For those facing the lions...

On Sunday morning during the first service as my wife and I were standing and singing with our brothers and sisters, she leaned over and whispered in my ear, "I'm so glad we're here." I could not have agreed more.

We have lived for six months in Harrisonburg, Virginia where I serve as Lead Pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church. It has been like breathing in fresh air. They are a kind and blessedly unpretentious congregation. It takes quite a bit of time to learn of the many wonderful things about the history of Cov Pres because the church is reluctant to boast about their achievements. The congregation and session of Cov Pres honor those men who labor in preaching and teaching. Many pastors labor in churches where this is not the case.

The ministry staff at Cov Pres is united and share a strong bond of trust. The session consists of men who love Christ and his church. It is a wonderful feeling to leave staff and session meetings refreshed and encouraged. Each Lord's Day I have the immense privilege of standing to preach before men and women who love to receive God's Word. They bless me in ways that they probably are not even aware.

But not every church is like the church I am blessed to serve. I know this firsthand. Ray Ortland has written a tender piece of encouragement to pastors that acknowledges the brutal reality alive and well in some churches. He writes to a friend who has ended up being a meal for lions.

Unless there had been a spiritual breakthrough and deep repentance, conflict was inevitable.  But the conflict did not discredit you; it validated you.  It just wasn’t the validation you wanted!  All you wanted was their blessing, for the greater glory of Jesus.  But the rejection you suffered there is the reason 1 John 3:12 is in the Bible — to tell you that you’re not crazy: “And why did he murder him?  Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s were righteous.”  There it is.  That was your crime, pastor.  You were a godly man, wholehearted for the Lord.  Your ministry was righteous.  In your church, that was a fatal step.

So you lost your ministry there.  But you didn’t lose your ministry altogether.  What feels like loss is, in fact, re-investment.  You were a profound man before, and now you are even more profound.  For the rest of your life, when someone comes to you who has just taken a torpedo amidships and they’re going down, you will understand, as few men can.  You are now equipped as never before to comfort sufferers.  In your weakness and desolation, you are formidable.  What can anyone do to you now?  You’ve gone deep into the heart of Jesus, and you’ve found him to be an utterly faithful Friend.  For the rest of your life, that glorious awareness of your Friend above is going to be pouring out of you onto devastated people.  And your ministry will have more impact than ever before.

If you are a pastor serving in a hard place, don't lose hope my brother. Many of us have walked that road. We know the loneliness of it all. We know the dismay and emotional desolation of realizing that people we have tried to serve have undermined us. Some of us have even ended up in an emergency room.

It may be the Lord's will for you to travel that path a bit longer. Remember that we are hard pressed in this life. But we are not crushed. We are persecuted. But we are not destroyed. We do carry around death in our life. Brother pastor, in that brutal place full of lions God is doing some very deep mining in your heart. Do not despise your time in the den. He has not forgotten you.

Movements and the Means of Grace

Evangelicals love movements. I suppose it's because it makes us feel a part of something big or at least bigger than our church. Don't misunderstand. I like a good conference as much as anyone. I have benefited from good conferences. I appreciate Together for the Gospel, not least of all because their ambition is fairly limited to a conference every other year. They make no effort to be a quasi-denomination. I hope it stays that way. But the evangelical church, particularly in the United States, seems to birth more movements than we can keep up with. Some movements come on like gang busters and then just a quickly fade away (Remember Promise Keepers?).

What is this appetite for movements? Is it our craving for the ever new? Probably. Now that the Young Restless Reformed movement is no longer new there is evidence of former enthusiasts departing for greener pastures. Let's face it. Now that the Young Restless and Reformed are Middle-aged and exhausted it does not seem quite so cool as it once did.

But I think the more likely culprit in our craving for movements is our poor ecclesiology, particularly related to God's ordinary means of grace. I had never heard the phrase "God's ordinary means of grace" until I was introduced to the reformed faith. As a result I had no doctrinal or experiential category for the true significance of those ordinary elements that make up the corporate life of a biblically informed church. If you are unfamiliar with the term "ordinary means of grace" it refers to those elements of our gathered worship to which the Lord has attached his blessing: the preaching and reading of God's Word, the sacraments (Lord's Supper and Baptism), prayer, praise, and fellowship.

These ordinary means of grace are the things that the Lord has given his church. They are not the inventions of man. We call them means of grace because the Lord has appointed them as means by which he blesses and builds his church. We call them ordinary because there is nothing about them that is spectacular. They are not rare like miracles. They are ordinary. They are to be practiced regularly in our Lord's Day gatherings precisely because we regularly need what God offers us through them. But these are gifts not given to movements. God has given these means of grace to his church.

Movements tend to focus on a preferred market niche like women, men, black, white, young, fans of loud music, students, the balding, etc. Interestingly I don't see many movements targeting for its core the elderly or poor. But that's another post. I'm not saying that a meeting or conference tailored specifically for men or women is wrong. But it must not supplant the church, for a movement is not the church. Movements are not the inheritors of God's promises nor are they the stewards of God's oracles and his ordinary means of grace.

Christians need to be very cautious about movements. This is especially true when a movement seeks to minimize doctrinal distinctives in favor of a poorly defined quasi-mysticism. This came to my mind (once again) when I read an article about the IF Gathering.

"I hear enough people telling me how to be a good Christian mom. I don't need that," said Andrea Burkly, a Catholic who traveled from Wheaton, Illinois, to attend the Austin event. "This is a call for revival and unity, and it lined up with what's in my heart right now."

In between sessions, the mostly-young crowd discussed with each other their own sense of calling as well as hindrances such as fear and comparison. They worshipped together with hands lifted high and kneeled to pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance.

 

The origins of IF, as well as Allen's recently released book Restless, date back to 2007, when she woke up in the middle of the night with the vision to "gather, equip, and unleash" this generation of Christian women. Allen, 37, holds a master's in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary and had been a stay-at-home mom leading a women's group at her church Austin Stone, an Acts 29 congregation.

Since then, she published a series of Bible studies through Thomas Nelson and built up the connections necessary to organize a movement around that initial vision, one she sees echoed in the words of her friends—new and old—across the Christian blogosophere.

 

"We've been slow to step into our giftedness or strengths. For a long time, that wasn't an option," said Allen. Now, though, "there is something happening in our generation, and I believe it's a manifesto in a way, a call for us to link arms and to spend our lives beautifully and well for the glory of God."

I was not surprised to see the connection between the movement and a recently published book. Now a major publisher will be stepping in to create a series of studies feeding into the movement. Perhaps I am cynical but there is often much money to be made in these ventures. You will notice also the vague language of revivalism - "something happening in our generation," "unleash this generation," "step into our giftedness." I honestly don't know what any of that means.

I know I will be perceived by some as criticizing a move of God. But I assume that critics of Finney faced the same rebukes. I am troubled by movements which promise fresh experiences with God or a new movement of God and then market products to support this new outpouring. Those of us raised in conservative but non-confessional evangelicalism were steeped in that language. Everything had to be new and fresh. A steady sanctification wrought by God's ordinary means of grace in a local church was simply not a part of our diet.

I was raised attending the obligatory annual Spring and Fall revivals. There were camps and retreats and choir tours and mission trips. The underlying assumption was that in those events we would feel especially close to God; we would have a particularly "meaningful," "intimate," "authentic," etc. experience with God that was not generally available on the ordinary Lord's Day. As a result (and I was far from alone) I never considered what happened in our regular Sunday gatherings as anything particularly special.

I am happy to be part of a movement. It's called the Presbyterian Church in America. We have a rather detailed confession of faith called The Westminster Confession of Faith. We have a well thought through structure for polity, governance, dispute settling, instructions for public worship, etc. It's called the Book of Church Order. We have a growing ministry to university students called Reformed University Fellowship (RUF). We have a church planting agency. We have a missions sending agency for North America (MNA) and the World (MTW). We produce curriculum for Christian education and discipleship (Great Commission Publications). We have a university and seminary. Not too shabby.

Believe it or not, that was not a commercial for the PCA. Rather it was a means by which I might force a question: Why another movement? Why a movement without a proper confession of faith? Why a movement that would take time away from that to which I already belong? And most importantly, why a movement that is detached from oversight of a church? Why a movement that minimizes the ordinary means of grace which Jesus has entrusted to his church?

On the church with Donald Miller

By now most of you know that Donald Miller doesn't much go in for church. I wrote a response to Miller over at Ref21. Actually it's not much of a response to Miller as it is a critique of his doctrines of the church and worship. Today, Miller, recognizing that his post was receiving a lot of attention wrote a post going into more detail. Rather than clarifying or correcting his troubling doctrine, he offers more troubling and misguided theories. He digs in on the idea that the Bible really does not have anything specific to say about the gathering, structure and leadership of the church. This is, of course, nonsense and I have a hard time believing Miller actually thinks this. Of the various responses offered to Miller I have found Jonathan Leeman's to be most helpful.

In his "P.S." to Miller's follow-up Leeman writes:

P.S. Just saw your reply to a number of critics, posted around the same time as my letter. Again, some diagnoses I agree with, like, churches over-programatize. But you keep saying no one's church looks like the church in Acts?! But many churches I know do. People gather to hear the teaching of the apostles. And they scatter to enjoy fellowship and hospitality and care for one another's needs. They baptize as a way of declaring who belongs to "their number." And they exercise discipline when a professor lives falsely (okay, here I'm borrowing from the epistles, unless you count Peter's responses to Ananias, Sephira, or Simon as discipline!).

In other words, Don, the main thing I want to highlight in response to both of your posts is the difference between what you call "community" and what the Bible calls the "church." Jesus actually gave authority to those local assemblies called churches (Matt. 16:13-20; 18:15-20). The assembly is not just a fellowship, but an accountability fellowship. It's not just a group of believers at the park; it preaches the gospel and possesses the keys of the kingdom for binding and loosing through the ordinances. It declares who does and does not belong to the kingdom. It exercises oversight. And exercising such affirmation and oversight meaningfully means gathering regularly and getting involved in one another's lives.

Your idea of community, to my ears, honestly, sounds more American and Romantic (as in the -ism of the 19th century) than biblical. All authority remains with the individual to pick and choose, come and go, owing some of the obligations of love, perhaps, but always on one's own terms, happy to stay as long as the experience "completes me" and my sense of self.

Last thought, friend: I do think you're overplaying the "people have different learning styles" card. You've read Hebrews. Talk about tough trudging, right? But it's a sermon! And you know the original hearers didn't have as much education as most Americans. But for some reason the Holy Spirit thought it was adequate for everyone.

Best to you.

Why Church Membership Matters

From Jonathan Leeman:

In the last post, I answered the question, What Is the Local Church? That brings us to the next question: what is church membership?
Answer: It’s a declaration of citizenship in Christ’s kingdom. It’s a passport. It’s an announcement made in the pressroom of Christ’s kingdom. It’s the declaration that a professing individual is an official, licensed, card-carrying, bona fide Jesus representative.

More concretely, church membership is a formal relationship between a local church and a Christian characterized by the church’s affirmation and oversight of a Christian’s discipleship and the Christian’s submission to living out his or her discipleship in the care of the church.

Notice that several elements are present:

• a church body formally affirms an individual’s profession of faith and baptism as credible;
• it promises to give oversight to that individual’s discipleship;
• the individual formally submits his or her discipleship to the service and authority of this body and its leaders.

The church body says to the individual, “We recognize your profession of faith, baptism, and discipleship to Christ as valid. Therefore, we publicly affirm and acknowledge you before the nations as belonging to Christ, and we extend the oversight of our fellowship.” Principally, the individual says to the church body, “Insofar as I recognize you as a faithful, gospel-declaring church, I submit my presence and my discipleship to your love and oversight.”

The standards for church membership should be no higher or lower than the standards for being a Christian, with one exception. A Christian is someone who has repented and believed, and that’s who churches should affirm as members. The only additional requirement is baptism. Church members must be baptized, a pattern that is uniform in the New Testament. Peter said to the crowds in Jerusalem, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). And Paul, writing the church in Rome, simply assumes that everyone who belongs to the Roman church has been baptized (Rom. 6:1–3). (I'll consider this requirement of baptism further in the next post.)

Church membership, in other words, is not about “additional requirements.” It’s about a church taking specific responsibility for a Christian, and a Christian for a church. It’s about “putting on,” “embodying,” “living out,” and “making concrete” our membership in Christ’s universal body. In some ways, the union which constitutes a local church and its members is like the “I do” of a marriage ceremony, which is why some refer to church membership as a “covenant.”

It’s true that a Christian must choose to join a church, but that does not make it a voluntary organization. Having chosen Christ, a Christian has no choice but to choose to join a church.

Church Discipline And The Means of Grace

From Carl Trueman:

 Apparently, a church in Oregon is suing a former member and her daughter for defamation on a blog. Apart from the difficulty of mounting a successful suit for defamation under the US's admirably lax defamation laws (where not only factual error but deliberate malice must be proved), the whole idea of suing a former member on this kind of thing is most unbiblical and arguably strengthens the woman's case that this is not a church which behaves like a church should.

Going to law is a tricky issue for the church. It is quite possible that a church might need to serve a restraining order on someone who posed a serious physical threat to a congregation, but suing for defamation seems to collide with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 and, indeed, with the entire thrust of a significant strand of New Testament teaching -- that the church should expect to be slandered, libeled and generally trashed in this world and to accept the same in a spirit of humility and joy. The only real response to such slander should be 'Did they spell my name correctly?'

It also speaks eloquently of a failure to understand the nature of biblical discipline, presumably as a result of failing to understand the biblical nature of the church and the means of grace. The church is marked by two things: the word and the sacraments. These are the means of grace. When someone is unrepentantly committed to a pathway of extreme sin, the church's weapons are those whereby that person is excluded from the means of grace. That is all the church can do. By refusing this woman the word and the Lord's Supper, the church has done all she can.

While we are on the subject of church discipline, it seems that this is, as noted above, historically connected to the means of grace. So what happens to church discipline when the means of grace start to be expanded beyond word and sacrament? When we include art, or music or even sports? I have no sympathy whatsoever with such an expansion; but, given the emphasis on these emerging in certain quarters and, indeed, the arrival of arts and sports pastors on the scene, I wonder if those who do in practice seem to see these things as means of grace have really thought through the practical consequences for church discipline. Perhaps we have to stop people looking at pictures (unless it is something by Thomas Kinkade?), listening to anything but 70s disco music, and playing anything but American football? Answers on a postcard.

"What is that difference?"

Kevin DeYoung has written one of the most insightful posts I have read in a while concerning the problem of what he calls "squishy evangelicalism." And it describes far too many churches accurately.

The audience I have in mind are those Christians, pastors, and churches that continue to affirm the basic contours of evangelical faith. They’ve never read Fosdick or Tillich or Schleiermacher. They don’t read the Christian Century. They don’t know much about Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah and don’t really care to waste any more time with documentary hypotheses. They think Paul wrote Ephesians and John wrote John. They love Jesus and want other people to love Jesus. If you ask these Christians, pastors, or churches if hell is forever and people must be born again, they’ll say yes. If you ask them whether you can trust everything in the Bible, they wouldn’t dare say no. They have no problem with any of the historic creeds and confessions. The people and institutions I have in mind gladly affirm penal substitution, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and a real historical Fall. The folks I want to address are energetic about evangelism. They want to see churches planted and people come to Christ. They think small groups, accountability partners, and mission trips are excellent. And at least in private conversation they’ll tell you that homosexuality is not. These Christians, pastors, and churches are not liberal...

Have you ever been talking to a pastor or someone from another church and it seems like you should be kindred spirits. The person you meet is obviously a warm-hearted, sincere Christian. They don’t have a problem with any of the doctrines you mention as precious to you and your church. They don’t affirm liberal positions on major theological questions. They nod vigorously when you talk about the Bible and prayer and church planting and the gospel. And yet, you can’t help but wonder if you are really on the same page. You try to check your heart and make sure it’s not pride or judgmentalism getting the best of you. That’s always possible. But no, the more you reflect on the conversation and think about your two churches (or two pastors or two ministries) you conclude there really is a difference.

And what is that difference?

That’s something I’ve thought a lot about over the past few months. I’m sure I don’t have all the answers, but here are ten things that distinguish between what I would call a vibrant, robust Bible-believing church and one that gets the statement of faith right but feels totally different.

1. The mission of the church has gotten sidetracked. Recently I stumbled upon the website for a church in my denomination. Judging from the information on the site I would say this church thinks of itself as evangelical, in the loose sense of the word. Their theology seems to be of the “mere Christianity” variety. But this is their stated missional aim: “[Our] Missions are designed to connect people and their resources with opportunities to respond to human need in the name of Jesus.” A church with this mission will be very different from one that aims to make disciples of all nations or exists to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.

2. The church has become over-accommodating. I’m not thinking of all contextualization (of which there are some good kinds and some bad). I’m thinking of churches whose first instinct is to shape their methods (if not their message) to connect with a contemporary audience. And because of this dominant instinct, they avoid hard doctrines, cut themselves off from history and tradition, and lean toward pragmatism.

3. The gospel is assumed. While the right theology may be affirmed in theory, it rarely gets articulated. No one believes the wrong things, but they don’t believe much of anything. When pressed, they will quickly affirm the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, of penal substitution, of justification by faith alone, but their real passions are elsewhere. What really holds the church together is a shared conviction about creation care or homeschooling or soup kitchens or the local fire station.

4. There is no careful doctrinal delineation. Theology is not seen as the church’s outboard motor. It’s a nasty barnacle on the hull. You will quickly notice a difference in message and methods between the church whose operating principle is “doctrine divides” and the one that believes that doctrine leads to doxology.

5. The ministry of the word is diminished. While preaching may still be honored in theory, in many churches there is little confidence that paltry preaching is what ails the church and even less confidence that dynamic preaching is the proper prescription. No one wants to explicitly pooh-pooh preaching, teaching, or the ministry of the word, but when push comes to shove the real solutions are structural or stylistic. How often do those engaged in church revitalization begin by looking at the preaching of the word and the role the Bible plays in the practical outworking of the congregation’s ministry?

6. People are not called to repentance. It sounds so simple, and yet it is so easily forgotten. Pastors may call people to believe in Jesus or call people to serve the community, but unless they also call them repent of their sins the church’s ministry will lack real spiritual power. And this should not be done by merely encouraging people to be authentic about their brokenness. We must use strong biblical language in calling people to repent and calling them to Christ.

7. There is no example of carefully handling specific texts of Scripture. People will not trust the Bible as they should unless they see it regularly taught with detail and clarity. Churches may still espouse a high view of Scripture but without a diet of careful exposition they will not know how to study the Bible for themselves and will not be discerning when poor theology comes along.

8. There is no functioning ecclesiology. If you put two churches side by side with the same theology on paper, but one has a working ecclesiology and the other has a grab-bag of eclectic practices, you will see a startling difference. Careful shepherding, elder training, regenerate church membership, a functioning diaconate, purposeful congregational meetings–these are the things you may not know you’ve never had. But when you do, it’s a different kind of church.

9. There is an almost complete disregard for church discipline. If discipline is truly one of the three marks of the church, then many evangelical congregations are not true churches. All the best theology in the world won’t help your church or your denomination if you don’t guard against those who deny it. If we are to be faithful and eternally fruitful, we must warn against error, confront the spirit of the age, and discipline the impenitent.

10. The real problem is something other than sin and the real remedy is something other than a Savior. The best churches stay focused on the basics. And that means sin and salvation. Sadly, many churches–even if they affirm the right doctrine on paper–act and preach as if the biggest problem in the world is lack of education, or material poverty, or the declining morals in our country, or the threat of global warming. As a result we preach cultural improvement instead of Christ. We preach justice without Jesus. We lose sight that the biggest problem (though not the only problem) confronting the churchgoer every Sunday is that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.

If you read through this list and think you have everything down already, don’t be haughty. If we get all these right and are proud about it, we’ll rob ourselves and our churches of God’s blessing. But my prayer is that somewhere out there in the frozen tundra of the internet a pastor or a congregation or a church leader will read through these ten items and think, “You know, this may be what we’re missing.” The evangelical church needs depth where it is shallow, thoughtfulness where it is pragmatic, and conviction where it has become compromised. A casual adherence to a formal set of basic doctrines does not guarantee real unity and does not ensure genuine spiritual strength.

The High Cost of Pragmatism

From a helpful post by Johnathan Leeman:

The question I want to think about can be posed like this: is there something endemic not just to megachurches, but to post-1950s-evangelicalism as a whole that, over time, tends to undermine the very doctrinal convictions which makes us evangelicals? More specifically, does our doctrine of the church inevitably tend in a pragmatic direction, such that we will eventually leave the gospel and other core theological convictions unguarded?

Evangelicals Yesterday: A Theological Consensus

TIGHT GRIP ON THE GOSPEL: Think back to the 1950s and 1960s. An evangelical was someone who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ, the necessity of conversion, the call to evangelism, and the importance of engaging the culture. In order to preserve the gospel, evangelicals wanted to keep a tight grip on gospel essentials, and a loose grip on everything else.

LOOSE GRIP ON THE CHURCH: This often included a loose grip on the local church. Evangelicals rightly observed that church structure and programming are secondary, but this led many to treat these as unimportant. They decided the Bible doesn’t say much here anyway, and they began defaulting toward the latest trends of “what works.” Eventually, the Boomers wanted one thing, the Xers another, the Millenneals still another. In the meantime, parachurch ministries began supplanting churches’ work of discipleship and evangelism.

Evangelicals Today: An Ecclesiological Divergence

TRIBALIZATION: But pragmatism and parachurch ministries, for all their good uses, are poor guardians of the gospel. Since those early days, evangelical paths have diverged as churches have become distracted by one thing or another. Call it tribalization, Balkanization, or the passing of the old coalition, many people agree that evangelicalism has divided into a number of separate camps. Their members orbit around different leaders, different conferences, different books, and often different church models. 

 

PROLIFERATING MODELS: There are the Emergents, the Neo-Reformed, the denominational loyalists (SBC, PCA, Mainliners, etc), the mystical spiritual-formation movement, the Pentecostals and Charismatics, to say nothing of several prominent megachurches which are movements unto themselves. Floating through these camps are an abundance of church models: traditional, house, multi-site, seeker-oriented, purpose-driven, cell, missional, organic, and more.

THEOLOGICAL UNRAVELING: This might not sound dangerous at face value, but in many cases these camps have begun to represent different theological trajectories. Evangelicals find it harder and harder to agree on the truthfulness of Scripture, the nature of the Christ’s atonement, God’s foreknowledge, and the importance of conversion and evangelism. In short, the old theological consensus has been passing away.

A Evangelicals Tomorrow: A Theological Divergence

GOSPEL COMPROMISE? The question that I would like to pose is, did our original evangelical starting point ultimately leave the gospel unguarded? We chose to treat the church with an open hand—pragmatically—in order to help the spread of the gospel. But did this very first step put us at risk of theological compromise? Mohler points toward the example of one pulpit which is promoting a gospel without repentance. But it's not too hard to find other examples.

These issues, as I said, go to the heart of why 9Marks exists. One of our basic convictions is that the local church and its polity present the platinum prongs that hold the diamond of the gospel in place. When one generation of Christians decides to downplay or relativize or pragmatize the local church, they just might find that the next generation no longer values the same gospel.

Read the entire article HERE.

Johnathan is the author of two outstanding books:

The Church And The Surprising Offense of God's Love  

Reverberation

The Church by Mark Dever

The first chapter of Mark Dever's important book The Church is available on-line HERE.

"I’m not sure that I know anyone who has read more on ecclesiology, from the whole breadth of Christian tradition, than Mark Dever. So, his exegesis is not done in isolation but in conversation with twenty centuries of Christian thinking. As a Presbyterian, I would encourage non-Baptists and non-Congregationalists to read and engage with Mark's work, not only because it is so well done, biblical, and helpful, but also because of a huge evangelical blind spot the book addresses. Ecclesiology is indisputably one of evangelicalism’s great weaknesses, in part because of subjectivism, individualism, and pragmatism. Mark offers a robust corrective to this, and even where you may disagree you will find yourself edified and instructed. Mark approaches this subject not simply as a skilled historical theologian and systematician, but also as a local church pastor who has fostered a vital and healthy embrace of biblical polity in his own congregation, with happy results. He is no ‘dry-land sailor’ or impractical theoretician but a faithful shepherd. The growth and life and fruitfulness of his flock testify to this."
- Ligon Duncan, Senior minister, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi

Two Great Articles on Youth Ministry

The White Horse Inn has posted two excellent articles on youth ministry by Michael Horton: Generation Me and Youth Ministry (Part One & Part Two). Please take time to read them. There is much wisdom not only about how we minister to youth but about our understanding of the church. We have much to re-learn.

Much of the ministry to teenagers in America needs an overhaul – not because churches fail to attract significant numbers of young people, but because so much of those efforts are not creating a sustainable faith beyond high school. There are certainly effective youth ministries across the country, but the levels of disengagement among twentysomethings suggest that youth ministry fails too often at discipleship and faith formation. A new standard for viable youth ministry should be – not the number of attenders, the sophistication of the events, or the ‘cool’ factor of the youth group – but whether teens have the commitment, passion and resources to pursue Christ intentionally and whole- heartedly after they leave the youth ministry nest...

Youth ministry is about 150 years old. Arising at first as a way of reaching out to troubled teens especially in highly industrialized urban centers, parachurch ministries like the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) sought to provide safe activities and education in basic reading along with evangelism. Throughout the nineteenth century, parachurch organizations mushroomed. Attempting to create a Protestant Empire that transcended confessional differences, the Bible societies and Sunday School movement increasingly supplanted the ordinary structures, resources, and content of particular church traditions. According to the movement’s leaders, it’s what all evangelicals profess that matters, not what distinguishes Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, and other denominations. Of course, there had always been catechism instruction for the young and new Christians. Now, however, Sunday school increasingly isolated the younger generations not only from the older but also from the wider confessional tradition to which they belonged. The Sunday school curriculum shared by all Protestant youths, not the catechism, shaped faith and practice. The “youth group” emerged as its own “church-within-a-church,” distinct from the public ministry and worship.

And so it has become increasingly easy for one to go from the nursery to children’s church to youth group and on to college ministry without having actually belonged to the local church. Young people may still drive with their family to the church campus, but from the parking lot they scatter to their own target-marketed groups. For many, the church is more a cafeteria of ministry offerings than a communion of saints. So is it really surprising that a good local church doesn’t figure into things when deciding upon a college and many don’t even join one because, after all, they have their campus ministry? I know of some instances, in fact, of such groups holding their meetings during the regular time of Sunday services.

Michael Horton from the article Generation Me and Youth Ministry (part one)

Why Is The Church Here?

Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert's new book, What is the Mission of the Church is now available at a deep discount HERE.

"In what appears to be a growing tension over what the mission of the church encompasses, DeYoung and Gilbert bring a remarkably balanced book that can correct, restore, and help regardless of which way you lean or land on all things ‘missional.’ I found the chapters on social justice and our motivation in good works to be especially helpful. Whether you are actively engaging the people around you with the gospel and serving the least of these or you are hesitant of anything ‘missional,’ this book will help you rest in God’s plan to reconcile all things to himself in Christ."
— Matt Chandler, Lead Pastor, The Village Church, Highland Village, Texas

"Among the many books that have recently appeared on mission, this is the best one if you are looking for sensible definitions, clear thinking, readable writing, and the ability to handle the Bible in more than proof-texting ways. I pray that God will use it to bring many to a renewed grasp of what the gospel is and how that gospel relates, on the one hand, to biblical theology and, on the other, to what we are called to do."
— D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

The Mission of the Church from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

The Goal: To Make Disciples

"The deceptively simple task of disciple-making is made demanding, frustrating and difficult in our world, not because it is so hard to grasp but because it is so hard to persevere in.

"This is why we are such suckers for the latest ministry expert, who has always grown a church of at least 5000 from scratch, and who has a guaranteed method for growing your church to be like his. Every five or ten years, a new wave comes through. It might be the seeker-service model, or the purpose-driven model, or the missional-cultural-engagement model, or whatever the next thing will be. All of these methodologies have good things going for them, but all of them are equally beside the point -- because our goal is not to grow churches, but to make disciples."

From The Trellis and the Vine by Marshall & Payne (Matthias Media: 2009), p.151.

What is the mission of the church?

Gospel, Mission, and the Church from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

HT: Justin Taylor

When the Gospel Drives the Church (pt. 1)

In the days ahead I will be posting some articles based upon my message and vision presentation on Vision Day at Church of the Saviour.

When the Gospel drives the church:

1. God’s glory becomes our chief end and highest value.
Perhaps the first issue we should settle is whether or not we can be sure that God’s glory ought to be our chief end.

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray he said, “When you pray, pray like this: ‘Our Father who is in Heaven,…” (Matt 6:9ff). These words are not just a sensible prelude to a generic prayer. Notice that Jesus directs our attention heavenward. This is not “Our Father” the invisible helper. This is not “Our Father” the kindly, magical grandfather. This is the glorious Creator and King of the Universe. This is the One encircled by praise from all the inhabitants of heaven. Even now the Father is surrounded by strange and holy beings who call out day and night, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is, and is to come!” (Rev 4:8). In teaching us to pray, Jesus invites us to begin by acknowledging what all of heaven already recognizes about his matchless worth.

The second clause in Jesus’ prayer is, “hallowed be your name.” Jesus invites us to pray that God’s name will be recognized throughout the world as holy. In other words, Jesus is saying, “When you pray, what ought to be uppermost in your mind is that God’s name be hallowed, revered, reverenced in all the earth.” And when Jesus says, “hallowed by your name” he is using the word “name” as a summation of all the perfections of God. We are to pray that God, in the totality of his being will be recognized and praised for being holy.

In Ephesians 1 we read that God’s purpose in election is His glory: “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace…” (Ephesians 1:5-6). In other words, the reason for God’s election of His people before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4) is that He might be praised for His glorious grace. Certainly there are innumerable blessings that accrue to the people of God because of the Father’s electing grace. But the chief end of God’s gracious saving of His people is His own glory.

How does Jesus motivate us toward greater obedience? “…let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16). This same theme is echoed in 1 Peter 2:12 where we are told to keep our conduct before pagans pure so that the day will come when they too might glorify God. Paul sums it up nicely in 1 Corinthians 10:31: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” No matter what we do, whether washing dishes, commuting to work, or declaring the Gospel; all these are to be gathered up for the purpose of magnifying the greatness of God.

The writers of the Westminster Catechism saw the priority or God’s glory throughout Scripture. What is more, they understood the interconnectedness of the glory of God and the joy of mankind. The first question of the Catechism is “What is the chief end of man?” The answer is, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

Treasuring the glory of God above all else guards us from the idolatry of self. We are to pursue the glory of God precisely because God is the highest good and chief treasure in the universe. We do not pursue the glory of God as our chief end because we imagine that God will then make us His chief end. John Piper rightly concludes, “Teaching God’s God-centeredness forces the issue of whether we treasure God because of his excellence or mainly because He endorses ours.” Stephen Nichols has written, “The glory of God is the compass that keeps all our theologizing, pastoring, and Christian living oriented in the right direction – toward God and not toward ourselves.”

So how does the Gospel drive this? How does the Gospel ensure that our chief end will be the glory of God? It begins with the fact that the Gospel is, above all, a God-glorifying reality. That is, the content of the good news, the dying and rising of Christ, is primarily about the glory of God. This is a necessary corrective for many of us raised in a brand of evangelicalism to think that we are the primary reason for the death and resurrection of Christ. We hear songs and sermons proclaiming that as Jesus hung upon the cross He was thinking of me “above all.” But is this true? I would suggest that this sentiment is a grave misunderstanding of Jesus’ primary motive in dying for sinners.

In what Martin Luther called the chief place in all the Bible (Romans 3:21-26), we learn that Jesus died to vindicate the righteousness of God.

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Before He died for sinners, Jesus died for the Father. He died to show forth God’s righteousness because in His patience with the sins of His saints under the Old Covenant, God opened himself up to the charge of injustice. “How could a holy God forgive such a one as David?” “How can a righteous and just God forgive such a duplicitous man as Jacob?” Over and over again these challenges to God’s character could be raised. But the cross answers all these challenges. For it was on the cross that God punished the sins of all His people, past, present, and future. This is why Paul tells us that in the Gospel, “the righteousness of God” is made known.

God put forth His Son as a propitiation (a substitutionary sacrifice satisfying his wrath) in order to “show His righteousness.” God crucified His Son in order to remain just even as He chose to be the justifier of sinners.

Do not misunderstand. Jesus certainly died for sinners. He was crucified and raised that sinners might live. But even this is a means toward the greater end of magnifying the glory of the One who saves sinners through the sacrifice of His beloved Son.

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9) The fruit of God’s redeeming work through Christ, to make for himself a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, was ultimately for the purpose of showing forth His glorious light. God saved us for the sake of His praise. He saved us for the magnification of His glory.

The Gospel communicates just how good God is, not how good we are. The Gospel shows off the righteousness of God, not the value of man. The Gospel puts on display the holiness of God who will not fail to judge the unrighteous and the merciful God who saves the unrighteous at the cost of His own Son. The Gospel is saturated with the glory of God and therefore Gospel people will have about them the aroma of God’s glory. Gospel people will love the glory of God. Therefore, a church that is driven by the Gospel will treasure above all else the magnification of the greatness of God for that is what the Gospel does.

The Christianity of the Future?

"When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like) accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

"When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

"It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian [PCUSA] pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.
"Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians.

". . . As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.
"So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program (ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth) or die. Sure."

- From a Los Angeles Times article by Charlotte Allen (Catholicism editor for Beliefnet)

What is the church for?

The Mission of the Church from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

Loving a church that is as flawed as I am...

The church is a messy place. All of the dysfunctions that are present in "the world" are present in one degree or another in the church. It is no use denying this. In fact, denying the flawed realities of the church is counterproductive to the work of advancing the Gospel. Too often people have been invited to 'get saved' and join the church because Jesus will repair their marriage, fix their kids, banish their depression, and give them better self-esteem. They bite on that shiny lure only to discover that they've been pulled into a reality that seems to be just as messy but less honest about it.

This is not to deny the reality of sanctification. God forbid (Rom 6:1)! But sanctification is often times maddeningly slow (Yours, of course, not mine). This means that you and I will have to worship with, serve with, learn with, and labor with people who are at least as sinful as we are. But of course this is by design. The Gospel is best proclaimed by men and women who are still as dependent upon the redeeming grace of Jesus as they were the moment they were converted. The radical justice and mercy of the cross is best displayed in the lives of saved sinners, a reality Luther referred to as simul iustice et pecator (simultaneously just and sinner). It is in the lives of the broken yet redeemed that grace still retains its beautiful aroma.

If the church was made up of fully sanctified people then how would the reality of the Gospel be put on display? No one would need to be forgiven and no one would need to forgive. If everything in the church were peachy then no one would need mercy or be required to show mercy. In the non-messy church there would be no need for patience, willing inconvenience, or sacrifice.

Gabriel Fluhrer over at Ref21 has written a helpful post on the reality of the church this side of heaven.

[The] church is made up of people like us: sinful, slow to do good, quick to speak and gossip, full of envy, strife, jealous and hatred. That is what we are apart from Christ.

However, we have been redeemed. We are united with Christ. And now, we can, by God's grace, begin to see the effects of this union in our daily lives. But we still sin and this shows up, perhaps most pointedly, at church.

Added to this great problem of our own personal sin is the fact that we live in an anti-church age. I passed a church here in Philadelphia the other day with these words on its sign: "Barely organized." Of course, that is hip these days. We don't want "organized religion" - we don't want "our daddy's church." When I saw the sign, I couldn't help but wonder, "How many of us would go to a doctor's office with the same words on its sign? "

But the church is the place where God has called us to have our souls doctored - hearing the Word preached, serving our fellow saints and speaking and doing good to those without. However, the church is not only God's means of Gospel proclamation, but a place where souls are restored. It is the place where we can find healing, perhaps in unexpected ways - like learning to get along with the people there who are not like us.

This is one reason I am very allergic to the burgeoning "house church" movement here in the U.S. Having the privilege of knowing suffering saints in actual house churches that meet in countries where saints are persecuted mercilessly, I find it almost laughable that we have such things here in the land of the free and home of the brave. It is indicative of the anti-church age in which we live, however.

I wonder, of ten, why are people, particularly young college students, drawn to these mysterious entities called house churches here in the U.S.? Not because of persecution. Rather, I think, it is because they are dissatisfied with the church. And I am sympathetic to them - barely. The church is a place where you can get hurt. It is full of people who are insensitive, unloving at times, insecure and socially awkward.

Here's the rub though: you are one of those people. The problem with the church is not the institution itself, for God has ordained it and sent his Son to die for her. No, we're the problem. So before you go running to a house church here in the free West, ask yourself: am I running to Jesus or running from sinners? You can only run to Jesus as you run with fellow sinners. If you run away from them, you'll be running in circles, not to Christ.

Read the entire post HERE.

Don't divorce Christianity from the Body of Christ

Trevin Wax has posted a very helpful review of the late Michael Spencer's recently released "Mere Churchianity." While Trevin finds some very helpful moments in the book he takes issue with what seems to be the recurring problem: "pitting a Jesus-shaped spirituality against a church-shaped spirituality."

Spencer not only does not blame Christians for abandoning the church, he seems to encourage it. On page 57 he writes, "For many of you, leaving the church may have been the most spiritually healthy thing you ever did." Spencer also seems to have had a deficient view of the very nature of the church. On page 6 he refers to the church disparagingly as a "religious institution." On the one hand, I suppose you could call the church a religious institution. But the Scriptures call the church the Body and Bride of Christ.

What is more Spencer states that, "Life as a Jesus-follower grows out of Jesus and the gospel, not out of the church." I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the Bible where being one of God's people under the Old or New Covenants is divorced from being a member of His covenant people. The fact is, the New Testament teaches that Jesus-followers are indeed made by the church. Disciples are made and grown in the church.

Does the church always do this well? Of course not. Is the church always loving and affirming? No. But the reason for this is not because the church is an idea whose time has come. The church is often a mess because Christians are often a mess.

Trevin writes:

Michael rightly teaches that the gospel is for people who recognize they are messed up, rebellious, sinful, broken and dysfunctional. Christianity is for the losers, for the people who recognize their need for salvation outside of themselves. So far so good.

But let’s engage in a bit of logic. If churches are organized groups of these messed up, broken, dysfunctional people, why in the world would we expect the church to always live up to some unattainably high ideal? I’m not saying we shouldn’t shoot high. I’m not saying we should be satisfied with Christless churches. But surely Michael should give groups of broken people (churches) the same patience he gives individual broken people.

So in the end, I want to say, “Michael, you’re right about individual Christians. We’re broken, wounded, sinful and selfish. So why can’t you see that churches are going to be that way too? Please don’t encourage broken people to leave churches that are broken! Just as we need Jesus in us as individuals to slowly remake us into his image, we need Jesus-filled people in churches if there is any hope for the church to reflect the glory of Christ to the world.”

If Christ remains committed to us – as broken and messed up as we are – why would we not remain committed to his followers? Why would we bolt out the door when our church experience becomes a hassle? What looks more like Jesus – to hit the road? Or to stay with a congregation through thick and thin, through good and bad?

Michael thinks the church’s problems are an obstacle to Jesus-shaped spirituality. I think the opposite: commitment to bear with the church’s problems is the method by which we become more Jesus-shaped.

Read the entire review HERE.

"Without the Word"

In the Jan/Feb 2010 issue of Modern Reformation Charlie Mallie comments on the necessity of the Scriptures to form not only the doctrine but the practices of the church as well. He reflects on his own coversion to Christ and his struggle to find a place in the church.

As an adult convert I can say that my first hundred or so encounters with Christians or with various churches didn't impress me much. When I had courage enough to darken the doorway of some assembly, often I found the teachings shallow and gimmicky. There was so very little of the Word, if at all. I remember one mega-thon in Southern California where the "youth dude" was standing in for the main pastor one particular Sunday. When it came time to "do the supper," he had us all bow our heads and "in our hearts intensely remember Jesus," and then he looked up and yelled, "Here's to Jesus," as if toasting the skylight with the little plastic cup filled with Welch's. That was the last church I walked out of with five-thousand-plus people watching. So began the years of my church fast--and my struggle to find genuine biblical Christianity, one that was saturated through and through with the Word of God.

It occurred to me back then (now over fifteen years ago) that the very aspect of what pulled me with great velocity out of those churches seems to be what draws so many others to them. The emphasis on marketing rather than teaching, offering choices, rather than calling for commitment, entertainment rather than substance flows like a chapter out of Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. If you look at it from 40,000 feet, regardless of the individual manifestations of the malady, the source is always the same: a lack of teaching founded on the whole counsel of God or at the very least an inoculation against such teaching.

Mallie goes on to explain the dangers of a church bereft of the Word of God.

How dangerous is it to have a church that isn't completely shaped by the Holy Word of God in doctrine and in practice? What's the big deal? Can't we just form a group of Christians based on whatever we feel will best serve our needs?...

Maybe not...Somewhere in your background the Word of God came to you. Some pastor preached on a given text and it took root. You read your Bible and the Word was implanted. That living and active Word, the vehicle of the Holy Spirit, was buried in the soil of your heart and it grew...Because of that gift of being taught by the Holy Spirit through his Word, you can look at such silly assertions and say, "I think not."

But that's really the key, ins't it? The Word. It all turns on the Word of God. Not just a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, but the very means that guard our steps as we walk with Christ who is the Way, the Truth, the Life. The Word, the Word, the Word!...

Without the Word, we are sitting ducks for all sorts of trouble. If it is true that the devil roams about like a lion seeking to devour whomever he will and that the only weapon we are given is the Word of God--that double-edged sword of the Spirit that proceeds from the mouth of Christ--then without the Word we are truly vulnerable. Worse than that, we are helpless against whatever wind of doctrine blows through the doors. But I can only know such things from the Word. I will not come to the conclusion of such things by a careful contemplation of the starry sky--sorry, Mr. Kant. Without the transcendent enteral Word dropping down from the lofty realm of the neumena confusion, heresy, even apostasy becomes commonplace and talk of absolutes degrades into discussions of preference. Without a raft of revelation to sail me through this sea of doubt, there is no distilling ought-ness from is-ness.

Why I Need the People of God

At such a time...

"At such a time, what should be done by those who love Christ? I think, my friends, that they should at least face the facts; I do not believe that they should bury their heads like ostriches in the sand; I do not think that they should soothe themselves with the minutes of the General Assembly or the reprts of the Boards or the imposing rows of figures which the Church papers contain. Last week it was reported that the churches of America increased their membership by 690,000. Are you encouraged by these figures? I for my part am not encouraged a bit. I have indeed my own grounds for encouragement, especially those which are found in the great and precious promises of God. But these figures have no place among them. How many of these 690,000 names do you think are really written in the Lamb’s book of life? A small proportion, I fear. Church membership today often means nothing more, as has well been said, than a vague admiration for the moral character of Jesus; the Church in countless communities is little more than a Rotary Club. One day, as I was walking through a neighboring city, I saw, not an altar with an inscription to an unknown god, but something that filled me with far more sorrow than that could have done. I saw a church with a large sign on it, which read somewhat like this: “Not a member? Come in and help us make this a better community.” Truly we have wandered far from the day when entrance into the Church involved confession of faith in Christ as the Savior from sin."

J. Gresham Machen

HT: Geneva Redux