Archive | Church Planting RSS for this section

What if we were Intergenerational instead of Isolating?

What if church were different?

What if church were different? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating? What if older Christians could build up younger ones, and what if younger ones could bless older ones? One of the major problems in American Christianity is we are not passing on our faith to our kids. In fact, a recent study has estimated that over 40 million young people who were raised in Christian homes could walk away from a life with Jesus by 2050. One of the answers to this problem is for Christians of different generations to be together. 

Many churches isolate the generations from one another. Kids are siloed from seniors and young adults are isolated from older adults. This is problematic for several reasons. For one, Scripture presumes that Christian formation occurs within intergenerational, familial, and community settings[1] (e.g., Deut. 6:4-9; 11:19; 32:46-47; Ps. 78:6; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4).

Second, intentionally mixing the generations in a church uniquely nurtures faith formation for all ages.[2] It “creates opportunities for adults, youth, and children to build relationships across the age spectrum, to share each other’s spiritual journeys, and to learn from and encourage those ahead of us on the journey as well as those coming along behind.”[3] Mixing in this way stimulates “healthy spiritual growth and development across the generations.”[4]

At the Gathering, where I pastor, we have childcare for kids ages 1 to 6 during the teaching time but we love to have kids involved! We believe families, singles, retirees, under-employed, and over-employed all journeying together to pursue Jesus is the ideal. Seeing each other authentically loving Jesus through the thick and thin of life blesses the whole church. We learn from each other and grow to understand and love each other more. We do have childcare for young kids as a service to parents, but we care about kids learning and seeing the whole church body love Jesus. 

Yesterday at the church gathering, we sang the old powerful song by Keith Green, “There Is A Redeemer.” I was standing by the young kids and it was beautiful. A young black boy swung his little fox stuffed animal around while belting out “Thank you, oh my Father for giving us Your Son…” There was a little brunette boy coloring and singing and a little blonde girl with fake fish on her fingers, not singing, but wearing the biggest grin. 

Let’s not fumble the handoff. Let’s live genuine lives of love as we wholeheartedly follow Jesus. Let’s worship Jesus and ensure they see us worship Jesus. And let’s have fun with them as we do so. This, I believe, is especially important when there are so many single-parent families. The biological mom or dad may not be around, but the church has moms and dads aplenty. The church may not be able to literally replace a parent but it can provide faithful familiar mentors. The church is a family, let’s be the intergenerational family God has called us to be.

The need for intentional, costly discipleship for children and youth from an early age has never been greater. New cultural pressures continue to widen the gap between daily American life and biblically reinforced orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Long gone are the days when Christians represented 80-90 percent of mainstream culture… Across many different research projects, studies have found that the most important driver of retention is actually pretty simple: actively engaging youth into a full life with Jesus in their family and church. It turns out that being in a family and church that talks with Jesus— where they actively evangelize, serve together, know other adults that take their faith seriously, and live the Gospel and not sin management— will more often than not produce young people who want to continue on in a life with God.[5]

Notes

[1] Holly Catterton Allen, Christine Lawton, and Cory L. Seibel, Intergenerational Christian Formation: Bringing the Whole Church Together in Ministry, Community, and Worship, 65.

[2] Allen, Lawton, and Seibel, Intergenerational Christian Formation: Bringing the Whole Church Together in Ministry, Community, and Worship, 143.

[3] Ibid., 22.

[4] Ibid., 95.

[5] “The Great Opportunity,” 59.

Why Consumerism Harms Church Discipleship

What if church were different?

What if church were different? What if we disciple instead of entertain? I recently read this striking description of church: “Sunday services are essentially a bunch of people gathered to sing along with a worship cover band.”[1] But church was always meant to be much more than an entertaining sing-along.

Jesus talked about the cross yet we encourage and support consumerism. Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Lk. 9:23). What if the church growth method of coddling Christians is backfiring? Perhaps our emphasis on entertainment over discipleship is partially at fault for this startling statistic: “51% of Churchgoers Don’t Know of the Great Commission.”[2] Clearly, being a churchgoer is not the same as being an apprentice of Jesus.[3] 

It seems like at least many of the biggest and brightest churches across America are the most successful vendors of “religious goods and services.”[4] As Kenneth Woodward said, “Some of the least demanding churches are now in the greatest demand.”[5] Yet, as has often been said, “What you win them with, is what you win them to.” Of course, most churches will not be able to compete with the world when it comes to amazing entertaining experiences, but “even if we could produce cool church events, we would create a generation of Christian consumers who look to the church to entertain them.”[6] 

Plus, the church has what the world can never duplicate. We foolishly put the emphasis on the wrong thing if we put it on entertainment. America is drowning in entertainment. We are “amusing ourselves to death.”[7] We have the bread of life, if the world has butter, why are we offering more butter?! They need bread! They may not know it, but they’re desperately hungry for substance. 

Further, when we entertain and coddle Christians, is it any wonder why Christians don’t want to take up their crosses as Jesus commands? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in The Cost of Discipleship, said, “When Jesus bids a man, He bids him come and die.” We, instead, offer entertainment and amusement. The church often tries to compete with what the world offers all the while Jesus is calling us to put to death what is earthly in us. I’m not saying all entertainment is wrong, but entertainment as a church growth model is problematic for discipleship.

Christ tells us to take up our cross but we’re often worried about our coffee. Jesus tells us to lay our life down but “the sermon didn’t really speak to me.” This mindset is problematic and prevalent. And it’s been bred in our churches in America. Alan Hirsh has said, 

Ninety percent or more of the people who attend our services are passive. In other words, they are consumptive. They are the passive recipients of the religious goods and services being delivered largely by professionals in a slick presentation and service. Just about everything we do in these somewhat standardized services and ‘box churches,’ we do in order to attract participants, and to do this we need to make the experience of church more convenient and comfortable. It is the ultimate religious version of one-stop shopping-hassle-free. But alas, all we are achieving by doing this is adding more fuel to the insatiable consumerist flame. I have come to the dreaded conclusion that we simply cannot consume our way into discipleship. Consumerism as it is experienced in the everyday and discipleship as it is intended in the scriptures are simply at odds with each other.[8]

We have so distorted the radical call of Jesus that the standard for Christian faithfulness has become somewhat frequent church attendance or checking out the church’s livestream. It is such the norm for pastors to pander to the middle classes’ desire for safety and security, comfort and convenience, that it’s hardly ever seen for what it is. It’s just the way it is, the way it’s always been. Pastors will run themselves ragged, be chewed up, and spit out, all the time catering to the church’s perceived “needs.” The pastor can feel good because he sacrificed himself—and probably his family—for the “good” of the church. But what if “good of the church,” is equal to “sufficiently coddled and entertained”? 

A major threat to the viability of Christianity in America is consumerism. Revelation warns Christians of the beast and Babylon. Perhaps American Christians are unaware that one of the evils of Babylon is its consumerism. Consumerism and following Christ are contradictory, they are positive and negative magnets, they repel each other.  Again, “We plainly cannot consume our way into discipleship.”[9] In part, because “The task of the church is not to make men and women happy; it is to make them holy.”[10]

Entertainers provide popcorn and reclining chairs. Coaches provide water to replenish sweat and bandages to stop bleeding. Fans sit in their seats and buy hot dogs. Players lay it all on the line on the field. When we entertain we make fans. When we coach we make players. Fans may not sweat and bleed from the stands but are often overweight and unhealthy.

When we overprotect and provide, we stunt growth. In this way, people and plants are both byproducts of their environments. Biosphere 2 was built in Arizona to test the possibility of creating an ecological system that would support plant and human life in outer space. Everything was thought of; everything was perfect—too perfect. The trees in Biosphere 2 appeared strong and healthy until they collapsed. 

The trees did not experience the stress of real life outside their perfectly designed environment. There was no wind, which resulted in a weaker cellular structure and roots that did not grow as deep. Perfectly curated environments hinder actual maturity. In the same way, an emphasis on entertainment is antithetical to an apprenticeship with Jesus. Curated comfortable environments can curb our conformity to Christ.

Notes

[1] Justin Sarachik, “Everybody Loves a Good Cover,” 48 in Common Good

[2] https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/

[3] Being a disciple of Jesus is much more than knowledge but what we believe is very important. When we look at the beliefs of “evangelical Christians” there is much reason for concern. The 2022 Ligoniers State of Theology found that 43% of evangelical Christians agree with this statement: “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God” and 56% agree with this statement: “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam” (See https://thestateoftheology.com).  

[4] Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 110.

[5] Charles Colson and Ellen Vaughn, Being the Body, 22.

[6] Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Everyday Church: Gospel Communities on Mission, 49.

[7] See Neil Postman’s book with the same title: Amusing Ourselves to Death.

[8] Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 110.

[9] Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 45. 

[10] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 26.

Rethinking Church: From Invitation to Evangelism

What if church were different?

What if church were different? What if we evangelize instead of invite?

Admittedly, this is an old study, but in 1988 George Barna found that 

Despite the fact that churches and para-church organizations have spent billions of dollars on evangelism. More than 10,000 hours of evangelistic television programming have been broadcast, in excess of 5,000 new Christian books have been published, and more than 1,000 radio stations carry Christian programming. Yet despite such widespread opportunities for exposure to the Gospel, there has been no discernible growth in the size of the Christian body.[1] 

Could it be because invitation has replaced evangelism, and inviting people to the Christmas program has replaced dinner in our homes? The church was always supposed to incarnate the good news of Jesus and show the lived reality of His reign through Christian love. Francis Schaeffer went as far as to say that the love of Christians must be visible, for it is “the final apologetic.”[2] 

Perhaps we must take a different approach than the church growth experts have promoted for decades. Instead of watching the neighbor’s kids, who is a single mother and in need of a lot of help, we are exhausting ourselves in the nursery supporting the church service. What if we did the opposite?! What if we didn’t serve in nursery, and instead knew and helped our neighbors? The church was never meant to be for itself. It exists to love Jesus and love others like Jesus. 

The Bible tells us to “go and tell.” It doesn’t instruct us to “invite people to a building.” We are to be the church, not invite people to a building we’ve falsely labeled “church.”

“Letting our light shine” was never meant to become: “gather all the lights in the same building and keep them from the dark.” Too often, Christian life circles around propping up and keeping the institution of the church afloat. It becomes a vicious cycle. The church needs people at the “church” to keep the “church” going, all the while taking the church out of the world. 

People often ask me, “Why is the world such a dark place?” Could it be, in part, because the church—the light of the world—has left the world and gone into a building? Sadly, churches are notorious for taking people out of actual outreach to put them on an outreach committee. 

Further, we’ve hamstrung ourselves by encouraging and facilitating invitation over evangelism. Instead of the whole body being deployed in specific contexts where different people are specifically equipped to contextually share the good news of Jesus, we’ve allowed the onus to fall on professional clergy. Inviting someone to church is now the faithful thing to do. We’ve essentially taken an army off the frontlines where they are desperately needed and given a weapon to one person to wield from the stage. 

UPS delivers packages to us, typically Amazon packages. What if UPS went around town and told us we could go to the distribution center one day a week between 9 and 11 AM and pick up packages? First, that’d be bizarre. Second, it would be very unhelpful and UPS wouldn’t be in business very long. Third, it would be a lot like our “evangelism” in America. Yet, as Bill Hull has said, “There are no commands in Scripture for non-Christians to go to church, but there are plenty about Christians going to the world.”

Instead of being missionaries, we expect those who would be part of the church to become missionaries. The responsibility is on them to cross boundaries and learn a new vocabulary. Instead of crossing the thresholds into people’s homes and inviting them into ours, we’re inviting them to a sterile church building. We’re inviting them to a strange and foreign institution. Jesus and Paul sought out people where they were, they didn’t invite them to a church service. 

Jesus who is the good news, brought good news. He did not merely call us up to heaven. He came down from heaven—to walk, dine, and die for us—to bring us up. And Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21; 17:18). He has sent us not to merely invite people to a church building, but to compel people into the Kingdom.

Notes

[1] George Barna, Marketing the Church (Navpress, Colorado Springs, CO, 1990), 22. 

[2] Bryan A. Follis, Truth with love: the apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, 58.

[3] Luke 14:23 says, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” but the context (note v. 15) informs us that the parable is about the Kingdom, and not any one church. It’s certainly not about a church building. 

What if church were different?

What if church were different?

What if church were different? And what if church needed to be different? Different to better fit the biblical ideal and different to better reach North America? What might that “different” look like? 

Christianity as we know it in America is receding. That’s what John Dickerson shared in his book The Great Evangelical Recession in 2013. The decline of evangelical Christianity in America “is not just that we’re failing at evangelism or just that we’re failing to keep our own kids or just that we’ll lose 70 percent of our funding in the next thirty years. It’s all those factors (and more) combined and gaining speed simultaneously.”[1]

If that’s the case, and it is, “We are in need of a new paradigm, not a mere reworking of the existing one.”[2]  I propose a new paradigm in upcoming posts; but first, let’s look at the current reigning paradigm.

What is the typical American church growth model? What is seen as necessary for the continued growth of the church?   

  • Inspiring worship experiences by an excellent band and positive worship leaders. 
  • Dynamic and entertaining preaching related to the felt needs of the audience. 
  • Fun programming for kids and youth.
  • Excellent parking and building facilities.
  • Effective marketing and branding to set the church apart from other churches.
  • Small group opportunities without commitment.[3]
  • The latest and greatest visual technology.
  • Increasing staff, buildings, and money. 
  • When the church grows, go multisite and export the brand.

With all of this, in the USA, we spend roughly $1.5 million on church functions per baptism of one new convert (notice, this is a convert, not a trained up faithful follower of Jesus).[4]

Further, the “market appeal” for this type of church in America is around 35 percent.[5] Most evangelical churches subscribe to this approach yet growth with this model is relatively rare.[6] It is quite hard to start a Saddleback, Willow Creek, or Mars Hill. It takes a whole lot of money and talent and can produce a whole lot of scandal. And sadly these churches often produce fans who sit in their seats instead of Jesus followers who serve. 

I am sure church growth experts were sincere, well-intentioned, and did not perceive the ramifications of the consumeristic approach. Yet, they “have explicitly taught us how to market and tailor the product to suit target audiences. They told us to mimic the shopping mall, apply it to the church, and create a one-stop religious shopping experience catering to our every need.” In this way, “consumerism has actually become the driving ideology of the church’s ministry.”[7] Of course, in our preaching, we’re against consumerism but our practice often says something else. 

One of the problems, however, is who is going after the roughly 65 percent of people not interested in the typical American church? How are we going to reach the people who think church branding is shallow? What about the people who long for authenticity and not a “positive worship experience?” 

What if something else is needed in America? What if we don’t need more mega churches, what if we need micro churches? What if we need simple churches, filled with authentic Jesus followers? What if more money and more buildings aren’t the key? 

What if many people are disillusioned not with Christianity, but with the American church? What if people don’t need better visuals during the service but someone to imitate in real life?  What if people need a visual of how to live their messy lives as followers of Jesus? What if what we’re building is built with straw (1 Cor. 3:10-15)?

Notes

[1] John Dickerson, The Great Evangelical Recession, 22. Before that, in 2008, Christine Wicker wrote, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation. In it, she said, “Evangelical Christianity in America is dying… They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on the culture. All are down and dropping” (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church [2008, Harper One], ix).

[2] Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 26.

[3] These small are designed with on and off-ramps so if people are “too much” fellow Christians don’t have to “bear their burdens.” A sense of community needs to be available but needs to conveniently fit the limited schedule carved out for it. 

[4] David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, 520-29. 

[5] Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, 36.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 110.

Photo by Kenny Eliason

Why is it important to sing hymns in worship?

Scripture exhorts us to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph. 5:19-20; Col. 3:15-17). The Westminster Directory of Public Worship concurs with Scripture and says, “It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation.”

“Why do Christians sing when they are together?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer answers: “The reason is, quite simply, because in singing together it is possible for them to speak and pray the same Word at the same time; in other words, because here they can unite in the Word” (Life Together, 59). I think that’s an important point.

Notice that right before Paul says to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” he says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you [pl.] richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Col. 3:16). So, singing ought to be part of the ministry of the word. We ought to sing the Bible. We ought to sing Psalms and we ought to also sing biblically rich songs. So, that’s in part why the Directory says our “chief care must be to sing with understanding.”

When we sing songs to God, however, we are not just thinking. We are not just singing for the sake of singing or just edifying each other. We are recounting God’s truth and goodness and being moved anew to thanksgiving (cf. Ps. 78).

Read More…

Elliot Clark, Evangelism as Exiles

I really appreciated Elliot Clark’s book Evangelism as ExilesHere are some of the things that stood out to me:

“Picture an evangelist. For many of us, our minds immediately scroll to the image of someone like Billy Graham—a man, maybe dressed in a suit and tie, speaking to a large audience and leading many to Christ. As such, we tend to envision evangelism as an activity—more commonly a large event—that requires some measure of power and influence. In communicating the gospel, one must have a voice, a platform, and ideally a willing audience. It’s also why, to this day, we think the most effective spokespeople for Christianity are celebrities, high-profile athletes, or other people of significance. If they speak for Jesus, the masses will listen. But this isn’t how it has always been. Not throughout history and certainly not in much of the world today” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

Elliot Clark gives six essential qualities of a Christian exile on mission:

“With the help of God’s Spirit, such believers will be simultaneously (1) hope-filled yet (2) fearful. They will be (3) humble and respectful, yet speak the gospel with (4) authority. They will live (5) a holy life, separate from the world, yet be incredibly (6) welcoming and loving in it. While these three pairs of characteristics appear at first glance to be contradictory, they are in fact complementary and necessary for our evangelism as exiles” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

From the perspective of 1 Peter, the antidote to a silencing shame is the hope of glory, the hope that earthly isolation and humiliation are only temporary. God, who made the world and everything in it, will one day include us in his kingdom and exalt us with the King, giving us both honor and also a home. We desperately need this future hope if we want the courage to do evangelism as exiles” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

Here is a long string of quotes I found instructive:

“over the last decades, in our efforts at evangelism and church growth in the West, the characteristic most glaringly absent has been this: the fear of God… “Knowing the fear of the Lord, ” [Paul] explained, “we persuade others” (2 Cor. 5:11)… The consistent testimony of the New Testament is that if we have the appropriate fear for them and of God, we’ll preach the gospel. We’ll speak out and not be ashamed… our problem in evangelism is fearing others too much” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

“In a world teeming with reasons to be terrified, the only rightful recipient of our fear, according to Peter, is God… Fear of him, along with a fear of coming judgment, is a compelling motivation to open our mouths with the gospel. But we do not open our mouths with hate-filled bigotry, with arrogant condescension, or with brimstone on our breath. According to Peter, we fear God and honor everyone else” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

“According to Peter, we’re to honor everyone. Take a moment and turn that thought over in your mind. You’re called to show honor to every single person. Not just the people who deserve it. Not just those who earn our respect. Not just the ones who treat us agreeably. Not just the politicians we vote for or the immigrants who are legal. Not just the customers who pay their bills or the employees who do their work. Not just the neighborly neighbors. Not just kind pagans or honest Muslims. Not just the helpful wife or the good father” (Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

Read More…

Church Leadership

What is an elder? A biblical elder is a godly qualified man that labors and serves the local church through leadership and teaching. He meets all the qualifications outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9. He is an under-shepherd that seeks to exalt Christ in all he does. He is not the head of the church but seeks to faithfully carry out the will of Christ.
 
I believe the terms “pastor/shepherd” (poimen Eph. 4:11), “elder” (presbuteros Acts 14:23, 20:17, Titus 1:6), “overseer/bishop” (episkopos Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2), and “minister” (diakonos 1 Timothy 3:8) all mean the same thing (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Peter 5:1-3) and only serve to emphasis different aspects of an elder’s calling. Senior pastor, youth pastor, lead pastor, lay pastor are all contemporary terms. They may not be bad in themselves but are not biblical. They reflect contemporary culture more than they do biblical teaching. In this paper, I will be referring to the office as simply elder.
 
Why elders? Although the form of church government is nowhere commanded in the Bible, it at least clearly appears that in the majority of situations a plurality of qualified elders shepherded the church. This is seen from various places. In fact, I cannot think of a New Testament example where it appears that there was not at least two elders. Although there is no explicit text commanding this form of government we feel it is the best option since it appears that this is the form of government in the New Testament church.
 
Biblical examples of a plurality of elders. In the Old Testament we see examples of shared godly leadership. “Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people” (Ex. 18:25) as his father-in-law suggested. There are also other examples of elders in the Old Testament (Lev. 4:15; Ex. 3:16–18; Deut. 21:18–21; 27:1; 31:9; 2 Sam. 5:3; 1 Kings 20:7-8).
 
In the Manual of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in the “Statement on Church Government” “a foundation for strengthening the role of elders” is laid (p. 205). It is pointed out that 
 
“The synagogue was under the management of “elders” (Luke 7:1–5) who seem to have had disciplinary and administrative authority as well as religious…
Because of their heritage, New Testament leaders likely knew and used the synagogue models for the organization of the church… This might explain the fact that the New Testament gives no historical record of the institution of the eldership as it does with the Seven (Acts 6). Much of the church’s organization is assumed in the New Testament rather than argued… However, development in the church’s organization is found in the New Testament.
Christian elders are first mentioned in Acts 11:30 as an existing institution. It is possible that some of the first Christians were already (Jewish) elders and continued in a similar capacity in the early church… Throughout the Book of Acts the elders are seen to be leaders of the church (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17, 21:18).”
All over the New Testament we see that churches didn’t have an elder (sg.) but elders (pl.) (cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1; James 5:15). In fact, Paul didn’t think a church was as it should be until it had a plurality of elders (Titus 1:5). Paul left Titus in Crete that he “might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town.” The churches were therefore out of order it seems until a plurality of elders was established there. We also see shared leadership in various other New Testament passages (1 Cor. 16:15-16; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7,17,24 and Paul was almost always accompanied by another leader on his missionary journeys cf. for ex. Acts 13:1-5, 13; 14:14; 15:35-41; 16:3,19; 17:1,10,15-16; 18:2-3,18 not to mention Luke) so this teaching does not arrive from some isolated passage. Rather, we see a good case can be made for shared leadership, i.e., a plurality of elders.
 
What are the biblical qualifications for an elder? Paul gives a fairly long list of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 yet his list is not exhaustive. An elder must be (1) above reproach, (2) a one woman man, (3) sober-minded, (4) self-controlled, (5) respectable, (6) hospitable, (7) able to teach, (8) in good standing with outsiders, (9) gentle, (10) able to manage his household well and have faithful children (or child), (11) disciplined, (12) upright, (13) holy, and (14) firm in the faith and thus able to teach, exhort, and rebuke (Titus 1:9). Further an elder must not be (15) addicted to substances, (16) violent, (17) argumentative, (18) greedy, (19) a new Christian, or (20) arrogant.
 
What is a deacon? The book of Acts tells us that the Apostles were dedicating so much time to serve tables that they didn’t have enough time to do what the Lord had called them to do and thus they had neglected “prayer and the ministry of the word.” Therefore, they appointed seven men that would serve the church’s needs and thus free up time for the Apostles (Acts 6:2-4). This, you could say, is the first installation of the office of deacon. It is here that we most clearly see the rule of deacons. They serve the external needs of the flock so that those entrusted with the task of ministering to the internal needs have the time to do so. That is not to say that deacons cannot also teach, they can (see Acts 6:5; 7:2-53) but their primary role is to serve the church to free the elders for prayer and the ministry of the word.
 
After Paul told Timothy what the qualifications for elders were he said, “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well (1 Tim. 3:8-13).
 
Therefore, although it is often confused, in Scripture deacons and elders have different but complementary roles. Elders are to be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2) and “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). The elders primary ministry is “prayer and the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). Whereas, for deacons there is no qualification regarding teaching because that is not their main responsibility, they serve the church in a different way.
 
The practical advantage to having biblical functioning deacons and elders is that it frees the elders up to do what they are called and responsible to do: pray and teach. It is also practical because you have the elders, i.e. overseers and shepherds, overseeing the direction of the church. This is significant because it is the elders and not the deacons that have been formally recognized to “hold firm to the trustworthy word” (Titus 1:9). Elders have proven themselves able in both character and scriptural wisdom to guide the church. Thus the office of elder and deacon is different but complementary.
 
What do elders do? To arrive at the precise function of this elder-overseer-shepherd we must look at various texts and descriptions. Elders are to protect (Acts 20:28–31), shepherd (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1–3), teach (Titus 1:9), anoint the sick (James 5:14), represent the congregation (Acts 11:30), and make policy decisions (Acts 15:6, 22). An elder is to intercede in prayer on behalf of people (Acts 6:4). He is to plead with people on behalf of God (Acts 6:1-7). He is to preach, teach, rebuke, and counsel with love and patience (2 Tim. 2:4; Col. 1:28-29). He is to oversee, lead, and protect the flock. In all of these things he is to humbly and happily serve (Jn. 13:14-15; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Those who labor especially hard at preaching and teaching are worthy of double honor (1 Tim. 5:17).
 
Woman elders? Probably the most debated topic here is whether or not women can be elders. This post can only briefly discuss this subject.
I am convinced that Scripture does not allow women to hold the office of elder though there is a lot woman can do. We do not want to minimize the rule of woman, they are vital and a vast blessing to the church! For example Paul had woman co-laborers (cf. Rom. 16:1-15l Phil. 4:2,3). And I would like to see an increase in women practicing the teaching that Paul talks of in Titus 2:3-5.
 
Let’s briefly look at some of the relevant passages. First, an elder is supposed to be a one woman man (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:5) which a woman obviously cannot be. Second, Jesus set the precedence for male leadership because He called twelve men as His apostles (Lk. 6:13) although he had close relationships with women (e.g. Mary and Martha). Even when Judas’ spot as an apostle had to be filled only men were considered (Acts 1:24). This was in keeping with male leadership established at creation (cf. Gen. 2:18-25). Third, every passage in the New Testament that deals with marital relationships says that a wives should submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:1,4,5; 1 Peter 3:1-6). This should lead us away from saying that wives submitting to their husbands was merely based on the cultural context. Further, Paul takes us all the way back to Genesis in his argument, which in my opinion means that woman submitting to their husbands is not just a cultural mandate. It is rather the way it was from the beginning. If Paul says that woman should not exercise authority over men in the context of the church and grounds it in Genesis than he applies it to various churches in his own day and various cultures. If what Paul says holds true from Genesis to his own day than it surly applies to ours as well (Gen. 2:20-23; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 14:34-38; 1 Tim. 2:11-14).
 
Of course, submission does not mean that women are any less than men in person or character; only that they have a different role. Adam and Eve were both created in the image of God. Similarly, Jesus is not any less than God His Father yet they have different roles. Jesus submits to His Father (Jn. 3:35; 8:21-47; 14:41; 17:1-5; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:24-28).
 
Practical advantages to a biblically qualified plurality of elders. A qualified plurality of elders is very practical in the life of the church. First, there are many advantages to qualified leadership. If the elders are biblically qualified than the church should have mature and loving Christians leading the direction of the church rather than some who may be less spiritually mature. If elders are holy and able to teach than they should have biblical wisdom and be able to make good decisions for the church. On the other hand, if the general members are making the majority of the decisions then at least some new Christians (contra 1 Tim. 3:6) will be influential in guiding the direction of the church.
 
Second, a plurality of leadership is helpful for accountability. I, for instance, have been under two pastors that fell to grave sin and left their families and church. They were the sole pastor of their church and didn’t have the accountability that they should have. I believe that if they had fellow elders to encourage them and keep them accountable things may have been very different. A plurality of leadership is also very helpful in decision making. The Proverbs attest to this: “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” and “Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed” (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; cf. 10:17; 12:15; 19:20; 20:18; 24:6; Eccl. 9:17-18).
 
Conclusion. Although there is not a formal command saying that churches must have a plurality of qualified leaders I believe that it is in fact the most biblical model and thus it the best and has the most practical advantages.

10 Hospitality Quotes

1. “Engaging in radically ordinary hospitality means we provide the time necessary to build strong relationships with people who think differently than we do as well as build strong relationships from within the family of God” (Rosaria Butterfield, The Gospel Comes with a House Key, 13). 

2. “The truly hospitable aren’t embarrassed to keep friendships with people who are different… They know that there is a difference between acceptance and approval, and they courageously accept and respect people who think differently from them. They don’t worry that others will misinterpret their friendship. Jesus dined with sinners, but he didn’t sin with sinners. Jesus lived in the world, but he didn’t live like the world” (Rosaria Butterfield, The Gospel Comes with a House Key, 13).

3. “A cold, unwelcoming church contradicts the gospel message” (Alexander Strauch, Leading with Love, 100).

4. “If you are looking for ways to evangelize, opening your home is one of the best methods of reaching unbelievers” (Alexander Strauch, Leading with Love, 102).

5. “Some theologians go so far as to state that the growth in the earliest churches was wholly dependent on the meals and hospitality of the believers” (Verlon Fosner, Dinner Church, 24).

6. “Jesus does not have us here to straighten out our dinner guests’ thoughts and realign their lives, and it’s good thing, because their challenges are quite impossible at times. What Jesus needs most from us is for us to be their friends” (Verlon Fosner, Dinner Church: Building Bridges by Breaking Bread, 73).

7. “A lot of our language presents and reinforces the idea that church is an event… we talk about ‘going to church’ more often then we talk about ‘being’ the church” (Krish Kandiah, “Church As Family,” 68).

8. “Look at any church website and what is advertised worship services for us to enjoy, sermons for us to listen to, use provision for our children, and perhaps a small group that can provide for other needs. We post pictures of our smart buildings, of our edgy youth work, and of well designed sermon series; we invest time and money and brilliant branding and hip visual identity. This all serves to reinforce the idea that our churches exist primarily as events for consumer Christians to attend” (Krish Kandiah, “Church As Family,” 68).

9. “God’s guest list includes a disconcerting number of poor and broken people, those who appear to bring little to any gathering except their need” (Christine D. Pohl, Making Room, 16).

10. “Although we often think of hospitality as a tame and pleasant practice, Christian hospitality has always had a subversive countercultural dimension” (Christine  D.  Pohl, Making Room,  61).

And…

“We welcome others into our home, but generally those who don’t even need it. Our hospitality is only lateral and transactional. We host peers in a system that expects reciprocity, not one that displays free grace” (Elliot Clark, Evangelism as Exiles).

The Hospitality of God and our Hospitality

First, what even is hospitality? What does it mean? It means “love for the stranger” or “to befriend a stranger.”[1] One definition says hospitality is having “regard for one who comes from outside one’s group.” That is exactly what God has done for us. God is perfectly holy and exalted and yet He has regard for us. 

The Lord God has regarded us—loved us—even welcomed us into the Triune fellowship (see e.g. Jn. 20:17), we who were sinners and strangers. And He did so with great cost to Himself.[2] And we see from the Gospels that Jesus was a friend (philos) of those we would expect to remain strangers and outsiders, people like tax collectors and other sinners (see Matt. 11:19), sinners like you and me.[3] And so Paul says, “welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7).

When we understand the amazing hospitality of God we will find it easier to love and welcome people in. Understanding the hospitality of God is essential as we think about the hospitality that we are called to practice. Because, in one sense, hospitality is supernatural. It is certainly not natural to us. We need to meditate on the hospitality of God if we hope to be hospitable as we are called to. 

It is true, however, that even “secular people” who don’t know God’s love show surprising generous hospitality (cf. Acts 28:2,7[4]). So, how much more should Christians, who have been welcomed in by God with great expense, welcome in and love others?

The LORD has shown undeserved love to us in Christ may we show love to others (Ex. 23:9; Lev. 19:18, 34; Deut. 10:17-20).

Read More…

My Checklist for Preaching

This is a checklist that I put together to look over as I prepare to preach. There are, of course, other things that I could have put on this list. But these are the specific things that I need to be sure to check at this point in ministry…  

  • Am I preaching the good news of Jesus?
  • Am I praying and pleading with God to bless my sermon?
  • Am I working with a team in preparation to preach?
  • Am I getting and listening to Leah’s feedback?
  • Am I preparing far enough in advance?
  • Am I preparing my sermon with specific people in mind?
  • Am I going to bring people on the journey with me? (Am I going to peak people’s interests? Am I taking baby steps when necessary or am I making huge leaps in my logical reasoning?)
  • Am I using the 6 Journalistic Questions (What?, Who?, When?, Why?, Where?, and How?) and answering what will be most helpful for the audience?
  • Am I illustrating my point like Jesus would have? And am I getting the full impact from my illustrations?
  • Is the sermon going to be “G rated”? (Is the sermon for a general audience or is it restricted to those with special training? Did I break it down like I need a mechanic to break it down for me?)
  • Is the sermon going to create and relieve tension?
  • Is my sermon focused, making one sustained point? (Am I considering what the one thing is that I want people to take away from the message?)
  • Can I pass the 3am test? (If I was awakened at 3am and asked about the main point and structure of the sermon could I answer in a helpful way?)
  • Will unbelievers understand and find the sermon appealing? (Not that we ever want to compromise the truth but we do want to intrigue unbelievers with the view of reality that the Bible gives)

In the future I’d like to write a blog post for each of the above points to further convince myself of their importance.