the growth and maturity of that new believer as soon as they find out that he or she is a new believer – no other membership or covenant is necessary.
Also, that new believers is immediately responsible for the growth and maturity of all believers in his or her life – no other membership is necessary.
We become part of the church – the only church of God – the only church that matters – at the same moment that we become children of God and disciples of Jesus Christ. Any other requirement is man-made.
True words. The only church membership that matters is the membership in the Body of Christ.
(be sure to go to the actual blog post because the discussion is great. 29 comments and counting for a four paragraph post!)
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Alan Knox where he takes on the idea of "Local or Universal"
It seems to me that the “local church” and “universal church” distinctions adds very little to our biblical understanding of God or of the church. Instead, it seems to divide the church into little groups that feel that they are maintaining unity in the body of Christ as long as they are united withing their “local church”. Meanwhile, it also allows believers to ignore the “one-anothers” of Scripture if the “one-another” does not “belong” to their “local church”.
I love it. I find that the "local church" has come to mean far more than the Christians in a given locality who regularly meet together and has become a self-defining and exclusionary term that divides "my church" from "your church". Can the church be healthy when we divide ourselves into doctrinal ghettos?
It seems to me that the “local church” and “universal church” distinctions adds very little to our biblical understanding of God or of the church. Instead, it seems to divide the church into little groups that feel that they are maintaining unity in the body of Christ as long as they are united withing their “local church”. Meanwhile, it also allows believers to ignore the “one-anothers” of Scripture if the “one-another” does not “belong” to their “local church”.
I love it. I find that the "local church" has come to mean far more than the Christians in a given locality who regularly meet together and has become a self-defining and exclusionary term that divides "my church" from "your church". Can the church be healthy when we divide ourselves into doctrinal ghettos?
An important reminder for followers of Christ
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21)We should never forget what happened on 09/11/2001 but neither should we set ourselves to seek vengeance for those events. The Gospel is never proclaimed faithfully by someone with a sword in their hand or screaming in hatred or burning books. Our first and highest duty is to Christ and His Kingdom, not the national security of America. We as a family will remember 9/11 today, not as a call to vengeance but repentance. We will pray today for Muslims, that Christ will be shown to them in all His glory by the humble and meek witness of His followers. We will also pray for the repentance of those who call for the death of unbelievers and seek to supplant God as the dispenser of justice.
Winning the war on terror will not win a single soul for Jesus Christ.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Repost: On Authority or the lack thereof
I got an email today that got me thinking about the topic of leadership and authority in the church. I wrote something last December that speaks to this topic, On Authority or the lack thereof, and that I feel even more strongly about this today than I did back then. Authority and leadership in the church is not something that is tied to a ecclesiastical office. It comes from a recognition by the church that the individual lives a life worthy of emulation, that their manner of life is prasieworthy. Check out this post from last year and the subsequent post: More on authority or accusations of the lack thereof.
------
I wrote last month:
I think the solution to radical individualism is not authority. The antithesis of individuality is community, not hierarchy. We don’t overcome individuality by elevating certain individuals to rule over the others but rather through selfless service and ministry to one another. It is only when the whole Body ministers and serves one another that individuality is overcome.
That brings us to the mantra of “submission to authority”. That seems to be the solution proposed in many circles to the problem of individualism in the church, i.e. submit to the men in charge of the local church. It is the "Ninth Mark of a Healthy Church Member" for crying out loud!
Going a step further, it is generally considered an “either or” proposition. Either you accept authority as it is traditionally configured or you don't accept leadership and authority at all. It is just a given that the model of authority we see in the local church is the way it is supposed to be, without question. I have been accused and I have seen similar accusations thrown that about essentially assert that questioning the traditional systems of church government is tantamount to rejection of authority, sort of a Christian anarchy. I reject that dichotomy as false on its face.
I have no issue with what the Bible says about authority. The Word of God is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16). Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5: 23-24) and all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt 28:18). We should submit to those in civil authority (Rom 13:1). We also see places where Christ gives authority to cast out unclean spirits to His apostles (Mark 6:7, Luke 10: 19). We do see a passage in Hebrews that speaks of submitting to leaders, Hebrews 13:7:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
So that seems pretty straight forward. Hang on though. Who are these “leaders”? These leaders are spoken of earlier in this chapter in verse 7:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)
So our “leaders” are identified as those who spoke (past tense?) to us the Word of God. I would expect that for most Christians the guys in leadership at their local church are not the ones who preached the Gospel to them when they were converted. In my case it was Rev. Sheldon Hale at First Baptist Church in Walton, Kentucky. So does that mean that I should only submit to him? That is kind of hard since he is no longer at First Baptist Church in Walton and I haven't been there in years. My point is that we read “leaders” and apply that to “pastors” in the local church. Also, how do they lead? We are to "consider the outcome of their way of life" and we are to "imitate their faith". They lead us by example as well as by teaching and we are to imitate them. This fits neatly with Ephesians 4: 11-16 where we see the goal of leadership in the church is not to be a permanent division but helping others to achieve the same level of maturity as those more mature in the faith. The goal of leadership in the church is not leadership itself but leading others to maturity in the faith (see Preaching Yourself Out Of A Job). Now I may be wrong about the interpretation of Hebrews 13 but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as it is made out to be.
Hebrews 13 is hardly the only place we read about submitting in the Bible. In various other places we are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21). We are to submit to God (James 4:7). Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), children are to submit to their parents (Eph 6:1) and slaves to their masters (Eph 6: 5-8). We are to be “subject to” those who are serving the church and to all who are “fellow workers and laborers” (1 Cor 16: 15-18), That is a lot of submitting going on. Is that a defense of the traditional idea of submitting to local church leaders? Eh. The “support” for submission to local church authorities seems pretty flimsy in spite of centuries of tradition.
Again, I am not questioning authority per se. I just question whether we express the Biblical concept of authority properly in the local church. In traditional parlance, those having authority in the church are the leaders of the local body, who have authority over us based on our “membership” in that local body and by virtue of their “calling”. “Calling” is church speak for someone being selected based on a vote or appointment by an ecclesial authority. So what this boils down to is that we are supposed to submit to authorities, which typically means the men who have been elected, by whatever criteria, in the local church. The relative merit of one local assembly as opposed to another comes down to the men elected to lead that assembly.
Is that proper? Is it Biblical? Is that what the Bible means by “those in authority”? An authority based on what? A seminary degree, a solid work history as a pastor and a “calling” after a few interviews and sample sermons? I think an enormous leap has been made here. This begs the question: what are the marks of a man called to lead? More to the point, what do we view as the marks of a man called to lead? I am afraid that it may be based on many things that may make sense to us from a traditional and pragmatic standpoint more than from a Biblical standpoint. Being a good preacher, a good manager/organizer, having the proper experience and education, etc are all well and good but the picture we get in the Bible is a bit more complex and counter-intuitive. More on that in the next post.
------
I wrote last month:
I think the solution to radical individualism is not authority. The antithesis of individuality is community, not hierarchy. We don’t overcome individuality by elevating certain individuals to rule over the others but rather through selfless service and ministry to one another. It is only when the whole Body ministers and serves one another that individuality is overcome.
That brings us to the mantra of “submission to authority”. That seems to be the solution proposed in many circles to the problem of individualism in the church, i.e. submit to the men in charge of the local church. It is the "Ninth Mark of a Healthy Church Member" for crying out loud!
Going a step further, it is generally considered an “either or” proposition. Either you accept authority as it is traditionally configured or you don't accept leadership and authority at all. It is just a given that the model of authority we see in the local church is the way it is supposed to be, without question. I have been accused and I have seen similar accusations thrown that about essentially assert that questioning the traditional systems of church government is tantamount to rejection of authority, sort of a Christian anarchy. I reject that dichotomy as false on its face.
I have no issue with what the Bible says about authority. The Word of God is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16). Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5: 23-24) and all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt 28:18). We should submit to those in civil authority (Rom 13:1). We also see places where Christ gives authority to cast out unclean spirits to His apostles (Mark 6:7, Luke 10: 19). We do see a passage in Hebrews that speaks of submitting to leaders, Hebrews 13:7:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
So that seems pretty straight forward. Hang on though. Who are these “leaders”? These leaders are spoken of earlier in this chapter in verse 7:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)
So our “leaders” are identified as those who spoke (past tense?) to us the Word of God. I would expect that for most Christians the guys in leadership at their local church are not the ones who preached the Gospel to them when they were converted. In my case it was Rev. Sheldon Hale at First Baptist Church in Walton, Kentucky. So does that mean that I should only submit to him? That is kind of hard since he is no longer at First Baptist Church in Walton and I haven't been there in years. My point is that we read “leaders” and apply that to “pastors” in the local church. Also, how do they lead? We are to "consider the outcome of their way of life" and we are to "imitate their faith". They lead us by example as well as by teaching and we are to imitate them. This fits neatly with Ephesians 4: 11-16 where we see the goal of leadership in the church is not to be a permanent division but helping others to achieve the same level of maturity as those more mature in the faith. The goal of leadership in the church is not leadership itself but leading others to maturity in the faith (see Preaching Yourself Out Of A Job). Now I may be wrong about the interpretation of Hebrews 13 but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as it is made out to be.
Hebrews 13 is hardly the only place we read about submitting in the Bible. In various other places we are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21). We are to submit to God (James 4:7). Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), children are to submit to their parents (Eph 6:1) and slaves to their masters (Eph 6: 5-8). We are to be “subject to” those who are serving the church and to all who are “fellow workers and laborers” (1 Cor 16: 15-18), That is a lot of submitting going on. Is that a defense of the traditional idea of submitting to local church leaders? Eh. The “support” for submission to local church authorities seems pretty flimsy in spite of centuries of tradition.
Again, I am not questioning authority per se. I just question whether we express the Biblical concept of authority properly in the local church. In traditional parlance, those having authority in the church are the leaders of the local body, who have authority over us based on our “membership” in that local body and by virtue of their “calling”. “Calling” is church speak for someone being selected based on a vote or appointment by an ecclesial authority. So what this boils down to is that we are supposed to submit to authorities, which typically means the men who have been elected, by whatever criteria, in the local church. The relative merit of one local assembly as opposed to another comes down to the men elected to lead that assembly.
Is that proper? Is it Biblical? Is that what the Bible means by “those in authority”? An authority based on what? A seminary degree, a solid work history as a pastor and a “calling” after a few interviews and sample sermons? I think an enormous leap has been made here. This begs the question: what are the marks of a man called to lead? More to the point, what do we view as the marks of a man called to lead? I am afraid that it may be based on many things that may make sense to us from a traditional and pragmatic standpoint more than from a Biblical standpoint. Being a good preacher, a good manager/organizer, having the proper experience and education, etc are all well and good but the picture we get in the Bible is a bit more complex and counter-intuitive. More on that in the next post.
The doctrine of vocation and calling
This is one of those doctrines that the Reformed love and I haven’t intentionally poked the Reformed culture for a couple of days. On the surface this docttrine seems pretty innocuous and hard to argue with. Who isn’t for glorifying God in all that we do? Is that what the net result and motivation for this doctrine really is? This is from Tullian Tchividjian’s latest blog post for the Gospel Coalition, Our Calling, Our Spheres:
For church leaders, this means that we make a huge mistake when we define a person’s “call” in terms of participation inside the church—nursery work, Sunday school teacher, youth worker, music leader, and so on. We need to help our people see that their calling is much bigger than how much time they put into church matters. By reducing the notion of calling to the exercise of spiritual gifts inside the church, we fail to help our people see that calling involves everything we are and everything we do—both inside and, more importantly, outside the church.
I am all for that. Our calling as Christians is far more than what we do on Sunday mornings, In fact we are called to a whole life ministry without division between “church life” and “regular life”. What is interesting is that Tullian then says at the end of the essay:
Therefore, God calls preachers and church leaders to disciple and direct people inside the church to understand just how effective they can be outside the church when they understand their calling in terms of everyone, in everything, and everywhere.
So apparently we define “preachers and church leaders” in their calling by what they do inside of the church but everyone else based on what they do outside of the church. Doesn’t that seem contradictory? In other words, there is a special ministerial calling based on functions within the church and then the general calling of everyone else. I thought that the calling of pastors and elders was to equip all Christian believers to mature ministry (Eph 4: 11-16). Hmmmm.
If by the doctrine of vocation we mean that all Christians should honor and glorify Christ in whatever we do, at work and at home, then I say amen to that! But then there is this:
Outwardly there may be no discernible difference between a non-Christian’s work and that of a Christian. A transformational approach to culture doesn’t mean every human activity practiced by a Christian (designing computers, repairing cars, selling insurance, or driving a bus) must be obviously and externally different from the same activities practiced by non-Christians.
Rather, the difference is found in the motive, goal, and standard. John Frame writes, “The Christian seeks to change his tires to the glory of God and the non-Christian does not. But that’s a difference that couldn’t be captured in a photograph.”
So Christian vocation and ministry for most people is quite possibly invisible to the naked eye? We just do a good job and do so quietly. How are we a city on a hill, a living witness to the world when we are undiscernibly different from everyone else except that we go to church on Sunday? Oddly enough, that is the opposite of what vocational ministers like Tullian do, where your “calling” is quite visible and obvious. His ministry and that of other ministers is defined by their functioning: preaching, teaching, leading, visiting. Why do some people get called to a visible, overt ministry and the vast majority toil away in relative anonymity?
I fear that this doctrine is designed to tell Christians that if you aren’t “called” to ministry, you should content yourself with being a good Christian at the factory or the office and leave the “real” ministry to those who are “called” to do so. If this doctrine is designed to divide Christians into two groups, 1) those called to ministry and 2) those called to work regular jobs, I find it troubling and extra-biblical. It seems apparent in Scripture that all Christians are called to minister and proclaim the Gospel and it also seems that the poster boy for Christian ministry (i.e. Paul) worked a regular vocational job (tent-making) and didn’t rely on funding from the church and yet he somehow managed to effectively minister. Would Tullian tell Paul to be content with being a tentmaker?
I find the whole thing somewhat distasteful. Don’t get uppity Mr. Layman. Just be a good Christian shoemaker and show up to church with a tenth of your wages. That is what God is calling you to do. Of course he is calling me to something different based on my seminary degree and ability to deliver a sermon but you should stick to shoes.
The whole “vocation” thing has troubled me for some time and strikes me as a way to perpetuate the clergy-laity distinction. It is possible that I am being hyper-sensitive to this whole issue. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the doctrine of vocation. What do you think?
For church leaders, this means that we make a huge mistake when we define a person’s “call” in terms of participation inside the church—nursery work, Sunday school teacher, youth worker, music leader, and so on. We need to help our people see that their calling is much bigger than how much time they put into church matters. By reducing the notion of calling to the exercise of spiritual gifts inside the church, we fail to help our people see that calling involves everything we are and everything we do—both inside and, more importantly, outside the church.
I am all for that. Our calling as Christians is far more than what we do on Sunday mornings, In fact we are called to a whole life ministry without division between “church life” and “regular life”. What is interesting is that Tullian then says at the end of the essay:
Therefore, God calls preachers and church leaders to disciple and direct people inside the church to understand just how effective they can be outside the church when they understand their calling in terms of everyone, in everything, and everywhere.
So apparently we define “preachers and church leaders” in their calling by what they do inside of the church but everyone else based on what they do outside of the church. Doesn’t that seem contradictory? In other words, there is a special ministerial calling based on functions within the church and then the general calling of everyone else. I thought that the calling of pastors and elders was to equip all Christian believers to mature ministry (Eph 4: 11-16). Hmmmm.
If by the doctrine of vocation we mean that all Christians should honor and glorify Christ in whatever we do, at work and at home, then I say amen to that! But then there is this:
Outwardly there may be no discernible difference between a non-Christian’s work and that of a Christian. A transformational approach to culture doesn’t mean every human activity practiced by a Christian (designing computers, repairing cars, selling insurance, or driving a bus) must be obviously and externally different from the same activities practiced by non-Christians.
Rather, the difference is found in the motive, goal, and standard. John Frame writes, “The Christian seeks to change his tires to the glory of God and the non-Christian does not. But that’s a difference that couldn’t be captured in a photograph.”
So Christian vocation and ministry for most people is quite possibly invisible to the naked eye? We just do a good job and do so quietly. How are we a city on a hill, a living witness to the world when we are undiscernibly different from everyone else except that we go to church on Sunday? Oddly enough, that is the opposite of what vocational ministers like Tullian do, where your “calling” is quite visible and obvious. His ministry and that of other ministers is defined by their functioning: preaching, teaching, leading, visiting. Why do some people get called to a visible, overt ministry and the vast majority toil away in relative anonymity?
I fear that this doctrine is designed to tell Christians that if you aren’t “called” to ministry, you should content yourself with being a good Christian at the factory or the office and leave the “real” ministry to those who are “called” to do so. If this doctrine is designed to divide Christians into two groups, 1) those called to ministry and 2) those called to work regular jobs, I find it troubling and extra-biblical. It seems apparent in Scripture that all Christians are called to minister and proclaim the Gospel and it also seems that the poster boy for Christian ministry (i.e. Paul) worked a regular vocational job (tent-making) and didn’t rely on funding from the church and yet he somehow managed to effectively minister. Would Tullian tell Paul to be content with being a tentmaker?
I find the whole thing somewhat distasteful. Don’t get uppity Mr. Layman. Just be a good Christian shoemaker and show up to church with a tenth of your wages. That is what God is calling you to do. Of course he is calling me to something different based on my seminary degree and ability to deliver a sermon but you should stick to shoes.
The whole “vocation” thing has troubled me for some time and strikes me as a way to perpetuate the clergy-laity distinction. It is possible that I am being hyper-sensitive to this whole issue. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the doctrine of vocation. What do you think?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
The misunderstood church
Fascinating quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer I read last week...
With that we have articulated a basic criticism of the most grandiose of all human attempts to advance toward the divine-by way of the church. Christianity conceals within itself a germ hostile to the church. It is far too easy for us to base our claims to God on our own Christian religiosity and our church commitment, and in doing so misunderstand and distort the Christian idea.
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in Bonhoeffer, pg. 84)
With that we have articulated a basic criticism of the most grandiose of all human attempts to advance toward the divine-by way of the church. Christianity conceals within itself a germ hostile to the church. It is far too easy for us to base our claims to God on our own Christian religiosity and our church commitment, and in doing so misunderstand and distort the Christian idea.
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in Bonhoeffer, pg. 84)
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Making excuses
Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isa 66:1-2)
So I read a posting from R.C. Sproul yesterday, Building with Conviction, in which he defends the building of ornate "churches" by appealing to the Old Testament accounts of the building of the tabernacle.
In the final analysis, we ask, what happened to beauty? Modern churches tend to look like prefabricated warehouses, or they’re designed to be functional music halls so that the production of music may have center stage. In the Old Testament, the whole person was engaged in worship. The mind was engaged with the Word of God. The music of the choirs and the instruments mentioned in many of the psalms were part of the design of worship. There was an auditory beauty. There was a visual beauty. There was even an olfactory beauty with the sweet aroma of incense that was part of the experience of worship. All five senses, as well as the mind, were engaged in biblical worship. If we are to worship God fully in truth and in Spirit, we need to incorporate beauty among the gathering of His people wherever possible. This is the model that God followed when He designed the tabernacle, His dwelling place in Israel.
There’s nothing in redemptive history that would make beauty, goodness, or truth suddenly passé or insignificant. These elements, which point to God, are always and everywhere, in every time and in every nation, significant elements of godly worship.
Look at that one sentence again: If we are to worship God fully in truth and in Spirit, we need to incorporate beauty among the gathering of His people wherever possible. So in order to worship God, we must wherever possible have beautiful buildings or at least spend time, effort and money to beautify our buildings? If a local gathering of the church has the means to buy a pipe organ, hire a professional "worship leader" and build an expensive cathedral but chooses instead to meet in a rented school room and use their money to aid orphans and widows, they are not fully worshiping God in truth and in Spirit? Sproul is a careful writer so I can't chalk this up to carelessness.
That is not only not logical, it is eminently unbiblical. I say that cautiously given the academic prowess of Sproul, a man who has been of great benefit to me in his teaching in the past but who I find increasingly hard to understand. When you see the constant appeals for more and more money that go toward foolishness like ornate man-made temples in the name of "worship", I wonder where the focus is. Is it on the Gospel or is it on "my ministry"?
I should hope it is unnecessary to explain to Christians the difference between the tabernacle where God dwelt among His people under the old covenant administration and the utter lack of any buildings or edifices under the New Covenant. In fact, the witness of Scripture is that we, i.e. the Church, are the dwelling place of God and that we manifest His glory in our love for one another, a love that certainly doesn't require us to worship in finely appointed chambers. The early church apparently spent not one iota of time or effort to construct appropriate buildings with the proper atmosphere to "worship" in. In contrast with the early church, this appeal to what we see as beautiful to enhance our worship demonstrates an underlying lack of worship. If you think God is inadequate to worship as He is and that He needs our feeble efforts to create the proper atmosphere to worship Him in Spirit and truth, your reasoning is more akin to that of Roman Catholicism or mormonism where the buildings are designed to give the appearance that something uniquely holy is happening that can only happen there.
God neither needs nor seeks our weak and arrogant attempts at creating a beautiful dwelling place to worship Him. He has indwelt what is the least lovely and impressive possible edifices: His own redeemed people. Many of us aren't much to look at. We certainly are not awe inspiring nor magnificent but we have a glory greater than any cathedral or church because we are God's chosen people, His elect. That is where our glory is, in Him and Him alone. I would rather meet with a small group of Christians in a rented hall with plastic chairs or in the home of a believer than sit in a multi-million dollar monument to man's foolish pride. I would have thought someone like R.C. Sproul would understand that.
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22)
So I read a posting from R.C. Sproul yesterday, Building with Conviction, in which he defends the building of ornate "churches" by appealing to the Old Testament accounts of the building of the tabernacle.
In the final analysis, we ask, what happened to beauty? Modern churches tend to look like prefabricated warehouses, or they’re designed to be functional music halls so that the production of music may have center stage. In the Old Testament, the whole person was engaged in worship. The mind was engaged with the Word of God. The music of the choirs and the instruments mentioned in many of the psalms were part of the design of worship. There was an auditory beauty. There was a visual beauty. There was even an olfactory beauty with the sweet aroma of incense that was part of the experience of worship. All five senses, as well as the mind, were engaged in biblical worship. If we are to worship God fully in truth and in Spirit, we need to incorporate beauty among the gathering of His people wherever possible. This is the model that God followed when He designed the tabernacle, His dwelling place in Israel.
There’s nothing in redemptive history that would make beauty, goodness, or truth suddenly passé or insignificant. These elements, which point to God, are always and everywhere, in every time and in every nation, significant elements of godly worship.
Look at that one sentence again: If we are to worship God fully in truth and in Spirit, we need to incorporate beauty among the gathering of His people wherever possible. So in order to worship God, we must wherever possible have beautiful buildings or at least spend time, effort and money to beautify our buildings? If a local gathering of the church has the means to buy a pipe organ, hire a professional "worship leader" and build an expensive cathedral but chooses instead to meet in a rented school room and use their money to aid orphans and widows, they are not fully worshiping God in truth and in Spirit? Sproul is a careful writer so I can't chalk this up to carelessness.
That is not only not logical, it is eminently unbiblical. I say that cautiously given the academic prowess of Sproul, a man who has been of great benefit to me in his teaching in the past but who I find increasingly hard to understand. When you see the constant appeals for more and more money that go toward foolishness like ornate man-made temples in the name of "worship", I wonder where the focus is. Is it on the Gospel or is it on "my ministry"?
I should hope it is unnecessary to explain to Christians the difference between the tabernacle where God dwelt among His people under the old covenant administration and the utter lack of any buildings or edifices under the New Covenant. In fact, the witness of Scripture is that we, i.e. the Church, are the dwelling place of God and that we manifest His glory in our love for one another, a love that certainly doesn't require us to worship in finely appointed chambers. The early church apparently spent not one iota of time or effort to construct appropriate buildings with the proper atmosphere to "worship" in. In contrast with the early church, this appeal to what we see as beautiful to enhance our worship demonstrates an underlying lack of worship. If you think God is inadequate to worship as He is and that He needs our feeble efforts to create the proper atmosphere to worship Him in Spirit and truth, your reasoning is more akin to that of Roman Catholicism or mormonism where the buildings are designed to give the appearance that something uniquely holy is happening that can only happen there.
God neither needs nor seeks our weak and arrogant attempts at creating a beautiful dwelling place to worship Him. He has indwelt what is the least lovely and impressive possible edifices: His own redeemed people. Many of us aren't much to look at. We certainly are not awe inspiring nor magnificent but we have a glory greater than any cathedral or church because we are God's chosen people, His elect. That is where our glory is, in Him and Him alone. I would rather meet with a small group of Christians in a rented hall with plastic chairs or in the home of a believer than sit in a multi-million dollar monument to man's foolish pride. I would have thought someone like R.C. Sproul would understand that.
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)