theologer

First Corinthians Three, with a Slight Modification so as to Make a Point

2012-02-02T23:14:00.001-06:00

If 1 Corinthians 3 had been written to students of Reformed Theological Seminary:

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Calvin,” and another, “I follow Wesley,” are you not being merely human?
What then is Wesley? What is Calvin? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. Calvin planted, Wesley watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Calvin or Wesley or Luther or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

Seriously. I cannot accept that our splitting has been anything but sinful. I have no solutions for our reconciliation, only frustration at our incompetence to do so.

When I had first started my degree a friend in class was talking about Arminians and how he as a Calvinist could never hope to work together with them. I asked him if he was serious, to which he replied, "What has light to do with darkness?" And while he was sort of joking, he wasn't really.

And the Calvin/Wesley argument is just one of many. The Calvinists think everyone lives and dies on predestination. The dispensationalists on something else, the Pentecostals on something else etc... But "all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

Suggestion for ESV Section Name Change

2012-01-26T22:52:00.000-06:00

In my ESV Bible about half-way through verse 4 of chapter 16 in the Gospel of John is the following section title, "The Work of the Holy Spirit." I suggest it should be changed to, "The Holy Spirit is Going to be Awesome."

Seems to me that would have much better described what Jesus had to say.

An Organizational Priorities Paradigm Shift

2012-01-25T23:54:00.000-06:00

There has been a trend in Christian circles towards emphasizing getting our personal priorities straight. Basically the argument goes something like this:

In the past, people have valued ministry before their families and often their families suffered as a result. Now people have recognized this as foolishness and are arguing that the family is the most important ministry anyone can have. Our families are our most important disciples. Therefore our priorities should be in the following order: 1) God, 2) Family, and finally 3) Ministry.

Ministry is very important, but only God should be valued above family.

Okay, maybe you've heard this. Now I'd like to propose a similar paradigm shift in the way our churches and missions organizations order their priorities:

In the past, organizations have valued their mission before their people, and their people have suffered and been burned as a result. Now people should recognize that their people are the most important part of their mission. Our people are what God cares about far more than our idea of what our "mission" or "vision" is. If people aren't on board they may not belong with us, but we can at least send them off in love. We are foolish if we ever believe our calling is the whole of God's Kingdom. And more than foolish when we risk burning out wonderful men and women of God. If someone comes through our ministry and discovers they are called to something else, it is absolutely our responsibility to release them to do what God has called them to do even if it means losing one person on board with our mission/vision.

Our mission is very important, but God's mission is much more important, and his method is people.

Our mission is important, but only God should be valued above God's people.

We must value the people God loves over our thin view of what we're called to do in God's Kingdom. Love them, send them out lovingly. If we can help a follower of Christ love Him more even in another area of ministry then we will have contributed greatly to the Kingdom of God. If we give one follower of Christ so horrible of an experience in ministry that they burn out and never serve again, then we will have some answering to do when it comes time to account for our contributions to the Kingdom of God.

Our priorities should be ordered thus:

Personal: 1) God, 2) Family, 3) Ministry.
Organizational: 1) God, 2) Our People, 3) Our Mission.

Violence Victorious ➙

2012-01-18T20:34:00.000-06:00

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[a] and the violent take it by force." - Matthew 11:12. One of my favorite verses. And somewhere, something I read pointed me towards this. Brilliance by Richard Sibbes.

Again God will have this violence and striving, as a character of difference, to shew who are bastard professors and who are not; who will go to the price of Christianity, and who will not. If men will go to heaven they must be violent, they must be at the cost and charges, sometimes to venture life itself, and whatsoever is dear and precious in the world. A man must be so violent, that he must go through all even death itself, though it be a bloody death, to Christ. This discards all lukewarm carnal professors, who shake off this violence. In all estates of the church, it is almost equally difficult to be a sound Christian; for God requires this violence even in the most peaceable times. Now, the truth and religion are countenanced by the laws, yet the power of it is by many much opposed. Therefore he now that in spite of reproach, in spite of slander, will bear the scorns cast upon the gospel, that will 'go with Christ without the gate, bearing his reproach,' Heb. xiii. 13, such a man may be said to be thus violent. It is an easy thing to have so much Christianity as will stand with our commodity or with pleasure, &c.; but to have so much as will bring us to heaven, I say it is equally hard in all times of the church, it requires violence to carry us through these lesser oppositions. . . . So that it be violence that hath eyes in its head, violence guided with judgment, from the knowledge of the excellency of the good things of the gospel, I speak of such a violence as that.

On the Origin of Cyrus ➙

2012-01-17T21:27:00.000-06:00

I'm reading Ezra as our house church moves in to studying the book. I am moved by how the Lord worked through Cyrus, and even his humility in declaring that he knows his authority and power have come from the God of Heaven (Ezra 1:2). So I got to wondering who was this guy? Apparently there are several different versions of his origin. But this one is pretty amazing. Click the title above to read the rest from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This reads like a Sophocles tragedy. In fact I can't believe there hasn't been a movie made with this as it's premise.

Several versions of his birth and rise to power are recorded. Herodotus (i.95) mentions three. In that which he quotes (i.107), it is said that Mandane was the daughter of the Median king Astyages, who, in consequence of a dream which he had had, foretelling the ultimate triumph of her son over his dynasty, gave her in marriage to a Persian named Cambyses, who was not one of his peers. A second dream caused him to watch for her expected offspring, and when Cyrus came into the world Astyages delivered the child to his relative, Harpagus, with orders to destroy it. Being Unwilling to do this, he handed the infant to a Shepherd named Mitradates, who, his wife having brought forth a still-born child, consented to spare the life of the infant Cyrus. Later on, in consequence of his imperious acts, Cyrus was recognized by Astyages, who came to learn the whole story, and spared him because, having once been made king by his companions in play, the Magians held the predictions concerning his ultimate royal state to have been fulfilled. The vengeance taken by Astyages upon Harpagus for his apparent disobedience to orders is well known:

his son was slain, and a portion, disguised, given him to eat. Though filled with grief, Harpagus concealed his feelings, and departed with the remains of his son's body; and Cyrus, in due course, was sent to stay with his parents, Cambyses and Mandane. Later on, Harpagus persuaded Cyrus to induce the Persians to revolt, and Astyages having blindly appointed Harpagus commander- in-chief of the Median army, the last-named went over to the side of Cyrus. The result was an easy victory for the latter, but Astyages took care to impale the Magians who had advised him to spare his grandson. Having gathered another, but smaller, army, he took the field in person, but was defeated and captured. Cyrus, however, who became king of Media as well as of Persia, treated him honorably and well.

Humble beginnings as a son of a shepherd would certainly help.... but wow. The people in this world available to do the work of God's Kingdom never fail to amaze me.

Do Not Say: Or, The churchs excuses for neglecting the heathen: with a statement and an appeal . . .

2011-12-09T14:41:00.001-06:00

This pamphlet is the reason James Fraser went in to missions. And therefore it is the reason the Lisu people are in a large part Christian to this day.Fascinating.

I've been looking for it for years, but I finally found it here. PDF, Kindle, etc...

Beauty.Amazing to think the effect a small little pamphlet can have on so many lives.

Why We Need More 'Chaplains' and Fewer Leaders ➙

2011-12-07T08:04:00.000-06:00

I've been a parishioner in many churches over many years. In each church, the pastor has been tempted, as I was, to become the great leader, to shape himself in our culture's image of success. To be sure, the modern pastor does have to "run a church"; he or she is, in fact, the head of an institution that has prosaic institutional needs. I've been thankful when my pastor carries out these institutional responsibilities with efficiency and joy.

Things I Believed Before Getting my Seminary Degree

2011-12-06T19:49:00.001-06:00

In 2007 I wrote, things I believe before getting a degree and I've always had the intention of returning to it and responding after finishing the program. I wrote it about a year in to the process, but I think I had only taken one class at that point. Granted in January I changed from an MDiv to an MA, but I'm done. While a lot of this is unrelated to theological things, they were all ideas I wondered about being changed in the process of seminary. And here are my thoughts:

1. Uneducated people should be allowed to teach. Not everyone, but some people.
I believe this more now than I did then. Seminary does not a gifted teacher make.

2. God seems to bless even the very unhealthy (theologically or practically).
I believe this more now as well, but more from experience in ministry than anything I learned in seminary. Shocking how unhealthy we are really.

3. God seems to bless me, which isn't a sign that I'm doing anything right.
Keeps blessing my socks off. Not sure why.

4. Conservative is probably a better leaning than Liberal
Deal.

5. I have to be open to liberal ideas (definitely not all), and definitely new things in the christian world. Not closed off to music, etc.
Hmm.... not sure what I think now. I lean awkwardly conservative these days.

6. Raising kids is not about how well you do it, or lead, or how good of a person you are. It seems to be 100% based on the Lord's grace that they will turn out well or not. We can help, but they can still turn out funny.
Still early in child-rearing to know.

7. Writing a book is one of the best ways to make a lasting impression.
The influence of books is laughably larger in my life than sermons.

8. Books can help you to fall more in love with the Lord.
See above. But I think more than books, people.

9. Just because some publishing company printed it, doesn't mean its true, or even worth reading.
Wow. Shockingly true.

10. People all turn out weird. Its okay to become weird in your old age.
Look forward to it.

11. Money will wont make you happy.
How much are we talking about? Okay... still agree.

12. Loving my wife is more important that my studies.
I think I was good at living this until the last three months or so, there was definitely tension.

13. I want my ministry to be first place before my studies.
I lived this, but it was hard. Keeping school in a place where it can never take precedence over my work (ministry), that was hard, but I'm glad I did it.

14. Taking forever to get a degree is probably a reality.
Whew. Six years.

15. Having a PhD by 35 is still pretty impressive.
Still possible, not sure if I'll pull it off or not, or even if I want to anymore.

16. I shouldn't be concerned with how impressive it is if I ever get a PhD.
True, but feeling like I'm probably supposed to, makes it difficult to be unconcerned with.

17. People with PhD's can be losers just because they have one. Dont be a loser.
Holy snap. There are a boatload of Dr. Losers.

18. Discipline sucks when you're developing it, but I seem to like life better when I am disciplined.
True, and true. I would now add that discipline is infinitely harder when you have children. Your time is not your own to arrange appropriately. Even in the morning.

19. Children are a HUGE blessing no matter how much work they are.
Ha. While in general I definitely believe this, I don't always believe it in the moment when my 2 year old is screaming and my three year old is vomiting in the car. Did I mention I'm just a few months away from adopting two more. Ha!

20. Children are your most important disciples.
I hope I manage to never forget this. They are also right there along with our wives as catalysts for sanctification.

21. God's creation is fascinating, beautiful, and should be pointed out just short of the point of annoyance.
Absolutely.

22. God has blessed me, but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything well.
Funny I mentioned this twice (see #3). The Lord really has blessed the poo out of me. It's ridiculous. Why does he keep doing that?

23. Money still wont make me happy.
But beer might. At least temporarily.

How Can You Be So Dumb?

2011-12-05T20:03:00.001-06:00

When George Bush won the Presidential election for the second time in 2004 there were variations of a headline all over the web which said, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?"

It's interesting because it represents something I hear from the far left quite frequently, "how can people really think this?" If anyone really thought about it, they would have voted for Al Gore. Or another example is gay marriage. How can anyone possibly think it's wrong? You would have to be an idiot, they think, to come to any conclusion other than that gay marriage is no different than straight marriage.

Or in the pro-life discussion. Only a fool would come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. If someone really thought about it, there is only one conclusion that can be reached, abortion is the prerogative of the pregnant woman.

Actually, it doesn't matter if it is the far left or the far right in politics, or extremes in any debate, the discussion is the same, "How can you be so dumb?" What about in religion? People who are atheists strongly believe that if everyone had all the facts they would arrive at the same conclusion. There is no God.

There is this deep-rooted belief, and it is expressed regularly online (as well as other places), that a well educated person can only arrive at certain conclusions. If we all had the same logical process this would be true. And for the most part, our logic probably is very similar. But the reason this doesn't happen is our premises are different.

If we accept the Bible as the standard, rather than human reason, we arrive at the conclusion that life (even in the womb) is valuable. If we accept human reason as the standard, rather than the Bible, we arrive at the conclusion that life (even if only in the womb) is not yet life. Because really, what does life matter at all? Without God, it doesn't. Period.

All of this is important to our understanding of, and patience with non-Christians. I get so frustrated with people who think I'm stupid because of my conclusions. But the Bible tells us the truth is foolishness to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18). If our premise is truth, to them it is foolishness. What can we do?

We can tell them about the Love of Jesus. We can have patience when they think us foolish. And we can pray our lips dry that the Lord would help them to see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10).

Done baby.

2011-12-03T09:07:00.001-06:00

In other news, I graduated from seminary on Wednesday. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment so much as a relief. Still, I'm stoked.

Dining with the Devil by Os Guinness

2011-12-03T08:56:00.001-06:00

This is easily in the top three book I've read this year. The premise of the book is that the megachurch movement has blindly embraced modernism for its methodology and as a justification for its existence.

First he makes the point I did in my most recent post with this:

"On the one hand, does the term church refer to 'the people of God,' including all the people in a local area, or to a particular local church and its facility and programs? The two are not necessarily the same."

Then:

"On the other hand, is the term growth to be understood quantitively, in terms of size and numbers, or qualitatively, in terms of depth, character, and spirit?"

Or better:

"In the case of the church-growth movement, this idolizing trend can develop in one of two ways: either the insights and tools of modernity are themselves relied upon idolatrously, or the churches themselves becomes idolatrous because their very success as institutions makes them into an end in themselves."

Then he quotes Philip Rieff saying:

"What characterizes modernity, I think, is just this idea that men need not submit to any power—higher or lower—other than their own."

And what characterizes the church growth movement is the belief that we can figure out through methodology how to grow a church—void of the Holy Spirit. Of course they wouldn't say the point is to grow the church void of the Holy Spirit, but in practice that is what the emphasis on analysis and methodology are doing. Not all megachurches are this way, but the movement as a whole trends this way.

He then mentions this ridiculously convicting line about a Japanese businessman who says to a visiting Austrailian:

"Whenever I meet a buddhist leader, I meet a holy man. Whenever I meet a Christian leader, I meet a manager. . . . The two most easily recognizable hallmarks of secularization in America are the exaltation of numbers and technique."

I don't know about you, but as a Christian leader I have far too often fancied myself a good manager rather than a holy man. When you step down in leadership what do people say about you? You managed meetings well? You dressed respectably? Or you had a profound and contagious relationship with your savior?

When methodology is the focus then statistics about people coming in the door are the measure of how well the methodology is working.

"One obvious problem with this mentality is that quantity does not measure quality. Numbers—or what the Southern Baptists call 'nickels and noses'—have little to do with truth, excellence, or character."

Not all of this book is negative. While it is primarily a critique, Guinness is really arguing that there are some wonderful things about modernity. Modernity has some things which certainly can be used by the Body of Christ, but we need to be careful about the way we include them. Otherwise we chance becoming dependent on numbers and results instead of, you know, God.

In response to this book, while I agree and think the megachurch movement is a result of a blind embrace of modernity (as Guinness argues), I would posit that the house-church movement is a blind embrace of post-modernity. Both are not inherently bad, but both can be foolish when blindly embraced.

The concluding sentence in my opinion is just as useful when considering post-modernity as it is when considering modernity:

"By all means dine freely at the table of [post-]modernity, but in God's name keep your spoons long."

Brilliant. Guinness' book can be had on Amazon for about $13 new, $0.45 used, and $10 on kindle. I cannot suggest it enough. Dining With the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts With Modernity.

Our Ecclesiology is Fundamentally Flawed

2011-11-18T21:13:00.001-06:00

This is a post I've been meaning to write for some time. Life has been busy despite it being furlough for me. I have recently had quite a bit of "down" time, but this is time which is designated for spending with the family. I consider myself both privileged to be in a job which values my family, and burdened with a job where I am disqualified for much if my family falls apart. It's amazing how much a person in a secular job can allow something like a divorce to not affect his work. But that is a topic for another post.

Some background for this may be necessary. I work for a para-church organization. In raising my initial support years ago, a very close pastor friend of mine told me, "I cannot give money to [organization name here] because I believe it is a sinful organization because it is operating outside of the church. I do not give to para-church organizations." At the time I was confused by it, but I didn't really know why. Was he right? Is there something inherently sinful about para-church organizations because they operate outside of a relationship with a group which meets between certain walls on a Sunday? This man would perfectly willingly have given money to a missionary who was sent out by that local congregation, even one who would do the very same things as me. Because then it would have been a "church" activity as opposed to "para-church."

More recently I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's definition of a church (scroll down to VI. The Church), and I was wondering what might make a campus fellowship different from an actual church. According to this definition, many campus fellowships I know may qualify as a church. Or fail to qualify only because they do not include the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

My work is not campus, but city focused. A large part of what we do is training local church leaders in theology, and church planting. I've realized that among them (and this is true in America as well) a very common attitude is, "I'm in this for myself, for the sake of growing the biggest church in this city." This is something we work very hard to combat. Specifically we want people to instead have an attitude of, "We're in this together for the sake of furthering God's kingdom in this city."

What I'm to suggesting is that our ecclesiology (the study of the Church) should be one of the Church as the body of Christ (period). Not the church as the body of Christ which happens to meet from 9:30-11:00 AM on Sundays in your renovated warehouse.

The implications of this are much bigger than you might think.

The opening line to the Wikipedia entry on ecclesiology has this sad statement: "Today, ecclesiology usually refers to the theological study of the Christian church. However when the word was coined in the late 1830s, it was defined as the science of the building and decoration of churches and it is still, though rarely, used in this sense."

Books on ecclesiology today are about how to build a big church. Or the better ones may be about how to build a healthy church. But they're still talking about the "building and decoration of churches." The body of Christ does not need decorating. It has been washed clean by the blood of Christ. The buildings in which the body of Christ meets on Sunday mornings need decorations. But is worrying about such details where we should be spending our time?

Shouldn't we instead be studying the body of Christ. How we as the body of Christ work together; how we as the body of Christ function together. How we as the body of Christ can love one another and reach and transform the world. Para-church is a misnomer inherently because those who are of the body of Christ (no matter who employs them) are a member of the body of Christ. I am not offended when someone refers to me as working for a para-church organization. But it should concern all of us when the hand says it refuses to support the foot because it doesn't believe it is a part of the body. Just because the hand says the foot is not a part of the body does not mean the foot ceases to be a part of the body.

Okay, but before this drifts further into rant-that-only-quotes-wikipedia territory, lets look at the Biblical evidence. I would like to state that this is something I'm still just formulating in my head, and I would love feedback about it. If you think I'm way off base let me know, or making a big deal out of nothing let me know. But I think this has huge implications.

The Biblical references to the word church (ecclesia) are the following (if I'm missing something let me know):


Universal Church	A Body of Believers	A City Church
Matt 16:18	Matt 18:17	Acts 8:1
Acts 8:3	Acts 5:11	Acts 9:31
Acts 12:1	Acts 11:26	Acts 11:22
Acts 20:28	Acts 12:5	Acts 13:1
1 Cor 10:32	Acts 14:23	Acts 14:27
1 Cor 11:22	Rom 16:23	Acts 15:3
1 Cor 12:28	1 Cor 4:17	Acts 15:4
1 Cor 15:9	1 Cor 6:4	Acts 15:22
Gal 1:13	1 Cor 11:18	Acts 18:22
Eph 1:22	1 Cor 14:4	Acts 20:17
Eph 3:10	1 Cor 14:5	Rom 16:1
Eph 3:21	1 Cor 14:12	1 Cor 1:2
Eph 5:23	1 Cor 14:23	1 Cor 5:12
Eph 5:24	1 Cor 14:28	1 Cor 11:18
Eph 5:25	1 Cor 14:35	2 Cor 1:1
Eph 5:27	1 Cor 16:19	Col 4:16
Eph 5:29	Phil 5:15	1 Thess 1:1
Eph 5:32	1 Tim 3:5	2 Thess 1:1
Phil 3:6	1 Tim 3:7	Rev 2:1
Col 1:18	1 Tim 3:15	Rev 2:8
Col 1:24	1 Tim 5:16	Rev 2:12
Col 1:25	Philemon 1:2	Rev 2:18
Heb 12:23	Jam 5:14	Rev 3:1
	3 John 1:6	Rev 3:7
	3 John 1:9	Rev 3:14
	3 John 1:10

I've divided every usage of the word church in to one of three categories: (1) the Church universal, (2) a body of believers, and (3) a city church. These lines are not particularly clear cut, and there are a few of these which might easily have fit more than one category. But in the above references how many do you see which match a specific meeting location (other than a city)? While I didn't list them, there are actually two: Romans 16:5, and Col 4:15. In both these instances Paul actually references the church that meets in a specific house.

Now, I'm not saying the groups that meet in buildings on Sundays should no longer be called "church." I think any gathering of believers is well defined by the word. But unless each city had only one church the entire third column also fits in with the first two in the sense that the word Church is used for body of Christ. Believers, as we relate to one another. This is ecclesiology.

If we are the body of Christ why are we not united? Why is First Presbyterian completely ignoring First Baptist down the street? We can disagree on the finer points of our theology but we cannot disagree that we are the body of Christ. Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." By this, I would argue, He did not mean, "When Senior Pastor A loves executive Pastor B at Bob's Bible Church they will know you are my disciples." But rather, "When Senior Pastor A from Wesley Methodist Church loves Executive Pastor B at Calvin's Presbyterian Church they will know you are my disciples."

Our ecclesiology has become fundamentally inward focused. We are concerned with the structure, authority, programs, and decorations of our buildings rather than the expansion of God's Kingdom through cooperation with the other members of the body of Christ. Our ecclesiology is fundamentally flawed.

What if your church saw itself as a part of the body of Christ in your city? What if your church actually said, "Not everyone will agree with us theologically, but as long as we can agree on the majors of the gospel we will work with any evangelical church in this area to expand the Kingdom of God."

One of the beauties of the interdenominational para-church organization I work for, is that we are required to agree on the majors and agree to disagree on the minors. We are a large organization which I think demonstrates the body of Christ in a beautiful way. Wesleyans work alongside of Calvinists. Dispensationalists work alongside, well, non-dispys and they seek God's Kingdom over their own theological agenda. Have an opinion. Please do. But don't let your opinion convince you that the foot down the street is not a part of Christ's body. Because it will not then cease to be a foot. And for you to try to operate in the body of Christ without the foot, you are crippled dramatically.

What would it take for us to shift our priorities from individual interior decoration to cooperative disciple making? Can we unite over the gospel, disagree on secondaries, and move forward with common mission? Or are we so convinced of the way the hand works, looks, and that we cannot accept our body may need a foot to get around? Where are we spending our time and energy when we think about the church? Are we focused on our pretty building and the kind of coffee we serve, or the body of Christ, it's function, purpose, and unity?

It's an embarrassment that even Wikipedia knows our ecclesiology is flawed.

Reject Those Who Reject the Gospel and Move On?

2011-11-11T15:49:00.001-06:00

"The possibility of rejection was ever present. St. Paul did not establish himself in a place and go on preaching for years to men who refused to act on his teaching. When once he had brought them to a point where decision was clear, he reminded that they should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them. The 'shaking of the lap', the 'shaking of the dust from the feet', the refusal to teach those who refused to act on the teaching, was a vital part of the Pauline presentation of the Gospel. He did not simply “go away;” he openly rejected those who showed themselves unworthy of his teaching. It was part of the Gospel that men might “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.” It is a question which needs serious consideration whether the Gospel can be truly presented if this element is left out. Can there be true teaching which does not involve the refusal to go on teaching? . . . If then we go on teaching where that moral response is refused , we cease to preach the Gospel; we make the teaching a mere education of the intellect."

Holy snap! I have been a full time evangelist for years and this has never occurred to me. Fascinating. This is from Roland Allen's book Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? A book which I'm still chewing on slowly.

(For $2 on Kindle you almost cant afford to NOT read it.)

Thoughts on "Not the Way It's Supposed to Be" by Cornelius Plantinga Jr.

2011-11-09T09:38:00.001-06:00

A friend of mine suggested I read, Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin which, to be honest, I wasn't altogether impressed with until the Epilogue. Mostly the book is just a laundry list of sins and how we should perceive them. I wanted to find it convicting, but little of it had that effect. That said, Plantinga's conclusion was great.

To speak of sin without grace is to minimize the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the fruit of the Spirit and the hope of shalom. . . . But to speak of grace without sin is surely no better. To do this is to trivialize the cross of Jesus Christ, to skate past all the struggling by good people down the ages to forgive, accept, and rehabilitate sinners, including themselves, and therefore to cheapen the grace of God that always comes to us with blood on it. What had we thought the ripping and writhing on Golgotha were all about? To speak of grace without looking squarely at these realities, without painfully honest acknowledgment of our own sin and its effects, is to shrink grace to a mere embellishment of the music of creation, to shrink it down to a mere grace note. In short, for the Christian church (even in its recently popular seeker services) to ignore, euphemize, or otherwise mute the lethal reality of sin is to cut the nerve of the gospel. For the sober truth is that without a full disclosure on sin, the gospel of grace becomes impertinent, unnecessary, and finally uninteresting.

Is Our Ecclesiology Fundamentally Flawed?

2011-11-02T11:44:00.002-05:00

I'm nearly done with my seminary degree (course work is complete and I'm in the final stages of my thesis editing) and so I'm going to finally be getting the reading time I've wanted.

In addition to that I've been pondering something and I'm curious if anyone has feedback. Related to our ecclesiology. Where did we get the notion that our ecclesiology should be about how we govern our local church building's institution rather than the church body in a location?

For example, most modern ecclesiology seems to focus on what it means for an elder to be appointed in the local church (differentiated by a building or a denomination). But what if our ecclesiology was about how we as a church body in a location (city or whatever) should interact with one another?

I ask this because in my brief study of the word "church" every instance I've found refers either to the Church Universal (catholic church), or to the local body (as in the whole body of believers at Corinth, not "the meeting Bob leads at 143 Roman Road").

If you have any thoughts on this please send me an email (rogermugs at gmail dot com). I'm curious to process this a bit before I write and publish something more completely.

Church Planters and Missionalotry ➙

2011-10-15T08:38:00.000-05:00

Second, if you plant a church with a gospel that does not drive us towards regular self-examination, you will steer people towards a social-gospel. There is a lot of talk about the gospel these days, which is great. But the gospel is being reduced to something I imitate, rather than something by which I am saved and sanctified. We are viewing it as something to ”display,” instead of good news by which I am progressively transformed through moritification of sin. The shift is subtle, but unsafe.

Still confused how 'church' has come to mean 'that thing we do on Sundays' rather than 'that body of believers of which we are all a part'. But nonetheless interesting.

Strategy

2011-10-07T13:10:00.003-05:00

Being strategic in mission demonstrates reverence for the weight of the message being taught.

On Preaching

2011-10-01T21:45:00.000-05:00

A teammate of mine recently asked for my thoughts on preaching. I suppose it was warranted as I first asked him to tell me his thoughts. The discussion stems from something I've mentioned here before, my frustration with preaching seeming to be the center of Sunday morning worship meetings, but so few lives seem to be changed by sermons. How many sermons do you genuinely remember in your life? I remember maybe two or three, which is sad considering I've pretty much been a church goer my entire life.

With that said, here are a few of my thoughts on preaching.

Expository vs. Topical

It seems like a recent thing to me (and maybe I'm just new to the scene) that people hail expository preaching as the best thing to happen to the church since the invention of the oak pulpit. The argument that I typically hear seems to revolve around the concept that if you preach topically it will be like giving your child a steady diet of deep fried butter, that is to say, you'll be depriving your people of some sort of needed vitamins (or teaching, as the case may be). Apparently preaching through the word in an expository manner will keep this from happening (more akin to feeding your kid a healthy diet by running the gamut of vegetables, even brussels sprout occasionally).

The issue I have with this thinking is two-fold. First of all the preacher working methodically through different books of the Bible is just as likely as anyone to miss things. Even expository preaching only preaches one interpretation of the scripture as it works through books. God can easily teach two or even ten different things in one verse. The preacher is going to see what he is ready to see in what he teaches, and that will be what he chooses to expound in his sermon. Secondly, the preacher who doesn't preach what is on his heart (because he's stuck in a 52 part series working through the book of Matthew at a pace of 7.2 verses each week) is missing something essential. The Lord puts things on his heart, at least occasionally, and he should preach what he is passionate about when he has the opportunity.

Also, I should mention that one of the most powerful sermons I've ever heard was topical. I was attending a training in the Middle East for Arab Christians who were about to be sent out to the hardest parts of the Middle East. The likelihood of martyrdom for these guys was extremely high, and therefore the burden on the teacher was significant. The guy preaching was an Egyptian man who for three days in a row stood at the front of the classroom and held open his Bible and taught in a way I've never seen before. He would make a point in Matthew and then flip to Exodus to explain the background for his point. Then that would remind him of something he had read that morning in Micah and he'd flip there and draw a diagram on a whiteboard which would require two or three supporting texts from Paul's epistles. This guy knew the word like no one I have ever seen before or since. He let the word make his points, but he jumped around like a crazy person. It was topical, but incredibly biblically based. And his heart was wrapped up in every point he made, which is why I remember it. He spoke passionately about his love of the Lord and the Word. He spoke in a way which shook me to my core because he knew the weight of what he was saying, and the significance of the men to whom he was addressing. He knew he could not change these men's lives, or fates, but that God could change their lives.

I'm not intending here to argue against expository preaching, but I am arguing that it is no more sacred or inherently superior to topical preaching than Hymns are to "Praise Choruses" (I still cant believe people actually call them that). Sermons are only as great as the Pastor's love for the Lord, regardless of the methodology for teaching.

On a related note, recently I read an article in favor of preaching without notes, it seems to suggest that you stay within the text and not jump around to different scripture so as to keep things simple for the congregation and to ease the memorization burden. I have to question anything which limits your ability to teach the word like that. Expository preaching shouldn't mean you don't tie the Word together to other places which relate. The whole Bible does tie together, and not just a little bit, don't make it seem like it doesn't, just so you can appear better prepared.

Unchanged Lives — The Fault of the Preacher or the Listener?

If preaching really isn't changing lives, who's fault is it? Or rather, who bears the responsibility for teaching to change lives? I don't think this falls fully on the shoulders of either the preacher or the listener, but I do think that should be qualified a bit. In my recent frustration about attending so many Sunday mornings and having so little of it actually affect me, I decided I would start to take notes — in my Bible — about what I was hearing. This is a skill I learned much too late in seminary. The notes I took on the papers the professor handed out, would never be referenced again. But the notes I took in my Bible were there when I taught, and wonderfully useful (In another post I'll complain about how far you can get in to a seminary class without opening your Bible, but that will have to be for another day).

Taking notes in my Bible did affect my memory of the sermon and it offered me useful notes that would actually be referenced again later. However, useful notes and life-change are two different things.

But more important than this, while I do believe some of the burden lies on the shoulders of the listener, I think the preacher should take responsibility as a shepherd for leading his sheep. If the sheep never learn that there is a pattern to where he is leading them, or never learn how to head in the right direction themselves then the shepherd might be failing at his job. In the same way a leader takes responsibility for the failure of those who work for him, the preacher is responsible for bad listening. What if we taught our people how to listen? What if we actually spent a sermon or two each year talking about our need to hear and apply the word? And then what if we taught people how to take notes? Or what if a church actually encouraged people to bring their own Bibles?

I strongly believe that choosing to not put the verse on a powerpoint will encourage people to bring their own Bibles. Turning the pages of a real book and finding out where things are in reference to the whole is a good skill for the congregation to have. And the awkwardness of the newcomer having to consult the Table of Contents to know if 1 John is in the New or Old Testament is a good thing. Not knowing the Word of God should be embarrassing to a man (it certainly is embarrassing to me how poorly I know it).

Funny vs. Boring

I'm not actually sure why this topic is discussed as much as it is. Of course preaching with humor is not a sin. I think I may agree with the camp that says that the Word of God is profoundly interesting and the preacher who preaches week after week in a way which makes people think the Word of God is boring may be sinful.

That said, the formulas you hear from some folk (yes they actually give a formula sometimes) about how many minutes you should place between each joke, this is just sad. If you want to grow a church void of the Holy Spirit it can be done, and humor will probably help. But do you really want to do that?

My beef with this comes from the reformed circle from which I am getting my seminary degree. A good friend of mine and a Westminster grad was telling me about the difference between a teaching and a ruling elder in the presbyterian system. I have to say that I find some problems with the qualifications of the former. The latter they seem to have nailed, but the teaching elder needs to have a seminary degree. That in itself is worthy of having taking some issue with, but the bigger problem is that just about anyone who completes a seminary degree can claim that they have "a calling to the pulpit." Even my friend (bless his soul) is a terrible speaker. He speaks so slowly and dully he can put anyone to sleep. He spoke for an hour and a half at a friend's wedding when they wanted him to give a brief evangelistic message. Unfortunately anyone who might have heard the gospel feel asleep before the second of his 13 points.

There is value in preaching the truth with love, and preaching it in a way that communicates just how valuable of a gift the word of God is to us is not a little thing.

20 mins vs. 60 mins

The root of this question is as ridiculous as many of the problems over which we have divided denominations.

Video Venues

I have a lot I would say about this. I have a strong opinion against them in general. That said, I have a friend whom I greatly respect who works for a church with this model and he isn't opposed to the idea inherently. I have too much respect for him and his views on ministry to therefore outright oppose it.

That said, this article made some great points. The question, I think, is appropriately asked, "What are the arguments in favor them?"

The Bottom Line

There are a million more things I could cover on the topic of preaching. It's hard to wrap my head around the topic. I do know that I think the preacher should view preaching as just one aspect of his shepherding. I do think the large there church the more difficult actual shepherding would be. You may be able to teach great, you may be able to gather a crowd, but are you really leading people to Christ, or are you drawing them to yourself? Can you save people?

If the answer is no (and .... um... it is no), then there is probably an appropriate amount of fear in which you should be living.

The bottom line is this: the pastor needs to be ridiculously in love with the Lord. Enamored with His power, love, grace, sovereignty, and salvation. If the pastor knows how small, sinful, and worthless without a savior he is then he will be pointing to Christ with all his heart. He will be preaching of the God who saved him, and he will do so with overwhelming and visible gratitude. This will lead others to Christ. He will then be involved in the lives of his people because he will be afraid to not be. The congregation who knows their pastor personally is capable of calling him to account. The congregation who sees their pastor as entertainer can find the same worth in downloading a few stand-up comedians from iTunes.

Preaching with humble passion comes from passion for the savior. Preaching with humor, great hair, or fireworks comes from a very different place. That place may not be inherently sinful, but it may be from a passion to grow a big church (or the biggest church in town). And that passion may be realized. But how is your pastor acting when he's the second biggest church in town (or the nation)? Is he threatened? Disheartened? Where is his value found?

For the advancement of whose kingdom is your preacher preaching?

I fear we know the sad truth of the answer to this question far too often.

Is Leadership a Biblical Category? ➙

2011-09-25T20:41:00.000-05:00

In Luke 20:26, Jesus is drawing a contrast with how the Gentiles led, and how he wants the church led. The Gentiles lorded it over people and saw exercising authority and controlling people (for the leader’s benefit!) the main thing in leadership. Jesus said: “Not so. That’s a wrong view of leadership. It will not be that way among you.”
. . .
The problem is not leadership, but bad leadership.

When someone who works for you sends you an article like this it might be time for some soul searching. Ha.

Edwards: Many Wo Men Well Actually, Through Lack of Knowledge, Do Great Harm ➙

2011-09-10T22:20:00.000-05:00

The point is: see the vocations God has given you in your life as important and see people as important. And therefore be diligent in fulfilling your vocations and upgrading your skills so that you are actually doing good, and not thinking it is sufficient to merely intend to do good.

William Carey at 250 ➙

2011-09-10T22:18:00.000-05:00

This is old, but I just now got to it in my Instapaper queue. Spectacular brief look in to the man who started a movement, and without whom I would probably not be doing what I do today.

Carey’s plan to evangelize India included a three-pronged approach: preach the gospel, translate the Bible, and establish schools. Proclamation, translation, education.

Which of these do we miss most today? Definitely the third.

Seminary, Sharing About Jesus, and Writing

2011-09-02T11:50:00.000-05:00

Just got back from a seminary class. Interesting because it looks like it might be possible for me to graduate before Christmas and my return to the field (if it happens after, it wont be for several years). The trip was also interesting because I met so many people willing to talk about Jesus. One guy in particular who entered into a discussion with me at a bar in the airport (over beer—ha!) was very interesting. My discussions about Jesus in the field are always very different than in America. This guy grew up a Christian and knew what it meant to believe, but wrestles with doubt and modern "popular knowledge." But after discussing some philosophical hang-ups he eventually stopped me and admitted we dont really know about a lot of the scientific things, and at the end of the day the choice is one of faith. I was impressed by this, normally I have to be the one to make this transition and I don't always do so well, so I was shocked when he did it without me. Anyhow. He'll be reading some things I suggested and I've got hope for him that he'll sort through his salvation. The mere fact that was interested in wrestling with the truth of Jesus is always encouraging. My hope for my time home these many months was to get a lot more writing done. It looks like that will happen, but primarily with seminary and not here. I could use your prayers. An adoption, furlough, and seminary have turned out to be quite the line of expenses. The Lord has always provided generously and I've no reason to believe he wont continue to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm not uncomfortable.

Life Lesson: Do Things.

2011-08-20T13:51:00.000-05:00

I've heard it said that in our twenties we fumble around in life trying to figure out what we're good at. Then in our thirties we know what we're good at and spend the next decade or so getting better at it. Our forties are spent getting fat, then our fifties growing senile.

While I don't know about those last two, the first two sound like they're probably pretty right on. As a wiener of a twenty year old I put my hand to everything and succeeded grandly at none of it. I don't know that I could argue I'm succeeding at much of it even now, but I've learned what I really enjoy and what I'm good at. Something nobody told me is that having children will give you a tight focus in life. After my second girl was born I found myself sitting down and making a list of things I wanted to do in life for hobbies outside of work. My list was about 5 items:

Run
Write
Mountain Bike
Program
Graduate Studies

I don't think I dwelled on this for very long before I realized with two children I was fooling myself and cut out numbers 3-5. Those who know me know it took time to cut some of these out. I'm still working on finishing up one of my graduate degrees, but it is prioritized low on my list. Always losing out to running and writing.

For about four years now I've had this blog (and my other for almost as long), and it's changed dramatically over the years. I'm okay with that. Things I learned about writing:

Write like a crazy person.
Never announce a change of direction for your writing (blog et al.), just change direction.
Write like a crazy person.
Revising is only painful at first, it quickly becomes a pleasure.

Just because you can publish anything without reviewing it at all doesn't mean you should. Writing is about writing, therefore write. And write. And write some more.

Similarly here are some things I've learned about running:

Run like an idiot.
Don't wear shoes.
Run like an idiot.
You will fart your brains out after the 5th mile. This is normal.

I used to run for the sake of mental stability. The biggest change I ever made was shedding my shoes — now I run because I love it. I run far because I don't want to stop, and mental stability has become a mere pleasant side effect. As a side note, don't run during the day barefoot on pavement which has been cooked by the 104 degree Houston sun; run in the morning, or just before sundown.

On reflecting on these things I realized these lessons also have parallels in my spiritual life. Knowing what I know now, I wish someone would have told me the following:

Chase God like a fool.
Ask God for the desire to desire Him.
Chase God like a fool.
When you find yourself distracted by the world (fame, lust, pride, money) it's probably because you're failing at numbers 1 and 3.

You'll find the things you love to do are really pretty simple. You could spend hours each day reading about how to do them better, but the best way to learn to anything is just to do it so much it becomes ridiculous. The best way to learn to run is to run till your legs feel like Jello, and then some more. The best way to write is to write so much you don't just discern a writing voice, you discover two or three, and you learn a Hindu accent just to mix things up. The best way to follow the Lord is to chase after Him like nothing else matters.

Walk slow. Run fast. Write all the time. Publish only some of it. Wake up early. Read the Bible and mark it up as though it is God-breathed revelation — because it is.

The time you spend reading about something should never outweigh the time you spend actually doing it. The Getting Things Done (GTD) crowd is the epitome of failure in this world. You could spend 4 of your 8 hours every day learning new software to help you better get things done or you could actually just do things.

Time spent writing should be greater than time spent reading about how to write, or trying new writing software. Time spent running should be greater than time spent reading about running or running gear. Time spent with God should be greater than time spent reading about how to spend time with God.

The truth is, if you do numbers 1 and 3 in any of these you will figure out 2 and 4 in no time. Everything other than passionate pursuit is secondary and will be learned through experience if you maintain said passion. And maintaining passion is easy if you just stay in the pursuit.

Knowing what things are worthy of your time can be difficult. But once you've decided where you will spend your time, the how is simple. Listen to Nike — Just do it.

Awkward Transitions Aren't Awkward When We're Passionate

2011-08-19T10:34:00.002-05:00

Dude, check out my shoes.
Hey, did you see my bike? It's Harley.
Did I tell you about my new home? It has a pool.
Hold that thought, check out my new flat screen TV.
Bro, let me tell you about the God who saved me.

Just saying.

Ministry: Whose Kingdom? ➙

2011-08-16T12:22:00.000-05:00

You see, the biggest protection against the kingdom of self is not a set of self-reformative defensive strategies. It’s a heart that’s so blown away by the right-here, right-now glories of the grace of Jesus Christ that you’re not easily seduced by the lesser temporary glories of that claustrophobic kingdom of one, the kingdom of self.

Bringing to mind the same truth worded differently,

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face;
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace.