Theological Musings

n part 1, I dealt with the first of three questions from Gordon Cloud regarding some differences in the simpler approach to church “structure”, vis-à-vis more traditional, conventional models of church administration. In this post, I would like to move on to the second and third questions. To review, the three questions were:

1. Where does the Bible mandate multiple elders? (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
2. In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
3. Where do musicians fit in? (You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that God hasn’t equipped you for this ministry! )

Gordon asks in the second question about the “biblical offices of pastor and deacon”. The wording of this question reveals some of the presuppositions that are brought to these types of discussions, and results in a bit of a loaded question, so bear with me while I dissect it!

First of all, the adjective “biblical” gets used a lot to imply that the noun modified is mandated by Scripture and is therefore necessary for “correct” ecclesiology. I’m not necessarily saying that Gordon was consciously thinking this when he used the word “biblical”, but I think it’s necessary first of all to examine whether or not “offices” are biblical, either for pastor or deacon, in light of this question.

One could possibly make the case for the office of deacon. 1 Timothy 3 begins with instructions regarding “any man [who] aspires to the office of overseer”, which appears from Scripture to be synonymous with “elder”. Then, in verse 8, Paul continues with “Deacons likewise”, which appears grammatically to put deacons in the same category as elders/overseers with regard to the term “office”.

However, no such instructions can be found for an “office of pastor”. In fact, the only time the word “pastor” is used in the New Testament, with regard to the church (and not literal shepherds or Jesus Himself), is in Ephesians 4. I have made the point on this blog before that there are problems using Ephesians 4:11 to defend our modern view of “pastor”, and especially that of “senior pastor”. Two of the problems are listed here:

• The “pastors” mentioned in Ephesians 4 are “gifts” to the Church, not necessarily positions or offices to be filled.
• If we maintain that an “office of pastor” is necessary based on Ephesians 4, then we must reckon with the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher (if one does not hyphenate pastor-teacher into one gift, which is possible to do).

I have heard some in the past attempt to apply passages regarding “elders” to “pastors”, and thereby find much more NT support for the “office of pastor”. Based on some of the descriptions and instructions regarding elders (most notably, 1 Peter 5:1-3), I think it is quite possible to view pastors as elders and vice-versa.

The difficulty with this, though, is that it ends up leading back to the discussion on multiple elders. Is the NT record indicative of one elder leading the church? Some refer to the “senior pastor” as “the teaching elder”, or some “first among equals”, etc. but these designations are nowhere found in Scripture. The only distinction that is made among elders or “shepherds” is that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. For example, here is 1 Peter 5:1-4 (NASB):

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Peter contrasts between earthly “shepherds” and Jesus, “the Chief Shepherd”. Not between “pastors” and “elders” or “senior pastor” and other “staff pastors”.

So, we’ve dealt with the “office of pastor”, but what about the deacons? I recently made this point in a discussion somewhere else (although at the moment, I can’t recall where!) that deacons existed in Acts 6 to fill a particular need. There is no indication that this “office” continued on in every single church. However, Paul does give instructions, as I’ve already noted, as to the qualities of a deacon, so it is quite possible that deacons were “the norm” in all of the churches in the NT.

The point that I want to make here isn’t so much that deacons did or did not exist in some churches. The point, again, is with regard to their functioning, and what that role is to the body. I see no evidence that any of these gifts are holes that must be filled at all times in every church. But to the extent that the Spirit gifts and calls people in the body for these roles, they function organically in the body.

So, with all of this in mind, my response to Gordon would be that my experience with simple church and interaction with others on a similar journey is that all of the gifts and types of servants mentioned in the Bible are legitimate roles in the body of Christ. Pastors, elders, deacons, etc. are not opposed by simple church models.

But here is the key difference between the simpler method of church and the conventional model that we see around us: In a simple church environment, the recognition of these gifts (and the exercise of them) is a much more organic, informal process. Simple churches do not generally hire someone (and especially not from the outside) to do the work of shepherding the flock. Rather, those among them who are gifted in those areas function in that capacity as needed.

It bears repeating once again that the gifts given to the church are for the maturing of the body, and not for the lifelong listening/receiving by the members of the body.

I’ve gone pretty long on this second question, like I did with the first, so let me just briefly answer the third (because the answer is quite brief anyway).

Where do musicians fit in? The mentions of music in the New Testament (with regard to the church), are simply that we should speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. While at times, I do share my musical talents with different assemblies of believers, I do not believe that I am gifted musically for that purpose alone, nor do I believe that my musical talent entitles me to any special position or status within the church. But the question relates to music within the simple church concept, so let me address it in that light.

Music is actually one of those areas that often causes confusion when one steps outside of the traditional structures of our churches. Quite often, many will assume that we must have some form of music during our gatherings, and quickly, the move is made to identify someone in the group who can “lead” that. However, I believe this is completely unnecessary. According to 1 Corinthians 14, anyone can (and should) bring a song as the Spirit leads.

I do not derive my philosophy of music in the church in the same way that some conclude that musical instruments are inappropriate. So I’m not saying that certain uses of music within the church are wrong, per se. However, I don’t believe that “congregational singing” is as essential to our gatherings as we often seem to think it is. In fact, if I could say this without it sounding really obnoxious, I think that the reason we have elevated “congregational singing” so much is because this is one of the few ways we allow the otherwise passive congregation to participate.

In light of what I have just shared, I will attempt to write a post in the near future outlining some of my particular thoughts on how music can be used within the gathering of believers.

Until next time,

steve

n my post about maturity, way back in the end of 2006 :), my dear friend and blogging buddy Gordon Cloud asked some questions about simple church that I never got around to answering because of the holidays. I’m finally going to take the time to address them here, and open it up for further discussion, rebuttal, etc. by Gordon or anyone else who cares to weigh in.

Before I begin, I want to make some foundational points very clear. I find it necessary from time to time to revisit these underlying points because not all who read this post read my blog regularly (or have read long enough to see these points before). Additionally, it serves as a reminder for myself, lest I get so enamored with where my ideas are right now that I allow pride to creep into my heart. So, the following post has, as its undercurrent, the following presuppositions and foundational concepts:

• I am not against any particular form of church. I think that there are plusses and minuses in any expression of the body of Christ, and I also believe there are exceptions to every possible criticism or positive comment that can be made about any form of church.
• I do not believe that my ideas are the only possible conclusion to what is revealed in the Bible, but I do attempt to constantly check everything I am doing and promoting with what has been revealed.
• I do not personally believe in a “prescriptive” approach of reading Scripture, insomuch as some groups claim that their particular style of church is “New Testament” or “biblical”, etc. Rather, I look at what Scripture does tell us about how the body should function, what the goals are, and evaluate our practices in light of those desired outcomes. (This is a key principle in understanding where I’m coming from.)
• While I may disagree with some brothers and sisters on their approach to church, I do not hold that against them personally, and do not see it as a personal issue of division between us. As Paul instructs, I try to live at peace with all, as much as it depends on me.

Having said all that, there are three questions that Gordon posed. The first is one that relates to a particular view of elders, not necessarily limited to simple church. The other two relate more specifically to simple church. Gordon asks:

1. Where does the Bible mandate multiple elders? (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
2. In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
3. Where do musicians fit in? (You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that God hasn’t equipped you for this ministry! )

The first question was answered by Alan Knox in the comments that followed Gordon’s questions, but I’ll touch a bit on it here. I’m not exactly sure I understand now (several weeks later) what this question was in response to, but I think it went along with the concept we were batting around about multiple teachers, pastors, etc. helping to shepherd the body.

As Alan mentioned in his reply to Gordon, elders are never mandated in Scripture at all. There’s not a mandate for a single elder, nor is there a mandate for a plurality of elders. However, references to elders in the NT are plural. So, the concept of multiple elders seems to be the “norm” in the NT churches.

I think, perhaps, however, that the question is whether or not it is appropriate to have one “senior pastor”, or a head elder, who is primarily responsible for shepherding, preaching, etc. (If I’m misunderstanding, Gordon, please correct me.) If the Scripture mandated multiple elders, then obviously, it would be wrong for a church to be led by one man. In the absence of scriptural mandate, therefore, I do not believe I can, in good conscience, say that it is wrong to only have one.

However, in light of the shepherding aspect of elders, I believe that one elder is not the most practical way to work out the descriptions we have in the New Testament. I realize that Gordon and I differed on this point in the thread to which this post responds, but I do believe that it is necessary to have a finger on the pulse of where someone is spiritually if we are to shepherd them. If I am an elder, attempting to shepherd and spiritually guide multiple people, I think it is impractical to conceive that I can do that effectively without having a relationship with those people.

This goes both ways. Not only do I need to have an awareness of where they are in their walk, but they need to know me in such a way that my life can be an influence to them. This takes into account the reminders by Peter and Paul (but not Mary! hehe) to live lives that are examples to those whom we are shepherding. How can one truly be an example, if there is insufficient relationship for their lives to truly be observed?

I have seen many times (including in my own life) where a leader can seem to have their act together in public, but in private, it is far from together. This is easy to maintain when there is distance between the leader and the follower (reference the utter surprise and confusion that results when a pastor of a large church resigns amid scandal), but when there is a real relationship, it is much, much harder for these types of discrepancy to remain.

Because I see relationship and visibility of a spiritual life to be so crucial in the biblical descriptions of elders, that leads me to the conclusion that elders are more associated with smaller groups of people, and as the group gets larger, the number of elders gets larger.

This in no way is meant to imply that one cannot learn and grow from the teaching of one more separate from their personal lives. However, I think there is a distinct difference between this form of learning by listening, and a true elder/shepherd relationship. I have learned much from men I have listened to or read. But I could never legitimately call those men a “pastor” to me. They know nothing about me, and I know nothing about them. How can they shepherd me, and how can I emulate them?

There are some additional practical reasons why I believe being an elder to a smaller group of believers is more desirable. One is the propensity for leadership to turn into a power trip for the one “at the top”. This plays out in churches much, much more than it ever should.

And quite frankly, it can happen on a small group level, as well. However, I think that both the temptation in this regard and the fallout from the damage caused by yielding to that temptation are both magnified as the size of the group grows. The more the leader is separated from the people (i.e., protected from them), and the more the identity of that group is centered around that human being, the greater the danger. And the harder the fall, if one comes.

I hear often (and heard when I was a vocational pastor, as well) how lonely it can be in the pastorate. You don’t know who you can trust, you don’t have very many close friends, you feel like people aren’t really being themselves around you, etc. But if you are not the only one “at the top” (think about that for a moment), it needn’t be lonely, trust and loving relationships can be forged, etc.

These are some reasons why, although not mandated, I think that the concept of multiple elders (without one being elevated) is a very wise practice to have in our church families. Not only that, but I think it will be the natural outgrowth of a maturing, growing body of believers.

This is already too long, so I’ll deal with the next two questions in a later post.

Until next time,

steve

s we discussed in my recent post and comments, there sometimes is a point where we have to look for what might be standing in the way of following biblical patterns. One can tell from the comments that there is disagreement as to what models and patterns even exist in the New Testament for us to follow.

Some believe that we must be very careful in applying Paul’s instructions across the board because they were written to specific churches in a specific culture at a specific time. Others believe that, because certain gifts allegedly no longer exist, some specific instructions might not necessarily apply.

This is all fine and good, and readers of my blog know that I don’t really have a problem not finding complete agreement on these issues. I have tremendous respect for all of my regular commenters here, and have no desire to debate endlessly on things that could end up dividing us if we aren’t careful.

However, since this is my blog…

No, seriously. This morning, Dave Black linked to an article he had written back in 2003 entitled “There’s Only One ‘Senior Pastor’ and It’s Not Us!“. How’s that for a provocative title?! In this article, Dave challenges the status quo of leadership styles in our churches.

First of all, if you are not familiar with Dave Black, allow me to introduce him to you:

Known for his love for New Testament Greek and passion for teaching, Dave Black is a husband, father, professor, author, preacher, lecturer, web journalist, and (above all) a sinner saved by God’s sovereign grace….

Dave is currently Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He has also taught courses at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Lancaster Bible College, Fuller Theological Seminary, Talbot School of Theology, Simon Greenleaf University, Criswell College, Freie Hochschule für Mission (Germany), Tyndale Theological Seminary (Holland), Bibelschule Walzenhausen (Switzerland), IEM Bible College (India), Chong Shin Theological Seminary (Korea), Faith Theological Seminary (Korea), Cosin Theological Seminary (Korea), Evangelical Theological College (Ethiopia), Meserete Kristos College (Ethiopia), and at other institutions.

In addition, he has lectured at the Complutensian University in Spain, the Areopagus in Timisoara, Romania, and the Universities of Oxford and Leeds in England.

Dave has published over 100 scholarly articles and book reviews in such journals as Novum Testamentum, New Testament Studies, Bible Translator, Journal of Biblical Literature, Biblica, Westminster Theological Journal, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, and Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

(By the way, Dave and his wife are leaving today for three weeks in Ethiopia. If you wouldn’t mind, keep them in your prayers today and over the next few weeks.)

In the article that I linked to above, Dave talks pretty frankly about our traditional structure of leadership and how it departs from the New Testament experience. For example, he describes the lowly, servant-style approach that Jesus exhorted his disciples to use, and then contrasts it with this statement:

Someday, I hope, the plain truth of the matter will no longer be a subject of debate and confusion among God’s people. The whole traditional concept of one “pastor” of a local congregation is a practice that is absolutely foreign to Scripture.

I tried to post some questions in my previous post to spark some thinking about what changes might be needed in our view of church, if we accept the New Testament record as one showing some principles that are timeless and a-cultural. Dave puts it a bit more bluntly:

The time has come to bring our local church practices under the scrutiny of God’s Word. If there are practices in our tradition that are in conflict with the New Testament revelation, then we have only one option, and that is to correct our practices. The Bible clearly rejects our clergy-laity divide. All members of the local church are to function in the body according to the grace given unto them (Rom 12:1-8). The church is a temple in which every Christian is a “priest” who offers spiritual “sacrifices” to God (1 Pet 2:5, 9). According to the New Testament, all Christians do the work of ministry through the exercise of spiritual gifts. Whatever legitimate distinction can be made between leaders and led (e.g., 1 Thess 5:12-13) does not negate the fundamental truth of the priesthood of all believers. (emphasis mine)

I’ve emphasized one sentence in bold, because I think it illustrates the kind of radical thinking I continue to push for on this blog. I don’t think that, ultimately, it’s good enough for us to sit back and think about how different things should be. If we know something should be done differently, I think we have a responsibility to pursue that.

Now, please note that I am not saying anything specifically about how things should be changed. I’m learning to be humble enough not to think that I actually have answers to all of these questions for everyone else’s situation! But I do want to continually encourage each of my readers to act on any truth that has been revealed to them, and trust God to lead them into whatever changes might be necessary. For some, the changes might happen fast and radically. For others, it could take years.

When I started to question my own involvement in leadership and the conventional system of doing church as a whole, it was not an immediate change for me. In fact, it took almost a year for us to work through some of the concerns Christy and I had about heading in a new direction. For some, it could be even longer.

Ultimately, when a body of believers is involved, any changes need to involve the whole body. This might mean that some are ready to change long before changes actually take place. Or some may be a bit slower to adopt changes that take place. But the mutual respect and edification that results in treating each member of the body as vital to the life of the body would, in my opinion, be very beneficial to the maturity of the church.

Let me illustrate a little bit by quoting a comment Alan Knox left on my recent post. Maybe I can talk Alan into sharing a bit more about the journey that his fellowship is on. In writing about the introduction of open, participatory elements into their gathering, Alan wrote:

I’ve talked with many people who recognize that scripturally any believer should have opportunity to use their gifts (speaking or serving) to edify the church. However, they do not know how to implement this in their current context and with the current expectations of the church.

We started by discussing this with the church. Has everyone caught on? No, many still believe it is the “preacher’s” responsibility to speak to the church on behalf of God. However, there are some who are beginning to understand that God may desire to speak through them. So, some are beginning to take their responsibility seriously.

It’s a process. But one which we should not prevent our fellow believers from experiencing, if we sense that God is leading us toward a different expression of the body. If God is the author of the change, then we don’t need to try to figure out how to make it happen, or how to make sure people are prepared for it. We must trust Him to be the “Senior Pastor” of His sheep, and follow Him ourselves as an example to others.

Until next time,

steve

ne of the questions that often gets raised regarding simple church is how to handle teaching and prophecy that comes into an open, participatory meeting. The thinking seems to be that, with open participation, it is too possible for “wrong doctrine” or actual heresy to be spoken.

This is often managed in the institutional church with the leadership serving as a barrier to open participation. By that, I mean one of two things:

1. Any open teaching that takes place is “by invitation only”, or by getting spoken words “pre-approved” by a pastor or elder in the church.
2. Open teaching is simply not allowed for the most part, and the teaching is handled only by the leaders.

While the efforts and motives in these situations are usually quite noble, I think that it’s possible to consider the approach outlined in Scripture, and rely on it. Most of the time, in situations like this, my ideas are viewed by many as “idealistic”. Something that would be nice in theory, but “in the real world”, we have to make other accommodations. I find that this thinking, however (the contrast between idealism and real world practicality), belies our reliance on our own ability to control things and not on God’s revelation.

So, what does the Scripture say about open speaking in a church gathering, and how does that affect our thinking along these lines? I’d like to point out some things that I’ve mentioned before here on this blog, from 1 Corinthians 14. Specifically, I’d like to focus on verses 29-32 (NASB):

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

Notice what is absent from this passage. There is no mention here of prophecies being “pre-screened” by anyone. The prophecies are spoken in the gathering, and others weigh the prophecy. This provides the very “check and balance” that is so often feared to be lacking in simple church. Those who believe that anyone speaking will quickly lead to heresy or false doctrine have neglected the very protection offered by Paul in this passage. Things that are spoken in a meeting are not merely left hanging out there. They are evaluated. They are judged. They are weighed.

Another very key point to be made in this passage is that the speaking is not restricted to the one who “has the floor.” In fact, quite the opposite. If one is speaking, and another gets a revelation, who is responsible for being quiet? The one who feels the need to interrupt? Or the one who is already speaking? I think the answer is rather obvious. “The first one must keep silent.”

How does this play out in our churches? I mentioned above two things that often end up taking place. There seems to be an “either/or” choice of how to handle this. Either we restrict sharing to those who are “pre-approved”, or we forbid open speaking completely, both of which completely avoid Paul’s instructions on allowing people to speak.

Even in churches that regularly offer a portion of their service for open sharing, it is only limited to a portion of time, and even then is rather tightly controlled. But these controls go beyond what Paul laid out in his letter to the Corinthians. And I don’t think they are necessary.

Paul instructs that things are to be spoken, and then weighed by others. This seems to clearly be in the context of a public gathering. By allowing things to be spoken, and then weighed, the entire body is edified, and the maturity of its members is facilitated. This should be the goal of any service (compare Ephesians 4). Each member gains insight into the “weighing” process, and the leaders are no longer functioning as the filter for what is said.

Recently, this came back to my thinking while watching a video of a portion of a church service from this past weekend in the UK. The guest speaker was Andrew Jones, with whom some of you may be familiar. He blogs under the title “Tall Skinny Kiwi“, because he really is a tall, slender man from New Zealand (although currently living in the UK)!

Andrew had blogged over the weekend about a group that he heard might try to interrupt the service at which he was preaching. As he had expected, some people showed up and interrupted the end of his sermon to deliver a prophecy. In that post, Andrew links to another blogger who videotaped the episode and posted that video. I would strongly encourage you to go watch that video so that you understand where I’m coming from on this.

Now, I must make it very clear here that I am not passing judgment on Andrew or the elders of the church where this took place. It is entirely possible that the above instructions from Paul do not apply to someone coming in from the outside. At best, the idea of walking into a service and interrupting it is questionable in its validity. However, I would like to take a look at how this situation might have been handled in a manner consistent with 1 Cor 14.

Andrew and others have defended their actions (basically prohibiting the two women from speaking in that service) based on the fact that they had told the women they could speak, provided the women met with the leadership and shared their prophecy ahead of time. My question, in light of Paul’s instructions, is whether the leaders of a church ever have that responsibility or authority given to them. I am not aware of any biblical reference to this concept of “pre-screening” prophecies.

Is it possible that these women really are in a cult, as Andrew concluded from his research? Yes, it’s possible. Does that give warrant for prohibiting them to speak? Perhaps. But, let’s continue on.

According to 1 Corinthians 14:30, what should Andrew’s response have been when he was interrupted? Paul says that he should have been silent. Instead, Andrew appealed to verse 32 in saying that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. However, it is important to note that, in context, this statement of Paul is related to the relationship after the prophecy has been shared. In this case, Andrew used it as a defense for restricting the prophecy in the first place.

“But wait a minute,” many will protest. “It also says that everything is to be done in order! God is a God of order!” Are Paul’s instructions not orderly? In the context of talking about order, he says that a speaker should allow himself to be interrupted! The “order” that Paul talks about seems to refer to how things are spoken and weighed, not the prevention of speaking in the first place.

Let me pose a couple of questions to my readership, especially those who function as professional ministers:

1. How would you feel/react if someone interrupted your sermon to share a prophecy?
2. How would you feel about a public time (as part of the service) of weighing what you have preached in your sermon?

If the answer to the first one has something to do with being annoyed or angered, or if the answer to the second one leans toward “Who are they to judge what I am preaching to them?” I think an appropriate follow-up question would be “why?” Are Paul’s instructions inadequate for our gatherings?

As a side note, I do realize that 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should be silent, but ironically these are not the verses that Andrew or the elders of that church appealed to in their defense. I don’t necessarily want to get into that subject right now because the reality is that there is no small amount of debating over what those statements about women mean (especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul’s statement about men and women in Galatians 3:28). Not to mention the fact that there is even some discussion as to the existence of those statements in Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians! I think that the incident in the video would have happened even if there had been men speaking instead of women, given the responses of Andrew and others, given the defenses offered by Andrew.

According to 1 Corinthians 14, I think it is appropriate to say that the correct course of action in situations like this would be to let the interruption occur, let the prophecy be spoken, and then to have the prophecy weighed. Andrew referred to the tension and disorder that was present, and how many were troubled and distressed over what happened. I do not think that is completely the result of “cult members” disrupting the service. At least not from what I can see on the video. What I see is leadership of a church (along with a guest speaker) attempting to silence the women, forcefully trying to get them to sit down, etc. My opinion is that actions such as those created (or contributed to) a sense of disorder and chaos. (I have to say I was especially troubled by the footage of a man, identified by Andrew as a worship leader in that church, trying to shove the women down into their seats.)

Again, I’m not trying to pass judgment on anyone here. I think that the intentions of Andrews and the elders were good. And I’m certainly not trying to defend the actions of these two women at all! But I think it really highlights the need to give fair weight to the instructions we do have in Scripture before building up other layers of “protection”. As I mentioned in a comment on Andrew’s site, I felt like a process got short-circuited. A process that could have resulted in more edification and greater maturity was stifled because the leadership felt they had to handle the situation themselves.

I would be very interested in feedback from anyone on my thoughts here. Am I too idealistic? Are there other passages that bear on this situation that I’m ignoring? Is there another angle that I’m not seeing? I open it up for your comments.

Until next time,

steve

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