Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 28, 2013 in Ecclesiology | 0 comments

Reflections on the Ordination Process One Year Later

It’s been just about one year since I finished my ordination exams. The year since then has seen quite a few changes for us, as we’ve traveled, moved several times, and begun to study another language in earnest. I’m sure my own thoughts on the ordination process will change and so on the more years I serve, there’s one thing that has come back to me several times: gratitude.

Don’t get me wrong. There were some aspects of the ordination process that were somewhat less than awesome.

E.g., whether I know the name of Jeremiah’s scribe or not seems to have little or no connection to life, ministry, theology, etc.

But one of the things that ordination forced me to do was to memorize where to find Scripture references that deal with a number of topics. With some of them, I had to memorize the content of the verses themselves, but for many, I just had to be able to summarize the content.

Even in this one, abnormal year of my life since finishing my exams, I have found the incredible value of knowing where to find those Scripture references.

Someone asked me just this past week some tough questions about spiritual warfare, wanting advice from Scripture, not experience, and so thankfully I was forced to know that Ephesians 6 speaks clearly and directly, as does 1 Peter 5, and we have Jesus’ example of resisting the devil with the word of God in Matthew 4. And similar examples regarding other topics have happened many times in the past year.

Of course, ordination also shows you how little you really know about so many topics, but it forces us to have a foundation of knowledge in Scripture. The main thing for those of us who have gone through the process is to continue to grow in our knowledge of Scripture, and more importantly, in our knowledge of our Savior.

But though the process was hard, I am grateful that our denomination deems it important for us to really know the Bible.

Read More

Posted by on Aug 8, 2012 in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology, Missiology |

Some Thoughts on Total Church by Chester and Timmis

Having had it recommended to me by several people recently, I just read Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. I found it to be a compelling and stimulating read, so I’ve decided to write out some thoughts about it. I will likely be writing more on a few specific topics raised in the book, but here are some overview thoughts for now. The table of contents is below:

As you can see, the book covers a number of topics, but its central premise is that the church–from its life and organization to its mission–should be shaped around two pillars: gospel and community. This theme is woven through every page of the book. After laying out this basic premise in the first two chapters, the remaining flesh out how that can look in the life the church. I’ll probably be posting numerous times in the coming days about specific ideas from the book, but for now, I want to offer just a few commendations and concerns.

Commendations

Chester and Timmis stick to their guns: gospel and community are the two driving forces behind their approach to the church and to church planting. This is evident throughout the book. Whether it’s discipleship, evangelism, apologetics, pastoral care, or any of the other topics they discuss, gospel and community take center stage. And that’s quite refreshing in the program-heavy church church environment in which we now live.

The book is of immense practical benefit in thinking about how the church is always to keep its focus on reaching its community, and how Christians can and should rethink their role in such an effort. To give an idea of where they go with their practical ideas, consider this list of what it might mean to be gospel-centered and community-centered:

  • seeing church as an identity instead of a responsibility to be juggled alongside other commitments
  • celebrating ordinary life as the context in which the word of God is proclaimed with ‘God-talk’ as a normal feature of everyday conversation
  • running fewer evangelistic events, youth clubs, and social projects, and spending more time sharing our lives with unbelievers
  • starting new congregations instead of growing existing ones
  • preparing Bible talks with other people instead of just studying alone at a desk
  • adopting a 24-7 approach to mission and pastoral care instead of starting ministry programs
  • switching the emphasis from Bible teaching to Bible learning and action
  • spending more time with people on the margins of society
  • learning to disciple one another–and to be discipled–day by day
  • having churches that are messy instead of churches that pretend

Now, I might want to quibble with some of the details, but in terms of the big picture, those are some practical goals that are fleshed out with some degree of clarity in the book. It’s also easy to tell that programs are not a big feature of their vision for the church. Instead, living life in community, and including unbelievers in that community, are the central features of the church’s outreach in the community. I would imagine that every pastor would say, “Yes! If only…” In some ways, we probably have programs because church members have either become isolated from nonbelievers, or not encouraged to bring unbelievers into the community, or are just too uncomfortable doing so. I highly encourage reading some of the ideas (and snippets of stories from real life) on how to do and encourage this.

Following up on this, I thought that the application of their two-pronged approach to apologetics had some very insightful comments. Consider this one:

This does not mean that there is no place for rational apologetics. But it means that such approaches must be less ambitious. Their role is not to persuade unbelievers. The role of rational apologetics is to demonstrate that unbelief is a problem of the heart rather than a problem of the head. (p. 172)

They also take aim at the approach that many middle to upper class churches take toward church planting and leadership development.

One of the reasons we have middle-class churches that are failing to reach working-class people is that we have middle-class leaders. And we have middle-class leaders because our expectations of what constitutes leadership and our training methods are middle-class. Indeed working-class people only get into leadership by effectively becoming middle-class. (p. 120)

That’s a bit of a searing indictment, but my denomination must profess that it is at least partially true. Now, I’m grateful for the ordination standards of my denomination, and there have been steps taken in the past few years to make our ordination standards more accessible to those who can’t uproot for 3-4 years to go into full-time seminary. But nonetheless, this is a conversation that the PCA needs to keep having, even as we hold on to our belief that the shepherds of Christ’s church should know Christ’s word.

There’s plenty of other ideas that are helpful in the book, but as I intend to blog about them in coming days, I’ll wait on them and go on to a few concerns.

Concerns

First, the discussion of sermons and preaching seems underdeveloped in the book. This comes through on several levels. The authors seem to encourage moving away from a sermon-centered approach to teaching and worship to a community-led, discussion-based learning model. They even claim that the sermon as such didn’t exist till after Constantine. But little defense is offered for such an approach, other than that there is less likelihood that a whole community will be led astray from Scripture’s teaching when they process it together.

Notwithstanding questions about such a claim, there seems to enough Scriptural testimony on the topic that it deserves more attention than that. While I don’t believe one book can address every issue, if you’re going to take a bite out of such a staple of how church has been done for quite some time, I would think that you’d want some more support for it than that.

Secondly, following up on that, the issue of authority seems quite neglected. In a book entitled Total Church, there is little to no discussion of elders and how leadership as such factors into the planting and discipling of churches. That seems like a glaring issue, as the establishing of local leadership seemed rather important in Acts and the Pauline epistles. Further, they claim that the Protestant response to the Roman hierarchy was that each person was his own individual pope (p. 159).

That seems to be quite a misunderstanding of what the Reformers actually taught, and so it seems to create a false dichotomy between a leadership-led interpretation of Scripture and a community-led interpretation of Scripture.Ironically, the Anabaptists are lifted up as the example of those who followed a community model of interpretation, despite the fact that they were the ones that the Reformers accused of taking individualistic interpretations too far. At the very least, the discussion of this issue in the book needed to be clearer and fuller.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 15, 2012 in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology | 2 comments

Review of Word versus Deed by Duane Liftin

Word Versus Deed: Resetting the Scales to a Biblical Balance by Duane Liftin has an admirable goal: to give clarity to the relationship between the verbal proclamation of the gospel and the good deeds that are to characterize the Christian life. He sees opposite errors in some wings of the church today. One temptation is to think that we can “preach the gospel with our actions,” and thus no verbal witness to Christ is unnecessary. He puts it quite strongly throughout the book:

My goal in this chapter is to put to rest once and for all the false notion that we can preach the gospel by our deeds; that is, that our actions can substitute for the verbal witness of the gospel. Why is this important? It’s important because it is crucial that we remain clear about the unique complementary roles both our words and our deeds are designed to play in the mission of the church.

Another temptation that he targets is the idea that because evangelism and verbal gospel proclamation are so important, Christians shouldn’t be concerned about doing physical good in their communities. The structure of the book (Part 1: The Importance of Our Words; Part 2: The Importance of Our Deeds) highlights his attempt to provide balance, to urge that Christians must care about both words and deeds.

Helpful Ideas

First, Liftin regularly uses the field of communication to provide insight into the discussion. For the most part, I found this to be  helpful way of framing the discussion. In particular, in Part 1 he uses the verbal/non-verbal communication distinction to provide some clarity to the relationship between words and deeds.

Secondly, in my opinion, Part 1 (The Importance of Our Words) was excellent. Liftin helpfully clarifies why the language of “preach the gospel without words” is not biblical and possibly harmful to our thinking:

Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles ever “preached the gospel” by their actions, nor could they. There is both a carelessness of thought and sloppiness of language inherent in the claim that we can preach the gospel without words. Such a claim requires either that the gospel be emptied of its cognitive information or that we equivocate in our use of the term preach. But both of these strategies lead to confusion.

His point is that the good news of Christ is inherently verbal, and thus it can’t be proclaimed without words. To use language that suggests otherwise is to possibly confuse how we end up thinking about the mission of the church.

Thirdly, Liftin gives helpful food for thought in Part 2 (The Importance of Our Deeds) about how to think through how the gospel ought to affect our deeds in five spheres of life: (1) personal life, (2) family, (3) God’s people, (4) society at large, (5) natural creation. He has many insightful ideas for how to think through how the good news causes us to live as those who love God and love the things that he loves.

Fourthly, Liftin provides a healthy emphasis on exegeting the Scriptures faithfully. Part 3 of the book is devoted to discussing the importance of handling Scripture correctly. He spends an entire chapter examining three texts (Jeremiah 29:4-7; Luke 4:16-21; Matthew 25:31-46) that are typically used to defend the church’s involvement in good deeds in the broader community. His basic point in the chapter is one that bears repeating in the context of many other discussions: the points that people try to make from them may be true points, but the passages just don’t make them. I would particularly recommend his thoughts on Jeremiah 29, as they helped me to refine my own perspective on that passage (which says that the Israelites should seek the welfare of the city–Babylon–that they find themselves in).

Less Helpful Areas

Notwithstanding the helpful ideas that Liftin contributed to the discussion, there were also some ways in which I found the book to provide not more clarity, but less. I’ll briefly describe each of those.

First, some of Liftin’s language in Part 2 baffled me because it seemed to provide confusion in the exact areas that he emphasized precision in Part 1. For example, whereas in Part 1 he was adamant that one cannot preach the gospel without words and that the gospel must be verbal because of its cognitive content, he then makes statements like this in Part 2:

It is a gospel that not only must be preached; it must be lived. It must be incarnated in the concrete details of our lives, enacted by Christ’s church before a watching world.

This baffles me because here he seems to be suggesting that the gospel can be lived, enacted (that is, put into action). This seems to be the very confusion of language that he was criticizing earlier in the book! Now his basic point is right, I think, which is that the gospel can’t be just something that we express but something that then drives us to live differently. I agree strongly. But given that he spends so much time emphasizing the clarity of language, I find it puzzling that he would then return to language that makes it sound like the gospel can be expressed non-verbally.

Secondly, I don’t think enough emphasis or clarity was given to the distinction between the church as the church and individual Christians in the world. That is, while he does reference it at one point in book in passing, there is no sustained reflection on the church as institution versus the church as organism (to use Kuyper’s wording). That, in my opinion, is one of the crucial elements in this whole discussion. For example, he mentions creation care as something that should matter to Christians (though he careful to distinguish this general principle from specific policy applications), but he fails to discuss then whether the institutional church’s mission should encompass this.

Conclusion

Word versus Deed is a mixed bag as far as I am concerned. There is much that is commendable, helpful, even insightful. But there are also a few areas of confusion that I think introduce a lack of clarity, which is unfortunate given that the book seeks to provide clarity in the discussion. For those interested in the word versus deed relationship, though, I would recommend reading the book as he does give many good things to think about, particularly in the exegesis of specific passages.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 11, 2011 in Ecclesiology |

The Church: Organism and Institution

Having been in Christian communities for some time, I have heard lots of opinions and feelings expressed about the church, and I have also recognized that various denominations and traditions view the church quite differently. On the one side, we have the approach of the Roman Catholic church, which strongly emphasizes the hierarchy of leaders going all the way up to the pope. In Roman Catholic church councils, the popes have made it clear that the true church is identified by the institution under the authority of the pope.

On the other hand, I’ve known many believers in Christ who argue that the church is purely those who confess him as Lord. In this view, the church is simply believers gathering together, whether it be at a coffee shop for a conversation, or at Chili’s for dinner, meeting up for a game of golf, or meeting together for a “let’s all share what we are learning” Bible study. This end of the spectrum could be described as emphasizing the church as organism, that is, the simple gathering of those who confess Jesus is Lord.

This difference in understanding of the church (the doctrine of ecclesiology) has some significant implications. First, while in the Roman Catholic view, there is a rigid distinction between clergy and laity (even in how they are supposed to live), in the second, any distinction between ministers in the church and church members is downplayed or even eradicated. Secondly, emphasizing either the institution or the organism over the other often leads to divergent views on the role of the church in social justice, care for the poor, cultural and political involvement, and so on. If the church is primarily an organism, a group of individuals bound together in belief, then the scope of the church’s involvement in the world is as broad as the involvement of those individuals. If, however, the church is primarily an institution, then the scope of the church’s involvement is determined by the scope of the clergy’s involvement in the world. The mission is often more refined. These are broad generalizations, but they often play out in the lives of churches.

What then is the essence of the church? Is it primarily a gathered group of individuals, or is it an institution with officers and a specific calling? All would agree that the church is not the building in which people meet, but is instead about the people. But given that, how can we define or describe the essence of the church?

An Either/Or?

As with many things in life, the answer is not in either of the two extremes, but somewhere in the middle. Herman Bavinck has some helpful things to say about this topic:

The church on earth is both passively a gathered community or organism, and actively the mother of all believers, an institution. Neither must be played against the other; both are the work of Christ. [Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4, 326]

…the question concerning the priority of the institution or of the organism betrays its own one-sidedness. The two are given in conjunction and continually interact with and impact each other. [Ibid., 332]

In other words, the church is an organism, a community made up of those who confess Jesus as Lord, but it is also an institution with officers, wish a mission, and with a certain role in the world. Does that mean the Catholic view and the “we don’t need an institutional church” view are both right? No, what it means is that the church is essentially a community of those who confess Jesus as Lord, but who, this side of eternity at least, are organized in the manner that God has prescribed, namely under the shepherding of elders. These elders do not have a special status before God or a different manner of godliness (contrary to the Roman church’s insistence on celibacy, for example).

One does not have to approach God in prayer or confession through a specialized person because every believer is a priest. But this does not mean that we should overlook the divine institution of the church. Instead, we affirm both that the church has an established order and mission on this earth and that every believer has a relationship with God.

Implications

I hope to think through more of the implications of this in future posts, but for now, a couple come to mind:

(1) Christians should not be loners, or even “group-loners.” Christians need community, and they even need the institutional community with elders who shepherd their souls. I love my friends, but while getting together and spending time together is essential, it is not sufficient. We need the institutional church because it is established by God.

(2) The church as an institution has a narrower calling in the world than does the church as organism. They are tightly interconnected, but what individual Christians may do is not necessarily what the institutional church must do. That is, while a member of the organism of the church may be influencing politics and running for office in order to effect positive change in society, the institutional church’s mission is not to do the same. Her calling is to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, pray, and enable the people to fellowship, not to force political events and change to happen.

Now certainly, figuring how those apply in every single situation is not easy. Godly wisdom has to pervade reasoning through the application of these, but it seems to me that there are dangers in ignoring either one of these aspects of the church’s essence.

Read More

Posted by on Feb 1, 2011 in Reformed Theology |

5 Things the Non-Reformed Can Learn from the Reformed (1)

Some time ago I posted some thoughts from John Frame on what Reformed people can learn from non-Reformed people (see 5 Things the Reformed can Learn from the non-Reformed and 5 More Things Reformed People can Learn from non-Reformed People), and so I thought now I would write the converse of that: what are some of the most important things that non-Reformed people can learn from Reformed people?

One of the difficulties of writing this is that “non-Reformed” hardly refers to a monolithic group of people. What might really benefit Pentecostals might be greeted by a “yes, of course” from Southern Baptists, and vice versa. But nonetheless, while I obviously acknowledge that the Reformed have things to learn from those that are not Reformed, here are some important areas that Reformed theology has a great deal of good to say to the church as a whole.

#1: A Long History of Biblical Reflection

One of the beautiful doctrinal truths emphasized in the Reformation was sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is the final authority for the church. The Reformed creeds and confessions reiterated this commitment, and many Reformed denominations have been unswerving in their commitment to this ideal.

Nonetheless, the Reformers’ commitment to sola Scriptura should not be misconstrued as solo Scriptura, an aberration in which each person looks at Scripture apart from any consideration of what the church, tradition, history, or other believers have to say. Indeed, the Reformers’ constant commitment to Scripture as the final authority, and yet their persistence in reading and incorporating the ideas of the early church fathers demonstrates the beauty of how sola Scriptura actually works.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we should ignore the teaching of God’s word from the past. It means that those teachings are ultimately judged by Scripture, as is everything else that we do. But how does all of this relate to what the non-Reformed can learn from the Reformed?

My point is this: the Reformed tradition contains a long history of reflection on Scripture as the final authority. And this ought not to be sneezed at. Certain other theological novelties (dispensationalism, a 19th century phenomenon, for example) do not have such a rich tradition on which to draw. But the Reformed tradition not only has pastors and theologians (who obviously disagreed on a variety of topics) but also confessions, that is, summaries of the teaching of Scripture meant to guide the church. They are not infallible.

In general, I think a case can be made that modern evangelicals have left the teaching of historic confessions of the church (whether it be the Westminster Confession, the 3 Forms of Unity, the 1689 London Baptist Confession) without rigorous exegesis (again, a general statement). Surely such a tradition is of great value, and evangelicals can stand to learn a great deal from how leaders from the past have summarized Scripture’s teaching. The non-Reformed can stand to gain a great appreciation for theological tradition informed by Scripture, as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel regularly.

#2: A Robust Ecclesiology

Reformed theology has placed great emphasis on ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. The church is not merely a social club or a theological discussion group (though certainly even some Reformed folks have failed to live up to their theology on this one), but a local expression of the body of Christ, governed by officers commissioned by Christ to shepherd his people.

This understanding of the church leads to a model for dealing with problems in the church that emphasizes plurality of leadership and checks and balances on that leadership. While various Reformed groups may use different terms, the point is that churches are not islands, but rather that they can and ought to be connected. And when serious problems arise, they can join together to deal with those, as a plurality of leaders. The Reformed approach to this can be a helpful counter to the individualism that pervades American culture, even in evangelicalism.

I’ll leave the last three to another post, but for now, let me make one thing clear (if it’s not already, by way of the original two posts related to this topic): I am not saying that the Reformed tradition is beyond error. That would be foolish, since the Reformed have not (and indeed do not now) always agreed on everything, and because sola Scriptura is still the operating principle. But nonetheless, I do believe that Reformed theology contains the best summary of Scripture’s teaching, and that in particular, the confessions of Reformed theology are wonderful guiding documents that ought to be carefully considered by those from outside the Reformed tradition, particularly in the area of ecclesiology.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: