Anyway, I would like to say that part of the problem in our modern church is a LACK of Biblical knowledge, NOT a lack of elders… I am an ‘institutional’, (not sure if I am comfortable with that term), pastor, but I really believe that it is dangerous to function as the spiritual ‘guru’ of the people.

I take my position seriously, and study to show myself approved. I also am on the lookout for heresy and improper conduct, but I want to teach the folks how to recognize truth and falsity, not ‘take care of it’ for them.

I have been in two places where the pastor/leader was looked up to with too much ‘awe’, and people forgot to open their Bibles when he provided them with ‘teaching’. And many were led astray by the very man set in place to protect the flock…

I look at it this way — If Paul could be checked out by the Bereans (and commended for it), then I am pretty sure that I should be checked out by my folks….

We would not protect our children to the extent that we are driving them to college so they don’t make any driving mistakes, or reading their textbooks for them, and taking the tests… Why should we ‘pre-digest’ everything in the most important area of their life?

I agree that new believers need guidance, and even mature believers, (including pastors), need a nudge once in a while, but Paul told the church that he wanted to be teaching them the meat, but they had not graduated from the milk. This assumes that he expected growth, not blind allegiance!

Steve — I agree with what you are saying here; once of the biggest issues I have in the church today is the incredible Biblical illiteracy; people trusting what their leaders tell them without checking it out… I am not saying that I want to be questioned about my every move at the church, but sincere discussion/dialogue should never be considered insubordinate, or incorrect.

If one simply disagrees to be contentious, that is one thing, but I am really referring to sincere individuals seeking Biblical answers. I do not have all the answers, and I must be confident enough in God’s Word to allow people to examine their faith! This does not mean setting the children loose with guns, it means different people in the church need different levels of guidance and we should be flexible enough to provide that.

Wow, sorry for the rant/ramble…. Anyway, as usual… got me thinking…

Ray

Jesus told the Pharisees that they searched the Scriptures, thinking that in them they would find life, but that they didn’t realize that the Scriptures pointed to Him. He is the Life.

Biblical literacy without a maturing, growing relationship with the Life to Whom the Scriptures point would be just as bad as biblical illiteracy. (I know you’re not advocating this. Just wanted to take the point a bit further.)

However, on the subject of biblical literacy, I still have a strong hunch that the form of the institutional church (feel free to supply a different word — it’s not one I’m crazy about, either, but “traditional” seems to be a misnomer in these days of worship wars between “traditional” and “contemporary”, so….) — anyway, I feel that the form of the institution creates an impression that automatically leads to biblical illiteracy.

By that, I mean that, even in churches that teach that “cell groups” or whatever are very important, they still put so much emphasis on the Sunday morning service that subconsciously, at best, that still seems to be what is most important in the system.

Let me break it down a slightly different way:
1. Resources go toward a building for the express purpose of the large gatherings
2. Resources go toward a paid pastor whose “job” it is to bring the Word of God to the people every Sunday
3. In larger churches, staff are hired to produce other parts of the service (and in smaller churches, there are volunteers usually who do this), such as music, taking up the offering, etc., such that importance is still placed on that particular service as THE important thing in the life of the church.
4. The physical setup of the building/auditorium/sanctuary necessitates that people sit in “spectator” fashion, looking up at a stage or some kind of platform where the above-mentioned paid pastor stands elevated above them speaking in a lecture format which does not allow for interaction or questions at that time.

These all send signals (intentionally or unintentionally) that it is the “job” of the people to sit and listen to what the pastor has to say, and sends a signal that he is the “authority” when it comes to God’s Word.

Now, Ray, walk with me while I put you on the spot a bit here. I don’t mean this to be an afront at all — I hope by now I’ve earned the right to ask you these questions sincerely. You’ve shared with us that you do allow and even encourage people in your congregation to ask questions, etc. Out of curiosity, what percentage of your congregation actually have taken you up on that offer? (I’m open to being pleasantly surprised here!)

While I certainly applaud you (and I wasn’t trying to unnecessarily elevate you as an example, but just wanted my readers to understand that I do see you as trying to do things differently in your position) for being open to questions, I wonder a couple things about it:

1. If someone asks you a question after the sermon, is there any way for others to benefit from that question being asked? In other words, let’s say someone shows you something that causes you to conclude that a point you made was in error. You may be able to correct that error the next time you speak, but it’s possible that not everyone who heard you the first time will ever hear the correction.
2. Is it possible that people would still refrain from asking questions to you because they don’t realize that others actually do ask questions in private? (I’m assuming that they actually have asked you, and that this isn’t all theoretical discussion we’re having here.) In other words, if the questions were being fielded in a more public way (a la 1 Corinthians 14), wouldn’t that help others to see that you really are not above questioning?

I just fear that no matter how good your intentions are, the system itself still creates unintentional barriers to healthy dialogue and more rapid maturity.

And, to bring it back to the point of biblical illiteracy, I fear that those barriers cause people in large percentages, regardless of how much you remind them that you are not the sole voice of God, to be complacent and just listen to what you say.

I do believe that over time, as we recognize elders in our midst and come to see their lives lived out in front of us, there is a trust that grows. I think that’s the force behind Hebrews 13:17 of allowing ourselves to be persuaded by those ahead of us in the faith. But, even in trusting the word of an elder, being persuaded by them still means that I have to do my homework and evaluate the issue for myself.

I dunno, Ray. Maybe I’m getting too personal here. I sure don’t want to take this too far. I love your friendship here online, and I love the interaction you have brought to this blog. (For the longest time, it was just ded responding to me!) It’s great to actually have dialogue here.

And please know that I have gained a lot of respect for you in the way you write, and the things that you have said here and on your blog as well. So I definitely don’t want to push this issue to a point where it offends or causes you to feel like I’m judging you.

Please hear my heart on this: I believe your heart is right, and your motives are pure. And I’m not telling you that anything you are doing is wrong. I’m asking questions with the two-fold benefit (hopefully) of allowing you to be more convinced in what you do, and allowing me to understand a different side of it than where I’m at right now.

I may feel like, since I was a pastor for several years, that I have the right to challenge the institution. I’ve been “on the inside” and I know what I’ve seen. And I’ve seen it repeated in every church in which I’ve been. But I’m not closed to someone showing me what still is good about it! My “inside” experience really doesn’t mean squat in all this. I’m just asking honest questions, seeking honest understanding.

If anything I have written here offends you, Ray, please, please let me know, and I will correct it right here.

God bless,
steve

1. A big problem with the institutional church, as practiced in the West specifically, is that SO MUCH of their resources go into feeding the beast (i.e. ‘operating costs’). No argument there. BTW, currently I do not get paid by the church; would I like to? Of course, but today we simply cannot afford to pay me and continue to perform the ministries to the community and members. I believe that a pastor should not get paid until no other ministries are affected by it… That is just me, I am not dogmatic on it, and I am not stating that I derived this from a specific portion of Scripture… That is just my .02.

2. I believe that it is Biblical to have teaching in the manner that Sunday mornings facilitate. Coming from a Jewish background, I am familiar with the structure that would have been found in the synagogue during Jesus’ and Paul’s time. This would have been a more didactic approach. Does that mean that it is the sole manner, absolutely not, and if one believes that then they miss the many places in Scripture where sincere dialogue went on.

3. How many people ask me questions? I will tell you that it is most of the people, and I have no problem, if you ever get here (to Big D) in you asking my folks. You see, I serve in a church where many have come from churches that spiritually abused them… Therefore, these folks ASK questions.

4. You are right about the interchange between me and the questioner. If it is a question regarding something I said on Sunday morning, then I will address it the first chance I get (from the pulpit, or even in a small group setting), but no doubt, you are correct, if one does not attend that service then they do not benefit from the explanation, however, to turn that on its head, that is true of any setting where one would have to ‘get back to’ the questioner. In other words, if I ask you a question in a small home setting, but you have to get back to me next week, but one of the folks cannot attend, they too miss the explanation. I don’t have an answer for that one…
5. Our Sunday service is a wonderful thing, but it in no way is the sole, or even center of attention for all involved. We are much more relational than churches that I have been a part of in the past. I regularly meet with members 3-4 times/week for dinner, or coffee, or a motorcycle ride. So do most of the other members. Also, I do not possess the SOLE authority to pray for others, visit them, call them, or get together with them. Our church has people who have a natural affinity for one another and when these affinities come together you will find people meeting and praying together without my direct involvement. I have one person who delivers little stuffed lambs to people that the Lord places on his heart — he has not yet checked with me on that!
6. It is about empowering the people to grow — it really is… If you perpetuate the belief that somehow they are unable to understand the Scriptures without YOUR guidance, then you are creating an environment where they will shut down and wait for the ‘anointed’ word of the pastor. On Wednesday evenings, when we get together often times I will get asked a question that I have no answer to… I encourage the one who asked to lead us in their thinking, and if I believe they are off the mark, or misunderstand, I will say something. However, often I find that they are simply struggling with the same issues the church has struggled with for centuries/millenia. At that point we will usually all contribute something and at the end maybe have a clearer understanding.

7. An anecdotal story — Once when I was preaching, a young man sat in the front row and as I proclaimed the gospel, he stood up and said — “But, how do you KNOW that this is true!” Talk about an incredible joy! I was able to walk over to him, and while the congregation took part, have a discussion with him regarding the truth claims of the gospel. Wonderful!

8. So bottom line — Do I have the answers? Nope… Do I believe that our church is practicing Christianity in a manner where people are encouraged to grow, and ask? Yes, I do… Can the same thing happen in small/home church environments — sure they can!

With all that being said — I wonder if you are simply jaundiced about the institutional church? I know many on this side who are jaundiced about the home church movement. Both sides cite abuses (and there are several home church abuses that I am personally aware of as well). That is not meant as a shot, but as a true question… I believe that there are no absolute answers to home church versus institutional church. I do believe that both can, and have been, abused by unscrupulous men, and at times, by questionable practices that accrete over time.

However, I believe that our open and honest dialogue is the way to get past these barriers to a place where all in the Body of Christ can come together and come to a unity of Spirit.

I, like you, enjoy our conversations and do not take offense at these honest questions!

Something I would love to get more input from you on: The “didactic” approach to teaching in the Jewish culture. I actually was surprised to read what you wrote about that, because I had been intending to introduce some Scriptural accounts of both Jesus and Paul that showed questions being asked while they taught!! Am I way off on that? Since you have a Jewish perspective that I am not even close to having, fill me on in that. I need some more understanding in that area.

You are right that there are abuses in the house church movement, just as there are in the institutional church. And since you brought that up, I should probably make a clearer statement as to what I’m pursuing with all of this thought process and dialogue:

I’m not advocating a particular system of doing church. In fact, I fear that for some, the house church concept just becomes another “institution”. (And the water definitely gets muddied by people who call themselves a “house church” when all they are is a church that isn’t yet big enough to build/buy a building of their own, so they’re meeting in a house! That would be akin to you calling your church a “strip mall church”!!! hehe) I’m not looking to institutionalize house church or codify it in any way. At least that’s not my conscious intention.

That’s why I really try to catch myself from saying “house church” too much and use the term “simple church” (if you haven’t looked back through my archives and read my posts on Simple Church, you might want to. I believe they were back in July or August).

The question for me becomes “what best promotes maturity and growth?” and on that point, I think you and I are walking side by side.

The more you share, the more that I realize I can’t even really view you as an institutional church pastor!! Nothing you are doing (except for the very small exception of having a Sunday morning service where you preach) seems to be institutional. You aren’t paid as a pastor. You don’t own a building as a church. You actually interact a lot with your congregation. You’re doing just about everything I would be comfortable with!! So, maybe we need to recruit some hard-line IC pastor to come over to this blog and field my questions! hehe

With regard to my experience with the IC, I acknowledge that there has been hurt in the past. I don’t deny that. But rather than just walk away from it, I tried to work through a lot of these questions within the IC.

It’s only been just a little over two years ago that I left my last staff position in the IC. In Austin, I was the “minister of music” at a service that had about 400 people regularly attending. (It was a smaller service that was part of a larger church, but that’s a long story. That service has since broken off and become its own church entity.) My last service there on staff was the last Sunday in December, 2003. Prior to that, I had been active in IC ministry in various levels and roles since…..well, really, since 1982 when I first started playing the piano in church services as a teenager and occasionally leading the singing, directing the choir, etc. There were a couple periods of time when I was not involved on staff, but still continued to be a part of the churches as a lay person.

During that time, I served in a wide spectrum of churches: Non-denominational Bible churches, independent fundamental Baptist church, Conservative Baptist Assoc. church, Southern Baptist church, seeker-sensitive, seeker-driven, non-denom charismatic, United Pentecostal….and the things I’ve seen have been in every single one of those environments. So it’s not just about being hurt. It’s about observing trends, common problems, watching pastors abuse their position in the lives of others (not just me), etc.

The way I see it, the hurts I did experience only forced me to ask the questions that were beginning to burn inside. As I stood on stage “ministering” to people, I felt that something was truly missing in the ministry in that format. There was no opportunity to really help people grow. There was no opportunity for them to easily grow in that environment.

So, I’m not saying that the house church concept is necessarily “the answer”. But I do feel that simple church concepts would remove a lot of the barriers to true growth and spiritual maturity that the institution currently has.

I’m open to understanding the place of didactic teaching. But I guess I would still have to ask the question with regard to structuring it: Does didactic teaching have to take place every Sunday morning? Or is it something that we could use only in situations where it is deemed necessary or valuable? It’s the kind of institutionalism that says, “This is what we do every Sunday morning” that concerns me. (Not saying that’s where you’re coming from, but just identifying the issues that are on the table.) There are people (iMonk, for example, if any of you ever read his blog) who believe that you must have preaching, didactic and expository, every time the church gathers, or it’s not “church”. The institution gives that belief legs to walk on. Reference the lengthy quote I gave by John MacArthur in this post.

Well, these comments are quite lengthy, and I probably need to write another post at some point in the next day or two to bring some of this into focus more.

I guess, in summary, I’m seeking to remove barriers to growth and maturity. And if putting someone on a stage to speak sends an impression that they’re doing something we can’t do, then I have a concern about it. If building a building and calling it “the house of God” causes people to think that is the best place to meet God, worship God, and hear from God, then I have a concern about it. These are things that we don’t see in the New Testament.

RDA commented on the previous post about institutionalism showing up in Acts 6 with the appointment of 7 men to minister to the Hellenistic widows. I don’t think that we need to see institutionalism in this, so much as the group recognizing a need and seeking to meet it. However, I know of quite a few churches who, based on that passage, require themselves (by constitutional definition) to have precisely seven deacons! That is institutionalism! It’s form taking precedence over function. And that’s what I’m concerned about in these discussions.

As I stated in this post, the stated goal in Ephesians 4 is maturity of the body, and specifically ministry being done by the members of the body. If our form interferes with, or presents barriers to that result, then I fear we are wrong in our form. Or, if we don’t want to call it “wrong”, at least let’s acknowledge that it’s not the best form.

Well, I tried to pull this comment to a close a while ago, and it’s still rambling!! I better quit!

steve

If I were closer to Dallas, I would definitely visit your church. I would like very much to hear you teach.
I concur with, Steve. You seem to have overcome (or never been held by many) problems that develop or are the baggage of western institutions. Our Father is beautiful and He is reflected in your words in many ways.

I would love to have both Steve and Ded stop by; I worry that I would not live up to expectations, but I would love to have you by anyway!
We have been beset by many problems, and there is a definitive tendency for me to want to be more traditional, as it is easier than doing it the way we are. By establishing rules and regulations, it is easier to keep people in line…
I am still learning, as are the other leaders in the church, and we will probably continue to learn until we are called home!

I have posted some additional thoughts at my place.

Steve, I so thank you for opening this discussion, it has caused me to examine a lot of aspects of our church, and hopefully I will improve upon some of these things!

steve

Thanks for this post. After reading the quote from MacArthur, it makes me appreciate my pastor even more! He encourages all to bring their Bibles to church, to follow him in his sermons/teachings. I know he studies night and day, listens to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and I don’t worry about what he teaches. But, he also wants us to be aware of the truth in scripture for ourselves, to be able to discern what is and what isn’t truth. He wants us to be able to stand on our own. But, I don’t rely on his knowledge to reach heaven. Nor do I rely on what God gives him for keeping me built up. If God speaks to one, then He can speak to all. It’s just that ‘all’ do not listen or give Him time to speak to them.

By the way, I, too, use Firefox, because Internet Explorer had become a ‘thorn in the side’! Thank God HE supplies our need, and not Microsoft!

Ray, when you talk about being clueless as to what to do with the church, I am reminded of the Scriptural comment that God uses the “foolish things” to confound the wise. I would rather see your tribe increase than those who think they have “church growth” all figured out and structured into nice, neat acronymns and analogies (not to mention hot-selling books that tout their methods)!

steve

You’re prolly right about the pyros…

Umm… let me ask a sideways question about this post… how do you think MacArthur imagines that the congregation member is going to know that his pastor is preaching only the words of God? Wouldn’t that necessitate an informed and knowledgeable congregation? Perhaps, since I haven’t looked at any context for the quote, he is assuming a dedicated disciple who is holding the preacher to account according to the Word?

Just sayin’. Maybe I’m wrong. (I have found MacArthur to mishandle Scripture from time to time… not that we aren’t all guilty of that)

You actually raise a very good question, and one I hadn’t thought of with regard to the MacArthur quote. I’ll have to really ponder that!

Be blessed, and once again, welcome to the blog.

steve

There are certainly a lot of ways we could go with this, but (for the sake of brevity), I’ll suggest two. #1) I don’t think the point MacArthur is trying to make is that Preachers need to do their homework, and they need to keep working until they know it cold. (For another example of this, I recommend his sermon Insights into a Pastor’s Heart, Parts 1 & 2.) #2) What he’s not doing, and what I don’t think he would ever do, is try to do the thinking for the people. He is committed to expositing God’s word, but he’s also committed to people experiencing it for themselves (for a cross-reference, you might check out his book “Unleashing God’s Word in Your Life,” (formerly “How to Get the Most From God’s Word”), or you can go here, and read his series “How to Get the Most from God’s Word.”

With all of this said, let me compliment you for a great illustration of the unintended consequences of IE7, and the illustration is valid–despite the hedges the “authorities” set up in our lives, the only way that we can know for sure we are safe is to have firsthand knowledge. And whether we’re talking ‘net safety or spiritual safety, that’s a message that we don’t hear often enough.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your comments about MacArthur. Perhaps I should be extremely clear in saying that I believe most pastors are very well-intentioned.

My main point is that, even if the pastor has the best of intentions, and even if the pastor expects the people to check his teaching with Scripture, and to get into the Word for themselves, there are still inherent dangers in the way that the setup sends messages to the layperson that they are 1) somehow less spiritually than the pastor, 2) somehow unable to fully learn God’s Word without the pastor’s teaching, and 3) somehow meant to absorb what the Pastor has been studying regardless of where they are in their spiritual walk.

I still contend that a monologue-style, physically-elevated preacher, to whom people are expected to be loyal and attentive on a long-term basis, fosters long-term immaturity in the people.

The only acceptable reasons for ever moving away from a pastor’s weekly monologue in one’s life are: 1) physically moving away, in which case one is expected to find another pastor under whom to sit, 2) if the pastor himself teaches false doctrine, in which case one is expected to find another pastor under whom to sit, or 3) if one finds themselves receiving a “pastoral call” to ministry, in which case, they then become the one under whom others are expected to sit.

I dunno…I’m not gonna fight this point to the death, because I do believe it is not a “primary doctrine”, but I think that we could stand to see people encouraged to maturity in such a way that they then become disciple-makers themselves, teaching others, instead of just soaking up the teaching of one person week in and week out.

I recognize that many disagree with that, and that’s ok. I’m just sharing my perspective on it.

Thanks for stopping by to comment, and please feel free to add your thoughts on any posts here. You’re always welcome here!

steve

Oh, btw–I don’t know if I mentioned I enjoy preaching from time to time