A Ministry Manifesto

The Church: Instrument of God's Kingdom

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:18:00 +0000

There seems to be some reticence on the part of many believers to make this equation. Maybe it smacks of Constantine for some. But I think most of the people I talk to who have a problem with this have a problem because it is God who ushers in His own kingdom. It is not us. I agree with that sentiment as far as it goes, but I still believe that it is fair to say that the Church is, at least in part, the primary instrument through which God ushers in His kingdom.

How can I say this? The first reason is biblical - the unity of the Church with Christ. We are His body (cf. Ephesians 5). No one argues that, when Christ appeared on the scene two thousand years ago, he began to usher in God's kingdom. I see the Church as continuing this work on Christ's behalf and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus our work is God's work.

This leads to my second reason, which is theological. God is in control of history. He orders history according to his will. He does this so completely that he ordains not just the ends (e.g., that His kingdom would come), but also the means (e.g., that it would come through the Church). Thus, even though I am saying the Church is engaged in this work, it is only because, at a more fundamental level, God is engaged in it.

So the Church is the instrument by which God ushers in His kingdom. I should say that this is only true in this age. Between Christ's birth and death, responsibility for ushering in God's kingdom was His responsibility. It is only ours now because we have the Holy Spirit.

I want to make one final point, and it's sort of a nod to those who may still be uncomfortable with this language. I do not believe that any of this language necessitates that any believer, myself most of all, sees his work in this world as indispensable. God could always, always choose to usher in His kingdom in some other way. That he chooses to use the Church in this age is sheer grace, and it should be our joy. All we're called to do is to love people, in the manifold ways that life offers. For all of this talk about kingdom is somewhat theoretical. Really we're just being obedient to God's command to love. What other word is there to describe an environment where people love one another according to God's Word than "God's Kingdom?"

Church Planters: Specialists Or Generalists?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:18:00 +0000

As an aspiring pastor, I often feel the pull to decide between these two options. Do I want to be a specialist or a generalist? Just so we're all on the same page, I should define my terms. I consider a specialist as someone who chooses a relatively narrow set of competencies in which to focus the majority of their time and creative energy. A generalist, on the other hand, is someone who essentially makes no such choice, preferring to be a "jack of all trades and master of none."

Do I want to be a specialist or a generalist? The question is not so abstract as it seems. If I convince myself that I would prefer to specialize, then there is a good chance I'll end up at a larger church - probably in or near a city - with multiple pastoral staff. I'll probably be in charge of a small number of ministry programs, and I'll be expected to manage them with a pretty high degree of excellence. On the other hand, if I choose to become a generalist, then I might be better suited for a rural church. There I'll probably be the sole pastor and in charge of managing all of the church's ministry programs. So, at least on the surface, it seems like this choice could have a large influence on my future.

Those of you who know me might be surprised to know that, though I feel a pull toward city ministry, I actually aspire to be a generalist. I could never quite get my head around that seeming contradiction until I read the opening paragraph from Chapter 4 of Darrin Patrick's book, Church Planter. After describing his experience at the gym - seeing muscle-heads constantly at the weights and rail-thin runners on the treadmills - he realized that these guys were more comfortable doing what they were already evidently good at. Never did he see rail-thin runners lifting weights, for example. Patrick continues:

I sense the Spirit telling me: it is the same with pastors. Pastors tend to stay in their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. "Theology guys" tend to spend a lot of time reading and discussing dead theologians. "Missional guys" tend to spend a lot of time analyzing culture and drinking lattes. "Shepherding guys" tend to spend a lot of time hanging out with people and counseling them. But rarely do we see pastors step out of their strengths and into areas of weakness. Why is this? Because it's uncomfortable. It is difficult. It is flesh-starving.

Patrick is describing something I wish I could have put words to a long time ago. I have a counter-intuitive desire to step away from doing things I do well and trying my hand at something unfamiliar. This desire is especially counter-intuitive to someone me who so often needs to be good at whatever I'm doing.

What a minute. If I need to be good at everything I try my hand at, why would I want to be a generalist? This gets even more to core of where language became useless to me. I know my weakness (needing to be good at everything), yet I feel a pull to try new things. And, thankfully, Patrick is wise enough to follow up the paragraph quoted above with another one answering this very question:

One of the greatest spurs to dependence on God is stepping out of your comfort zone and ministry strengths into your weaknesses. You will feel inadequate, but paradoxically you will be more potent for God's kingdom than ever because you will be forced to depend more on God's power than your own. And ultimately it is only God's power that makes any of us able to accomplish breathing, thinking, and walking, not to mention ministry.

That's the kind of paradox I want to live in.

There are a lot of forces pushing pastors to specialize. One of the most perplexing is assessment centers - usually geared toward aspiring church planters - that serve to determine your strengths and weaknesses. There are two ways to take such an assessment, and I fear that the more common response is also the wrong one. That is to read your strengths as areas where you should be focusing your time and energy developing. I believe to respond like this is to miss an opportunity. There is value to knowing the unique ways that God has gifted you. But God wants to use your weakness at least as much as your strength.

I probably straddle the line between "theology guy" and "missional guy." I am not naturally drawn to be a "shepherding guy." It's a gifting thing. But that doesn't mean I'll refuse to shepherd. Patrick, it seems, would encourage someone like me to step out and do some shepherding. I'm glad to be in a church where I have just recently been given that opportunity.

My point in all of this? To the specialist: Don't focus your energy and creativity on one small part of ministry. Do know your strengths and weaknesses. Then ask God in prayer to redeem your weaknesses and use them for His glory. To the generalist: Don't assume that because you can do everything "well enough" that you couldn't do some things better. Start by knowing yourself - your strengths and weaknesses - better. Then do the same thing I recommended the specialists do. Ask God in prayer to redeem your weaknesses and use them for His glory. You'll find that your weakness is the very place that God meets you most powerfully.

Wolterstorff on Tradition

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:13:00 +0000

Last week I returned to seminary to begin my spring classes. While I was in the bookstore (which is kind of like my Cheers), I picked up a new collection of essays by Nicholas Wolterstorff called Hearing the Call. I've never read anything by him before, but I've wanted to for awhile.

Wolterstoff is an amazing writer. He's at the same time clear, thoughtful, and devotional. I haven't yet finished the first essay, and I have already been moved almost to tears by several passages. Here is one where Wolterstorff talks about tradition:

The grace of God that shapes one's life came to me in the form of induction into this [Reformed] tradition. That induction into tradition should be an instrument of grace is a claim deeply alien to modernity. Tradition is usually seen as a burden, not grace. But so it was in my case. If you ask me who I am, I reply: I am one who was bequeathed the Reformed tradition of Christianity.

I realize that I partly feel the force of those words so strongly because I identify with them. I too am one who was bequeathed the Reformed tradition of Christianity. I see this as a gift, and the grace of God in my life. Having a tradition with which I identify myself is not a burden. It is freedom. It lays forth boundaries within which I am free to confidently live my life. I am free to live life to God's glory.

What features of the Reformed tradition can give such confidence? Leading up to the passage quoted above, Wolterstorff offers three. The first is "a holistic understanding of the effects of sin." Against the human tendency to make some parts of human nature good and others bad, the Reformed tradition teaches that every single aspect of human nature is touched by sin and is therefore a mixture of good and bad. Reformed believers don't want to totally disparage the mind on the one hand, or the emotions on the other. Rather, they recognize the need to submit both to God's direction.

Second, the Reformed tradition carries an equally holistic view of the scope of faith. Faith is not merely something tacked on to one's life to give an assurance of salvation (contra much of modern evangelicalism). It is much more. Faith is the very confidence about which I have been speaking! Wolterstorff calls it "the fundamental energizer of our lives." This faith extends to every area of human life, and even gives us hope in the redemption of nature. Wolterstoff says again, "No dimension of life is closed off to the transforming power of the Spirit."

The third feature Wolterstorff offers is that the Scriptures, according to the Reformed tradition, are "a guide, not just to salvation but to our walk in the world." The way we would say this in seminary is that Scripture is our fundamental presuppostion. Accordingly, we can be confident in the guidance provided by God's Word, not just where our own justification before God is concerned, but in every area of our lives. The Bible informs the Reformed believer's habits at work, at play, in the home, and public life - even civic duty. As an aside I must acknowledge my belief that Christians who consciously try to live according to this principle are often sorely inept and so cause much harm. Yet to this we are called, and primarily because there is no other faithful way to live.

Needless to say, I look forward to continuing through Wolterstorff's essays. I'm sure I'll find more nuggets of wisdom to share with you!

The Bible as (Christ Centered) Narrative

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:39:00 +0000

There's no denying that there has been a trend in some conservative Christian circles over the past 100-150 years to take an unintentionally reductionistic approach to the Bible. The result has been the truths have been distilled out of the Bible's storyline to the extent that they have become unintelligible to modern culture. After all, how far can we go talking about moral guilt before God to a culture that doesn't believe in absolute moral standards, is therefore without a sense of guilt, and often refuses to acknowledge the existence of God in practice if not in theory?

Therefore recent movements to restore the biblical narrative as a key component in preaching the gospel (read: evangelism) are good, and even resonates with postmodern culture's love affair with story. Even putting postmodern culture aside, Christians themselves stand to have their faith strengthened by a more robust biblical theology. I'm all for the systematic study of Scripture (as anyone who knows me will attest). But a systematic presentation of the gospel rarely seems to work as an evangelistic tool anymore. Give someone a good story, on the other hand, and you're much more likely to strike a chord.

Yet, as important as stories are, the best stories have a narrative structure. They have characters and events - yes. But they also have plots that build to a climaxes. They offer dramatic tension. It would be incomplete to restore the biblical narrative but refuse to talk about the narrative structure. This means that the story needs to be interpreted.

So how ought we to interpret the story? Put another way, how ought we to interpret the Bible? To answer this question, it's helpful to distinguish two alternatives and offer my own position. Keep in mind that I'm talking about principles of biblical interpretation. If my descriptions suggest different groups of people to you, then they will probably look like straw men.

Here are the two alternatives:

Interpret Scripture systematically. These people will view the Bible primarily as "God, sin, Christ, faith," - as different doctrines to be understood. That is, the Bible primarily presents different concepts which we need to study as comprehensively as possible in order to guide right thinking and living. I've been helped by the analogy of furniture. If you have a dark room full of furniture, then you want to have a light source in order to properly navigate the room (otherwise you're asking to trip and fall or stub your toe). The furniture in this analogy are various Christian doctrines. The light source is Scripture.
Interpret Scripture as narrative. People disposed in this manner see the Bible as telling a story. They'll see the Bible primarily as, "creation, fall, redemption, restoration." Similar to Dante's Divine Comedy, the Bible is a story in which things start off good (creation), and then take a quick turn for the worse (fall). The rest of the story is our recovery and getting back to where we're supposed to be (redemption and restoration). So, in this view, we're part of a story.

But there is a problem with viewing things this way, isn't there? The problem is that, try as we might, these two methods can't be separated. Take the Christian doctrines, the product systematic theology. What kind of picture to they paint? They paint a picture of a God who made the universe ex nihilo (creation), of mankind which was created good, yet turned away from God by the original sin of Adam (fall), of God's son becoming man incarnate in order to save mankind (redemption), and a world that will be replaced by a new, perfect world - a new heaven and a new earth (restoration).

Moving in the other direction, where do we get the notion of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration in Scripture? They're not explicitly stated anywhere. They're systematic categories. I would suggest that, if we ever hope to interpret the narrative of Scripture in any meaningful way whatsoever, we're going to import systematic categories to it. The question is, are those categories good or bad?

Answering this question is best done in an environment when systematic and biblical theologians can work together constructively. Anyone who would advocate interpreting Scripture as narrative over-against studying it systematically effectively shoots themselves in the foot.

Following the title of this post, I am calling this middle road between systematic and biblical theology "Christ-centered narrative." The entire narrative of Scripture points us to the work of Jesus Christ. Knowing this, it's natural that we can study His person and work systematically. All of Scripture weaves a rich tapestry about who Christ is and what He has done and is doing. What Isaiah says about Him is every bit as valid as what Paul said. But all of our systematic study should be informed by our realization that even Jesus Christ fits into the historical narrative of the Bible. (Although not merely. As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus is also Lord of history.)

Practically speaking, this means that our study of systematic theology helps us to understand the interpretive lens we should use when reading scripture. In turn, scripture itself should inform how we balance and priorities the different systematic loci.

Ultimately there is more nuance here than I can easily put into writing. (As much is probably clear by now!) This is also an area of study that I am just beginning to get into. What do you think? Am I starting to put two and two together? Or am I just off my duff?

My Continuing Confusion About the iPad

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:30:00 +0000

NOTE: It has been awhile (like months) since I have done a Food For Thought Friday post. This gives me a chance to talk about pretty much whatever I want. I don't really take these posts too seriously, so forgive me if I come across as slightly more opinionated. Likewise, I completely encourage you to pipe up and speak your mind, whether you agree or disagree.

I should begin by saying that I am a pretty big Apple fan. I have a PowerBook (about time for a refresh, I know), two iPods, and an iPhone. They make great stuff that is well worth the premium cost.

So it should be somewhat of a surprise that my reaction to the iPad was lukewarm. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought, "meh." It's an elegant looking piece of hardware, don't get me wrong. I wanted to like it. But I just wasn't ready to bite.

It probably doesn't help that I had just got a Barnes & Noble Nook less than a month earlier for my birthday. After all, my primary interest in a device sized like a iPad or Nook is reading. For that purpose alone, I have been sold on e-ink for awhile. Many people don't think the technology will last. I hope their wrong.

So imagine my disappointment that, while Apple is clearly targeting readers with its new device, they haven't shown any interest in e-ink (or some similar technology). Instead, avid readers are expected to compromise the comfort (or perhaps just perceived comfort) of reading on e-ink for the expanded functionality the iPad will offer (e-mail, web browsing, and the like).

Call me backwards, but no thanks.

Why would I give up reading books on an e-ink display in order to get a feature set that duplicates what I already have with my iPhone? My only interest in a "third device" is for reading. So I'll take the Nook. I have everything else I need on my iPhone.

But that is just one aspect of my problem with the iPad. The operating system is something else entirely. Rather than give the iPad some version of their desktop operating system, Apple has chosen to load it with essentially the same operating system that is on the iPhone. Some speculated that this would happen. And, in a way, I can see their point. There actually are benefits for doing things this way.

But there is at least one huge drawback too. Namely, Apple controls the App Store, which is the only official way to get software onto the iPad. This effectively gives them veto power over every software developer who has ambitions of seeing their product in the marketplace. As consumers, we were all okay with this when we were just talking about the iPhone (after all, who else at the time was supporting getting custom apps on your cell phone at all). But, with a device like the iPad, which isn't necessarily tethered to a cell network, I can think of no reason why this should be necessary.

Seeing the iPhone, and now the iPad, suggests a trajectory to Apple's plan with their own products, and it's a disturbing one. Consumers are giving up the right to put whatever software they like on devices that they pay for. Imagine buying a car and being told that you can only drive it on approved roads. It's ridiculous. Yet in a digital age, this kind of crap is expected. Why are we putting up with this?

My nightmare is that Apple down the road chooses to similarly lock down their desktop operating system. I can promise you that, if that happens, I will renounce my love for their hardware and go willingly back into the arms of Microsoft. It will not be a happy day.

A Single Man's Defense of Valentine's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:39:00 +0000

Today is a day of which no single person wants to be reminded. At least, not single people like me. It's Valentine's Day. Now, if you have a valentine this year, I'm hoping you don't get to reading this until February 15th. Don't be that guy (or girl) who spends Valentine's Day at their computer when they should be out enjoying the company of their special someone. Leave us single people to sulk.

Actually, if you read the title then you're probably suspicious that I'm about to pull a bait-and-switch. And your suspicions are well founded. I'm all about the bait-and-switch.

Let me explain what I'm up to. That opening paragraph doesn't reflect my thinking today. It's more like my thinking two years ago. Okay, two weeks ago. But since then it's been different. I promise!

What caused my thinking to change? Remembering the purpose of romance.

Romance doesn't exist because it makes the couple involved happy (although it should be a happy experience for them). It exists as a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ loves the Church so much that he was willing to die for her (and, of course, did). In response the Church submits to Christ in complete faith that He orders things for her good. This is why, concerning marriage, I think complementarianism is so important.

With that in mind, what do I have to be bitter about? Can't I enjoy the picture of Christ and the Church in every happy couple I see today? I don't have to actually be part of a couple to enjoy the picture, do I? Of course not. But for the longest time I wasn't willing to see the picture. I wanted to be the picture. That's not a bad desire in and of itself. But blindness to seeing the picture in others shows that I had the wrong perspective.

To all of my fellow Christian singles out there who are tempted to be bitter today: Get over yourselves. Consider what Christ has done for you. Rejoice that someone gets to take part in a flesh-and-blood picture of it. So what if, by God's providence, you don't get to take part in the picture? You get something much better. You take part in the reality.

The return...

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:32:00 +0000

Sorry for the "radio silence" over the past few months. To be honest, I over-committed myself last semester between school, work, and other engagements and the blog just kind of fell through the cracks. I think I finally have my life back in order, though, and so I'd like to try and get things back in order here. There are some changes coming, and some loose ends to tie up. Just for your information, here they are in no particular order:

I have one more post I want to make about multi-site churches.
I plan to continue my post series on "lifestyle idols."
Besides items 1 and 2, I have no future post series in mind. It doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. But you can probably expect more one-off posts (like the previous post) in the future.
Content aside, I have a project in mind to self-host this blog so I can move over to the Wordpress engine. I've been looking for a reason to get a desktop computer and install Linux for awhile. Additionally, moving to Wordpress will simplify things for me since I have just taken on managing another blog which uses that engine.

That about covers plans for the near future. I hope you guys will stay tuned and, by all means, engage with what I'm writing here. I'm writing partly to clarify my own thinking, but "iron sharpens iron" and we all stand to learn a great deal more from each other if there is dialogue.

Scripture as Roadmap

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:37:00 +0000

According to Augustine (and I'm reporting this second-hand), we will not need the Bible someday. If you're like me, that's a shocking statement. But it's worth taking a minute to understand what he meant by this.

Augustine had a high view of Scripture. He believed it was God's Word. He further described it as something like a road map. If the latter of these is accurate - or even if it is merely an accurate reflection of Augustine's doctrine of Scripture - then it's understandable why he would say we won't need the Bible someday. After all, in the new heavens and the new earth, we will see God face-to-face. In the words of my hermeneutics professor, you don't need the road map when you've reached the destination.

The effect of looking at the Bible this way has for me been counter-intuitive. I initially thought it would lead to a lower view of Scripture. But, on the contrary, I actually find myself more drawn to Scripture as a "road map" to God. I'm only just beginning to work out the implications, but it seems that this view would influence how one sees the relationship between prayer and Bible reading.

I have met a lot of people who believe, at least practically, that prayer is the time when they receive guidance from God for their lives. Whether or not your take that view, I hope you can see that it's possible for it to draw your attention away from the Bible as God's (primary? only?) means of communicating with His people. Better still, if we take Augustine's view, it is in Scripture we God reveals, not only His will for us, but Himself. Those things then, being revealed in Scripture, will drive us to prayer in all its fullness - adoration, confession, thanksgiving, AND supplication.

And, of course, we would be remiss not to remember that the purpose of Scripture, as we have already said, is in part to reveal God's plan and purpose for us. What is that plan? To take part in the inheritance of His Son: resurrection, eternal life, and fellowship with Him. Once we have arrived at that destination, what use will we have with a road map?

Lifestyle Idols - Family

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:07:00 +0000

As I was planning this post, right from the outset I have had to make a choice: With what kind of idol ought I to begin this series in earnest? The choice was between an idol which would be easily discerned by Christians, and one which might run a higher risk of convicting. I think I have chosen from the latter category. We hear Christians talking about idols like sex, money, and the like all the time. I haven't heard many Christians talking about the idol of family.

Is it really a legitimate idol? I think so. As I have already said, an idol is anything we put between ourselves and God. I mean that statement relationally. If there is something between me and a friend, then that thing is keeping me from knowing him as deeply and as fully as I otherwise would. Between friends it could be a grudge. It could be a misunderstanding. It could be many things.

What would cause me to hold a grudge toward God? The Bible says that it's God that saves me. In God comes fullness of life. So how then could I be mad at a God who gives me fullness of life? The answer is simple. It's by expecting God to give me that same fullness of life in something other than Him.

Therefore I think it's legitimate to refer to family as a potential idol because it is something apart from God to which we can look for fullness of life. What is perhaps most troubling is that, especially in America, the idol of family is often encouraged within the Church. I feel the pressure every time somebody asks, "When are you going to get married?" And I know other single people who have commented on feeling this same pressure. It's not always a bad question to ask someone, especially when you know they feel called to be married. But when it is assumed that the question ought to be asked, then one starts to wonder the motivation. Are you asking because you assume I could only be happy married?

To have a balanced view, one should remember that family (and marriage) goes back to pre-Fall humanity. So they are very good things. God created Eve for Adam (and vice versa). And part of God's creation mandate was for Adam to "multiply and fill the earth." But Adam and Eve were not created primarily for one another. Man's primary purpose is, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever."

So the idolatry in this instance is a problem of perversion. Skewed priorities. When we think of our primary purpose as "to have a family" or "to be a good wife/husband," then we have already lost the battle against idolatry. Now, for many of us, our greatest earthly legacy will be our family. And I don't think what I'm saying should be taken to minimize that. It should, however, put it in proper perspective. Our legacy - what we will leave behind - is no where near as important as what we are eternally united to by faith in Christ.

Rather, our family should be a great picture of this reality: that in Christ we become part of the heavenly family. We are all sons of God, brothers and co-heirs with Christ. We shouldn't value even our earthly family more highly than our heavenly family. Rather the former should point us toward the latter.

Lifestyle Idols: Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:17:00 +0000

I have spent a good deal of time over the past few months digging into a personal study of the Biblical doctrine of idols. My interest in doing so at the outset was partly academic and partly pastoral. It was academic in that I wanted to understand the idea of idols (and particularly idolatry) as the Bible handles it. It was pastoral in that, since I believe a large part of the task of pastoral counseling consists of showing people what they are placing between themselves and God (e.g. "idols"), I wanted to understand the idea in order to better be able to do this.

What I did not expect was for the Holy Spirit to use this personal study, as well as other circumstances in my life, to show me my own idols. It became apparent to me early on that I held, to more or less degree, many of the idols people were discussing in my study. At the front of my mind here is Tim Keller's message from the Gospel Coalition Conference, "The Grand Demythologizer," which I have mentioned before. This all came to a head in what, in all sincerity, was a pretty miserable couple of weeks. I was actually stuck between seeing my idols, and acknowledging that they didn't hold any happiness for me on the one hand, and actually repenting of those idols on the other. When I was to take steps toward repentance, God pulled me out of my misery and I was finally able to move on.

I share that with you because I believe (and always have believed) that idolatry is something that every sinner - and therefore every human being: Christian and non-Christian - struggles with. Thinking about common idols today has given me a new depth of insight into my own heart. It has also provided me with a stepping stone for effectively communicating with other believers things that I see going on in their hearts. A few short months ago I would have been unable to do this without sounding either very detached or (if it's any different) theoretical.

Having said all of that, I want to try and commit some of the things I've learned to writing. Rather than doing this from a high-level, theoretical point-of-view, I want to discuss actual, concrete idols that I see in my own heart and which also resonate with the broader culture. These will be common things. People are not commonly casting bronze statues and bowing down to them in worship anymore. Yet the heart attitude behind this behavior is very much alive even in the most highly secular of Western culture.

I'm calling these common cultural idols "lifestyle idols," because they seem most commonly to present themselves in terms of lifestyle choices. I hope this will make more sense as we move through the series.

Finally, I should conclude this introductory post with a disclaimer. As I've alluded to already, the thoughts I'll be sharing here are mostly gleaned from a study that was instigated by listening to Tim Keller. I know he has a book on this subject (idolatry in general, not "lifestyle idols" as such) forthcoming titled Counterfeit Gods. Without knowing the structure of his book, I recognize that I run the risk of this turning into a second-rate recapitulation of what he will cover in his book. Nonetheless, I have done some serious thinking on the subject as well as having had a number of conversations with others. So I hope I can bring something unique to the conversation (even if it is only the specific lifestyle idols I choose to discuss).

Okay, so I think that covers all of the preliminaries. Stay tuned. In the next few days we'll start our discussion of lifestyle idols.

An Update

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:56:00 +0000

I just realized that it has been over a month since I last posted. No. I haven't abandoned ship. I've just hit a busy patch pretty much everywhere else in my life ... all at the same time. Busyness at work. The semester starting at the seminary. Relationships to form and maintain.

Additionally, I had been in the midst of a bit of a bit of a dry spell. No new ideas for post series (and no real desire to just do a one-off post on anything). But that has changed. Just this morning I was inspired to pick up a new topic. So you can expect new posts on the site again on a fairly regular basis starting in the next week or so. You'll have to wait until then to find out what the new subject of discussion will be.

All of this is just by way of update. Now you know what's going on.

(Also, I realize I still have a series on 'Multi-Site Churches' kind of hanging in mid-air. I will be continuing posts on that subject from time-to-time as well.)

Multi-Site Churches: The Parent/Satellite Model

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Last week I outlined my own working definition for what defines a multi-site church. The definition to which I arrived was to consider a multi-site church as a collection of congregations under a unified leadership meeting at different locations and worshipping under the same name. For the sake of full disclosure, I should of said last week that I am neither a multi-site church expert nor is my definition adapted from any recognized figure in the multi-site movement. This is strictly my own working definition. Yet, it has been helpful for me to think of multi-site churches this way. And I cannot imagine consider a church as multi-site unless all of these features are present (with the possible exception of the single name).

Today I want to consider one common sub-model within the multi-site church movement. I have at least one other sub-model that I will address in a future post. In considering each model I will remark on whether common practices within each sub-model help or hurt the cause of building healthy churches. For me, this is the only reason to consider a multi-site model. For the sake of simplicity, I will consider a healthy church as one where the gospel is preached and church discipline (in both its positive and negative forms) is taken seriously. To be sure, this is not a comprehensive view of a healthy church. But it will suffice.

The sub-model I will consider today is the parent/satellite church model. In this situation, there is one central church site, which is probably also the largest site. The pastoral staff may be either spread over all of the sites, or they may all be located at the main site. The key features of the model, however, is that there will be one preaching pastor located at the main site, with the sermons broadcast to the satellite locations in some manner.

My friend Jake Belder commented on my previous post regarding his experience in a church like this. You can read his entire comment here, but the long-and-short of it is that he perceived what seemed to be something like a consumeristic attitude in the congregation. With the sermons being broadcast in from elsewhere, the worship at the satellite location was very passive (even when the live music team was leading musical worship).

The question arises then, was Jake's experience a necessary result of the parent/satellite church model? Or was it merely ineffective on this occasion? Applying my criteria above, this satellite location was presumably hearing the gospel preached (via satellite). But what about church discipline? Was there any leadership at the satellite location setting a positive example of how to actively worship? Beyond that, is it possible that going to a church where there is no possibility of ever meeting the pastor face-to-face appeals to people for all the wrong reasons? Has church in this situation become a mere convenience?

As my questions above probably let on, I have some pretty big concerns with the parent/satellite church model. As a rule, it does seem to prevent the sort of pastoral care that congregations need (whether they know it or not). I have spoken to people who like going to satellite churches precisely because nothing is required of them. They can merely sit back and enjoy the show. What's worse, very little is required of church leaders in this situation. It is feasible for a church to have a satellite location staffed with precisely no one. No pastors. No leaders. No local music team. Just a video screen. Dare I suggest that a weekly offering might still be collected in such a situation? This seems like a parasitic sort of relationship; only I am not sure which church is the parasite here! Certainly not every parent/satellite church will be guilty of these errors to the same degree. But it does seem like thin ice on which to be skating. So I think I am largely against this model of multi-site church. It just doesn't strike me as good for church discipline to have a multi-site church of the parent/satellite variety.

What do you think? I've stated my opinion. But I'm also hoping to continue the discussion. Let me know if you agree or disagree with me and tell me why.

Multi-Site Churches: What Are They?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:10:00 +0000

A few months ago the 9Marks blog ran a series of posts about multi-site churches. At the time, I was given the impression that they were largely against the concept. Looking at their listing of posts on the subject, it looks like I may have been wrong on this and that they have articles written from both pro- and anti-multi-site perspectives. At any rate, I largely agreed what I read at the time.

As someone who wants to enter into church planting at some point, I've been thinking a lot about this subject. If I plant in a city, do I want the church I plant to be a multi-site church? And, more fundamentally, what does it even mean to be a multi-site church? This post is my attempt to work through what it means to be a multi-site church. In a future post, I hope to consider the pros and cons of a multi-site church fitting the description I sketch out here.

Probably the only non-negotiable for inclusion in the category of a multi-site church is that it is a collection of congregations under a unified leadership meeting at different locations and worshipping under the same name. For instance, a church calling itself First Baptist may have a congregation meeting at the corner of Main St. and Broad Ave., and another congregation meeting at 3rd St. and Washington Ave. Both of these churches will be called First Baptist, and both will be under a single governing body (whether a deacon or elder board). There will also have to be some way to distinguish these two congregations from one another. "You worship at First Baptist Washington? I'm at First Baptist Main!"

All of these features need to be present in order for me to consider this church a multi-site church. If this imaginary city also has two Methodist churches with the same name (to the confusion of everyone around), but who do not have a single governing body, then they are two separate churches and not a multi-site church. I stress this for the sake of clarity and not because I think there is any real disagreement on this point. In fact, it seems that two churches existing under one governing body may be the point of contention for some people who are critical of multi-site churches. But here I am getting ahead of myself; so I digress.

Most everything else about the church lies outside the scope of whether or not it should be considered a multi-site church. For instance, some churches have one campus that is the central to the church and other "satellite" campuses which are little more than rooms where people congregate to view the main service via video connection. Others are a bit more egalitarian. Each site might have its own pastor, worship team, and be more or less independent from one another except for the single governing body. Certainly a plethora of situations could also be imagined between these two extremes. But, by the definition outlined above, they would all be considered multi-site churches.

This is admittedly a pretty broad definition of what a multi-site church is. Following from this, if your next question is, "Are multi-site churches good or bad?" I hope you can understand when my response comes back, "That depends." In my next post on this subject, I'll try to drill down a little bit and take a look at some common practices in multi-site churches, considering whether or not they are healthy practices.

In the mean time, do you attend a multi-site church? If so, what is the worship like there? What are your likes and dislikes? I want to hear from as many people as possible on this; so leave your comments below or shoot me an e-mail.

FFTF - Science and Art

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:47:00 +0000

I was kind of a nerd growing up. Actually, my friends today would probably tell you that I still have my nerd-ish tendencies. But I was kind of a power nerd as a child. I wanted to be a meteorologist. But not the kind you see on TV. The kind that sits at a computer in the dark corner of a National Weather Service office looking at radar images and predicting the path of severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, etc. If I was feeling adventurous then I wanted to be a storm chaser. Twister was a huge movie for me growing up.

Now I'm a nerd because I read theology books. I haven't lost my love for math and science. I just don't spend the bulk of my time thinking about them (in contrast to my power-nerd days).

For some reason, as a child it never entered my mind that my love of math and science might be in conflict with my love of art. I was in drama productions from a young age (third grade, I think). And I have been semi-obsessed with music for as long as I can remember. What's more, I've never noticed a change of mindset when I transition from science-related thinking to art-related thinking. The two exist in much the same place in my mind.

So, having said all of that, I have wonder why people are always pitting art and science against one another. Studies (scientific ones) have all but proven that students who engage in art - especially learning an instrument - perform better at math and science in school. Is it possible that, despite our apparent desire to make them enemies, art and science actually support one another?

I am a software engineer in my non-student life. Even though as many engineers disagree with me on this, I think writing software is an art. Not only do I have a problem to solve, but I have a responsibility to solve it in the simplest way possible. Simplicity is a classic standard of beauty. I also have a responsibility to make my product something that other software engineers can understand. So it's a kind of communication. Communication is art, right? Sure, it's is only understandable by a relatively small community, but how much good art is really accessible to everybody? Not all art is pop art. All of this to say that my approach to the "science" of software engineering has some important artistic elements to it.

I have also written a few songs in my day (none of them good enough to see the light of day, but I tried!). My approach when I did write a song might be described as scientific. I was analytical. I wanted the harmonic movement of the song to be very specific. I wasn't just going to throw together 3 or 4 chords willy nilly. And, in fact, some of those progressions were pretty good (if I do say so myself). I always got stuck on the lyrics. I'm not a poet.

So my approach to science in an artistic one, and my approach to art is a scientific one. And I doubt that I'm the only person whom this describes. So what's going on here?

Anne Lamott is actually the person who got me thinking about this. She writes in a chapter from her book Bird by Bird (a book about writing), "Anyone who wants can be surprised by the beauty or pain of the natural world, the human mind and heart, and can try to capture just that - the details, the nuance, what is." As I read that, I couldn't helping thinking that she was describing science. Maybe pain isn't amenable to a scientific frame of mind, but then it actually is in the "soft" sciences like psychology. Beyond that, this seems to me to describe science as well as art. She thought she was describing art in contrast to science. I disagree with Ms. Lamott.

I have a desire to see the Church engage the arts community and redeem art to the glory of God. Having thought about this topic for the past several weeks, I would like to see the same thing happen with the sciences. In saying that, I am not suggesting that anything be done to threaten the freedom and independence of either of those communities. But science and art both have the potential to speak to people about the character of God. Some churches have "artists in residence" on their paid staff. Maybe mine will have a "scientist in residence."

When Church Community Fails

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:00 +0000

I recently listened Ligon Duncan's message "Finishing Well," from the Gospel Coalition 2009 conference. It was a very moving message that got me thinking about church community (which I think about a lot) and some of its shortcomings (which I probably don't think about enough). This is my attempt to put those thoughts to writing.

The closing chapter second letter to Timothy tell a story of a man who has been abused by the Church. In just these few verses, Paul recounts no less than three occasions where he was either abandoned or outright opposed in his work as an apostle. He recounts these things to warn Timothy that he must be wary. Paul is no optimist. He knows that even those who count themselves as part of Christ's Church fall under the condemnation of Genesis 6:5 without God's grace.

What does this tell us? What are we to expect from the Church in the long run? Will it always love those who serve it? Evidently not. The very people helping Paul in his ministry to the Church have repeatedly abandoned him. And his caution to Timothy, especially regarding Alexander (vv. 14-15), illustrates these people have neither gone away on their own, nor have they been dealt with by the leadership of the church. It is no doubt that Paul has been hurt.

This means that we are wise not to place our hope in the Church. For it will let us down. Rather, we should serve the Church because of our love for Christ. And we should be satisfied by the love of Christ alone (v. 17). He is our only true and dependable source of strength. The cooperation of others is a blessing from God. Ministers are called to preach the Word and to lead the Church. God's grace will cause the Church to follow your teaching.

Yet we must be careful to balance this negative assessment with the humble realization that, as leaders, we bear the primary responsibility for shaping the character of our churches. Rather than acting spiteful toward those in the Church who hurt both it and us, we ought to be correcting them in all patience (v. 2). Many people are simply unaware of the harm they are doing. Others are intentional, and Paul would certainly have us deal with them accordingly.

Dr. Duncan finished his message with a stirring reminder that even ministers in Christ's Church are not above falling into sin. My take on his point is this: the goal of the Christian ministry is not Church growth. It's not for ministers to have a place to share their opinions. And it is not to be elevated to the status of idol for the preacher to worship - living and dying by the success of his ministry. The ministry exists for Jesus Christ: that others might know Him and Him crucified.

Do I still believe in the importance of Church community? Absolutely, I do; and so does Paul. He is presumably near the end of his life as he wrote this letter. In it, he calls Timothy to join him, and to bring Mark as well. Luke is already with Paul. He is calling many of the top leaders is the early Church to his side as he prepares to die. Knowing that will die has a way of reminding you of what is important. And so we see what in this world is of importance to Paul. Community with other believers.

FFTF - Why I Will Not Be Getting A Kindle

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:15:00 +0000

Food For Thought Friday is a weekly feature where I opine about pretty much anything I want. I'm hoping to provoke some conversation; so pipe up and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.

I've been kicking around the idea of getting an e-book reader for quite some time now. And the Amazon Kindle has been right at the top of my list since the Kindle 2 was released around Christmas time last year. Although I think e-reader technology still has some maturing to do, Amazon has the closest thing to a slick solution. And when the price came down a couple of weeks ago (was $359, now $299), I was really looking for a way to justify getting one.

And yet I haven't got one; and over the course of the past week I have decided that I absolutely WILL NOT be getting one until some serious changes are instituted in the way Amazon handles their Kindle business.

For those who haven't been following this very closely, here's what happened. Late last week, Amazon deleted a certain book from it's store. This act not only deleted the book from its store, but from the Kindle of every reader who had purchased said e-book. I won't comment on the irony of the fact that the book in question was George Orwell's 1984 (except for that comment).

To be fair, the book wasn't technically legit. Apparently it was uploaded through some sort of self-publishing service (?) to the Kindle store by someone who didn't actually own the rights to the book. Further, Amazon refunded purchasers their money. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos even issues an apology over the debacle. In spite of this, to me there are at least two issues in play here that need to be addressed. One problem (clearly) is Amazon's. The other problem rests squarely in the courts.

When you "purchase" a Kindle book on Amazon, you have to agree to their terms of service (or TOS). These terms have become standard fare for any digital media purchased over the Internet - iTunes has it's own TOS, and others as well. These agreements can (and often do) have the effect, in my opinion, of turning your "purchase" into a rental. Since Amazon brought this debacle last week, people have been commenting with no little anger at the fact that Amazon, per their TOS, probably had every right to do what it did. I might further wonder, at least having read the sections of the TOS to which others are drawing attention, if Amazon was even required to issue refunds in this case.

If I go into a bookstore and buy a regular book (or even order one from Amazon's store), am I required to agree to terms of service? Do I have to agree that the seller can take the book back anytime they wish, and that they are not liable in such a case, in order to buy a real book? Why should an e-book be any different? Amazon might claim that they are providing a continuing service by hosting my purchases on their servers. But I would be happy to forgo that "service" and back up my purchases on my own hard drive. Until the terms of service at the Kindle store are either modified, granting me unlimited ownership of my purchases, or removed altogether, I will not be buying a Kindle.

But, in all honesty, I can't be too hard on Amazon. There is another force at work here. This force is much more powerful. And its power to limit the rights of consumers - a right it is exercising more and more - is much more far-reaching. I'm talking about intellectual property law. Before the Kindle debacle, digital rights management (or DRM) was the thorn in consumers' collective side, and Apple was the favorite bad guy. Purchases made on the iTunes music store could only be played either with iTunes or an iPod (they could also be burned to a CD). This not only hurt the manufacturers of other portable media players, but it also severely limited consumers' choice. Thankfully Apple has removed DRM from their music as of earlier this year.

This could turn into a very long discussion, but suffice it to say that the court system hasn't really figured out how to deal with digital media yet. What are consumer's rights when purchasing an e-book from the Kindle store, for instance? The truth is, no one seems to know. Companies are pretty much allowed to make their own rules (witness the draconian TOS you'll have to agree to in almost every situation). The convenience will likely be enough for many people to buy in anyway. But I prefer to spend my money on a product I can actually keep.

What do you think? Is Amazon out to lunch? Would you still consider getting a Kindle? Let me know in the comments.

Gospel Complementarianism 5 - Women in the Church

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:16:00 +0000

Update: John Frame helped to write a position paper on the matter of women teaching adult Sunday school classes over at his website (which he share with Vern Poythress). I found it instructive and so thought I should include it here.

There are two ways to come at the question of the nature and extent of the involvement of women in the ministry of the Church. The first would see this as a pretty bare question: to what extent are women called to such ministry? To this I can happily reply that there seems to me to be very little that women are not permitted to do in ministry and men are. The New Testament is replete with examples of women involved in the work of the Church. Whatever qualifications we have, we must keep this in mind. Anyone who would say that the work of the Church is the express domain of men is reactionary at best and risks misogyny.

Yet I do not believe women should be ordained to the office of elder (either pastor or ruling elder). And I also doubt that they should be ordained as deacons. How, on the basis of what I have already said, can I also say this? The answer has to do, again, with my understanding of the church. It also has to do with my interpretation of one of a Biblical passage which many today find immensely difficult to swallow.

The Church is the bride of Christ. As Christ's bride, the Church submits to Christ. We discussed this passage in my previous post on this subject. It is from this that I draw my understanding that wives should submit to loving, sacrificial husbands. I always feel the need to qualify the type of husband here because I want to be clear that this is not just a burden laid upon wives. Husbands also have a great responsibility here. They are a picture of Christ in the marriage. That is a lot to live up to. And whenever husbands fail to love their wives like Christ loves the church, it becomes more difficult for our wives to love and submit to their husbands. But I digress.

Imagine if the Church, the very bride of Christ, were ordered in such a way that it became impossible for wives to submit to the loving leadership of their husbands. What a sad hypocrisy it would be! If there is any place in the world outside of the home where it should make sense for this sort of relationship to exist between men and women, it is in the Church. To do otherwise would be to drive a wedge between the Church and the family. It just doesn't make sense.

But there is another, more direct reason that I believe the Church should be led by men. The Bible. For Scriptural support, I look to 1 Timothy 2:11-12, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

This passage rings very hard on the ears of our modern sensibilities. We cannot compromise on this text and be faithful to Scripture. So what does it mean? Submissiveness must resemble to the kind of submission that wives are called elsewhere to show to their husbands (see my previous post on this). What is this business then about "teaching" and "authority?" Douglas Moo has suggested in his chapter on this passage from Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that these functions are the very functions of elders in the Church. And this makes sense, as the two functions are described together with reference to elders in this very letter (1 Timothy 5:17).

So this is the reason why I do not believe that women ought to be ordained to leadership office in the church. Again, this is not to say that they ought not to be involved in church ministry at all. Quite emphatically not. But I have not been persuaded by any argument to interpret these passages in any way other than by their obvious meaning. If there were passages that appeared to contradict these, then I would be forced to go back and take another look. But I have not found any.

This concludes my apology for holding to complementarianism. I hope this has been helpful to you, whether you are inclined to agree or disagree.

Food For Thought Friday: What Do You Mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:28:00 +0000

Food For Thought Friday is a weekly feature where I opine about pretty much anything I want. I'm hoping to provoke some conversation; so pipe up and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.

I have a friend (he will know who he is if he reads this) who bristles whenever another Christian uses the word "religion" disparagingly. For instance, I have heard Tim Keller say on several occasions, "Religion says, 'I obey, there I am saved.' The gospel says, 'I'm saved therefore I obey.'" My friend is a little put off by this. I am not. So it got me thinking.

What does religion mean today? Is it possible to be a Christian and not be religious? It depends on what you mean by "religion." Some people (myself included) have no problem referring to Christianity as a religion. Yet when unbelievers and other Christians talk down about religion, I usually agree with their criticisms (with emphasis on usually). So in some contexts I am happy to call myself religion, but in others I dislike what the word denotes. "Religion" has acquired good and bad shades of meaning.

There is the potential here for a lot of confusion. But, ultimately, I don't think this is a bad thing. When Tim Keller says, "Religion says, 'I obey, there I am saved.' The gospel says, 'I'm saved therefore I obey,'" he is able to provoke thought in unbelievers. And he is able to do it because he is saying something unexpected. He is a minister (who would be more religious than a minister?) and yet he is agreeing with unbelievers in their critique of "religious people" as very often hypocritical. I think he should be able to do that without other thoughtful believers getting bent out of shape.

Yet my friend has a point. When one believer says to another believer, "I'm not religious. I'm spiritual," what is he saying? Usually he is saying that in order to follow up with, "So I don't need to go to church," or some other likewise dubious assertion. Here I start to see my friend's concern. Religion becomes equated with tradition for many in the church. And tradition has all but been ejected from consideration in our age. It's worthless to many evangelicals. That is of great concern to me (and, I imagine, my friend). Tradition is of great value. But that's a post for another time.

To sum up, words have a tendency to change meaning over time. And it is often true that the same word will assume any one of two or more meanings depending on the context. We cannot control this; and I think it is generally unhelpful to try to get everyone to agree with you on THE meaning of any word. This isn't to make meaning relative. Individuals cannot choose what a word means on the spot. That would destroy language altogether. Yet when vast swaths of people who we are trying to reach associate a word with some thing (e.g. religion = hypocritical judgmentalism), I think it is okay to work within that meaning.

What do you think? Is religion a dirty word? Or should we be fighting to preserve it's meaning as the heart of Biblical faith and practice?

Gospel Complementarianism Part 4 - A Sacramental Understanding of Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:19:00 +0000

The title of this post will probably seem out of place in the context of this discussion. What does a sacrament have to do with complementarianism? Of course, I need to start by explaining what I mean by "sacrament."

At least one shade of meaning for the word sacrament is something like "mystery." And, in fact, we see the latter word in the passage quoted in the previous post. Paul says, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." I was at a Roman Catholic wedding mass a couple of months ago, and the priest read this passage, actually using the word sacrament instead of mystery. So, the two words are essentially interchangeable in the context of the current discussion.

Why is this all important in the context of the current discussion? The specific meaning of mystery (or sacrament) has bearing in reference to the Old Testament quote-within-a-quote, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." That, to Paul, is the mystery, the "sacrament."

So, what does Paul mean when he refers to that passage as a mystery? As it turns out, the meaning of this word is more specific in New Testament than in common usage today. It means something like, "A thing whose meaning is obscure until revealed at a later time." F.F. Bruce makes the point in his commentary on this passage when he says:

The formation of Eve to be Adam's companion is seen to prefigure the creation of the church to be the bride of Christ. This seems to be a deep mystery contained in the text, which remains a mystery no longer to those who have received its interpretation [from Paul].

So the meaning marriage, and the roles that man and woman play in marriage, are intimately bound up in the roles that Christ and the church play in their relationship to one another.

So, here is where complementarianism comes in. Everyone (including Paul) is happy to say that Christ loves the church and, in His love, sacrificed Himself for the church. He "gave himself up for her" in order to sanctify her. And I don't believe anyone has a problem with saying the the church submits to Christ as her head. If anyone did have a problem with that, they would need to explain how Paul is not saying that when he uses those exact words (see verse 24). But Paul's singular goal in even mentioning those here is to point to the fact that this relationship explains how wives and husbands are to relate to one another. Wives are to submit to their husbands. Husbands are to sacrificially love their wives.

Egalitarians seem to want to take broad Biblical principles (e.g. justice, equality - which I remind the reader are indeed Biblical) and use them to override the clear meaning of this passage. I have not heard a convincing argument that we ought to abandon what this passage is clearly saying. Furthermore, if I did become convinced that the obvious meaning of this passage was not the true meaning, I would be left with no idea what the actual meaning was. What else could Paul be saying?

Joel made a good point in a comment on my previous post. Submission is not demeaning. That this is true is obvious from the fact that, in the Trinity, the Son submits to the Father (see Luke 22:42). Does the Son have less value than the Father because of this? Absolutely not! The Church has confessed for almost two-thousand years that the Son is "of one being with the Father." That's equality. Likewise, women and men are equal (Galatians 3:28), yet in marriage the wife submits to the husband.

Coming back around, then, we have to see that Paul is encouraging us to love this way, not only because it is a parallel of Christ and the Church, but because this is how we were designed to show love to one another. It is hard for a wife to submit to her husband, and it is likewise hard for a husband to sacrificially love his wife. But the first two chapters of Genesis make the case convincingly. Eve was created for Adam (Genesis 2:18). And Adam was incomplete until he saw Eve and exclaimed, in poetic language, "This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," (Genesis 2:23).

Now, I have not been very clear on what it means for wives to submit to husbands. And I do want to be clear that there are limits on this submission. But I am not going to be much more specific than that because, frankly, I am less interested in the details than the broad principle under consideration. We ought to be thankful as Christians that, in our marriages, we have something more important that two people becoming one flesh (though that is true and Biblical). We have a picture of Christ and his church. That's how complementarianism relates to the gospel. It is because only this understanding of marriage preserves the mysterious, "sacramental" meaning of marriage.

Now that I have made a case for complementarianism, I do have one practical issue that I want to address in my next post. The ordination of women in the church.

Footnote: Having grown up Roman Catholic, I know that, in that church, marriage is considered an actual sacrament, on par with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I am not arguing in this post that Protestants should elevate it to this status as well. I actually think that would be confusing. Nonetheless, referring to a "sacramental" understanding of marriage does highlight that, on this issue, they might have a better understanding of marriage than many evangelicals today. I just thought I would include this as food for thought.

Gospel Complementarianism Part 3 - Meditation on Ephesians 5:21-33

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:17:00 +0000

Now we come to it. The only goal I have today - and this is no small task - is to show why the Bible says gender exists. The passage under consideration today is Ephesians 5:21-33, picking up with Paul mid-sentence:

submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I have thought through this passage for almost four years now, and in some ways I feel that I am only beginning to appreciate the gospel realities laid out here. That said, some things strike me as fairly obvious. Not least is that men and women are treated differently in this passage. In marriage, men and women have different roles. And those roles are assigned on the basis of gender. Egalitarians don't deny this. They simply think that any gender-based command given here is temporary. But let's think through this passage for a minute.

Have you ever asked yourself why God created gender? The question ought to provoke deep reflection; but I fear that for many of us it does not. Reproduction is not a convincing answer. God created Adam from the dust, and if he wanted to he could have also created Cain from the dust and so on down to us. No, simple reproductive necessity will not do. We must look for a deeper answer.

Trying to "think God's thoughts after him" (to quote Herman Bavinck), we must try to imagine why an all-powerful God would choose to do this. Certainly He was not required to do it. He is God; He does what He pleases. In that case, He must have seen something in the idea of male and female that pleased him more than having a race of only men (or women, or something else entirely).

Paul actually answers the question for us in this passage when he says, "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." The quote-within-a-quote there is Genesis 2:24. Paul is quoting from the story of the creation of man and woman and saying, "it refers to Christ and the church."

So, then, men and women exist because Christ and the church exist. This suggests that, in order to understand the perplexing relationship between man and woman in marriage (confining ourselves to the scope of this passage), we can look to the relationship between Christ and the church.

One possible objection at this point is that I have this order backwards. Christ and the church do not, after all, point us to man and woman. It's the other way around. True. But, once we have established this analogy (or, rather, once Paul has done it for us), can we not work both ways? If, as I would suggest, we have a better understanding of the gospel in the evangelical Church than we do of gender, can we not work backwards? Is there no benefit in that? On the contrary, I think our understanding of both relationships (Christ and church, man and woman) is enhanced by what Paul is saying here.

Hopefully I have said enough here to provoke some thought on this matter. I believe we are largely ignorant of this issue (on both sides of the debate). Next time, I intend to show why this Biblical understanding of gender leads me to embrace a complementarian understanding of gender differentiation in the home and the church.

Gospel Complementarianism Part 2 - Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:21:00 +0000

My last post on this subject was a very high-level introduction. I defined complementarianism and egalitarianism and explained what they mean in relationship to one another and in the context of this discussion. Now I'd like to talk about areas of agreement and disagreement between these two groups. Remembering that my ultimate goal is to tie complementarianism to the gospel, I remind readers (an myself) that this post serves with the previous as an introduction to this topic.

Are complementarianism and egalitarianism at odds with one another on every point? The answer is a resounding no. There are several very important ways in which the two groups agree. These areas of agreement include the following:

Both agree on the equality of men and women. I cannot stress this enough. The Bible is clear enough on this point in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," and other like passages (Genesis 1:27). Egalitarians, I understand, believe complementarians are contradicting themselves by going on to say that women cannot be ordained to certain church offices. I will address that objection later. For now, however, suffice it to say that the basic equality of the sexes is not in question. In this respect, both groups are egalitarians.
Both agree that men have in the past abused headship to subjugate and even enslave women. There is no doubt about this. Human history does not paint a pretty picture. The two groups will subsequently go in different directions regarding how the Church can address this problem. But again, this is not something over which there is any disagreement.
This final point will take some by surprise, I think. Russell Moore observed in a 9Marks interview on this subject that both groups agree that men and women should have complementary roles in the home and church. Preachers and teachers have authority. And others in the Church will submit to that authority in a complementarian arrangement. I don't think egalitarians are calling this into question; so I will be assuming it throughout this discussion. So both groups are also, in some sense, complementarian.

As we can see, there is a pretty broad area of agreement between these two groups. So where do they disagree? Here are several areas of disagreement:

Related to the third point above, egalitarians believe that roles should be determined by competencies. Complementarians see Scripture as mandating certain roles for certain groups of people, including men and women. Spiritual leadership in the home and church is reserved by Scripture for men. Egalitarians simply do not see Scripture making such claims. I will return to this in a future post.
Importantly, complementarians see a very tight relationship between what they believe on this issue and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will be reflecting on this at length in a future post as well. In fact, as I have said, I believe this to be a key issue.
Egalitarians reject such a relationship between gender roles and the gospel. And, as far as I can tell, that rejection is, for them, very matter-of-fact. They would, to be sure, argue that the gospel implies certain practices which they would advocate. But there is no real burden (at least in what I have read) to show how an egalitarian picture of the home and church proclaims the gospel to the world. I do not mean to imply anything malicious by this. Only that, as far as I can tell, egalitarians do not see this issue as directly related to the gospel.

So where do we go from here? The only place we can appeal to for answers on this, ultimately, is Scripture. So, in my next post I will be looking at one passage which both groups use to support their case. That text is Ephesians 5:21-33.

Happy Birthday, John Calvin

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:10:00 +0000

You didn't think I would be able to get by without saying something about John Calvin, did you? After all, it is the man's 500th birthday today.

I have several links and one quote to share. I'll start with the quote. Dr. Frank James, former President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and now Provost of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, delivered a lecture to the RTS community where he shared his "secret agenda" as a professor. Here is what he had to say:

Reformed theology, rightly understood, provides the best justification and the strongest impetus for pastoral ministry.

I have found that to be true. In fact, I never felt called to pastoral ministry until I understood Reformed (or Calvinistic) theology. I wouldn't be in seminary right now without his influence.

Now on to some interesting links I've found about the man:

Check out Green Baggin's review of the a Calvin biography, A Pilgrim's Life. I haven't been able to sit down and read this book yet, but I look forward to doing so.
Monergism has an entire page dedicated in honor of Calvin's 500th birthday. If you're looking for some of Calvin's lesser-known works on a variety of subjects, this is a pretty good place to start. By the way, the Monergism Bookstore is also offering free shipping all month in honor of his birthday.
Kevin DeYoung has an interesting reflection on Calvin posted over on his blog just this morning.
Another great reflection by Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Desiring God is offering another biography today only for $2. Needing to read things on paper, and the price being so good, I had to order one.
Finally, the New York Times has a pretty interested (and largely positive) article about Calvin.

Alright, that's all I've got. Enjoy the day, everyone!

Gospel Complementarianism Part 1 - Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:05:00 +0000

Complementarianism is a very long word. It's also one that I did not come across until I was a senior in college. So, before I do anything else, it seems necessary to explain what exactly I'm going to be talking about during this series of posts.

The evangelical church today is divided over many issues. There are Calvinists and Arminians, paedobaptists and credobaptists, complementarians and egalitarians. Over the course of this series, I am going to make a constructive case for complementarianism over against egalitarianism. Rather than stating the case defensively, I want to show the real reason why I believe it - namely because it's interpretation of church and family life amplifies the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But before I can do any of that I must first define what the terms complementarianism and egalitarianism actually mean. To do that, we need look no further than Theopedia. According to that website, "Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, yet they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church." This is contrast to egalitarianism which "maintains that there should be no gender distinction in roles of men and women in the function or leadership of the church." In short, complementarians see the Bible placing upon men the responsibility for spiritual leadership in the home and church. Egalitarians do not.

My prayer is that my spirit throughout will be one of grace; and I would ask for the same grace from people who might be tempted to disagree with me. I want to affirm up front that you can be a Christian and not agree with me on this. I also want to say that I can also sympathize with those who might think complementarians a overly dogmatic. Many of us have done a poor job explaining the connection we see between this doctrine and the gospel. We owe egalitarians such an explanation.

Many Western Christians doubt the truth of this doctrine. Such doubt is perfectly reasonable in light the epidemic abuse of vulnerable women in almost every culture across the globe (including Christian cultures). So part of my goal in connecting it with the gospel is to show that, perhaps ironically, complementarianism shows the highest respect and esteem for women.

Finally, let's not forget that complementarianism is also a way of envisioning the church. That might seem like an insignificant point, but if Church community is as important as I think it is, then we ought to try and understand how God would have us live that out.

Stay tuned for the next entry in this series where we will look at areas of agreement and disagreement between complementarians and egalitarians.

Preaching Against Idols

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:25:00 +0000

I have only had a handful of opportunities to preach, and each time I have learned a lot about what it takes to stand behind a pulpit. Now, one year into seminary, I feel as though I could write a better sermon. I hope that doesn't sound cocky. I'm only saying that I have found several really good resources that have shown me how I ought to preach. I am hoping to put these resources to use in my preaching classes at seminary (which I have still yet to take), and later in actual sermon preparation.

One such resource is a lecture given by Tim Keller at this year's Gospel Coalition conference titled "The Grand Demythologizer." If you haven't listened to it, go get it. This message was given back in April; so I realize that I'm a little behind the ball linking to it now. It's worthwhile to listen to Keller as he gives an analysis of Paul's method of recognizing and challenging a culture's idols. Along the way he also gives very helpful application for what this looks like today.

Keller, by the way, is a great example of someone who aim's to see a culture transformed by coming to gospel. He ministers in New York City, and yet makes it very clear that he is neither trying to build an isolated church nor is he trying to sell out to the culture. In so doing, he is challenging broad numbers of ministers to re-think how they ought to engage the culture around them. I would point out that he is not saying anything new in this regard. He is simply challenging the "religious idol" (his term) of seeing the Church as a place for believers to huddle together and keep their noses clean. But I digress ...

Part of what listening to "The Grand Demythologizer" has done for me is to create a sensitivity to the common idols in the culture around me as well as in my own heart. Doctrinal precision, for instance, is important. Without it I cannot understand and communicate the gospel as well as I could otherwise. But when a particular doctrine becomes an end instead of a means then it also becomes an idol. Now that is likely the most whisper thin of lines and so I won't attempt to delineate that distinction. It is something to think about, though. And I am sure you can think of some idols in your own heart. Money is a common one. Or patriotism (apropos on this particular day).

I have even coined a couple of -olatry words since I started thinking about this: celebriolatry (worship of celebrities); and ideolatry (worship of some ideal: conservatism, veganism, etc.). I should hasten to point out that I am NOT saying that every person who identifies themselves as conservative, liberal, or vegan is guilty of ideolatry. But when they think the solution to all of their problems lies in their ideal, then I would start asking questions.

This all ties in to preaching (really). What Keller is saying, using Paul's preaching in Ephesus for support, is that we preachers need to be doing the work of dismantling our culture's idols every Sunday morning. Why? Because our congregants will be immersed in that culture the other six days a week and they need to see why they ought not be put their faith in the idols that surround them. That is a lot of the substance of discipleship. The rest is showing them that Jesus is where they ought to be putting their faith.

Church Community

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Moch) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:54:00 +0000

Church goes beyond getting together with other believers to corporately worship. It also entails getting together with other believers to corporately worship. Community is central to the spiritual development of believers. I've hinted elsewhere my belief in this; but I wanted to fill it out a little bit. Along the way I'll be pointing out some problem areas that warrant further discussion beyond what I will be able to provide here.

The Church is the body of Christ. This Scriptural declaration will strike some as too obvious to mention, but think about what is being said here. The Church is the body (singular) of Christ. Like any body, it has parts. But if we press the analogy a little, we realize that, like any body, if we separate any part from the rest of the body, that part dies. That's pretty serious, and worthy of consideration.
The Church is the keeper of doctrine. This is easy to say, but difficult to unpack. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, understands this in a very institutional way. The truths on Christian doctrine are understood and defended only in relationship to the teaching magisterium of the Church. Radical Anabaptists, on the other hand, had a very individualistic view of this idea (if they held such an idea at all). They, along with many Western Christians today, would press the Protestant allowance for private interpretation of Scripture into a free-for-all with everyone drawing their own conclusions. I think that the latter approach becomes plausible only by rejecting the reality that ideas (e.g. doctrines) have consequences. That said, I also have serious concerns about an idea of the Church that, in practice, elevates its teaching above Scripture (Green Baggins has done a recent post illustrating this point). Obviously I can't untangle all of this here. But suffice it to say I fall somewhere in between these two extremes as a confessional, Reformed Protestant.

But my reasons for pushing this are not entirely doctrinal. My experience with other believers in the Church has taught me the following:

Community fosters maturity. Some of the people it has been hardest for me to be around since becoming a Christian have been other Christians. Far from being any one person's problem, that kind of tension is always something that both sides need to address (I can think of no exceptions to this rule). If the Church is really supposed to embrace all nations, cultures, races, genders, and political persuasions, then we need to be learning how to live together. Why? Because that's the kind of love we're called to.
Community shows us Christ. C.S. Lewis wrote that, when someone in his close circle of friends died, the rest of his friends were never the same. Lewis explained this phenomenon, not by wistfully saying that things just weren't the same, but by pointing out that his surviving friends all had qualities that only his dead friend was able to bring out. Certainly the same is also true in reverse, each of Lewis' friends brought out something particular that old friend. In like manner, each person in our church community is going to help us to see something in Christ that we otherwise would not have seen. The more Christians we are able to live out our lives with, the more we will inevitably see of Christ.

Okay, that's all I have to say right now. But, in keeping with the subject, I'd like to know you thoughts on this. If you have any thoughts, please let me know in the comments.