Theological Musings

n the absence of any deeper posts (or time to write them), I wanted to take a moment to introduce you to some blogs that I read. Many of them have appeared in my sidebar for a long time, but I’ve never taken the time to draw attention to them. I’d like to do that now (in alphabetical order, so no significance to the order of the list)…

21st Century Reformation is one I have had on my list for a while. Brad Hightower writes some really good observations about church in America. I’ll let his description of his blog suffice here:

21st Century Reformation is dedicated to the task of making disciples and building morally beautiful community. I aim to help people learn to “do church” and live the Christian life in a winsome and authentic way that witnesses to the Kingdom in our lives. I speak from a historically reformed perspective but with an emphasis on very practical issues of discipleship and kingdom living.

A Company of Friends is my latest addition (just added it yesterday, I believe) to my blogroll. Tomas Perez is fellow pilgrim on the path toward simpler church. My wife introduced me to his blog, and I have found his posts refreshing and enlightening. As I commented on his blog today, I sometimes feel like he is reading my mind, and yet at the same time, he speaks words that convict me.

Adrian Warnock is one of the “biggies” in the Christian blogosphere. I really appreciate Adrian’s tone and spirit. He’s located in England, but seems to have a style that very easily crosses the Atlantic. Adrian is a self-described “Reformed Charismatic”, and although we would probably differ on some of the aspects of the “reformed” part, I find his balance with regard to the “charismatic” part very encouraging. More than anything, Adrian has influenced me from afar in his attitude toward blogging, disagreements, etc. Some of you comment on my graciousness here, and I have to honestly say that Adrian is one that I have seen that in and have tried to emulate.

The Assembling of the Church — many of you may have seen comments here from time to time by Alan Knox. Alan recently completed his masters degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is exploring some of the same concepts in “church” that I am exploring. Alan’s another gentle voice in the blogosphere, and I benefit greatly from reading his posts. Frequently, Alan will blog about word studies, etc. related to church life, and he manages dialogue well on his blog.

Cerulean Sanctum is hands-down one of the most unique blog names I’ve ever encountered. If you’ve seen a commenter named “DLE” on here (not to be confused with “ded” who is a very frequent commenter here, but doesn’t have a blog of his own), that is Dan Edelen. Dan is a free-lance novelist who likes to discuss issues related to American Christianity. Even though there have been some issues that have left me scratching my head and wondering where Dan is coming from, I can honestly say that most of the time, I find Dan’s posts very thought-provoking and profound. He’s definitely worth reading.

Emerging Grace is also a fairly recent addition to my list. “Grace” (not her real name) touches on some of the more personal aspects of what happens when church becomes unhealthy. Even though Grace only recently started appearing on my blog links, I have been reading her for quite a few months, and find her blog very touching. Not even knowing her real name, I still feel like Grace is a wonderful sister in Christ, and I am blessed to know her in this context.

Grace for Life is the blog of another dear online friend, Terry Rayburn. I first “met” Terry on another blog where I was embroiled in a bit of a struggle with the author of that blog. Terry sent me some personal emails encouraging me, and his comments were definitely a Godsend. One of these days, I hope to get to Nashville to meet Terry and his wife. They are gracious people. And I love the tagline on Terry’s blog: “Slaying the dragon of legalism. Because grace didn’t end with salvation.”

Heavenly Heartburn - Of all the friends I’ve made in the blogosphere, I think Gordon Cloud has become the dearest. Gordon and I have had some really wonderful discussions, even though there are quite a few things we disagree on. Gordon is a dispensationalist, while I am right in my eschatology. Gordon is a cessationist, while I have the correct biblical view of spiritual gifts. Just kidding!! But seriously, Gordon writes some very insightful posts on his blog. And then, on occasion, he’ll host debates about such deep subjects as whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. Great guy, wonderful heart, make him a regular stop in your blog reading.

Observations and Opinions - Although I haven’t seen my friend Ray around here in a while, I still consider him a very good friend. Ray and I met when we were trying to have a discussion in the comment thread of a very busy blog, and I offered to continue the discussion over here. And quite a few wonderful discussions followed. Ray has a heart for ministry and a passion to see God’s kingdom expand. I love that! Ray also has brought some very interesting Jewish perspective to the table, including a great series where he blogged through the parts of the Tabernacle.

Ray’s X-Change is a blog I recently highlighted here. Raborn Johnson is a very dear friend offline as well as online. I first met Raborn because he works at a local bookstore which carries my piano CDs. We hit it off and began to talk more and more when I would stop by the store. Over time, our conversations got deeper and deeper, and we started meeting regularly for lunch. Soon, I introduced Raborn to the blogosphere, and he’s been blogging some great topics, too. Raborn (as well as commenter “ded”) and I (along with our families) fellowship together quite often, and that is where we try to live out a lot of these discussions about simple church and organic fellowship.

Subversive Influence is another pseudonymous blogger. In fact, I got introduced to “Brother Maynard” (Monty Python fans, anyone?) through the other pseudonym I already introduced (”Grace”). While I’m not sure I understand the significance of the blog title (it sounds like I’m being brainwashed or something when I read it!!), I really appreciate this Canadian brother’s spirit in writing about many different topics.

The Broken Messenger, the blog of Brad Huston, frequently challenges me. Brad and I come from very different theological perspectives (like others I have mentioned here), yet both understand the importance of sane, calm dialogue. Brad puts up with my dissenting comments with patience and kindness, even when we talk past each other. And that’s always something that I can appreciate in a good blog. You won’t be sorry if you check out this blog.

The Internet Monk is a name I wish I had thought of for a blog! Of course, Michael Spencer was using this moniker long before I knew what a blog was. Michael is a very unique individual in the blogosphere. Loved by some, hated by some (well, ok, so that’s not really that unique among bloggers), sometimes not the easiest to figure out, but when it all boils down, as I mentioned on this blog very recently, Michael is a brother whom I appreciate. And when the figurative grenades are being lobbed across the bow of my blog, I want Michael on my side!

The JollyBlogger is in the same category, in my opinion, as Adrian Warnock. David Wayne, who created his blog’s title from a C. S. Lewis quote that he adapted for the situation, is kind, gentle, not easily angered…in short, a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit in blogging. Both he and Adrian are guys I look up to in the blogosphere because I want Christ to show through in my blogging like He does in theirs. And if you happen to like the TV show “Lost” (which I don’t because I’ve never even seen it, and don’t ever plan to!), David’s your man! Who else would try to liveblog a TV show?!

We Need…a Blog Hero! And what better way to round out this list than something completely different, completely off-the-wall, completely fun? Carl Schaad, who happens to also be a great designer (he recently did a fantastic redesign of my Worship Keys music website) works at AccuWeather up in State College, PA. His blog defies all explanations and categorical description because it’s just wacky and fun! And that’s why I love it.

Before I sign off, I would definitely like to also point you to my lovely wife’s blog. I like the fact that my wife is involved in the blogosphere, too. We read many of the same blogs, and she definitely helps me shape my thoughts and posts, too. While her blog is hosted on HomeschoolBlogger, she often writes about other subjects, too. I think you’ll find her posts encouraging and challenging. (And Christy, I love you so very, very much, darling!)

So, if you’ve got some time this weekend, check out some of these blogs. You may make some new friends, find some interesting reading, or have a good laugh.

Until next time,

steve

House Church Chronicles has a three-part interview with Frank Viola.  (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) I have read quite a few of Frank’s books, and find his thinking very encouraging.  I don’t agree with him on everything, but he has written on some of the same issues that we talk about here with regard to church form and function.  I would highly recommend his book entitled “Pagan Christianity” for those who are interested in tracing some of the traditions that exist in our churches.

ome good discussion resulted from my last post about small groups and house churches. I appreciate all who participated. Ironically, the conversations that I’m involved in seem to be converging into some common areas of discussion.

Dan Edelen’s basic premise is that the church overall (encompassing both small groups and house churches) has failed (or, more accurately, continues to fail) in its mission. I’m not really sure anyone here would disagree with that, as Dan pointed out in his original post. And in the conversation over at Ray’s X-Change, Tony Sisk has commented that he feels that Raborn, ded, and I are blaming the institutional church for the failure in making mature disciples.

I started to respond on Raborn’s blog, but my comment got so lengthy (hmmm, a common problem for me!) that I decided to just post here instead.

“Ded” already hit on some of the points I would have made over there, so I don’t want to just repeat what he said. However, I would like to add my thoughts to the discussion.

I want to emphasize that I do not merely “blame” the institution or its leaders for any failure. Tony is correct that people are responsible for growing in maturity themselves. And to that extent, the people are to blame.

However, Ephesians 4 also makes it quite clear that the gifts that were given to the church (gifts which we typically equate with leadership in the institutional church) were given for the equipping of the body so that all could grow in maturity.

So, responsibility lies on both sides. It’s not one-sided either way. What ded has tried to explain (and with which I concur) is that the system that is currently in place, having evolved in various ways over the centuries, is inherently flawed.

Let me state that again, very succinctly: I believe that the system is inherently flawed. In that sense, I’m not blaming anyone at all! I just think that we need to take a good, long look at what we are trying to accomplish, and ask if we are going about it in a way that is conducive to accomplishing that.

As Raborn has pointed out, it is slightly oxymoronic for a man to be standing on an elevated platform with people sitting in a very spectator-oriented fashion, while that man tells them that they don’t need a person elevated above them (spiritually speaking) in order to have abundant life in Christ!

No matter how much a pastor understands, or even teaches, that people don’t need him to be preaching to them every week, the very fact that he is preaching to them every week counters that!

Now, a little interjection here. None of this is meant to be a criticism of anyone in particular. As ded so graciously pointed out in clarification on Raborn’s blog, he has respect (as do I) for people like Gordon Cloud, Tony Sisk, etc., who are doing what they are doing within the institution. Many, many blessings on them in their endeavors! So, please, guys, understand that I’m not criticizing you. If, in reading this blog, you feel led of the Lord to modify what you’re doing, then to God be the glory. I’m not so arrogant, however, to believe that I have a word for you in how to operate within your ministries. I’m asking questions, providing food for thought, but that is all I’m trying to do! If anything, my interaction with you guys here makes my heart long to fellowship with you in person!! And Lord willing, we will do that someday.

OK, so back to my musings about the system itself. I’ve used an analogy here before that some of you might not have seen if you’re fairly new to my blog. If a person were to repeatedly attend 12th grade at school, year after year, hearing the same material taught over and over again, yet never graduate, we would never look at that person and say that they were mature. In fact, we would draw quite the opposite conclusion. We would see something very wrong with that picture. There is a point where the student needs to go and actually live what they have been taught, and quite possibly even teach others.

I see the traditional way of doing church as fostering the “unhealthy” idea, however, that maturity is equated with staying in the same place (i.e., the same church), sitting under the same pastor. (”Changing churches” is usually frowned upon, unless there is a geographical move, in which case, they are expected to find another church and pastor to “sit under”.) I think you can see how some of us view that as inherently flawed. Or, at least, I hope so!

Many pastors, like Tony and Gordon, have the greatest of intentions. Raborn, ded, and I were staff pastors at one time or other in our past. All three of us have done our share of preaching. We all had the same idea that God had designed the church in such a way that the people needed us to preach to them in order to lead them into maturity. All three of us have, at one time or other, bought into the line of thinking that sees the Sunday morning service as the pinnacle of the church’s existence. All three of us have since questioned that presupposition.

I have seen estimates (unverified) that as much as 85% of a church’s budget go toward making that Sunday morning service happen. Staff salaries, church building mortgages, utility bills, sound systems, etc… to what end? Even things that are equated with “maturity” and “discipleship”, such as small group ministries, are really just incorporated as ways to get more people into the big church. They are viewed not as a means to send others out to make true disciples, but as a way to keep people committed to the organization.

Why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on that Sunday morning service? Why do we continue to examine what we think will “bring them in”, without really doing much of anything to “send them back out”?

Now, I’m not knocking any of this in and of itself. Please understand my heart here, and the intent in even writing this. It is not that these things are inherently wrong! But when we look to them as the main goal and purpose for our existence as a church, I think that we create an unhealthy situation.

I pray that we all, at whatever level we find ourselves currently, will seek greater maturity in our faith. And I pray that we will seek how we can make true disciples of others. Let us push forward in the declaration of the Kingdom of God which Jesus announced to us. And let us run with great perseverance and endurance the race before us, setting aside everything that encumbers us, even if the very encumbrances are seemingly well-intentioned traditional approaches to doing what we are called to do!

Until next time,

steve

wanted to get back to concepts of simple church on this blog, and ironically enough, two very different discussions on other blogs have afforded that opportunity. I already mentioned Raborn’s blog and the discussion that is taking place over there. That discussion continues to be very interesting.

Today, I read a post on Cerulean Sanctum called The Small Group Boondoggle. In it, Dan Edelen, with whom I often find myself agreeing, writes about the apparent ineffectiveness of small group ministry in achieving any significant improvement in the Body of Christ. Dan writes:

I certainly would not say that the Christian Church in America is more devout, more mission-minded, more prayerful, or more effective for Christ now than before the small group push started. If that’s true—and I’m sure most of you reading this will agree we’re not better off—how then can we insist that small groups will somehow turn the tide in the future if they’ve failed to do so thus far?

I do agree with this assessment, insofar as it can be applied to small group ministries within the institutional church. But here is where Dan commits an error in comparing apples to oranges. Dan uses the term “house church” interchangeably in his post and resulting comments with the term “small groups”. For example, in his opening paragraph, he writes:

It’s hard to get away from the emphasis in some Christian circles on small groups. Just today, I was reading Brad Hightower’s excellent blog 21st Century Reformation and his post “Are the Popular Methods of Doing Church Working?” It’s a good question and good people are trying to answer it. Many of them are saying small groups are the answer, as does Brad. The bleeding edge of ecclesiology today runs red with the hope that house churches will be the salvation of the American Church.

I would challenge this lumping of small groups and house churches into the same category. There are some significant differences, and the comment thread over at Dan’s shows the confusion that results. Some of us are making comments based on house churches, and some are making comments based on small groups within a larger institution.

As an example of how the institutional church often views small groups, let me point you to a church website. The church is called The Heartland Church, and is in Irving, TX. That church has what is called “L.I.F.E. Links”, which stands for “Learning In a Family Environment”. On the page describing these small groups, we find the following bullet points:

• There is a discussion of the scriptures as they relate to life, yet this is not a Bible study.
• People pray for special needs, yet this is not a prayer meeting.
• Encouragement is given, yet this is not a support group.
• Everyone has a wonderful time, yet this is not just a social event.
• True friendships are developed, yet this is not a friendship club.
• God is present, yet this is not a church.