CJ Mahaney - Not Your Average Preacher

This morning I took a short jog - OK, a run some, walk some, jog some time around the neighborhood.  During this time of physical training (or at least some movement) I listened to a message by CJ Mahaney from the recent Resolved 2008 conference.  The message was on the cross and I was so engaged by the work of Jesus on our behalf.  After being so moved I thanked God for this man's ministry and headed into my day.  Then I began to think - this guy has said something recently that I just do not think is true!

I have heard CJ Mahaney claim on at least one occasion to be an average preacher.  In fact, I believe it was at the Resurgence conference where he said that all average preachers should be encouraged by his life and ministry. Now, I have listened to CJ's preaching a few times now, both online and in person and think I want to challenge this statement about the "averageness" of his calling and craft.

For one, I think CJ is a great preacher and one a voice that is engaging and touching many people in many networks of pastors and church planters.  He is consistently, and rightfully so, invited to address audiences large and small around the globe.  His passion is contagious and his sincerity of heart is compelling.  His earnestness and Cross-centeredness honors God and inspires men of all stripes.  So my question is this - why average? 

I think after reading Pastor Mahaney's book on Humility a couple of years back I think I know why he feels just "average."  For one, he cannot say he is a terrible preacher, this would disdain the work of God in his life and it would seem to be false humility...this sort of thing does not come from Mahaney.  Second, he would never say he is a "great preacher" for he knows his own sin, the immeasurable grace of God in Christ, and the utter God-centered calling of a pastor.  In other words, I think I hear true, heartfelt humility from CJ Mahaney when he says he is "average."  Furthermore, I truly think he respects some of his colleagues' preaching so much that he does not think he plays in the same league.

So, I have a plea for CJ Mahaney.  Stop saying you are an average preacher.  Over and over again I am blessed when listening to this man speak of God and Jesus Christ.  I find him to be a great preacher.  Additionally, if CJ is average, then I certainly would fall in the "sucketh really bad" range of preaching.  Of course, the gospel is sufficient and comparison is not of grace as all true biblical ministry is of God not of the preacher. Yet I still think CJ's claim to averageness does not fit with reality of preaching and preachers I have heard. 

One more story to close about the ministry of CJ Mahaney.  First, let me say that I do not know CJ and I have never met him.  This adds to the story.  Some time ago he gave a generous gift to the Acts 29 network to faciliate church planting.  Some of the Acts 29 pastors heard about it on a pastor's forum and were quite moved by his gracious gift.  I decided to write a thank you note to Pastor CJ for his gift to the network and thank him for how much he is an encouragement to church planters like me.  A few weeks later I received something back.  What was it you may ask?  It was a box of books from CJ Mahaney's office all personally signed.  So I write a thank you note and GET a big box of free books back!!??  Such graciousness is not common today.

So I thank God for the ministry and example of CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries...but I refuse to believe Mahaney when he claims to ascend to the middle realms of avergeness. I cannot see how this claim corresponds to reality - it is simply not true.

Wordles and Jacob's Well

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

 

 

 

DWELL Confernce NYC 2008

 

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. 

Ecclesiological observations of a six year old

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.

Book Review - Launch

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.

Contest Results

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?

Free Conference

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. 

Resurgence Conference

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.

Uncle Timothy Keller

 
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)

Not my gifting to explain the Scriptures...

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?

Another Voice Questions McLaren

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.

Evangelism and the missional church

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...
 

Vacuous Christianity

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.

Youth Groups and Pizza

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.

Interesting quote by Machiavelli

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

Sad thing to see...

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?

Peter - Apostle, Preacher...Pope?

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.

Divorcing Teaching on Divorce

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. 

Some Reasons I like the Acts 29 Network

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.

Revealed...

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.