Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

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 Apr 9, 2012 in Book Reviews |

Review of Counterfeit Gospels by Trevin Wax

It seems that the flow of “gospel-centered” books has flowed without ceasing in the past couple of years. Thus, while reading more books about the gospel can hardly be a bad thing, I also must admit that I was not expecting much that was insightful when I began to read Counterfeit Gospels by Trevin Wax. To my surprise, I found the book to be helpful in a number of ways.

First, Counterfeit Gospels summarizes the gospel (the good news) in a fresh, though faithful way. He depicts it as a stool with three legs:  (1) the gospel story, (2) the gospel announcement, and (3) the gospel community. “Each leg of the stool,” Wax says, “is important because each relates to the other two. The gospel story provides the biblical narrative necessary for us to understand the nature of the gospel announcement. Likewise, the gospel announcement births the gospel community that centers its common life upon the transformative truth of Jesus Christ” (17). While the traditional Reformed depiction of the good news is twofold (redemption accomplished and applied, a la John Murray’s book of that title), I found this threefold category helpful, as it keeps together many of the aspects of the good news that Scripture seems to hold together.

Secondly, the book is laid out in a clear and consistent method. The three parts follow the three legs of the stool, with each part containing three chapters. The first chapter in each part explains one of the legs of the stool in light of Scripture. The latter two chapters in each part evaluate a counterfeit gospel (six in total, the therapeutic, judgmentless, moralistic, quietist, activist, and churchless gospels), another message that masquerades as the truth in many churches and hearts. This structure provides not only a logical progression of thought, but helpful tools for evaluating the messages around us.

Thirdly, in each section dealing with the counterfeit gospels, Wax explains not only why the counterfeit “gospel” is in error, as well as how to respond to it, but also why it is attractive. I found this insightful, because he demonstrates that each counterfeit takes something attractive, something with a bit of truth in it, and thus draws people to it. But pieces of truth are not enough when it comes to the gospel.

Lastly, Wax frames some important issues in some helpful (and quotable) ways. Regarding the death of Christ and our response, he says, “Because Jesus was filled with horror and cried out, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ we are filled with wonder and cry, ‘My God, my God, why have you accepted me?’” (98). Regarding the role of the law and grace in our spiritual growth, he says, “Life transformation doesn’t follow ‘but’; it follows ‘so now.’ You are saved by grace, so no you are free to live for God in this way or that. Life change is grounded in the gospel alone, not in the law’s updates” (113). On how the church should relate to efforts at social change, he says, “Stay centered on the gospel that brings social change, not the gospel of social change” (182).

As Wax says at the end of the book, this is hardly the final word on the good news of Jesus Christ. But it is nonetheless a helpful contribution to our understanding of the gospel in all its fullness.

Note: I was given a free copy of Counterfeit Gospels by Moody Publishers as part of their blogger review program. I was not required to write a positive review. See more information about the book here.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 16, 2012 in Christian Life |

On Gospel Shorthand

Harry Reeder, in the audio series I highlighted a few weeks ago, makes a few comments that have had me thinking. One I hope to study up on some (now that I’ve turned in my written work for ordination), and another I just hope that I will never forget.

Regarding our tendency to want to be able to summarize the gospel in a tweet or bumper sticker, he says:

If you want to do gospel shorthand, there’s only one phrase that you can use: union with Christ. ‘I am in him, he is in me, that’s the hope of glory.’ Regeneration is not shorthand. Justification is not shorthand. Adoption…every time we think the gospel is in one piece of the ordo salutis, we just set up the errors of the next generation. We can’t do that. We must preach Christ, the victory of the cross, and its implications, and the unnuanced claims of the risen, ascended Christ and his crown. That we surrender to him as Savior and Lord and that in fact we don’t do shorthand. [Part of this is a quote from John Murray, but from the audio, I couldn't tell which part specifically was.]

This is something that I will want to keep thinking about. His basic point is that sanctification is not merely remembering our justification, since there is more bound up in the good news than just justification. That is not to say that we should downplay justification (since sola fide is at the heart of the Reformation). But he argues that the good news is much broader than simply justification. In light of other things that I have read that do seem reductionistic regarding justification and sanctification, I find this helpful. But the reason that I want to study it is that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 does give a summary of the gospel that does seem to hone in on justification. That warrants further study. Is there a sense in which justification encapsulates the gospel in a way that no other element of the ordo salutis does? I want to keep thinking about this one.

Dr. Reeder says something else towards the end of his talk that I found to be powerful:

I want my church to be safe for sinners. But I want it to be a death-trap for sin…because of the gospel.

Surely that ought to be our attitude. It seems that in the church (and in our own hearts) we swing back and forth between those–between the desire to avoid sin so much that we avoid sinners and between the desire to love sinners so much that were unwilling to call sin what it is.

Read More

Posted by on Feb 13, 2012 in Christian Life | 1 comment

Jesus Was Radical So I Don’t Have to Be?

I recently saw a tweet that said this:

Jesus was ‘Radical’ for me so that I could be freed from my always failing attempts to be ‘Radical’ for him.

I get the sentiment. I get that if we try to live holy, passionate, even radical lives in service to our Lord apart from his empowering grace, we will be consumed with feelings of failure or guilt (or arrogance if we deceive ourselves). That is a message that needs to be heard loudly and clearly. Surely there are broad streams of the church that have failed to clearly articulate the necessity of remembering our justification when approaching sanctification.

But is it proper to say that Jesus was radical so that I don’t have to be? Did Jesus fulfill the law and sacrifice himself so that we would not have to attempt to live a holy life, a self-sacrificial life on behalf of others?

One of the things that I regularly hear from people who emphasize such thoughts is that the answer to unholy living is not more rules but more grace. The law doesn’t motivate, they say, so when someone is living licentiously, they don’t need to hear more law; instead, they need to hear more and more about justification, which will naturally motivate them to progress in sanctification.

But as far as I can tell, quotes like the Tweet above (which may indicate more than anything that provocative statements through Twitter are generally more unhelpful than helpful) seem to make the opposite error of throwing rules at someone. Of course, simply throwing the law at someone without the gospel would lead to arrogance or depression via moralism. But throwing grace at them and saying that we no longer need to attempt to live powerfully radical lives for the sake of Jesus seems to demotivate us in our mission.

It is entirely possible of course that this tweet was simply meant to communicate that Jesus freed us from feeling like we are accepted by God because of any of our good works. And of course that is necessary to hear. But by saying he freed us from our attempts to live radical lives, it seems like it would create a complacency. An intellectual agreement on grace. But a cheap grace, not a heart-liberating, soul-motivating passion for the glory of God in all things.

It also entirely possible that part of the problem has to do with our definition of “radical.” If by radical we mean that all Christians need to move overseas, or not be content with the job to which God has called them, then sure, we are free from that. But if by “radical” we mean a life that is wildly different from the surrounding culture, a life full of self-sacrifice, a life that is unfathomable to those who don’t know God’s grace, then we are only free from that as the basis of justification. We are called to imitate Jesus’ example (1 Peter 2:21). And anything that would suggest (intentionally or unintentionally) that because Jesus did this for us we are free from attempting to follow his example seems to miss the mark of what Scripture really calls us to do in light of the wonderful redemption that has be accomplished on our behalf.

 

Read More
%d bloggers like this: