I have been having some fun with a little Java Applet called Wordle. It basically takes in large amounts of texts and then visualizes them in cool ways.  The more a word is used the larger it appears in the cloud of words.  Anyway, I dropped to things into Wordle to see what Jacob's Well was all about. 

First, a document that has our purpose, mission and values for the church - it represents well what we want to be about. Second, I dropped in our doctrinal statement...yeah, this is what we believe.  Interesting results that were encouraging to me. Click on each image to see a larger version...just reading which words end up close to each other in these clouds is an interesting thought experiment.

Now I know some people would want to see certain words bigger and more prominent...but overall I like the words that showed up BIG - they seem to me to be the main things...

Jacob's Well DNA - Purpose, Mission, Values

 

 

Jacob's Well Doctrine

 

 

 

 

We just finished up a two day urban church planting conference in Manhattan...a great few days connecting with some Jacob's Well guys and meeting some men from the Acts 29 network.  The event was held in an old cathedral (now a Unitarian Universalist church) on 76th avenue right adjacent to Central Park.  New York is a great city and we enjoyed staying in NJ and feeling the commuter lifestyle taking the trains into Manhattan. Spending time with five of the single men who are a part of the Jacob's Well team was the main highlight for me. The teaching at the conference was great and sitting in a cathedral setting at tables was a cool vibe.

Mark Driscoll was passionate, Tim Keller genius-like, Darrin Patrick helpful, Eric Mason off the chain with theology, passion and a tight flow...and Ed Stetzer managed to offend just about everyone (Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Unitarians...brought helpful kingdom theology and made me laugh out loud).  CJ Mahaney humbled us in a exhortation to watch both life and doctrine - an ever present need for pastoral ministry.  I don't ever want to get in any cults of personality or become fanboys of guys I respect...I find that goofy and strange.  Yet I am thankful for these guys' faithful ministry. Apparently audio/video will be up at some point at www.dwellconference.com - I recommend checking that out. 

On the family front Kasey joins me in NJ today to finish (we pray) our house search.  We are thankful for the quick and profitable sale of our home in Tennessee and hopeful that the other part of the equation - namely, having somewhere to go, will come together in due time. 

This past Sunday my six year old Kayla and I were walking into our church.  Our church is a large church in a wealthy suburb of Nashville, Tn.  It is somewhat in the middle of the evangelical universe - Nashville and Dallas probably compete for the title "buckle of the Bible Belt."  We have been here for almost four years and my relationship to the community has been difficult but very good.  In my opinion this area needs prophets - nice ones though...so people might listen to them.  I realized a couple of years ago that I am not that guy; that God was calling us to different lands.  To be honest I didn't know that would mean New Jersey, but I am thankful for that assignment.  Anyway, back to six year old ecclesiology.

Ever since my kids were old enough to understand anything I have worked to teach them that the church, the New Testament ekklesia, is a people not a building where you go on Sunday.  I call our current church buildings - the buildings where our church meets, etc.  I really work hard on this because there are church buildings everywhere here.  For the most part I think Kayla (6) and Ky (4) are getting it.  Tommy of course is 20 months and doesn't have a clue yet - but he sports a mean head butt.   Anyway, this past Sunday I almost had a debate of sorts with my six year old about what the church actually is.  Too fun. 

This year we have talked quite a bit about the life we will soon be living in New Jersey "as the church," namely it will be in our living room.  No matter how much we talk about this, it will still likely be a very different experience than a big church with a multi-million dollar budget that is reflected in our surroundings here.  Maybe that was an understatement.  In our conversation this weekend I told Kayla that the church is called into existence by Jesus through the gospel, so a church gathering will be a Word-centered gathering that will include the Bible.  Second, I told her that the church visibly lives the gospel together in community "marked" by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table. The sign of baptism marks entry into the community when one repents and believes the gospel and that the Lord's Table is the sign of God's covenant faithfulness and our sustenance by Jesus over time.  In it we proclaim the gospel visibly, participate with Jesus, receive sustaining grace, remember his work for us on the cross, etc. So this means a church gathering is not only a Word-centered gathering it will also center on communion.  At this she disagreed...I was actually encouraged because I want my kids to think.

She basically said this: At church we hardly ever do communion so it cannot be central to the church's gathering.  She was concerned that Jacob's Well would participate in the Lord's Table every week in New Jersey as part of our life together in the gospel. This seemed strange to her. I reassured her that historically and biblically there was great precedent for the Table every week.  We see this in the first century church and of course historically, most Christians celebrate the Table weekly.

Justin Martyr's book Apology has a reflection on church gatherings from the 2nd century.  I wanted to tell her about that.  Here it is for those interested:

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Justin Martyr The First Apology, chapter LXVII

Additionally, I wanted to tell her that the early pastoral manual of sorts known as the Didache, had this to say about our gatherings:

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

I thought of some of the reformed confessions of the church which say of gatherings and ordinances:

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God. - Westminster Confession

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. - Augsburg Confession

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.  - London Baptist Confession

Yet I chose to simply listen to her thinking out loud about "the church" and it was beautiful.  I then told her that when the church observes the table it is doing more than having a memory or an object lesson - it is meeting with the risen Jesus who is spiritually present with us.  She thought that was a good thing to do every week...I agreed.  I am thankful to hear the buzz around our church to make communion "more central" - thankful indeed.  Yet I fear in many evangelical houses of worship that if you never came to the table it would not even be missed.  It has become such a small part of Christian worship and I think this is a great loss. 

My six year old reminded me of this - thank God for six year olds who see simply what we do (or don't do) in life as worship.

Nelson Searcy and Kerrick Thomas - Launch - Starting a New Church from Scratch (Ventura: Regal Books, 2006)

Wandering into the world of contemporary church planting (or starting new churches) is a bit of an interesting journey.  First, one quickly finds that there are many, many camps all with their own gurus, books, handbooks, notebooks, conferences and web sites.  Second, even those whose theological vision is similar can be methodologically worlds apart.  Or to say it simply - they all disagree with one another on how the job should be done.  There are missional churches who focus attention on the world "out there."  There are attractional churches (purpose driven and seeker types) that focus on doing church with contemporary excellence so as to get the people in "in here."  There are organic house church types that recommend the church never leave the living room.  There are irresistible churches, creative churches, visioneering churches, simple churches, glocal churches and several types of churches from Mars Hill (different ways to see Acts 17).  As a guy who is moving soon to plant churches, too much reading dizzies the soul.  To be honest I am about to punt all the books in favor of the Bible.  Well, maybe not but I realize that for me Scripture is a starting point.  In my reading I did just finish a book entitled "Launch - Starting a New Church from Scratch" by two guys who are planting in the early 21^st century in New York City.  It was a quick and fun read that had me saying amen, scratching my head, and cursing a few times - I repented of that. 

I would say the book is written by guys that are firmly in the purpose driven, excellence/creative, church service centric camp...and probably some of the best in that flavor of church starting.  So I knew I would learn some good things from the read.  I was not disappointed...well, then again I was really disappointed.  Let's just get to the review.

Strengths

The strength of this book is not hard to find.  It is a great book for those wanting a clear strategy for starting a church service.  I say starting a service because the focus of the book is "launching" Sunday services and a large one at that.  The premise is that a church planter should move to a city with one focus - launch quickly and launch large.  If that is one's goal - this book will tell you how to do it.  The back cover even says "No Money? No Members? No Staff? No Problem!" - the book is brimming with confident know how and a can do attitude.  If you are not sure if the launch large paradigm is your focus you might be a bit frustrated because the book is focused on the steps to launch the church service. 

One of the things that I found very helpful in the volume is was the practical advice given along some very specific lines.  It does a good, though brief, job at coaching a church planter in raising funding for the new church.  It does an excellent job in talking about strategy formulation and strategic planning.  If you are a guy who doesn't know what a yearly calendar is, or how to form and articulate what you are doing, or how to get from point A to B without wandering for a few years in the dessert this book will help you.  The missional guys won't like the Sunday service-centrism of this book, but they might benefit from chapters 3 and 4 on funding and strategy even if they have a different model in mind.

The volume also has some good insight for growing churches which need to plan ahead for the future.  If people are meeting Jesus in your church and more of this starts to happen; chapters 9 and 10 helps inspire proactive thinking for getting ready if God should bring increase to the church.  This chapter helps ask good "what if" questions about facilities (again, house church guys squirm now), growing as a leader.  Page 209 actually hints at what these guys actually do to sharpen their own lives and keep growing as believing men.  Their suggestion to read deeply from Theology, Philosophy and Church History was refreshing and had an intriguingly intellectual feel to it - which the book itself seemed to lack. 

There were other things here to like as well.  Their view of servant leadership and calling the church to reach out to others in acts of kindness were refreshing to read.  Their approach to staffing and volunteer issues were also immensely practical. 

Overall the help I found in the book was thinking through practical issues - in fact, I often found myself launching out of the book to think about our own planting efforts.  For this I thank God and made the read more profitable. However, I found some frustration with the book as well, perhaps because I am thinking through mission/planting in a different way.

Weaknesses

I think my main struggles with the book were due to its hyper-pragmatism.  I think things should be pragmatic and practical in life, especially in church planting, but I prefer a bit more theological vision along with my pragmatic steps.  This showed up in many places for me.

First, there are Scriptures at the end of the chapters which reflect the idea being communicated.  However, at least two times, these verses were grossly out of context.  A couple of examples will illustrate.  The chapter on fundraising ends with a quote of Romans 8:17 which reads in the English Standard Version:

And if children, then heirs-heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

But they quoted a portion of it, and from a translation which I have been unable to find (I think it is first of edition of the New Living) which made it read:

Since we are his children, we share his treasures-for everything God gives to his Son, Christ, is ours, too.

So the suffering clause was dropped and a translation that had the word treasures slotted in.  It is odd that this passage is used about fundraising as this is not Paul's message in Romans 8.  Second, the chapter was fine without slapping the Bible verse on it.   Another example was after chapter 7.  The chapter spoke about the importance of a big, successful "Launch" for giving the church a proper foundation.  OK, this is the books premise - fair enough.  Yet in order to illustrate the importance of this a verse was used to talk about "foundations" - Luke 6:48 was selected:

It is like a person who builds a house on a strong foundation laid upon the underlying rock. When the floodwaters rise and break against the house, it stands firm because it is well built.

Is this part of Jesus' teaching about the foundations of launches or even foundations of churches?  I'm not so sure. It seems to be about building one's life upon the hearing and obeying his teaching. Anyway, I didn't see the point of using the Bible in this way and found it troubling. 

Second, there is little ecclesiology to be found in the work but again it is not the books purpose.  There was one sentence where I thought it might come through.  Page 102 reads "There are three things that every new church must have before it is a real church:" - a good statement which had me awaiting the next lines.  What followed the colon was this: 1) a lead pastor, 2) a start date and 3) a worship leader.  I didn't know that this is what made "a real church."  I actually thought of the gospel, the sacraments and church discipline when reading that sentence...not that I am opposed to lead pastors, worship leaders and launch dates.  It also was so focused on "the service" that I felt some other things about the mission of the church could be said. 

Another weakness I felt was that of the triumph of a formula or prescription.  The book seemed to teach that if you just follow this model, you will be a successful, large launching, new church.  It reminded me of the way revivals were prescribed by Charles Finney.  If you preach this way, do music this way, invite people this way - revival will always come.  How tos are very helpful and needed but I felt it was a little too much for me here.  Obviously Searcy and Kerrick are stud leaders and very capable men.  I was a bit concerned that such prescriptions may not fit everyone and could leave some guys disappointed or wondering "did I just not do it right?"  It would be easy to then chase the next book, the next formula, and next prescription.  I would rather see guys seeking wisdom about who they are, what their community is and how the gospel speaks to the situation. 

Finally, the Homogenous Unit Principle was very important to this church planting model.  In order to plant this way, you must design and tweak everything for a certain type of person, in a specfic demographic, etc.  For Searcy and Kerrick, that means their church is focused exclusively on well to do, young Manhattan types.  Though I understand we need to connect and communicate the gospel to certain contexts, I think such thinking can keep racial and economic segration alive in America without challenging the justice of prevailing paradigms.  I would suggest a read of Metzger's Consuming Jesus - Race and Class in a Consumer Church as a balance to the version of the HUP as seen in this work.

One last note - Reformed people just would not like this book and would see it as part of the problem with churches in America today.  Of course many of my reformed brethren could use some strategic and practical nudges from friends. 

Conclusion

Overall, Searcy and Kerricks work contributes to the body of literature on starting new churches.  They give great insights into some practical and important concerns (funding and planning) which I feel can be lacking in some of the more missional and house church circles.  I liked their light hearted writing style, focus and risk taking attitudes throughout and think I would enjoy hanging with and learning from them in person.  That said, I found myself longing for a more theologically driven book which focused in on Scripture.  In other words I wish they had said a bit more of the "why" behind the "what" of church planting.   Recommended but with major reservations.

Well, the contest results are in from the Together for the Gospel 08 web site.  The first question which asked was quite simple.  I can now share with you my answer to the question because I did not win.  Don't feel sorry for me, I can take an "L" every now and then.  To be quite honest I would like your opinion on the result.  First, I'll give you the winner's entry.  Then I'll share mine.  I'll report, you decide - I think mine was pretty good, and a lot funnier than the victorious submission.

Here is the question again as a refresher: If you could have anyone from history join the cast of speakers at T4G, who would it be and why?

The winning entry:

I would like to hear George Whitefield preach for two reasons. 1. Whenever I hear the term “Together for the Gospel” I think of the great quote by Whitefield. "Father Abraham, whom have you in heaven? Any Episcopalians? No! Any Presbyterians? No! Have you any Independents or Seceders? No! Have you any Methodists? No! No! No! Whom have you there? We don't know those names here! All who are here are Christians." 2. I would love to hear a man who could preach a Spirit-filled gospel message to 5,000 without the aid of a microphone."

Congrats to Joey Asbury from Greenwood, Indiana.  OK, here comes my entry, and you might see why I did not expect a guy like Mark Dever to crown this one a winner...but I thought it was funny and hope he got at least a chuckle from it as well.

This one is easy to answer – I would invite Jesus. First, it would solve all our lingering theological issues surrounding eschatology and bring closure to the cottage industry of producing bad end times films. Second, it would mark the removal of the curse, the end of death, our glorification, the resurrection of the dead and permanent joy in God – simply put; it would mean the consummation of the Kingdom. Finally, it would mean all the Baptists in attendance could drink wine with Jesus fulfilling his promise from Luke 22:18…and the Presbyterians would rejoice and welcome them to the party.

I may submit another one to the second question which is now up: Why are local churches better than pastors' conferences?

Together for the Gospel is running a contest of sorts with the winners receiving a free pass to the T4G'08 party.  Here is the description:

Hey Friends, Time for some fun! For the next few weeks, we're going to give away a free T4G 08 registration on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays to whomever gives the best answer to a question we post. Today's question is

If you could have anyone from history join the cast of speakers at T4G, who would it be and why?

Here are the contest rules:

1. Questions will be posted on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
   
2. Post your answer in the "comments" section.
   
3. Your answer must be accompanied with a working email address.
   
4. Each question will remain open for 48 hours.
   
5. The winner's name and answer will be posted sometime after that 48 hour period.
6. Winner receives free registration for him/herself or a friend.
7. Responses must be in 100 words or less.
   

Any takers?

I  just submitted my 99 word response.  I'll post it here if I don't win - I like my entry but not sure if the guys will or not.  If you are a taker, here is the link. 

In an interview related to the upcoming Resurgence national conference, John Piper talks about the state of American pulpit/preaching ministry today.  The last line is just classic: "But oh my, there is a lot of foolishness going on." 

In case you are like me and just could not fit the schedule to go to the Resurgence Conference...our friend Jon Krombein, tech wizard of the Resurgence, just announced they will be streaming the content live and then have all the audio and video available for free in the weeks following.  The theme of the conference is Text and Context and focuses on brining the unchanging message of Scripture in to changing cultural contexts.

 
Newsweek has a short piece on pastor Timothy Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. Keller is a bit like the wise uncle and professor of the theologically driven, urban missional church planting movement.  So many listen and learn from him though he seldom does interviews and is very infrequently "in the spotlight" so to speak.  To be honest, I like him because he is not a self-promoter and keeps his head down and plugs ahead with the mission of Jesus.  He is highly respected in many, many circles.

Here is the Newsweek deal - The Smart Shepherd (good title for a fun, spooky smart guy to listen to)

CBS' news magazine 60 minutes has a bunch of video up on its story on Joel Osteen.  Now I try not to be a hater, and look, each man stands before God to give an account of his ministry, but what I watched today was a bit crazy.

Go to this site and watch the clip at the bottom left entitled "No Mention of God?" The interviewer, in commenting on Osteen's most recent book said something like "to become a better you, there is no mention of God, no mention of Jesus Christ" and his answer was "thats just my message." Now I have a jaw injury because it smashed into the floor as I watched this.  What a nice guy.  Unfortunately I am teaching 2 Timothy 1 right now - and I think Paul would have flipped his gourd listening to this.

8Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. 13Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

Come on Joel - I am pulling for you to keep Jesus at the center of "your message." Please?

Brian McLaren, emergent guru, former pastor, author, conference circuit rider and book tour promoter has another detractor on his vision presented of the "new emerging views" of Jesus, the gospel and the church.  This time the one who questions his vision is John Wilson, editor of Books and Culture magazine.  So you know, Wilson is an intellectual and not a right of center fundamentalist or Willowback modernist who McLaren aims at so often.  A few of Wilson's comments:

Speaking of McLaren's view of war Wilson writes:

I have to admit that—immersed as I am now in a pile of books about the conflict with Japan in World War II and another stack about the Spanish Civil War—this talk about war as an "addiction" seems sophomoric, indeed painfully naïve and patronizing. Perhaps I am just in denial. But dialogue between just-war folk and pacifists? Yes, I'm all for that—and if this dialogue can take us further, wonderful.

Such dialogue, of course, has proceeded fitfully for many centuries. Neither the just-war tradition nor the pacifist tradition has been static. And so—on this point and across the board—the claim of McLaren's title, Everything Must Change, is quite misleading.

His other main complaint is about his facile view of church history and the importance of the emergent's correction of the past.

McLaren is particularly misleading when he's suggesting, as he does quite emphatically at times, that somehow the church went off the rails early on, and that only now are (some) Christians beginning to understand what Jesus was really saying. While McLaren occasionally adds nuances and qualifiers, this ahistorical account runs through the book. In this respect, his message is oddly reminiscent of the ahistorical narrative of church history that dominated the evangelical/fundamentalist churches of my youth. Between an idealized first-century church and the present moment, when the preacher was calling on you to make a decision for Christ, there loomed a great wasteland—all those centuries in which the church failed to heed the plain words of Scripture.

Finally, he comments on McLaren's naivety in dealing with global economics with the following statement:  

The reader of McLaren's book will discover that everything hasn't changed. Do we, as McLaren suggests, decide not to buy a cheaper shirt that has been made in a factory where the workers receive terribly low wages and instead pay more for a shirt that has been made in a factory where the workers are better compensated? Or—as a number of economist friends of mine would maintain—would McLaren's well-intended gesture, insofar as it had any effect beyond producing a sense of virtuous conduct, actually tend to undermine the fortunes of those poor workers?

Wilson's post is brief and yet another reminder that McLaren's voice is not one that I trust either biblically or intellectually.   You can read Wilson's essay here.

I did an hour long training and discussion today with some of our Inversion leaders on the nature of evangelism and the missional church.  Though it was specifically created for our Inversion peeps, I thought it may be of some interest here on the POCblog.

Here is a pdf of the file...
 

My friend Tim Dees forwarded this article to me which refers to the "Christian message" today which has been somewhat emasculated.  The following is from an atheist guy named Brendan O'Neil.  After hearing arch bishop of Catebury Rowan Williams' Christmas Message, he felt compelled to write an essay entitled Mankind is more than the Janitor of the Planet.  It touches many subjects including environmental concern, the new atheism, and the old/new Christianity. It is a good reminder that while environmental issues are important concerns for Christian action and reflection, it is not the gospel.  I think you'll enjoy his insights.

Here is the subtitle for the article:

Mankind is more than the janitor of planet Earth
I am avowedly atheist. But listening to the bishops' drab, eco-pious Christmas sermons, I couldn’t help thinking: ‘Bring back God!’

When a convinced unbeliever mourns the loss of the substantial and radical Christian message, the church need listen.

Ed Stetzer, director of Lifeway Research, recently published reasons why young folk leave church after age 18.  Here is an excerpt from the Christianity Today snippet.

Well, Lifeway Research (Southern Baptist) says they know the reasons why 70 percent of 18-year-olds who attended church regularly in high school quit by age 23: they don't like it.

The reasons cited?

• They wanted a break (27%)
• Church is too judgmental (26%)
• They moved away to college (25%)
• Busy with work (23%)

My favorite line, which is par for the Ed Stezer course was this one:

Lifeway's Ed Stetzer blames the losses on sorry youth ministry: "Too many youth groups are holding tanks with pizza," Stetzer said. "There's no life transformation taking place. People are looking for a faith that can change them and be part of changing the world."

Down with the holding tanks with Pizza! These kids wouldn't stand for it.

Ran across this quote today in a church history class I am taking...this was written just before the reformation.

“If Christianity had remained what its Founder made it, things would have gone differently, and mankind would have been far happier, but there is no plainer proof that this religion is falling to pieces than the fact that the people who live nearest to Rome are the least pious of any.”

—Niccolò Machiavelli

A friend showed me this video yesterday and to be honest it just made me sad.  Well, first it make me want to puke, then made me a bit angry, then it brought me sadness.

It is from a church in Georgia, I don't know the preacher and I believe the people there are likely well intentioned and desire for others to understand the message of the Bible.  This sermon was an introduction to a series entitled "Bling" - to talk about our culture's obsession with stuff.  But as I watched I saw a church surrounded by stuff, talking about "the worlds" obsession with stuff.  Additionally, I grew up very much in African American culture and I felt this to be very inauthentic and a bit over the top.  

Just a lesson of where a church, trying to be "cool", becomes very very far from being cool.  In fact, this is inauthentically as uncool as I have seen from the "cool church" crowd.  Plus, this little show looked like it probably cost a little bling to teach people about bling.

Here is the video - pull the slider to the 20min mark and let it go for a minute.  And then, if you are a pastor, promise sweet Jesus you will never do anything like this.  Or maybe I am overreacting...what do you think?

Mark 8:27-30 and its more robust parallel in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel has been the source of some historical controversy between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  It is taken by the latter to be biblical warrant for the institution of the Roman papacy, the Pope as the father of the church and its supreme teacher in regards to faith and morals.  I will quote the Matthew passage here:

¹⁶Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

While this brief essay cannot treat these issues with the rigor which is needed, I do hope it might illuminate the differences between Roman and Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views of the Christian faith.  I will lay out a few points of argument made by each side in regards to the issue of the papacy.

Catholic Arguments for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope)

There are many arguments that the Roman church makes in favor of the primacy and leadership of the Pope and the hierarchy of cardinal, bishop and priest which is under him.  The argument usually takes two lines-one from the sacred tradition of the church and the other from Holy Scripture.¹   On the tradition front, there is a section in the classic work of the 2^nd century church father Irenaeus to which Roman Christians point to as favoring papacy.  Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon which was located in what is now modern day France.  He wrote extensively confronting several heretical teachings of his day. He is quoted often in various contexts-in this case, in favor of the primacy of Rome.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.²

Additionally, the ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 listed four major patriarchates/sees (seats of authority) being Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem with Rome given the place of highest honor.  In the late fourth century Constantinople was inserted making the list of honor-Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, though the rivalry of Rome and Constantinople would continue until the east/west split in AD 1054.  One of the issues was papal authority which the Eastern Orthodox churches still reject until this day.  Finally, the text from Matthew quoted above is used extensively in the argument for the papacy. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome, the first pope.  His successors maintain the highest authority in the church.  The succession of bishops or overseers of the church in Rome is not the issue, the issue is this man's rule over the church as the supreme representative of Jesus on the earth today.

Arguments Against the Papacy

There are many long standing arguments against the papal authority in church history.  They too interpret both tradition and Scripture to make the argument.  Again, this is necessarily brief and therefore incomplete.  First, it is argued that Peter is but one of a plurality of leaders in the early church.  All traditions attribute great honor and leadership to Peter, but he was by no means infallible.  During the life of Jesus we see Peter's evolution into a great leader through his many failures.  Yet even post resurrection we see the apostle Paul rebuke Peter for his inconsistent and hypocritical actions in relating to Jew and Gentile in a way contrary to the gospel (See Galatians 2:11-14).  Second, the text in Matthew 16 does not imply the papacy and certainly nothing like papal infallibility.  Many interpretations have been offered which give primacy to Peter and his role in the establishment of the church, but none of this need imply the papacy which evolved in the Roman church during the middle ages.  Third, the historical honoring of Rome by councils does not warrant the papacy. Rome is honored as a great historical church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the other great churches and their patriarchates were not subjected to her-in fact, this was not the case with Constantinople and continued to be an issue for hundreds of years and persists until today.  There also has been a reality in history which stated that councils should decide matters of dispute, not one bishop.  This was the case through the first seven ecumenical councils and was argued by the Conciliar movement in the late middle ages.  Additionally, the apostolic succession of Pope's and their infallibility seems historically dubious.   First, one particular pope, Honorius 1, was declared posthumously to be a heretic and false teacher in AD 681 for advocating something called Monothelitism .  How could he be considered infallible?  Second from AD 1378 to 1417 there were actually two popes in the Western church, one in Rome one in France seated at Avignon.  The Council of Pisa in 1409 disposed both popes and appointed another, but both did not step down leaving the church with three popes for a brief time.  The issues were resolved with the Council of Constance (1414-17) but raised the question of whether a council could rule over the pope for the council had removed the two popes and elected Martin V to power.³  One last historical issue is of note, although the Roman church claims it was always the case, papal infallibility was not made Roman teaching until Vatican I in 1870. 

In conclusion it must also be said that the story of the papal institution has been haunted by grabs for power, accumulation of wealth, immorality and sin.  Though the Catholic church claims that the Pope has not erred and has never taught in contradiction to Scripture I think history is replete with examples of both action and teaching which do not reflect infallibility.  This only means that Popes are people and are in no way infallible.  The highest authority for the church has never been the succession in Rome, but the apostolic teaching of Scripture being faithfully entrusted and passed on through the ages.  We trust not hierarchy or power to maintain the church, but the Spirit and the Word of God.  There are errors on all sides...Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  Yet our disputes are resolved in humility, standing under, not over the very Word of God in Scripture.  History and our lives are messy, we no doubt move forward with truth and error.  But much as Luther echoed long ago under great pressure to recant his views-Our consciences are chained to the Word of God...here we stand, we can do no other.

Notes 

1. It should be noted that in the Roman religion that Scripture and the teaching Tradition of the church are equal forms of authority which are seen as complementary and never contradictory.   Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority and is the corrective and judge of all human teaching in the church.

2. Irenaues, Against Heresies 3.3.2-http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

3. For a good summary of church history during this era see Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1984) - See particularly the chapter on the Medieval Papacy.

There is a very good discussion taking place surrounding the nature of Jesus and Paul's teaching on Divorce in the New Testament.  Much of it has followed an article in Christianity Today by David Instone-Brewer on divorce which is a summary of his recent work on the subject.  John Piper, who many do not know holds a PhD in New Testament, responded to Instone-Brewer and others such as NT scholar Andreas Köstenberger have weighed in as well.  Here is a summary of the articles and blog entry's

• What God has Joined - What the Bible Really Teaches about Divorce by David Instone-Brewer
• Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce by John Piper
• John Piper corrects misconceptions about my Christianity Today article by David Instone-Brewer
• Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce by Andreas Köstenberger
• Q and A on Divorce and Remarriage by Andreas Köstenberger

As divorce is somewhat of a tragic norm in our society, this is a necessary debate with immense pastoral ramifications. 

I read something today in the Acts 29 newsletter that just made me smile. Acts 29 is a church planting network of which Jacob's Well is affiliated.  There are several things in this quote which reflect some of the reasons I appreciate the network.  The quote is about the Acts 29 boot camps, three day equipping events designed to help men assess and receive training in a call to church planting:

Acts 29 boot camps provide the theological compass for church planting. We do not provide lots (any?) of how-to tips. We rather present a compass in seven- parts that will help a church planter navigate through a difficult journey. How-to tips are not bad, but a pastor armed with character, a Bible, a mission from Jesus, the gospel message and a passionate calling will usually figure out how to lead people on mission for the glory of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not die on a cross so that we could start a cool church. He died to glorify Himself as the mission is completed through His redeemed people. Without the cross, we have no mission. Without a mission, we only have religion. Without a mission, we have no passion because we have no cure for the hopeless condition of humankind. Jesus said, As the Father has sent me into the world, even so I am sending you. (John 17:18; 20:21)

Here is a quick list of what I like so much in this statement

• Jesus matters - you would think this is a given in church planting - but making Jesus the center of preaching, teaching, mission and leadership is on the tip of the spear with the network.
• Theologically driven - if a man knows how to use a compass he can find his way.  If someone is of sound doctrine, firm conviction - this will serve him better than simply copying models
• Character matters - a man's gifts are not the most important reality to the mission fo the gospel.  Acts 29 cares about the character of someone as reflecting integrity and virtue in his life and with his family
• Calling matters - a man must be called to follow God on mission in culture to plant a church.  If the calling is lacking many will cash in when it gets tough. 
  
• Not afraid of Passion and Leadership - we all know that passion must have a good direction.  Yet we need not fear a passionate commitment to a mission which is good, right and true.  I love the men from Acts 29 I have met and interacted with - they are passionate, masculine men who are not afraid to exhort and call each other upward. 
  
• Missional - we see the church as the sent people of God into the world for the sake of the world, to see people saved to the glory of God.

Acts 29's dual calling to strong and sound theology along with contextualization of the gospel into culture can stir the pot for some people.  In fact, clarification has been needed at times to clear the fog.  Personally, I thank God for what I have seen in the network so far and glad to throw my hat in with these guys.

 

There has been a bit of a buzz in some circles about Willow Creek Community Church's admission that the program driven seeker church model is not producing mature Christian disciples.  This revelation has come after a self study which produced "data" that convinced the Willow Leadership that much of what had been created was based on flawed assumptions.  If you build it, lots of people come out, then people become mature followers of Jesus Christ. Out of UR, the leadership blog of Christianity Today has a post on this today. 

Personally, everyone I know has the utmost respect for Bill Hybels as a godly man and a good leader.   This admission will only add to that for many, including myself.  What perplexes me though is that the model of church leadership seems to be continuing in the same processes that formed the orginal paradigm in the first place.

Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church

This is precisely what led to the "seeker movement" - you find out what the folks want, see what "works" and then reinvent.  Hold conferences, publish stuff, etc. so that others can follow the "cutting edge"

I am thankful for the changes which Willow is dreaming, more discipleship, more of a missional vision for the church in culture.  But why did we need this "new data" in order to realize that the means of grace (scripture, prayer, meditation, community, sacraments) are what changes people, not big venues and large crowds as an audience for services which cost millions of dollars a year to produce?  The solution now according to the Reveal video presentations and the quotes from the Out of Ur Blog?

Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church

Could it be that the very method is flawed as well as the  models which are re-invented?  In order to know the way, we follow Jesus as revealed in Scripture, illuminated by the Spirit of God.  Should we not as how he defines and lived discipleship before we start doing "what works?" After all - his way is what really works and we are best if we start there. 

I am thankful for the good influences Willow has had on many people's lives.  But I did not buy the previous seeker model and I am not looking to Chicago to find out what to do next.  The sufficiency of Scripture and the person of Jesus are the paths I will wrestle out in church leadership.  I think Willow will do the same.  At least I hope this will be the path to this next reinvention.  We need more men who treasure Jesus among all things, not more butts in the seats.  For this realization and revealing I am thankful. 

Full paper available in pdf here: Emerging Churches and the Gospel of Jesus Christ 

Introduction

One might say that the last decade or so has been a bit interesting in terms of evangelical Christianity and its relationship to culture and the coming generations in the West. It has been a time of soul searching dialogue and conversation about all manner of issues. Many have realized that there have been immense cultural shifts in western culture which has brought us to a new situation for the life of the church.  Gone are the days where the Christian faith was the dominant story in the common consciousness.  Gone are the days where it could be assumed that most people had their lives, or at least their literary lives, shaped by the stories and text of the Holy Bible.  Gone are the days when the gospel could be shared with the assumption that there were general shared meanings with terms like God, sin, salvation, Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is reality today in many western cultures.  Europe and Australia are perhaps further down this cultural trajectory, but America is not far behind in its popular conceptions of Christian ideas.  Parts of America, segments of the west coast and the northeast, are every bit as secular and post Christian as the European nation states.  What to do?

Intellectuals have long seen these shifts coming, but ideas take time to arrive across the horizons of the masses.  Even longer to make it to populations who have valued cultural reclusion and isolation as much of the Christian subculture has since the early 20^th century. Indeed, skepticism and rejection of certain ideas is as old as history but today we have seen a change in our cultural beliefs and values which has come across at all levels of culture. So what is the church to do?  Some Christians in every era simply reinvent the faith to match the cultural ideas and sensibilities of the age.  This was the case with 19^th century liberal theology which did its best to put spiffy new clothes on Jesus and recreate him for the scientific age.  What was left was a nice man, who taught nice things, whose followers invented fairy tales about him which were found "unacceptable to the modern scientific mind." It was a Jesus that looked very much like his creators, but very little like the Jesus of Scripture. Other Christians choose to fight, to separate from the world and loft bombs over walls towards non Christian teaching and lifestyles. Others have taken a path of engagement, living among new cultural ideas while holding fast to the Christian gospel and seeking to reach people who are influenced by new mindsets.  I think this actually happens continuously in every age and in the lives of countless Christians.

I think much of the conversation today around the church's response to "postmodernism" or the "post colonial, post imperial, post Christendom" West has to do with how we relate Christ to culture today.  Should the church join the "post" party? Should she pick up the medieval battle ax or the modernist howitzer and fight? Should she engage? And if so, what must change?  What should emerge?  Hence we arrive on the scene of contemporary western Christianity.  Some desire a revision of all things to fit the current cultural milieu and ideas, others desire to pick fights - usually with Darwin or others who are navigating the hazy middle.  Is that middle way a place of relevance with faithfulness? Or is it just another slow road to heresy?

The conversation that lives under the names "emerging or emergent" church is the story of people who have taken up the task to try to be the church in this era.  There has been much deconstruction of "how we do church," there has been much "generative friendship" and dialogue and many are charting various courses towards a new day for Christian faith.  Some see a coming revolution which has little to do with churches. Others see a complete revision of all things - they fly the flag of the Emergent Village.  Another sees a resurgence of reformed biblical teaching living as missionaries very much within the cultures of our day.

In this piece I have a few modest goals.  First, I want to give a short history of some of the emerging conversation and the critiques being offered to the church today.  In giving the history I will allow two views to talk about the various streams and movements making up the emerging church conversation.  I will then talk about some of the good and bad coming from the discussion and will do this using the terms deconstruction and construction.  Deconstruction is to take apart things we do, ask questions and prophetically call into question in order to bring change.  Construction is to form praxis and doctrine, living and teaching.  This perhaps may create new forms, but the goal is to take the eternal and bring it effectively into the now.  I find both deconstruction and constructive moves needed for true re-form to take place.  In conclusion I will offer some thoughts as to a way forward with faithfulness and relevant church life in culture.  But before we jump into a history of the emerging conversation, allow me to confess who I am and how I have been influenced in the emerging dialogue. 

My story in brief...

I grew up outside of the Christian church.  I had no religious life other than a few visits to a Baptist church at about age 4 and a few trips to mass with my Irish Catholic grandmother who thought we would end up in limbo if we died as unbaptized kids. My Dad had left the Catholicism of his youth while in college and no longer believed in Jesus.  So, my brother and I were unbaptized Irish kids, a strange thing, but we really didn't care.  In the 11^th grade after reading a work by Voltaire, I think it was Candide, I declared myself a deist.  A fun thing for a 17 year old to do - that allowed me to believe in science and keep god out of my life. It was at the end of my freshman year of college that I heard about the message of Jesus in the Bible.  At the beginning of my sophomore year I began to follow him. I was on a wrestling scholarship at UNC Chapel Hill and studying physics when Jesus started messing with my life.  I could have cared less if a church sung hymns, choruses or Christian rock stuff - to be honest I had never really heard much of it anyway. It did not matter to me whether a preacher wore a robe, a tie, flip flops or blue jeans.  To be honest, church was weird for me culturally, but I was just happy to belong to Jesus.  After college I married my best friend from UNC, Kasey Monroe, who I met as a soccer player for the big time UNC women's team.  She grew up Southern Baptist, so she knew that world.  After our wedding we went on staff with Athletes in Action, the sports ministry with Campus Crusade for Christ.  We spent most of our time working with non Christians and Christians who cared to connect with non Christians on their campus.  

My questioning nature and non Christian background led me to the intellectual traditions of the faith and I soon loved to read philosophy, theology and the history of both. I just had so many questions and I needed to learn.  As we were involved with campus ministry and young folks I began to read web sites such as theooze.com, faithmaps.com and next-wave.com and began hearing about "the new thing coming today."  Sometimes it went by "reaching Gen X" or "postmodern ministry", other times it was just a big complaining session about why the church sucked so badly.  Usually it was we must change or die, we might miss the next wave, you better get with the new new thing, sort of stuff.  This led to reading more and discussing postmodernisms: in hermeneutics, critical theory, philosophy, language etc. I read essays by Rorty, Derrida, Foucault et al...During this season I was also taking some philosophy classes at Virginia Tech and discussing critical theory with a friend who was doing doctoral work at Princeton seminary.  At this time I also started reading Brian McLaren's web site and some of his books as he seemed to be on tour like a rock star talking about how everything had changed and we needed to be new kinds of Christians.  At first I thought Christians were using the term "postmodern" to just describe doing church differently.  People wanted to use incense and candles, use technology and bring back various forms of the long tradition of the church.  Worship needed to be EPIC - experiential, participatory, image based and communal.  That was probably all there was to it.  It was then I realized there was much more going on and some were advocating changing just about everything. There were smart guys who understood postmodern thought and wanted to remake Christianity - all aspects of it - in the image of the current ideology of the day.

At this time I was asked to come be a pastor in the Nashville, TN area - for me a strange place where following Jesus was either a given or a pain in the neck to many with whom I talked.  I met young Christians who grew up in church world and they loved to complain about "the way we do church." At times I could not tell if they even wanted to be Christians anymore - they sounded very much like some of the people I was reading in the emerging conversation.  So I listened...we had some long meetings talking about stuff and I listened some more.  

I began this thing called Inversion, a young adult ministry which began with a bunch of church people.  I love the people of Inversion and they have become dear friends.  I am writing this primarily because I care for their vision of Jesus.  I have followed the emerging dialogue with some interest and on some days feeling like many in the conversation were my brothers, other days I hated the words I read.  So I guess I am pretty ambivalent about all things emerging.  Some things I find very helpful in the conversation and other things I find horrendous. Yes, it is that polarized for me.  I am no big player in the debate in that I have not sought to write books on the subject, nor am I a conference hopper or trying to be some big commenter on all the blogs.  I have kept my head down in ministry, but slowly have come to some of my own thoughts within the dialogue. 

Here is where I am - my theology is shaped by Scripture with a strong appreciation church history, hopefully with some humility in light of 2000 years of Christian faith.  My heart is moved by Jesus' mission with lost people and I see things through that grid.  I most align with the reformed resurgence, a movement of young pastors who love the Bible and think culture is not comprehensively evil just because it is outside of the church.  Many reading this will judge my words because of who I am friends with or who I do not know...or where I am studying theology in my free time.  It is a Baptist institution after all.  I will be judged because I have not had a beer with Brian McLaren so I do not have the right to comment on his very public words.  I don't care - I am a pastor who cares both about the church and culture, about thoughtful engagement and the reality of eternity as described by Jesus Christ. So my goals are to be gracious and truthful to the way I see things. 

So as we begin I want to look at a few ways some have described the emerging conversation - just picking these guys will tick some people off, but c'est la vie.  So we begin.

Continue reading "The Emerging Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ" »

The following is a brief response for a college student studying gender at a state university:

---

I think you are hitting the issue correctly in seeing where the tension exists.

• Modern View - sex is biology, gender socially constructed – you can see the modern view on display here
• Biblical View - knows no such distinction.  We simply do not find in Scripture a "male who is really a woman" like you will see discussed in today's world.  Sexuality and gender are linked in the teaching of the Bible -
  

I see in Scripture "sex" extending far beyond mere biology as it is linked directly to the "imago dei" or image of God in Genesis 1:27 - here we find "male" and "female" both created in the image of God.  Now, what the image of God is has been a long discussion, and still ongoing in Christian theology, but nobody thinks it means a corporeal (bodily) existence.  Perhaps Mormons...

In my opinion the image of God is ontological (we have a certain nature – rational, emotional, volitional), functional (we have been made to rule and reign with God in the earth as vice regents), and relational (to exist in a communities of love and commitment).  We are made “that way” and it spans both male and female.  The Greeks and some Christians have erroneous thought of women as a lower order of being in the past.  Both Jesus and the apostles writing (Galatians 3:28) repudiate this view as made clear in my paper “Twisted Gender”

So I believe there is a maleness and femaleness to the human person, not simply their sex organs. Additionally, there are roles that God has made that only women and men can fulfill. Only women can be mothers and only men fathers.  Now today this is very tied to biology - only women bear children.  Now, we may "succeed" some day in establishing artificial wombs and move the birthing apparatus outside of the woman's body.  I think this will be tragic and sad and a huge loss for women, but nonetheless it is a goal of certain feminist ideology.  Even then, it will not change that women are designed for having and rearing children. I see the despising of motherhood as a great loss in our civilization.

Now, as to certain roles, the work done today is a bit tentative on asserting "Matriarchical cultures" - in fact, in almost every society the man is the provider/warrior and the women serve as community bearers and shapers.  Even today we see a move to using the term "matrifocal" for cultures once thought to be ruled by women.  We see that what really is seen is a high honoring of the matriarch in the community in terms of wisdom, guidance and leadership.  It is not as if males are no longer fighting the wars of the tribe or called upon to provide.  Now there is the goofy "bonobos" comparison which is a relative of the chimpanzee. These apes are used to provide an ideal for human species as they exhibit sexual freedom and matrifocal behavior – I find this absurd. 

One final issue – many use the tragic birth of genetically ambiguous children as “proof” that gender must be constructed.  But in these infinitesimally small amount of cases we find genetic problems, issues that are difficult which require tough decisions to be made by doctors and parents.  These could never serve as any sort of normative casuistry as to what we are.  In these cases something genetically did not replicate properly.

The Scriptural view is that God has designed us in a complementary fashion of male/females by which he is imaged in the world. Additionally he has made us sexually compatible to bring about joy, pleasure and children in committed marital relationship. Men are called to lovingly lead as servants in the home, women to lovingly be on the same team as both move forward under God.  Our modern world rejects the necessity of both sexes, declares fathers irrelevant, makes sexuality a choice which is backed up by hormones and scalpels.  It has not helped either sex and certainly has not been good for children.   

Now, the biblical view ought to stand in the arena of ideas about who we are and we must make our case. My short article is a small shot at this, but others more learned than I have made better cases...Follow the footnotes is what I always say.

 
For those interested in gender stuff, a good resource is available from The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  Their web site has recently been relaunched - www.cbmw.org.  In addition to the site which has many resources for chewing, they also have a gender blog which may be of some interest. 

Finally, a few entries from POCBlog on Gender issues from the past:

• The Logic of Gender in New York
  
• Twisted Gender - Male and Female According to Scripture and Culture

Spurgeon's Thermopylae - received this today from Kairos Journal:

The pulpit has become dishonored; it is esteemed as being of very little worth and of no esteem. Ah! we must always maintain the dignity of the pulpit. I hold that it is the Thermopylae of Christendom; it is here that the battle must be fought between right and wrong; not so much with the pen, valuable as that is as an assistant, as with the living voice of earnest men, “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints.” In some churches the pulpit is put away; there is a prominent altar, but the pulpit is omitted. Now, the most prominent thing under the gospel dispensation is not the altar, which belonged to the Jewish dispensation, but the pulpit. “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle;” that altar is Christ; but Christ has been pleased to exalt “the foolishness of preaching” to the most prominent position in his house of prayer. We must take heed that we always maintain preaching. It is this that God will bless; it is this that he has promised to crown with success. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” We must not expect to see great changes nor any great progress of the gospel, until there is greater esteem for the pulpit—more said of it and thought of it. “Well,” some may reply, “you speak of the dignity of the pulpit; I take it, you lower it yourself, sir, by speaking in such a style to your hearers.” Ah! no doubt you think so. Some pulpits die of dignity. I take it, the greatest dignity in the world is the dignity of converts—that the glory of the pulpit is, if I may use such a metaphor, to have captives at its chariot-wheels, to see converts following it, and where there are such, and those from the very worst of men; there is a dignity in the pulpit beyond any dignity which a fine mouthing of words and a grand selection of fantastic language could ever give to it. . .2

Footnotes:

1 “Preaching for the Poor,” in Spurgeon's Sermons, 2nd ed. (New York: Sheldon & Company, 1861), 157-158. Preached January 25, 1857, on Matthew 11:5.
2 Earlier in the same sermon, he developed his point of accessibility: “If they are preached to in fine terms—in grandiloquent language which they cannot lay hold of—the poor will not have the gospel preached to them, for they will not go to hear it. They must have something attractive to them; we must preach as Christ did; we must tell anecdotes, and stories, and parables, as he did; we must come down and make the gospel attractive. The reason why the old Puritan preachers could get congregations was this—they did not give their hearers dry theology; they illustrated it; they had an anecdote from this and a quaint passage from that classic author; here a verse of poetry; here and there even a quip or pun—a thing which now-a-days is a sin above all sins, but which was constantly committed by these preachers, whom I have ever esteemed as the patterns of pulpit eloquence.” Ibid., 153.

A few weeks ago a friend of mine asked if the POCBlog community would be part of fund raising for Jacob's Well.  I said, I never thought of it.  Then last night an anonymous friend added an ingredient that will provide a fun online experiment for us all.  Most of you know that we are working on moving to NJ to plant churches in the coming days. We are in the process of raising funds for the project and thought this would be a great thing for all of us here at the blog to participate in.

So, most of you know that Howard Dean turned eyebrows after raising gobs of cash using the Internet in the 2004 democratic presidential campaign.  My thought is...so if this guy leveraged the power of the web to raise millions for the kingdoms of this earth, I figured we could combine to make a viral effort to raise some for the Kingdom. 

Here is the game plan:

• An anonymous donor has offered to match all gifts to Jacob's Well up to 35 thousand dollars to get our fund raising started.  A huge blessing. That is 350, $100 dollar donations to match (or a combination of other amounts)
  
• If we all chip in here I think we can knock it out as a blog community making some sort of internet/church planting history. Will be cool to see what we can do together.  Kasey and I will kick in the first $100.00.

Here's how we do it - read these instructions

• You will need to create a user account with user name and password to give online. Please make note of this information.  Once logged in you will need to enter amount, frequency of the gift (Monthly/Yearly or One Time), select the fund “Offerings.” In the sub fund drop-down select “Jacob’s Well—Church Plant.” 
  
• Click this link to contribute online.

Spread the word - post this link on your blog, MySpace, Facebook, send out to your lists etc. 

Note: All donations go into a specified church planting account managed here by Fellowship Bible Church - a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. 

Thanks - lets pray this thing gets viral and see how this spreads out.
Blessings,
Reid

Hey guys, I just received word that Sovereign Grace Ministries just made their entire MP3 message Library free.  Here is the note from the ministry:

You may or may not be aware that all of the MP3 messages on the Sovereign Grace Store have been made FREE to download and can be searched by topic, event, or speaker. ENJOY and spread the word!

Add Sovereign Grace to the many great downloadable sources available online. 

Here is the link

John Piper provides a great example of a topical series that is thoroughly biblical.  His fall plans are to teach a seven week deal entitled: Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ

Here is the lineup:

• “All Things Were Created Through Him and for Him.” - Colossians 1:9-20
• “The Fall of Satan and the Victory of Christ” - Genesis 3:1-15
• “The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ” - Romans 5:12-21
• “The Pride of Babel and the Praise of Christ” - Genesis 11:1-9
• “The Sale of Joseph and the Son of God” - Genesis 37:1-36
• “The Sinful Origin of the Son of David” - 1 Samuel 12:1-25
• “Judas Iscariot, the Suicide of Satan, and the Salvation of the World” - Luke 22:1-6

I may have to pick back up on the podcast this fall... 

Is the Pope Catholic?

It is somewhat of a colloquial phrase used to emphasize the certainty of ones a claim. A friend of mine recently used this in a message of was giving and then paused for a moment as if he was thinking...He restated his thought in the following manner...Is the Pope Catholic? Well, this one certainly is. 

The current Pope certainly is Catholic. Pope Benedict, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, before ascending headed up the Catholic order known as the congregation for the defense of the faith.   If I were Catholic, it would be a group I think I would like.  It is sort of their apologetics and theological clarification ecclesiastical SWAT team. 

This week there has been bit of a stir about a recent and brief doctrinal clarification posted by the congregation and affirmed for release by Pope Benedict.  The document is entitled: RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH.

It has caused some "offense" among Protestants as it indicates that such congregations are not truly Christian churches.  The offense has come mainly from those who do not think doctrine to be that important, who just think everyone who says the five letter word "J-E-S-U-S" is singing the same song. I offer the statement made by the presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as a case in point. It seems his feelings have been hurt but he is not deterred in moving forward.

For more on the story see the following:

• Belief Net - Protestant Reaction to the Pope Muted
• Chicago Tribune - Protestants React to the Pope
• Reuters - Vatican Says Other Christian Churches "wounded"
• Dr. Al Mohler - No, I am not offended
  

Catholics who hold to the long held dictum - There is no salvation outside of the Church (meaning the Catholic Church) see the document as reflecting nothing other than long standing Roman Catholicism.  See Fr. Ray Ryland's article at Catholic answers for this view.

A survey of Catholic documents bears this out historically. Here are some historical remarks from various Popes:

Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Additionally, the catechism of the Catholic Church says the following in its article on the church. Article 9 - I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Note: thanks to A Catholic Life for the excellent summary of these documents.  

Additionally, Vatican II's article Lumen Gentium also makes this clear in point 14:

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...

So when we read this "new" statement from the Congregation on the Defense of the Faith is it surprising when it says of Protestants that they are no church?  Here are some of the final lines in the document:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

So if you are following this, the church's position, is the same as it has always been.  Protestants are no church and there is no salvation outside of the church.  So Protestants' souls are in danger.  Is this offensive to Protestants?  Perhaps to those who do not reflect on doctrine, theology, and the teaching of holy Scripture.  Perhaps to those who do not understand or do any reading in historical theology.  But to those who know these matters, the recent proclamation is neither shocking nor offensive, yet we do realize what is at stake on both sides of the table. 

This Pope is Catholic and I actually appreciate him for it - he is wrestling with theology not sentiment.  He is honest and open about the churches position and has a backbone.  I kind of like the guy to be honest.  He even thinks Jesus is the Son of God - See Newsweek on this shocker.

Protestant theology however places salvation in the completed work of atonement on the cross by Jesus Christ for sinners which is applied to people through faith and repentance by the Spirit of God. His substitutionary death "for us", his resurrection for our justification (Romans 4:25) and his continued intercession are the foundations of our salvation. Those truly in Christ, by grace through faith in him are saved. Those who are trusting their own good works - either moral or ecclesiastical - are not trusting in the gospel.  For us, there is simply no salvation without the gospel, the gospel is what places us in the church.

Whether Pope or Cardinal will accept us, blessed Peter would say to us "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"

We stand on the confessions of Peter and the apostles in Holy Scripture, we can do no other. 

In times throughout history the church of Jesus Christ has labored to clarify its doctrine and ministry in the midst of various cultures and controversies.  Today there is a working coalition which is meeting to unite theological convictions and missiological concerns for the confessional evangelical church es in America.  It is mostly made of up of people with Reformed theological conviction and a robust missiological compassion for the word.  It unites many of the passions of my own soul, so indeed I rejoice at its occasion.

This group of men has united under the banner of The Gospel Coalition and states its purposes in the preamble of their foundational documents.  The following is from this introduction entitled The Gospel for All of Life:

We are a fellowship of evangelical churches deeply committed to renewing our    faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures. We have become deeply concerned about some movements within traditional evangelicalism that seem to be diminishing the church’s life and leading us away from our historic belie