When I read various blogs, I hear people refer to unity in the essentials and in charity in non-essentials. I have also read protest that there are no non-essential truths. If God has revealed truth, it is essential! The big questions is...essential for what? Well, all truth is essential for life and godliness:
2 Peter 1:3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,
All that pertains to life and godliness is given by God and would then be essential. Therefore, the knowledge of God is vital because it's through Him that we understand and apply that which is essential to being conformed to Christ.
But when Christians talk about "fundamentals" or "essentials", they are not saying that some truths is unnecessary and can be thrown out if one doesn't like them. To characterize Christians in such a way is divisive and ungodly. If God said it, then it matters! What it is meant by "essential" would depend on what exactly you're talking about. Essential for what? What is essential to be saved? What is essential to join a church? What is essential for inter-church fellowship? What is essential for inter-church cooperation and cooperation in which endeavors?
Essentials for Salvation
Fellowship among Christians is God's general will for all of us:
1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Any Christian who has believed the gospel and has been born again has fellowship with other Christians at the most basic level - in God. What is essential for this kind of fellowship is believing in what is essential for salvation: The deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ (thus the Trinity by implication), the gospel of which consists of many fundamental doctrines - vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, justification by free grace through and faith *and conversely repentance*. Even at this most basic level, many new converts will not fully understand imputation, propitiation and some other essential doctrines in the gospel but I can still have brotherly fellowship with a believer who at least doesn't deny them.
Gospel is of first importance!
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
Those who deny that the gospel is not more important than other doctrines are dangerous people who would cheapen the good news and teach other believers to do the same.
The UBS Translators handbook suggests that "First of All" is both first in time and importance:
Of first importance is literally “in (the) first (plural),” an expression used only here in the New Testament. The phrase can mean “first in time” or “first in importance.” It seems likely that Paul intended both meanings here: “first and foremost”; “of first importance” is another possibility.
"First of all" en protois according to Archibald Robertson's excellent work on word studies means: Among first things. Not to time, but to importance.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown in their classic commentary concur that "first of all" literally means, “among the foremost points” (Heb 6:2). The atonement is, in Paul’s view, of primary importance.
To put the gospel of saving grace on the same level of importance as baptism for example, is to wrongly exalt baptism to the primacy of that which saves from sin. Paul says in
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel...
Well, technically yes Christ did send him to baptize according to the great commission in Matthew 28:19, but what Paul is doing here is differentiating the importance of one over the other. The Corinthians were glorying in their baptism by certain apostles, and Paul is trying to get their priorities straight. Their focus on the message of the gospel had been lost. Now, although there is one Lord, one Faith, One Baptism in Ephesians 4:5,This verse isn't saying that Baptism is equal in rank or importance as the Lord or even the Faith. The next verse states that the Lord is over all! Even in this triad, the Lord is supreme over the faith and I could say "more important" than Baptism. Even if you don't get baptism right (which as a Baptist, we marvel at how something so clear in Scripture can be misunderstood with the various modes not found in the Bible), we can still have 1 John 1:3 fellowship! Why? Because baptism isn't essential to salvation.
Essentials of Church Membership Fellowship
However, baptism is essential for church membership. We can have 1 John 1:3 fellowship, but we wouldn't be able to have Acts 2:41 fellowship.
Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
This is why our church is a Baptist Church and not a Presbyterian Church. There's only one way to be added to our church and that's to be saved AND baptized as a believer by immersion. Me and my Presbyterian brother can pray together (because we have fellowship in the same Lord), but we can't be members of the same church.
Beyond the local church, there would have to be a body of doctrine that other churches would have to agree with together if they are going to have cooperation with each other on certain things. For instance, a Presbyterian and Baptist church may be able to cooperate together by providing a food pantry for the poor in their community but would not be able to cooperate together in financially supporting the same missionaries. Perhaps a Dispensational church and a Covenant Theology church could cooperate by hosting a conference together on the subject of expository preaching but would not be able to do so on the subject of prophecy.
The comparison between Baptists and Presbyterians on the subject of Baptism is a little simplistic. What about those who practice certain things that other churches have convictions against? That will have to wait for another post....
Well, I'm not thinking about packing up everything, moving across the country and going to seminary, but I am thinking about where to pursue my M.DIV while I am pastoring the church that the Lord has stationed me at. I graduated Bible College 13 years ago and decided to walk away from full-time, vocational ministry soon afterwards because the legalistic stench that I had breathed every day for four and a half years while at HAC and GSBC. I enrolled at a computer school for a one year diploma so I could get a fast start at a computer company in the Silicon Valley and move on. But God wouldn't let me. He gave me just enough work at a software company to pay off my technical school bill and then plunged me into seven months of unemployment! It took four years to finally get me into anything remotely close to vocational ministry. Two years later, I became a full time pastor! Six years later, I'm still pastoring, have learned a lot, but I know my education is not sufficient for a lifetime in this calling. My wife is expecting our first child in October, and between then and some time in 2018, my child will be preparing to go to school. That means I have a short window of time to get this Masters degree under my belt before the Christian school bills start piling up. I'm only four years away from 40 and all I have to show for myself in terms of schooling is a piece of toilet paper with some signatures on it.
For the past few years, I have taken several classes online with Veritas School of Theology and will continue to do so working on a Masters in Theological Studies until I finally finish. However, Veritas is not accredited, and I want at least one of my degrees to have some academic respectability behind it. So, what are my options? I can't move anywhere, so I'm limited...
Seminaries with online programs: Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA - The disgraced Ergun Caner was president. The scandal wasn't handled well. No thanks. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville KY - Most credits can be earned online, but there are internet fees and trips to Louisville on top of my non-SBC status which will cost me more. Al Mohler is their president and they are on the cutting edge of the "New Calvinism" reformation. I'd love to do their program if I chose to go the online route...but it's really expensive!! Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA - Full MDIV online, low cost and there is a scholarship program available to students whose churches are willing to help with the cost. They used to be connected to the GARB, and have moved away from that to more of a conservative Evangelical orb. Because of their past association as a Fundamentalist school, they may not have that much credibility in broader Evangelicalism. Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas TX - I don't know enough about them theologically to really make that kind of commitment. Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. - Only 2/3rds can be earned online. They have a partnership with Logos Bible software and that's all I know about them.
Seminaries Near Me: Masters Seminary, Sun Valley CA - I would love to go there, but it's too far away and they don't have an online or hybrid program to make it possible. John MacArthur is old fashioned like that. Golden Gate Baptist Seminary, Mill Valley, CA - They cost about as much as Southern because they are an SBC school. They seem to have an Ed Stetzer-style of missional philosophy. I'd have to drive all the way past the Golden Gate Bridge for classes in the worst of Bay Area traffic.
Western Seminary, Santa Clara, CA - They used to be a Conservative Baptist Association school that has become non-denominational. Their theological approach is to give you the tools and help you come to your own conclusions. They have an extension campus here in the Bay Area (main campus is in Portland, OR) only about 20 minutes drive from where I live. Ironically, they are a stones throw away from GSBC too. Of course, I wasn't surprised that they had never heard of them. :)
Choices, choices...what should I do? Right now, I'm leaning toward BBS if I chose to go the online route. It's the most affordable and most accessible. Although, if I could get some student aid, I'd prefer Southern because I have already appreciated the leadership of Al Mohler. If I decide to go to seminary on campus, I'm leaning toward Western Seminary for several reasons: Being Non-Denominational may open new opportunities in the future and their theological approach fits well with my personality. Don't shove your philosophy down my throat...give me the tools and let me wrestle with it. That appeals to me. Then, I can't help but be drawn by the closeness in vicinity. The price is a little high, but it's not much more than any other accredited seminary.
Is there anyone out there who could recommend another idea?
How do you know when someone doesn't get the gospel? For one, they have to prove something. They must say or do anything to demonstrate to others that they are right, they are pure and they are holy. To further demonstrate their rightness and the certainty of their rightness, they must also constantly attack others who they know to be wrong and relentlessly keep a watchful eye on their inconsistencies, their hypocrisies all the way down to their spelling and grammatical errors. You will never find such an individual admitting a mistake or even questioning his own certainty about things. He takes pride in his rightness and certainty of everything because it is his own righteousness and vindication. This is why many of the big mega church pastors who are the targets of so much criticism blame pastors of small churches like myself for picking on them out of jealousy. They are partly right. Their numerical success and notoriety become a real temptation for them in which to find their righteousness and vindication. Because a pastor like myself with a small church cannot point to my "success" for my self justification and vindication - apart from the gospel - I have to look elsewhere. I can vindicate myself and my perceived failure in the mega church pastor's eyes, by pointing out all of his faults. Since I can't vindicate myself by making others come hear me in my church building; I can make myself feel good about myself by knowing that more people will hear me through my blog and comment threads on other people's blogs! This is why they have to minimize the gospel to no longer be the matter of first importance because it would destroy their means of justifying themselves. The gospel must become only one spoke in the wheel with every other teaching being of equal importance. This is how they put the gospel in it's place instead of the letting the gospel put them in their place.
I recognize my own propensity for this every day when I am challenged by someone on my interpretation of Scripture or when the Sunday attendance is a disappointment. I am either forced to flee to Christ for my justification, acceptance and vindication or I have to find it in my blog, my church's numbers, the love and affection of my congregation, the popularity of Facebook friends, the amount of "Likes" on Facebook posts, the number of readers on my Stat counter, the number of comments I attract per post, my scruples that are impossible for 99% of others to keep like I can, the onslaught of criticism that I interpret as persecution for the truth...the list goes on and on.
Of course, if you're like this, you're probably telling yourself that you are trying to defend the truth and give glory to God because what God is most concerned about is being right also as if He actually needs you to defend Him. You are also telling yourself that God would not be pleased with you unless you can honestly say you know exactly what is right in every situation as far as your finite mind can comprehend. You will win a trophy for being more right than others and lay it at Jesus' feet in utter humility....right? Uh huh.
I am sad to hear that Matt Olson has been asked to step down at Northland. Of course, we don't know an details, but it just so happens to be that after a firestorm of internet chatter erupted on the blogs about the direction that he was leading the school, I can imagine the tsunami of angry Fundamentalists who called, wrote letters, tweeted, Facebooked and blogged with criticism and threats to see the school's demise. It made me think...wow, if that many people were this passionate about a little Bible college and their music so much that they could almost put an end to a guy's career, what could the internet do to the slime-balls in Washington who are really doing damage to our country if a proportionate amount of people to the Northland issue were to get on blogs and protest? In other words...the cultural fundamentalists are more concerned about their approved kind of music than they are about the kinds of real dangers that they should be really outraged about. Sure, everyone of us hates abortion, but do any of us spend as much energy fighting that real evil as we would in fighting the "make-believe evil" of a Bible college allowing songs sung by Big Daddy Weave be performed in chapel?
The Pharisees taught for commandments the doctrines of men and thus, worshiped God in vain (Mark 15:9). They took their application of Scripture and elevated it to the level of law. They took the way they tried to obey the Scripture and made it binding on everyone else. The Ten Commandments say "Honor your father and mother", but it doesn't say exactly what that looks like and how to do it. So, the legalistic Pharisees made up 1001 rules and regulations to cover all the possible ways that men could possibly think about breaking that command. Then they also had loopholes such as "Corban" (Mark 7:11) to make sure that they didn't dishonor their parents when they failed to honor them.
I recently read a blog post from a former fundamentalist who no longer calls himself a fundamentalist because as a whole, the movement of fundamentalism has not been consistent enough in how they exercise and apply the doctrine of separation, thus instead of saying something as arrogant like he's one of the very few true, consistent and purest fundamentalists, he just claims that he's neither Evangelical nor Fundamentalist. So, with that disclaimer out of the way....this blog post cited some Orthodox Jews on how they apply Deuteronomy 22:5 in their every day life which totally agrees with the view I grew up learning about women's modesty and the taboo of women wearing pants. Orthodox Jews would be the modern Pharisees. They are the strictest adherents to the Torah, but totally miss the point of their Messiah. They're the great great great great....grand children of those who crucified Jesus and said: "let His blood be upon us and on our children". So, they sound like a great authority on scripture right? Well, they speak Hee-broo, so they know how to apply Old Testament Scripture better than the rest of us.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I was taught that when a woman wears a pair of pants, she is as wicked as a lesbian because she has committed an abomination to the Lord. This blogger and the Orthodox Jews agree on this. They have concluded that because men primarily and exclusively wore trousers for hundreds of years, therefore, this article of clothing can never be considered a woman's garment any time in the present or future and thus for a woman to wear them is a direct violation of God's command. Western culture has changed in the past 60+ years so that clothing is now more about functionality and comfort rather than style or beauty. Gender distinction has also taken a turn for the worst with the unisex movement, so I totally understand and sympathize with some Fundamentalist conviction about the pants issue. However, gender distinction in our culture is still very much alive and well. Women's clothing still looks very much different than men's clothing and women who wear pants do not necessarily have to look like a man when they wear them. The point of the passage is to prevent gender reversal. But Pharisees love to take their personal rules on how to obey this command and elevate them to being God-breathed.
This blogger insists that there must be a female garment and male garment that are exclusively and forever settled because the text says "a woman's garment". He under-emphasizes the point that whatever a woman's garment was in those days and in that culture, was not to be worn by the opposite sex. What a woman's garment is today is not always going to be exactly the same as it was back then. Instead, he insists that this passage teaches that there must be a settled-for-all-time woman's and men's garments. He'll point back to a more pure western culture that set that standard back in Colonial or Victorian era and beyond...yes, the same superior western culture that enslaved people and treated people with dark skin like a sub-human animal species. That culture must be our moral authority on cultural issues in modern times.
(Oh, but don't pay attention to the men back then, who wore leotards up to their knees, powdered wigs with pony tails and ruffled lacy sleeves on their shirts. THAT isn't required to be considered masculine today. Just their trousers.)
The point of the passage (keeping gender distinctions) is secondary to the point he emphasizes (the particular article of clothing).
This is exactly the M.O. of the Pharisees and Orthodox Jews who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. The way they apply Scripture is over emphasized and they must be right They can have no doubt that they are wrong. Thus they are hell-bent on proving everyone else wrong to establish and maintain their own rightness. This blogger is constantly on the prowl to find the faults of Phil Johnson, Dan Philips and especially John MacArthur because he is so certain that they are wrong, and he must prove it over and over again because he's right and if he's not certain about everything all the time, then it would be a sin.
The Pharisees did this with Jesus and the disciples all the time too. They kept tabs on their every move so they could trap them in a fault. No doubt the men I just mentioned have faults and they will be easy to find. It just makes me wonder...why must he point this out so often? What is he trying to prove? Besides that he's right and they're not of course.
I had a guy in my church who was like this and when we came to a significant disagreement in Scripture about divorce and remarriage, he was dead-right certain that he was right and we were all wrong. I asked him: "Can you even imagine for one minute the possibility that you may have misunderstood something and that you might be wrong on this issue and be willing to learn from others' views?" He looked at us with a straight face and said. "No, I don't think so." He was certain he was right, but what it really was, was pride. He wasn't willing to bend on anything else either, like how often his Bible study group should meet in the week.
Was it pride or love that is behind the insistence of his own certainty? Pride is hard to pin on someone objectively, but could this be the reason this blogger writes 7-13 page blog posts every two days addressing one controversy after another as well as following multiple blogs and following up on multiple comment threads? If I were a member of his church, paying his salary....it would be problematic.
**Granted, my presence in the blogosphere has been a little heavier than usual in the last couple weeks, but I usually have huge gaps in between my blogging. If I didn't, my wife would get on my case for meddling too much. I'll probably hear about it after this post too!**
Could it be that pride has motivated me to write this post, especially since he was very condescending to me in a comment on his blog recently? Sure. It could be, and I wouldn't fault you if you think so. I hope not. I really wish this guy could see himself. Some of you who follow my blog may remember back in 2006-2010, I cranked out posts every week being hyper-critical of Fundamentalism because I had to prove to everyone that they were leading people astray and that I had found the truth and that I had seen the light! My own family had the love and the guts to tell me that I was just making myself look like a jerk. I stopped blogging for about 7 months to examine myself. I'm sure I still come off as a jerk sometimes and I have to repent of it. A couple of guys got on me for using "Nazi" in a cavalier manner, and I had to retract it and apologize. I'm glad I wasn't too certain about my rightness in choosing that word.
I really wish this blogger would express more passion about the gospel than he does about all these other issues. But even expressing the gospel as central or of first importance goes against his whole system of thought.
All the hub-bub about a small Bible college in the middle of nowhere, WI., got me thinking about the value of Bible Colleges in general. Bible colleges were started during a time when Christendom was still very much a powerful force in Western culture. As the culture shifts to be more secular, the Bible College will eventually die out as relic of the past. I am not talking about Christian Colleges that offer regular career paths other than Christian ministry. I'm talking about the undergrad college offering a four year degree in Biblical studies.
As Christianity gets pushed further and further to the margins of society, the institutionalized church will grow smaller. Fewer young people will be able to enter full-time professional ministry since most churches will probably be unable to financially support them. Churches will have to train their own young people to become pastors and teachers in the church apart from sending them off to Bible College. It really ought to be that way already. When I was looking online for a church to visit for a vacation in Hawaii, I came across a video of a church planter who described how he left his church in Hawaii to go to WCBC for Bible college and then return to Hawaii to start a church. After watching it, I thought: "Why couldn't this man's home church have trained him and his wife without having to send him to another state in another culture, in another community so he could come back and start a church right where he started from?" Wouldn't a church in Honolulu that has been there for many years be better equipped at training one of their own men to pastor in their own city? Instead, a college and a church in an other part of the country with a different model that works where they are, is going to train him to do church like they do it there and export it back to his home town.
Most pastors will probably have to be bi-vocational in the future, so they will be required to have a skill-set and education that will allow them to work professionally, provide for their families as well as oversee their churches. They will need to be educated to do the kinds of jobs that will not require strenuous, tiresome, physical labor so they will be able to do the work of ministry.
The cost of college education will continue to grow and the value of the Bachelor's Degree will continue to be reduced to the value of a High School Diploma. When a Bachelor's Degree from a State University will be so undervalued in the market, how much more will a Bible College degree be undervalued? I know, the market for Bible college educated people will be the churches that can't afford to pay them, thus the Bible College as we know it will eventually die out. Our churches will be forced to shift back into a missional mode of church planting and pastoral training. With the advent of the internet, online seminaries will be able to meet the needs of churches with advanced teaching and classes while those being trained will be able to work their jobs and serve in their home churches. They will be better overseen by their own elders who can better assess their qualification for ministry. Their real qualification, calling and character, will be better tested in the environment of their own churches than in an academic atmosphere where anyone who has the academic abilities and money can attend. The problem of seminary training is addressed in Paul Tripp's book "Dangerous Calling" where he says:
"Shouldn't every Christian institution of higher learning be a warm nurturing, Christ-centered, gospel driven community of faith?...I am convinced that the crisis of pastoral culture often begins in seminary class. It begins with a distant, impersonal, information based handling of the Word of God....it begins with brains becoming more important than hearts. It begins with test scores being more important than character."
Isn't this what the local church is supposed to be doing? One could argue that Bible Colleges are doing this right and I'm glad for the ones that are. But how sustainable will they be in the future? I am convinced that God has equipped the local church to do all that it must do to spread the faith through church planting and training disciples without the need of Bible Colleges.
Part 1 Rules of Engagement
Toward the end of the book, Andy Stanley gets into the subject of preaching and engaging people and finally how a church can become "Deep and Wide".
"As in all things, purpose should determine approach. At the end of the day, it's what we do, not what we purposed to do that defines our lives and reputations...if your stated purpose is at odds with your approach, you will never accomplish what you have purposed to accomplish. So one of the first things a service programming team must do is clarify the purpose of the weekend experience." (Loc. 2207 & Loc. 2215)
Andy talks about what the weekend win is at Northpoint...It's when an un-churched person liked the service so much that he returns and brings a friend. The purpose of their church is to be a church that un-churched people love to attend, so that defines what their "weekend experience" is all about. I agree with the basic principle in the above quote, but disagree with what Northpoint's purpose is. I disagree with it because it's not what the first church did. In fact, they had the opposite effect on the general unchurched population around Jerusalem when Ananias and Sapphira pulled their shenanigan at church:
Acts 5:12-14 Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. 14 And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.
Amazing. It was believers that were added. Sounds like the Holy Spirit was building a church for saved people and the rest wouldn't even come close. Yet, they were held in high esteem. Why? Because they were holy, not because they were cool.
"Does that mean we tailor the content to non-Christians? Nope. We tailor the experience to non-Christians. There's a big difference...The long term win is life change. The long term win is when individuals who attend our services on a regular basis shift their thinking and their behavior in a divine direction....Your current template is perfectly designed to produce the results you are currently getting...If you want me to follow you on your journey, you have to come get me. The journey begins where I am not where you are or where you think I should be." (Loc. 2258, 2300, 2314)
What he means by this is that you invite people to church and make the church experience similar to where these people already are - the bar, the nightclub, the rock concert, the movie theater, the whore house...well, maybe not that far. I get the concept of starting with people where they are, but where they are is not in church and the difference between being missional and attractional is that you get out there to where they are and bring them along on the journey. That will mean getting into some places and rubbing shoulders with some pretty rough people long before they will ever step into a church. I think Andy Stanley's template is the easy road of least resistance. It's easy to make the church look like a biker bar than it is to leave the church and to go to a real biker bar on mission. This kind of attractional church offers the easy evangelism for the lazy Christian...just invite 'em to church, we'll do the rest. Everybody will think they're being faithful and successful.
Andy gives us their experience template which consists of:
1. Engage
a. Pre-service experience
b. Opener
c. Welcome
2. Involve
a. Singing
b. Baptism
c. Special music
3. Challenge
a. Video and Message
b. Closer
The point is supposed to be the way to bring the visitor along to the point of making a decision. It's classic Finneyesque revivalism with modern hipster cool. If you really want to know what it's like, check out this video that the North Point team put together as a satire of what they do on Sunday Morning. It's so honest, it looks like someone else made it to mock and ridicule them...
Preaching
Although I don't particularly care for Andy Stanley's preaching. I really do think it's too scripture-lite, he does say some good things that are helpful to remember when preaching to unbelievers in a mixed audience such as acknowledging their doubts and suspicions; defining terms and not assuming that they understand who Melchizedek was and so forth. But over all, this is his concern:
"The key to successfully engaging un-churched people in a weekend message has to do with your approach and your presentation more than your content." (Loc. 2673)
That's how Paul approached the Corinthians right?
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23-24 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 2:1-5 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
I don't think I need to say much after that. Paul didn't seem to be as concerned with presentation as much as with content. Paul relied on the "Power of God" and not the power of presentation. Stanley never once mentions the preachers need for the power of God. He must assume that too.
Becoming a Deep and Wide Church
Finally at the end, the last section is the challenge to get off our butts and stop settling for the status quo.
"What feels irrelevant now was cutting edge once upon a time...your best idea, the one that other churches emulate and take cred it for, will eventually go the way of handbells and bus ministries." (Loc. 3122, 3136)
So, first come to grips with the fact that what you're doing now may be what was really working a long time ago and you were hired to maintain it. Most likely, it isn't working anymore and you need to change. How do you go about that?
"I'm more convinced than ever that shared vision is the key to bringing about change. And once initial changes have been made, vision is the key to maintaining organizational focus and momentum...vision is the place to begin every discussion pertaining to change. Start the discussion anywhere else and you will experience resistance...in 100%of the cases, the leaders who can't get their people to change can't articulate their visions either...you should never begin a conversation about change by addressing where you are now. you should always begin with where you want to be...once I got a clear picture of of a preferred future, my behavior changed. That's what vision does." (Loc. 3179, 3194)
This is true. You don't just throw out your hymnbooks one Sunday and start using projectors! People need to buy in. So, it's going to take a Biblically literate people to discern whether or not their pastor's new vision is something that should be followed.
"As long as you keep it biblical and intangible, you'll be fine. But once Nelly McCloud finds out that your new vision requires her to give up her Sunday School Classroom, well..that's when the fun begins doesn't it?" (Loc.3246)
I laughed so hard when I read that! We experienced this when we went to plurality of elders. I taught about it and everyone "Amen'd" and nodded in agreement until it came time to actually do it. Then we had several families leave. New ideas are good ideas as long as they don't require anyone to actually do anything new.
The vision must include a model that supports the church's mission. If the current model is not accomplishing the mission, it's time for a new one.
"One of the primary reasons churches are empty is because church leaders love their models more than they love people...let's be honest, local churches don't feel any urgency about anything until the money starts running out. Then suddenly they are concerned about 'reaching people'..The tragic truth is, most churches in the US won't change until their finances force them to...Marry your mission, date your model, fall in love with your vision, stay mildly infatuated with your approach." (Loc. 3284, 3298, 4202)
All this is good leadership sense that will work for a Biblical Church or an entertainment church.
The very last part of the book, Andy puts his finger on the source of the problem in churches - bad leadership. Not all pastors are good leaders, they're good managers. Romans 12:8 tells us that leadership is a gift and that only those with this gift should be the ones casting vision and doing the leading.
"You are better off managing what's been handed to you and praying that God will raise up a leader who will challenge the status quo and introduce change. Your observations about what needs to change may be spot on, you just may not be the one to drive the process." (Loc. 3526)
While Andy Stanley basically calls for pastors who are managers to step aside and call on a guy who's a leader (presumably like him) to take over, I want to suggest that the Bible has a solution for this - Plurality of elders! One of them should be the guy with the gift of leadership and the others are there to shepherd, teach, counsel and do what they do best. Any one of us as pastors should be willing to lay our lives down for the church and give our pulpit to the more able elder.
Conclusion: This book was pretty much what I thought it was going to be - a case for Andy Stanley's version of being seeker sensitive. Yet, there was quite a bit of leadership savvy that I found valuable. Yet again, reading this kind of book has reconfirmed in my mind that the attractional church has its days numbered. It will soon become irrelevant. The only true church is a missional church that doesn't rely on culturally relevant services to grow the church, but relies on Spirit-empowered people who go into the world bringing the church to people rather than bringing people to church.
The Scoop: I recently read some news about how the President of Northland International University (Formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) did some student recruiting at a CCM concert in Wisconsin recently. Lou Martuneac from "In Defense of the Gospel" blog has been following and critiquing this development. Northland used to be a Fundamental Baptist College in the vein of schools like Maranatha and Bob Jones University. For Northland to still be considered "Fundamentalist" by their peers, they must have the same dress standards, similar music standards, and cannot have cooperation of any kind with anyone who is not a self-proclaimed Fundamentalist or else they are considered in violation of Fundamentalist treason. So, Matt Olson is getting targeted as a borderline heretic and a Fundy defector because of some recent recruiting at a Big Daddy Weave concert. The major problem that these other Fundamental guys like Lou Martuneac are all upset about is that Northland has not officially made any kind of official statements on a change in direction, but the president is acting in a way that goes against the very written philosophy of ministry the college has historically held to. That's a fair expectation.
Northland's Dilemma: If Matt Olson is truly trying to lead Northland out of Fundamentalism and into mainstream Evangelicalism then he has a dilemma because he has several untenable options: He either has to be his own self-styled fundamentalist in his own mind with little regard to what his peers think of him and his philosophy.
Or he must try to change Fundamentalism so he doesn't have to say that he's leaving it.
Or he has to send out a press release that he's no longer going to be leading the college as a Fundamentalist Institution and lose his entire constituency.
Or, he has to do it quietly and slowly until he has built a new constituency for the school to survive.
The problem with all three options is that they're impossible to do if you want to be totally honest with yourself, others or if you want the institution to survive.
My Opinion: Not that my opinion matters much to anyone, but here it is anyway....To be honest with their constituents, Northland should officially make some statements or changes to their official documented positions on whatever they have been changing in practice for honesty's sake. The Fundy's who are up in arms about this do have a point. If they're going to recruit at Christian Rock Concerts, then it shouldn't be done off the grid. I personally would have more dignity than to have my college associated with "Big Daddy Weave" (whose name sounds so juvenile and whose music isn't any better in quality or content).
To further my opinion...If Matt Olson has to answer to bloggers like David Cloud, Lance Ketchum and Lou Maturneac to keep his Fundy cred, then he should get out! For the most part, Fundamentalists get three of the most primary issues wrong, which for me, doesn't make their "discernment" on other issues worth a whole lot:
They get the Sovereignty of God in salvation wrong,
They get the Lordship of Christ in Salvation wrong,
They get the Bible wrong with their KJV Onlyism.
(Not to mention their ecclesiology which still operates in most churches as single pastor rule)
Furthermore, if monotone, unemotional music and girls culottes are what make someone distinctly a Fundamentalist, then who needs them?
The gospel as the central unifying factor and the matter of first importance is often scoffed at on their blogs. They regularly deride movements like T4G and TGC that are propelling the gospel forward more than Fundamentalism has been doing. Being Separation-centered is more important to them than being Gospel-centered. Fundamentalism as a movement has done nothing in my generation and is going nowhere except to the trash heap of history. Christianity will survive well enough without it. Matt Olson would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school.
A couple of pastor friends of mine encouraged me to read Deep and Wide by Andy Stanley when I had no intentions of every buying it or reading it. The tagline of the title is: "Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend". So, automatically, I was already skeptical because I don't want to create a church that anyone would love to just "attend". I've been beating the missional drum with our church about being the church rather than merely attending the church. So, my first impression by just reading the cover was "Creating Churches that Attract Customers, Not Disciples" But in spite of my skepticism, I took their advice and got the book. It's easy reading since Andy Stanley is a very conversational communicator. He writes like he's having a conversation with you. He preaches that way too. It certainly has appeal and makes for easy reading.
The book is broken up into five sections, the first one being a personal account of his life as the son of Charles Stanley. He also for the first time, opens up with candor and honesty about the rift in his relationship over his dad's divorce in the 90's. All of this information is setting up the background for the launch of North Point Church which has become THE church that the un-churched love to attend.
The Second section deals more with how North Point was formed as a church plant
Section three deals with some of the foundational principles of making disciples that he calls "going deep".
Section four is the part that gets fun...Stanley deals with methodology that they use and why.
Section five is a challenge to churches to become "deep and wide".
(* I read this book on Kindle, so my page numbers will be Kindle location numbers)
So, here we go...
In the introduction, Andy says that...
"every church should be a church that the irreligious people would love to attend because the church is the local expression of the presence of Jesus. We are His body and since people who were nothing like Jesus like Jesus, people who are nothing like Jesus should like us as well. There should be something about us that causes them to gather at the periphery and stare." Loc. 57
Well, this is true in a superficial way. They "liked" Jesus but most did not love Him nor worship Him. If our goal is to be liked by those who are unlike Jesus, we're already off mission. If there is something different about us that causes them to observe us, that's quite another thing. Whether they like us or not will be partly by our graciousness and all because of the Spirit's work in their life.
Consumerism
"We grade ourselves on how attractive we are to our target audience...we are unapologetically attractional. In our search for common ground with unchurched people, we've discovered that, like us, they are consumers. So we leverage their consumer instincts. By the way, if your church has heating and air conditioning, you do too...it's hard to overlook that Jesus attracted large crowds everywhere he went. He was constantly playing to the consumer instincts of His crowds." - Loc. 88, 102
From the beginning, I already have major disagreements. We are not being attractional because we have heat and air conditioning. Nobody comes to our church because we have the best heater in town. This is a lame tactic of deflecting anticipated criticism. To say that Jesus played on their consumer instincts is outrageous. Jesus turned crowds away constantly when he called for discipleship as well. You cannot build a church on consumers. Listen to Alan Hirsch who flatly denies this mentality:
Not Called to Pastoral Ministry
In Chapter 1, Andy talks about his struggle with a call to ministry and how he never felt God call him to preach while many of his other friends were.
"One afternoon as my dad and I were driving somewhere, I asked him, 'dad, does a person have to be called into ministry or can he just volunteer?' He thought for a minute. 'I guess it's ok to just volunteer'." - Loc. 213
This was very revealing about Charles Stanley as well. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon would not have given that answer if they were his father. Lloyd-Jones said:
"It was Mr. Spurgeon, I believe, who used to say to young men – “If you can do anything else do it. If you can stay out of the ministry, stay out of the ministry.” I would certainly say that without any hesitation whatsoever. I would say that the only man who is called to preach is the man who cannot do anything else, in the sense that he is not satisfied with anything else. This call to preach is so put upon him, and such pressure comes to bear upon him that he says, “I can do nothing else, I must preach.” Martyn Lloyd-Jones Preachers and Preaching, Zondervan, 1971, p. 105
So, what we have is a self-styled, self-commissioned preacher whom God did not call into pastoral ministry. On Andy Stanley's leadership podcast on October 8th this last year, he mentioned that when he was at Willow Creek back in the 90's, he realized that he didn't have any of the stuff of a traditional pastor: being a shepherd, counselor, patient, kind, etc..., but he knew after hearing Hybles talk about leadership that he was a leader! Well, that's probably true. He is a good leader, but he is not a God-called pastor. So everything that he says in his book from this point on should be taken with this truth about him in consideration. There will be some practical things you can take away from him, but don't get your ecclesiology from a business man. By the way, don't pull out "Here am I, send me" from Isaiah 6:8. He was already called to be a prophet by chapter 6. All of God's prophets and Apostles were hand picked by God and most of them were reluctant to answer the call, not eager go volunteer.
Family Feud
Andy describes growing up at First Baptist of Atlanta as a church made for churched people. He was troubled by what he saw when a gay pride parade purposefully paraded by the front of the church which made all the FBC people angry. Down the street, however was a Methodist church that put up signs welcoming them into their church. He saw the grace of one church and the hypocrisy of his own.
He says:
"Churches designed for saved people are full of hypocrites. You pretty much have to be a hypocrite to participate. Transparency and honesty are dangerous in a church created for church people...It's hard to extend grace toward people who don't seem to need it. And it's hard to admit you need it when you aren't sure you will receive it." - Loc. 764
I do understand and sympathize with the hypocrisy that breeds in "church culture". I grew up with a front row seat to watch hypocrisy, legalism and exclusiveness. However, church isn't designed for saved people, the church IS saved people. The design for the church is in Scripture and God designed that the church be the people of God on mission to bring the gospel to the lost. Stanley's whole idea of mission is for the church people to bring the lost into the church as the evangelism strategy.
As he continues, he gives many details about his father and mother's divorce. Before the divorce, he states that his mom had not been attending church for years (Loc.362). Biblically, Charles Stanley should not have been senior pastor during those years. The church should have stopped holding up his celebrity status at the expense of his marriage. Anyway, Andy confronted his dad and advised him to let the church decide his future, but Charles saw his son as an opportunist trying to steal his ministry. I think anyone with any discernment should recognize that Charles Stanley's own sin was blinding him and his pride was the source of the breach in his relationship with his wife and son. Andy did the right thing and left the church. Eventually, their relationship healed slowly and Andy started a new church where he could do things differently to reach a different segment of the population than his father's church was reaching.
Starting Over
In Chapter 3, Andy does a good job of describing what the church actually is and shows us that he has done some homework in church history.
"The ekklesia was simply a gathering or an assembly of people called out for a specific purpose. Ekklesia never referred to a specific place, only a specific people...when Jesus used the term, his disciples understood him to say 'I am going to build my own assembly of people and the foundation for this new assembly will be ME'!" - Loc.599
He goes on to explain the rise of the Catholic church and how the ekklesia (Assembly of God's people) became the kirche (Church House).
"A kirche is a location. An ekklesia is a purposeful gathering of people. You can lock the doors of a kirche. Not so with the ekklesia of Jesus." -Loc.627
He goes on to explain how William Tyndale translated "church" rightly as "congregation" but the new word didn't stick because people were still thinking of church as a location and not a people. I agree with everything in this chapter. At the end, he asks some great questions:
"Are we moving or simply meeting? Are we making a measurable difference in our local communities or simply conducting services? Are we organized around a mission or are we organized around an antiquated ministry model inherited from a previous generation? Are we allocating resources as if Jesus is the hope of the world or are the squeaky wheels of church culture driving our budget decisions. are we the ekklesia or have we settled for kirche?" - Loc.698
Although I agree with his observations about the church in chapter 3, he treats the ekklesia as if it is only a weekly meeting and that the majority of mission is done at that meeting.
Going Deep. Crafting the North Point Values
In Chapter 5, there are some more biblical references to being a church that is good at giving grace and truth and not one without the other. Of course, I don't think you can give real grace without truth, but it is possible to give people truth without grace. He goes on to explain how the Jews and Gentiles had to learn to get along in the early church and the conclusion of the Jerusalem council was: Acts 15:19, 28-29 NIV It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God...It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
"Therefore, churches shouldn't do anything that makes it unnecessarily difficult for people who are turning to God." - Loc. 981
I agree that we need not make any traditions or extra-biblical preferences of ours an unnecessary barrier for people who are unbelievers. Sure, I believe in the sovereignty of God and that no amount of human barriers can keep the elect from coming to faith, but they may prevent them from coming to faith at your church!
The five catalysts that Andy Stanley said accomplish the purpose of developing people's faith in Christ rather than merely increasing people's knowledge. (Loc. 1124)
Practical Teaching - topical preaching with "here's what to do next tacked on the end of every message" because "people are more concerned about what works than what's true." -Loc.1210
Private Disciplines - private devotional commitment to Christ. "The way you talk about the Bible on the weekend will determine their interest in the Bible during the week." - Loc.1323
Personal Ministry - Getting people involved in service. Take people where they are and use what they have to offer. They will appreciate being allowed to contribute. They will grow attached to that which they serve.
Providential Relationships - Can't control who meets who, but you can facilitate environments that are conducive to the development of these types of relationships. Determine to create a model that is relationship-centric. Loc.1460
Pivotal Circumstances - Big life events shape people's thinking. Inform them how they should think before the events occur so their faith is strengthened by whatever happens. The interpretation of an event will determine which direction you will go.
All of these five points are great. I still think you can do expository preaching with practical application. Letting the Word set the agenda rather than your perception of what people need from week to week is the safer way to go. We still have to pick what books or chapters we're going to preach, so there does need to be a sensitivity as to what God would lead you to preach, what is timely and what is needed.
Going Wide: Why they love to attend
At the beginning of chapter 8-9, Andy recounts a terrible church visit as an example of what he assumes most of us are doing to repel people. Then he explains how to create "irresistible environments" which begins with the parking lot. "It's up to us to shape the way people view our local churches. We can't leave this to chance." - Loc. 1754
Leaders need to define excellence and hold that standard until it becomes the culture of the church. Some common sense stuff that we need to be aware of is asking yourself stuff like:
Is the Setting Appealing? Is it inviting and comfortable for people? An uncomfortable or distracting setting can derail ministry before it begins. Organized communicates that you take what you do seriously. Disorganized is unappealing. Safe environments, especially for kids, is important and appealing as well. We often need fresh eyes to come in and see what's wrong that we have gotten used to seeing so much that we're blind to it.
Is the Presentation Engaging? He appeals to Jesus' parables which used lots of contemporary illustrations and familiar terms. He also talks about how many of our Sunday School Teachers, or small group leaders are great at presenting stuff, but are sometimes not that great at preparing the content. He suggests matching people who are gifted in these areas together so that if you have someone who's better at leading the group, but not as great at studying, then give the group leader some material to present from a guy who enjoys studying and writing lessons. "You need a system that allows engaging presenters to present, skilled content creators to create content, and relationally savvy group leaders to facilitate groups." - Loc. 1999
Is the Content Helpful? "We assume it's true, but is it helpful?" Loc. 2055 I have to interject. NEVER ASSUME TRUTH! Look, nobody is going to hand someone a Greek Lexicon for a Bible class. That wouldn't be helpful, but never assume that the lesson materials are true. The truthfulness of something should never be assumed or taken for granted. That's how heresy creeps in.
His point however is that application is what makes the difference. "Knowledge alone makes Christians haughty. Application makes us holy. If you want a church full of biblically educated believers, just teach what the Bible says. If you want to make a difference in your community...give people handles, next steps and specific applications." -Loc.2083
"Content that doesn't address a felt need is perceived as irrelevant. Notice I said perceived. It may be the most relevant information an audience has ever heard. But if an audience doesn't understand how content interfaces with their lives, it's just not all that interesting." Loc.2128
I have to agree about application. Sometimes the Holy Spirit applies the teaching in a way that you could not have imagined, but connecting the dots for people is important. At least for people who are not so bright like me!
The approach to evangelism that teaches people to share four easy steps to heaven, or the Romans Road, door knocking and easy believism are very tempting to use for these reasons:
1. It alleviates the pressure of the Great Commission for a little while. We as Christians all feel the weight of the world on us when we hear the call to evangelize the world. Going out and hitting up a neighborhood with tracts and door hangers sure relieves that pressure for a little while.
2. It's a guaranteed way to get the "notitia" of the gospel transferred to someone. You can actually say you shared the gospel with someone after having shared the four points of the Romans Road. At least the bare bones minimum of the gospel is transmitted and you can feel good about having shared the gospel.
3. It gives you an easy way to measure your obedience to the Great Commission. If you're like me, you want to measure things to see how they're doing. Door to door soul winning gives you a measurable goal and you can see how well you're obeying.
4. It gives you a sense of accomplishment and righteousness. If you can say you've personally knocked on every door in the city yourself, you'll have accomplished the great commission for your community. Congratulations! Game Over! You will get the soul winners crown!
In reality, it's a mistake to make the great commission about "making converts" or just "go ye therefore". You can't separate sharing the gospel from discipleship as it is so often articulated in Fundamentalism. The great commission is to "make disciples who make disciples" according to Matthew 28:18. So, it's not always something that you can measure as easily as reducing the commission to door knocking. Sharing the gospel is not just giving the information of the gospel, but it is what Paul did by also sharing his life:
1 Thessalonians 2:8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.
When you make disciples like this, you're too busy all the time to count doors, numbers and people who prayed the sinners prayer.
By the word "Reforming" I am speaking of "reviving and renewing" The essence of this kind of reformation is the enrichment of understanding God's truth, arousing the affections Godward, and increasing devotion to Him. - J.I. Packer
2 Peter 1:3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,
Posts
