Elementary…My Dear Watson

“And it is a documented fact that schools that go soft on the biblical languages sooner or later go soft on orthodoxy. Part of the reason is that the professors can no longer be held in check. Students can’t call them on the carpet for their exegesis, since the students have never learned how to exegete (an activity that, technically speaking, can only be done in the original language of the document).”

Leaving an environment where any criticism or questioning was most often viewed as negative, I find this perspective very interesting. It is not only a student’s right, but a student’s duty to “call them on the carpet for their exegesis.”

I must wonder if that applies to chapel speakers as well?

Read the whole post here: Is the Bible That Big of a Mystery?

Zondervan recently provided me a copy of “Exponential: How You and Your Friends can Start a Missional Church Movement.”

With a pile of books waiting to be read, this book jumped out at me. One chapter in and I was hooked. If you are looking for an incredible look at how to start a group, a church, a network, or a movement, this is a book for you. Written by Dave Ferguson (with help from his brother Jon) this book is an incredible primer on Church Planting in the 21st Century.

That is just the way the book is split up. Section 1: Movements Start With 1. The main focus here is “You can do it!” The first and possibly biggest hindrance to church planting is the start. Many people have had thoughts of church planting, but they never take the time to actually pursue it.  Another important factor is a church’s mission. Dave and Jon clearly state their mission as “Helping people find their way back to God.”

Section 2: Reproducing Tribes of 10-100 details their philosophy of groups and leadership. The method they suggest is Individual – Apprentice – Leader – Coach – Director – Campus Pastor – Church Planter – Network Leader. They joke that at first it may seem like an Amway scheme, but the practical outworkings of this practice can be clearly drawn from Scripture and has had incredible results.

Section 3: Reproducing Communities of 100-1000.  This section is probably the one that troubled me the most. Don’t misunderstand, I loved the emphasis on reproducing churches. I believe that is one of the best ways of determining the health of a church. However, they bring some startling studies to bear on the question of multi-site churches vs. traditional church planting. If these numbers are accurate in multiple venues as their studies appear to show, then the next few years could lead to drastic change in the way we do “Church.” However, there are still parts of the multi-site movement that bother me. An attraction to personalities rather than relationships and the “Movie-Theatre” mentality, where people show up for the “show” or sermon, and are gone as soon as it’s over. But, new and innovative ideas are always scary at first.

Section 4: Reproducing Movements of 10,000. The notion that Networks form Movements is an incredible definition. Most people have no idea of a movement, or whether they are in one. With the notion that churches plant churches where the pastors get together as part of a network, which continues to grow at each stage of the process, people have immediate access to a broad movement. The yearly conferences and resources provided by such a movement clearly rivals the independent local church.

Several concerns exist with this book (as with any book). One concern I have is the wholesale approval of women in all areas of leadership. While I believe that identifying women with leadership skills and helping them reach their full potential is important, I still believe that the Bible gives clear instructions on who can and cannot be a preacher. For better or worse, God demands that the Pastor of a church be a man. A second concern is the broad nature of bringing “Artists” into the church. While I agree with this principle on the whole, this apparently means that all types of music should be allowed in church, and that those playing do not need to be saved. While I am uncomfortable with the first proposition, I am practically certain I disagree with the second principle. While it is important for people to connect with others who have similar interests and talents, I believe the worship leaders (and those who provide the musical accompaniment) must be held to a higher level.

In conclusion, this is an incredible book. I highly recommend it to anyone who has ever thought of planting a church; to anyone who wants to reevaluate how church is run; or anyone who is looking at how to develop leaders within their church. It is fast pace, easy to read, and has enough spice to keep you interested throughout the duration.

The other day I received an e-mail with notes/outline attached. An older man had given a lecture on “Compromise” and wanted everyone to have his notes. Upon reviewing the notes, I found them to: 1) insinuate rather than explain, 2) take bible references out of context, i.e. “I want to say this, let me find a bible passage to back it up.” and 3) stretch the bounds of legitimacy to make alliteration the central focus.

Oddly enough, I don’t necessarily believe that any of those three reasons is the biggest reason why young people are leaving fundamentalism (Or rather desire not to be associated with the term. See Dave Doran’s article on Fundamentalism as a movement.) I see the fact that these men are still allowed to stand in pulpits and preach authoritatively as a major issue.

Please understand, this is not a polemic against the men who have gone before. This is genuine concern about seeming apathy among those in charge. There are many wise men who were important for their time. Several of these men have personally mentored me. I am proud to call them friends. However, most of these men that I admire have had the wisdom to see themselves entering a new phase of life. John the Baptist understood that as Jesus began his ministry, John’s ministry must slowly decrease (John 3:30).

Let me also be clear. I do not see myself and my age group as the ones who should take over for these older men. I believe there is a generation in the middle that holds the responsibility for shepherding my generation.

Where do I see a need for the older generation? In curbing the headstrong younger generation. They do not do this however with their preaching and tirades against New Evangelicalism (what some perceive as anything but Fundamentalism). I see opportunities for an older generation to mentor the younger generation, one on one. I see room for relationships similar to that of the Apostle Paul and his protege Timothy. I see value in panel discussions and open interaction with moderators who see the need for understanding on both sides of an issue.

Does allowing these men to claim divine authority in preaching personal opinion really honor them and their generation? Or would helping them shift into a new phase of life honor their sacrifices more. I believe the answer is clear. The responsibility lies with those in charge: To shepherd the young by protecting the old.

If you know me, you know I’m a big fan of Logos. For several reasons, but this is one of them. Every year they start drastically discounting titles along with March Madness. Take some time to go by and vote for which titles move on to the next round. The farther a book makes it, the bigger the discount!

March Madness at Logos

Personally, I’d enjoy seeing Spurgeon’s Treasury of David as the 75% winner. It’s a great set, you can’t preach through Psalms without referencing it (or shouldn’t), and it takes up much less shelf space on my computer!

Course, if you like to have the books sitting on your shelf, WTS is always great for quick service and flat fee shipping.

“I have seldom read a more damning indictment of the development of Western culture, especially Anglo-Saxon culture, in the last century. One hundred years ago, there remained in our culture enough residue of the Christian virtue of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, of the moral imperative that seeks the other’s good at personal expense, that Christians and non-Christians alike thought it noble, if unremarkable, to choose death for the sake of others. A mere century later, such a course is judged so unbelievable that the history has to be distorted (30-31).”

You can purchase Carson’s book Scandalous here.

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Zondervan recently provided me with an advance copy of John Armstrong’s latest book, “Your Church is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church.” (Website)

I must confess at the outset, I am one of the conservative evangelicals that Armstrong mentions. I have not yet finished my journey, and at present do not intend to end with the same result as Armstrong, that is in ecumenical standing with a larger catholic church.

That being said, the book still provides some excellent principles that, though I may not agree with every item of application are extremely helpful in attacking our Western-American small-church mindset. In other words, read with discernment.

He argues that he will “make a case for how the one church of Jesus Christ, ministering out of its spiritual unity in Christ and rooted in core orthodoxy, can best serve Christ’s mission.” I believe he does so. I must, again, disagree with his application.

John 17 is Armstrong’s focus passage. He details the past, present and future iterations of church unity as his personal progression from the small-church mentality to a broader catholic-church mentality. Not Roman Catholic, but rather, the universal church. The fact that there exists beyond our church, beyond our city, beyond our country, a larger body of believers.

The issue at hand is the nature of Christ’s prayer. As Armstrong himself points out, “unity is based on the relational and cooperational communion that existed between the Father and the Son during his earthly ministry.” But the Father and Son agreed, not only in unity, but uniformity. No matters of doctrine divided them. I believe Armstrong may hint at this when he says that “the three great historic branches of the Christian church cannot presently pursue union with one another.” And why not? If the three mainline traditions, Protestant, RCC, and Eastern Orthodox are entirely Christian, why not pursue that union? Clearly because we would say that there are elements of the RCC and other traditions which preclude salvific faith in Jesus Christ. Let me illustrate.

Armstrong quotes P.T. Forsyth saying that the unity of the church lies “in the unity of the gospel that made the church.” And I agree. However, despite the claims about Vatican II and it’s subsequent changes, I believe that they still point to alternative means of salvation, including a super-elevation of Mary. Armstrong himself admits to “still have misgivings about parts of the ecumenical movement.” While I do believe there are saved, believing Christians within the RCC, when we base our call for unity on the outward, visible expression that is the RCC I can no longer subscribe to that type of Unity.

Despite my disagreement with his application, Armstrong has incredible insight into the problems that have plagued Protestant, American Christianity. Not understanding the cultural significance of churches around the world, focusing on denominations and splitting churches at the slightest sign of disagreement, and perhaps the most deadly of all, we “have a unique predilection to approach the Christian faith as if what we know is vastly more relevant than what previous generations knew.”

He also points to the mass exodus of evangelical church members. “The reasons for this exodus are numerous – loneliness, boredom, lack of community, church teaching that fails to go into the important truths of the faith, and the inability of the church to reach people who are suffering or going through deep trials.” Furthermore, he also touches on the racial segregation that still exists in many of our churches today. This may be one of the prime examples where I appreciate his principles, and make my own application. There are numerous Christians holding to the exact evangelical, doctrinal faith that I hold to, yet they are of a different race. When is the last time I considered our relation to one another in the universal church? Paul’s illustration of the body of Christ does not merely apply to the local body of believers, it also points to the catholic nature of the church.

In conclusion, Armstrong calls on the 80/20 principle. That is that 20% of a group will lead the change and 80% will follow. I hope to be in the 20% that continues to lead the way as we consider a church larger than ourselves, larger than our local church, larger than our denomination, larger than our racial profile, indeed larger than our American church. A Church that is the body and bride of Christ.

So, is your church too small?

“Thinking in terms of 2 camps—or even 3—isn’t helpful, especially when many (most?) who identify themselves as fundamentalists are in no place to defend the faith because they are confused about it themselves.”

Read the whole response here.

HT: Andy Naselli

Take a few minutes to head on over to Westminster Bookstore. They’re running a sale on the Pillar Commentary series until March 9th. That’s this coming Tuesday.

I picked up Peter O’brien’s new commentary on Hebrews, as well as Carson’s on John. I’ve wanted Carson’s for a while, and O’brien comes highly recommended.

If you purchase (as I did) two volumes or more at the same time, you will get an additional 10% off. It is automatically taken off as soon as you add the volumes to your cart.

Clear, pointed, appropriate to our day.

Let’s Get Clear On This.

I, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to worthily walk in the calling in which you were called. With all humility of mind, and gentleness, with patience, enduring each other in love. Taking pains to keep the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace.